Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Felya]

Which specific tax code, and explain why. Then I'll comment.

Why? Are you a tax lawyer or something? Why exactly is your assessment required?

No one needs to argue a law is bad or doesn't apply until it's enforced. So again. How many people have been charged and convicted under this changed law?

What? How is the law written in the first place? You are literally making shit up now...

Except they already have. I'm not doing your searching for you. This has already been brought up in this thread.

Why? Did his lawyer state his claim or not?

He's said on interviews he's going to challenge on it being unconstitutional. Until the trial, who knows.

Who knows? It looks like we know... That doesn’t sound like he is using your defense... you should call him...

[Felya]

Indeed three hours ago and you still haven't found a way to engage me other than piggybacking other people's arguments.

I see you

I honestly don’t understand what you are on about. It should be obvious, since I keep asking... /shrug

Edit: wtf? I never claimed to be John Cena...

[Thelxi]

I honestly don’t understand what you are on about. It should be obvious, since I keep asking... /shrug

Edit: wtf? I never claimed to be John Cena...

Exactly .

[draynay]

Exactly .

Boy its a good thing you "hate flooding threads with BS" I'd hate to see things otherwise.

[Felya]

Boy its a good thing you "hate flooding threads with BS" I'd hate to see things otherwise.

You are spoiling the surprise:

T2B... everything... explain everything from top to bottom... It’s for the good of social science... I have a suprise at the end.

[Thelxi]

Boy its a good thing you "hate flooding threads with BS" I'd hate to see things otherwise.

Oh that isn't BS. I fully expected an interaction with that person to escalate into BS, hence that comment, but he was smart enough to avoid it.

I will agree that the entire discussion with downola was BS though. I just couldn't help myself; that fruit was hanging too low. Apologies for that.

[Krastyn]

You're conflating personal opinions of guilt or innocence with a court decision on the matter, a framing which you and others consistently use to try and malign anyone and everyone who forms an opinion that disagrees with your preferred outcome, just for having that differing opinion.

I'm being accused of being dishonest because my interpretation of events differs from theirs. I've said repeatedly the facts don't back up what has been said. So before you mount your high horse trying to say I'm maligning anyone who disagrees, I'm being maligned to begin with, for my opinion. It's quite telling that you're directing this at me though. not the person who initially misframed, who happens to agree with your interpretation of events.

By the same argument you're trying to apply here, you can't reasonably consider that Rittenhouse is innocent. Does that make sense to you? Of course it doesn't. Because you're inconsistent and making up non-rules that don't actually exist.

Then you apparently can't read very well:

As I said, for this specific case, based on the evidence released so far, I think it is more likely that a jury would find him not guilty. There are a lot of details we still don't know yet. It wouldn't completely surprise me if he was also found guilty. Regardless of which way it is found though, I still think they need to change open carry rules, and fix the ambiguous area in Wisconsin gun laws specifically.

I have repeatedly said that based on the evidence released so far he will be found innocent. I've also said he's an idiot, and shouldn't have put himself there in the first place with a gun.

Pointing out that an accused spree killer hasn't been convicted yet is not an argument that has any meaning to anything being discussed. Nobody was saying he'd been convicted in a court of law. Attacking Bodakane's position this way is, thus, a fundamentally dishonest straw man attack.

Under the law, whether or not Rittenhouse's possession of the rifle is legal or not has no bearing on weather or not he is entitled to self defense. This is not an opinion, this is fact. Much like how a convicted felon barred from posession guns can use a gun in self defense, and be found not guilty, but will still be found guilty on the posession.

That a thing is not itself illegal does not mean it is not relevant to the case. Buying rope, knives, and several tubs of lye at the local hardware store is perfectly legal. It's also going to be entered into evidence against you when you're accused of kidnapping, torturing, and killing women, and then disposing of the bodies by dissolving them in lye.

If it isn't illegal, then why do you need to specifically state "crossing state lines"? Why does it matter that Rittenhouse crossed a state line to get somewhere, when other people traveled farther to reach the same place, but didn't cross a state line? It's not even one of the charges he is facing.

Crossing state lines to commit a crime is a demonstration of intent, for instance. And no; it doesn't have to be exclusively to commit a crime; if that serial stab-murderer I described crossed state lines to grab a victim, it doesn't matter if he stopped for lunch at that burger joint he loves first.

Which still requires the actual conviction of a crime. Rittenhouse was in Kenosha working that day. Unless that Shift was booked that morning or the night before, it's going to be hard to convince anyone that his intent when he crossed the border that morning it was to shoot 3 people, instead of go to work.

