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

[bladeXcrasher]

Might wanna not go too much into fake news for no reason. The jury is on the opposite side. Never go for the fake stuff even if you have a correct premise for the rest of it.

Are you for real? Here's a picture of the courtroom, the jury box is exactly were rittenhouse looked.

[Mayhem]

I still don't get how "17-year-old self-proclaimed EMT shoots unarmed and leaves him instead of trying to help, goes on shooting another two" is by some people considered the hero.

[Captain N]

I still don't get how "17-year-old self-proclaimed EMT shoots unarmed and leaves him instead of trying to help, goes on shooting another two" is by some people considered the hero.

Cross referencing some of the people who find Rittenhouse to be the hero are also the same folks who find ways to excuse police killing unarmed citizens. As long as the "right people" are being killed then their assailants are going to have their praises sung by sociopaths.

[Adamas102]

What's interesting is that it was written a week after the actual events. By that time, the outline of the case was pretty well known. All this time, all the witnesses, all the video, and it's still a pretty simple case - was it self defense or not? Rosenbaum was running at him, was that enough provocation?

If he acted recklessly and put himself in that position, lying about wanting to act as an EMT and instead being there purposefully to intimidate people, then he has no claim to self defense EVEN IF Rosenbaum was running at him. The decisions that Rittenhouse made that put him on that street made him an instigator. He wasn't just a random bystander. He went there to make a statement, to intimidate, and if his intent really was to shoot people who might have been committing property crime then he is absolutely not entitled to a self defense claim. Being put in a "kill or be killed" situation isn't enough to entitle you to getting off on self defense. It's still criminal manslaughter at the very least in this case.

[Coniferous]

A crime has two base components; actus reus and mens rea. A guilty act, and a guilty mind. This is why accidents that aren't negligent aren't crimes; there's no mens rea component.

In this case, we have clear and uncontested actus reus; nobody is disputing that Rittenhouse killed these men and tried to kill more. Not the defense, and certainly not the prosecution. The acts are not contested.

What's contested is almost entirely mens rea (there's a few details outside of that, like the threatening of the Zeminskis, but with regard to the central shootings, it's clear).

And if you don't go to the police after such an incident, if you don't try and give first aid even though you claim to be there as a "medic", if you go home afterwards before realizing your face is all over the Internet already, that all argues for a guilty state of mind. We can infer that these are the actions of a guilty conscience, of someone who knows their actions weren't justified, regardless of the tales they might tell to those who question them. This is literally how motive and intent are assessed in criminal cases; what I'm describing here is just normal court procedure.

If you drive your buddy to the bank, and he comes out with a mask on and a giant bag of cash and a gun in his hand, shouting "DRIVE! DRIVE!", you can justify driving him away pretty easily in a lot of ways (fear, confusion, etc). If you don't go to the police after you get rid of him and tell them everything you know, however, you're almost certainly going to get prosecuted and convicted as an accessory at best, if not a co-conspirator. What other reason could you have for doing so?

It's much the same here, with regards to Rittenhouse's actions in the immediate aftermath of both shooting events. Particularly as he's lying to the crowd, calling friends but not calling the local PD, fleeing towards police lines to escape the crowds, by his own admission, not to turn himself in, which he clearly didn't do, etc. There's so many very questionable choices, and it's really hard to believe that he really thinks he's just an innocent kid who had no better options. If that were true, the police would be your first stop. Even if the first couple officers you see are busy and wave you off (as happened), they weren't