Again, this is something that speaks to intent and premeditation. Nobody was arguing that it was itself a crime. Again, this is a straw man attack.

Why is it only intent for Rittenhouse, and for no one else?

So if Rittenhouse wearing gloves is intent for him to commit a crime, Rosenbaum putting on a mask before engaging Rittenhouse would show the same.

The context doesn't matter. He still expresses intent, and understanding that he was putting himself into a dangerous position. That takes away the possibility that he didn't know what he was getting into. That's the point of bringing that up; it eliminates the possibility that he was trapped in a situation that suddenly escalated into unexpected violence. He expected that violence, and armed himself accordingly, in preparation. Legally, that's premeditation.

If he'd armed himself to ensure he could protect others if need be and didn't actually shoot anyone at the protest, nobody would have cared that he was armed. This all speaks to the murders. Which is context you keep trying to exclude, making this argument here just pure projection on your part.

The fuck it doesn't. The application of self defense doesn't matter if you were armed or not prior to the encounter. You're effectively arguing that any person in an open carry or concealed carry state who walks through any unsafe part of town is guilty of murder if the are attacked.

I don't deny that he intended to bring protection if the situation arose. Having a gun does not make him guilty. How it was used is what does.

False equivalence between BLM protestors and white nationalist militias. BLM protests are almost completely non-violent in nature.

Do you have a statistical representation of that? The majority of protesters and counter-protesters on any topic don't often engage in violence. It's the extremes on both sides.

If the protesters were so non-violent, why did Rosenbaum chase down Rittenhouse? To give him a hug? Why did the "paramedic" say his biggest regret was not pulling his gun sooner and emptying his clip into Kyle? It doesn't matter what proportion of which group is violent. What matters are the people involved in this case.

If it's unfair for Bodakane to form an opinion that he's guilty before the court case is settled, why is it fair for you to form an opinion that he isn't?

You're not playing fair.

He's entitled to his opinion. But if he's going to go on a paragraph long rant about how I'm being intellectually dishonest, and his only backup is his opinion, it's fucking hilarious.

1> A self defense plea succeeding does not, in any way, suggest that those attacking him were in the wrong. Not sure where you got that impression. A self defense plea requires a reasonable person to believe their life was in imminent danger or that of great bodily harm. It's entirely possible for both sides of a conflict to have such a fear, and thus have reasonable grounds for self defense against each other. This isn't a binary, in the first place, and it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the law to think that it would be.

One of the pillars of a successful self defense is that you tried to get out of the situation. That you were left with no other choice. Rosenbaum actively pursued Rittenhouse, threw an object at him, and then upon reaching him, tried to take his gun (all part of the criminal complaint). Rosenbaum at no point has a claim to self defense. Well, he could claim it, but has no grounds for it. The only thing that will matter (as we've discussed before) is whether Rittenhouse's response was proportional.

2> This also presumes that one believes that the courts are fair an impartial, and the issue underlying the BLM protests in general is that the courts observably are not impartial nor fair, particularly when it comes to police abuses of force and power.

And if you want to play this card, then a conviction of murder proves nothing either. So if court rulings mean nothing, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[Felya]

Oh that isn't BS. I fully expected an interaction with that person to escalate into BS, hence that comment, but he was smart enough to avoid it.

I will agree that the entire discussion with downola was BS though. I just couldn't help myself; that fruit was hanging too low. Apologies for that.

Still interested in hearing the whole point of all this. Could you start over or something?

[Krastyn]

He is guilty of being illegally armed. There is literally no question about it, except, again, the bullshit your ilk is inventing. He wasn't;t hunting nor was he under direct supervision from a person 18 or older. That's it, full stop.

If only the law worked that way. Guilty before even going to trial. He's guilty in your opinion. Full stop. It has the same weight as me saying he's innocent.

Which as said before doesn't negate the right to self-defense.

Cool, you just "I'm rubber you're glued" me.

It's hard to take what you're saying seriously.

[Bodakane]

I'm being accused of being dishonest because my interpretation of events differs from theirs. I've said repeatedly the facts don't back up what has been said. So before you mount your high horse trying to say I'm maligning anyone who disagrees, I'm being maligned to begin with, for my opinion. It's quite telling that you're directing this at me though. not the person who initially misframed, who happens to agree with your interpretation of events.



Then you apparently can't read very well:


I have repeatedly said that based on the evidence released so far he will be found innocent. I've also said he's an idiot, and shouldn't have put himself there in the first place with a gun.



Under the law, whether or not Rittenhouse's possession of the rifle is legal or not has no bearing on weather or not he is entitled to self defense. This is not an opinion, this is fact. Much like how a convicted felon barred from posession guns can use a gun in self defense, and be found not guilty, but will still be found guilty on the posession.



If it isn't illegal, then why do you need to specifically state "crossing state lines"? Why does it matter that Rittenhouse crossed a state line to get somewhere, when other people traveled farther to reach the same place, but didn't cross a state line? It's not even one of the charges he is facing.



Which still requires the actual conviction of a crime. Rittenhouse was in Kenosha working that day. Unless that Shift was booked that morning or the night before, it's going to be hard to convince anyone that his intent when he crossed the border that morning it was to shoot 3 people, instead of go to work.



Why is it only intent for Rittenhouse, and for no one else?

So if Rittenhouse wearing gloves is intent for him to commit a crime, Rosenbaum putting on a mask before engaging Rittenhouse would show the same.




The fuck it doesn't. The application of self defense doesn't matter if you were armed or not prior to the encounter. You're effectively arguing that any person in an open carry or concealed carry state who walks through any unsafe part of town is guilty of murder if the are attacked.

I don't deny that he intended to bring protection if the situation arose. Having a gun does not make him guilty. How it was used is what does.



Do you have a statistical representation of that? The majority of protesters and counter-protesters on any topic don't often engage in violence. It's the extremes on both sides.

If the protesters were so non-violent, why did Rosenbaum chase down Rittenhouse? To give him a hug? Why did the "paramedic" say his biggest regret was not pulling his gun sooner and emptying his clip into Kyle? It doesn't matter what proportion of which group is violent. What matters are the people involved in this case.



He's entitled to his opinion. But if he's going to go on a paragraph long rant about how I'm being intellectually dishonest, and his only backup is his opinion, it's fucking hilarious.



One of the pillars of a successful self defense is that you tried to get out of the situation. That you were left with no other choice. Rosenbaum actively pursued Rittenhouse, threw an object at him, and then upon reaching him, tried to take his gun (all part of the criminal complaint). Rosenbaum at no point has a claim to self defense. Well, he could claim it, but has no grounds for it. The only thing that will matter (as we've discussed before) is whether Rittenhouse's response was proportional.



And if you want to play this card, then a conviction of murder proves nothing either. So if court rulings mean nothing, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I'm literally begging you to be Kyle's lawyer. Please, please, please, please.

- - - Updated - - -

If only the law worked that way. Guilty before even going to trial. He's guilty in your opinion. Full stop. It has the same weight as me saying he's innocent.

Which as said before doesn't negate the right to self-defense.



It's hard to take what you're saying seriously.

Look man, you have have too many hills you're willing to die on. You can only die once so trying to tell me he didn't break the law by having the gun when the law is not ambiguous about it at all, is fucking stupid.

[Edge-]

I'm still amused that the LA Sherriff's office straight up lied about the NPR-affiliated journalist, knowing full well that there's likely dozens of videos of her arrest to disprove their bullshit.

Like, the fuck we supposed to believe the cops when they're gonna tell the public such baldface, transparent lies with such regularity?

[Krastyn]

Why? Are you a tax lawyer or something? Why exactly is your assessment required?

You brought it up that it was the same. In order to compare if they are the same, I need an example.

What? How is the law written in the first place? You are literally making shit up now...

A law can be challenged after it has been passed, and be found to be wrong. It's not going to be challenged though until either a) someone preemptively challenges it, or b) gets charged under the law, and then challenges it. We're in case b). So unless you have a bunch of case law precedence where a 17 year old in Wisconsin who has passed the certification has been charged and convicted without appeal, then the avenue is there. Still may not work. Whether it does or does not, the law is still poorly written.

Why? Did his lawyer state his claim or not?

Because I'm not doing your research for you.

Who knows? It looks like we know... That doesn’t sound like he is using your defense... you should call him...

I'll believe what the lawyer's defense will be at the time of trial. Anything said pre-trial I'll take as a possibility. You do you though. It's your right.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm literally begging you to be Kyle's lawyer. Please, please, please, please.

Only if you can be the DA.

Look man, you have have too many hills you're willing to die on. You can only die once so trying to tell me he didn't break the law by having the gun when the law is not ambiguous about it at all, is fucking stupid.

The fact that you think the legality of the weapon is a hill I'm willing to die on shows you're complete inability to comprehend what I'm typing, or your blatant dishonesty about it. I'm not willing to die on any of these hills. You're just of the opinion he's 100% guilty of everything and I'm not. And apparently believing otherwise makes me a Trump-supporting, white nationalist loving, gun right supporting nutjob. You're welcome to think all that. You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.

Whether or not the gun is illegal is by and large irrelevant. Every charge except the gun charge are going to hinge on the Rosenbaum interaction. Rittenhouse could have illegally purchased the gun, posted a Facebook video stating he's going shoot someone tonight, driven across the state line only to go to the protests, and still get off on self-defense. It would make it a lot harder on his defense team, but it doesn't invalidate his rights of self-defense.

I've repeatedly said, it's going to come down to whether or not a jury thinks Rittenhouse might have suffered serious bodily injury if he had not shot Rosenbaum.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/14/us/or...rnd/index.html

Oh hey look, vigilante's in Oregon are either refusing to evacuate their homes and placing signs up warning "looters" that they'll be shot, or are straight up illegally stopping people at gunpoint thinking they are looters.

What's spawning this insanity, that even sheriff's in Oregon are asking people not to do because it's illegal and dangerous?

Fucking unhinged nutters who believe that the fires are all the fault of "antifa" despite there being no evidence to suggest anything of the sort. Helped by a random sheriff's sergeant who reported "antifa looting" with members armed with chainsaws to cut down power lines...something which was not supported by anything beyond the sergeant hearing about that from a random person and not bothering to confirm it.

[Machismo]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/14/us/or...rnd/index.html

Oh hey look, vigilante's in Oregon are either refusing to evacuate their homes and placing signs up warning "looters" that they'll be shot, or are straight up illegally stopping people at gunpoint thinking they are looters.

What's spawning this insanity, that even sheriff's in Oregon are asking people not to do because it's illegal and dangerous?

Fucking unhinged nutters who believe that the fires are all the fault of "antifa" despite there being no evidence to suggest anything of the sort. Helped by a random sheriff's sergeant who reported "antifa looting" with members armed with chainsaws to cut down power lines...something which was not supported by anything beyond the sergeant hearing about that from a random person and not bothering to confirm it.

It's Bunkerville all over again.

I have family in rural areas near the fires, and the militias have gone haywire. It may be even worse than during the late 1980's, early 1990's.

[Bodakane]

The fact that you think the legality of the weapon is a hill I'm willing to die on shows you're complete inability to comprehend what I'm typing, or your blatant dishonesty about it. I'm not willing to die on any of these hills. You're just of the opinion he's 100% guilty of everything and I'm not. And apparently believing otherwise makes me a Trump-supporting, white nationalist loving, gun right supporting nutjob. You're welcome to think all that. You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.

Whether or not the gun is illegal is by and large irrelevant. Every charge except the gun charge are going to hinge on the Rosenbaum interaction. Rittenhouse could have illegally purchased the gun, posted a Facebook video stating he's going shoot someone tonight, driven across the state line only to go to the protests, and still get off on self-defense. It would make it a lot harder on his defense team, but it doesn't invalidate his rights of self-defense.

I've repeatedly said, it's going to come down to whether or not a jury thinks Rittenhouse might have suffered serious bodily injury if he had not shot Rosenbaum.

Me: Look that guy is driving 120mph in a 25mph zone, he's speeding.
You: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO you can't say that until he goes to court!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's wrong with youuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!!!!!!ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its also not irrelevant. As you've clearly shown, you lack the ability to understand intent.

[Endus]

Under the law, whether or not Rittenhouse's possession of the rifle is legal or not has no bearing on weather or not he is entitled to self defense. This is not an opinion, this is fact. Much like how a convicted felon barred from posession guns can use a gun in self defense, and be found not guilty, but will still be found guilty on the posession.

You're pushing what I have to assume is a deliberate misframing of self defense law, here. Since I'm pretty sure I've corrected you, specifically, about this point before in this thread.

Yes, Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself against an unlawful assault. No one is disputing that. It is not being contested, by anyone, anywhere. Attacking this is attacking a straw man.

The issue is that Rittenhouse used lethal force to defend himself. That is something that has a fairly strict legal standard to justify its use. Which nothing about the circumstances seems to support, given that Rosenbaum was an unarmed person who never laid a finger on Rittenhouse.

Trying to make this about "self defense" in general, rather than about "use of lethal force in self defense" specifically, is a dishonest attempt to misframe the facts.

Why is it only intent for Rittenhouse, and for no one else?

So if Rittenhouse wearing gloves is intent for him to commit a crime, Rosenbaum putting on a mask before engaging Rittenhouse would show the same.

Who else is being charged with crimes, here? Why are you trying to distract from dealing with Rittenhouse and his actions?

The fuck it doesn't. The application of self defense doesn't matter if you were armed or not prior to the encounter. You're effectively arguing that any person in an open carry or concealed carry state who walks through any unsafe part of town is guilty of murder if the are attacked.

If they use lethal force in their self defense, when the circumstances don't reasonably suggest they're at imminent risk of death or great bodily harm?

That would be murder, not self defense. This is crystal clear under Wisconsin law. Literally why there's a line in there that limits the use of lethal force to those circumstances; in any situation where the threat does not rise to that level, use of lethal force cannot be justified and thus its use would be murder, because it legally cannot qualify as "self defense".

I don't deny that he intended to bring protection if the situation arose. Having a gun does not make him guilty. How it was used is what does.

Nobody's suggesting Rittenhouse be charged just for being armed.

It's because of the murders.

Do you have a statistical representation of that? The majority of protesters and counter-protesters on any topic don't often engage in violence. It's the extremes on both sides.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/us/bl...rnd/index.html

If the protesters were so non-violent, why did Rosenbaum chase down Rittenhouse? To give him a hug? Why did the "paramedic" say his biggest regret was not pulling his gun sooner and emptying his clip into Kyle? It doesn't matter what proportion of which group is violent. What matters are the people involved in this case.

What you're doing here is basically just sealioning. However;
Witnesses state Rittenhouse was mishandling his weapon and putting people at risk, and the only hostile acts Rosenbaum engaged in were trying to secure that weapon.
Had Grosskreutz shot Rittenhouse, then he'd have saved both himself and and another protestor from being shot. Though I think he made the right choice in the moment.
And yes; it matters that Rittenhouse shot someone 4 times when that person hadn't ever touched him. And then shot two more people who tried to stop him fleeing the scene of the first murder. And I wasn't the one who brought up group affiliation. You're the one who made that false equivalence, not I.

One of the pillars of a successful self defense is that you tried to get out of the situation. That you were left with no other choice. Rosenbaum actively pursued Rittenhouse, threw an object at him, and then upon reaching him, tried to take his gun (all part of the criminal complaint). Rosenbaum at no point has a claim to self defense. Well, he could claim it, but has no grounds for it. The only thing that will matter (as we've discussed before) is whether Rittenhouse's response was proportional.

And? This doesn't even speak to anything I said, or explain why you thought a self defense argument means those attacking you weren't justified in doing so, automatically.

And if you want to play this card, then a conviction of murder proves nothing either. So if court rulings mean nothing, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

That's not what was said, and you're not even bothering to respond to it.

[BlackDruid96]

I have repeatedly said that based on the evidence released so far he will be found innocent. I've also said he's an idiot, and shouldn't have put himself there in the first place with a gun.



Under the law, whether or not Rittenhouse's possession of the rifle is legal or not has no bearing on weather or not he is entitled to self defense. This is not an opinion, this is fact. Much like how a convicted felon barred from posession guns can use a gun in self defense, and be found not guilty, but will still be found guilty on the posession.

This is what I have said as well, I feel legally he will be found innocent from murder, he might get in trouble for possessing the weapon but not for using it. There is 2 different videos floating around showing Kyle was Chased by Robert and there is video that Robert made verbal altercations at Kyle, daring Kyle to shoot him.

[Endus]

This is what I have said as well, I feel legally he will be found innocent from murder, he might get in trouble for possessing the weapon but not for using it. There is 2 different videos floating around showing Kyle was Chased by Robert and there is video that Robert made verbal altercations at Kyle, daring Kyle to shoot him.

And in doing so, both of you willfully and deliberately ignore the proportionality requirement for the use of lethal force in self defense. Nothing about the events in Kenosha would reasonably have led Rittenhouse to think he was at imminent risk of death or great bodily harm.

[Zython]

I disagree. I think it is important to highlight reasoning like yours to make sure people know exactly what kind of waters they are wading into. This kind of shit festers and propagates on the internet like the fucking plague when left unchecked, particularly now with Trump at helm giving a license to everyone to contort reality however it might suit their immediate interests best.

Dude. You called me “dark and creepy” for citing the ADL. Get off your high horse.

[Noxx79]

If only the law worked that way. Guilty before even going to trial. He's guilty in your opinion. Full stop. It has the same weight as me saying he's innocent.

Which as said before doesn't negate the right to self-defense.



It's hard to take what you're saying seriously.

But the people he was “defending” himself against were innocent of all wrongdoing - no court has declared the victims guilty of anything, so how can you claim defense when his attackers are innocent? Or does guilty until proven innocent only count for people with guns?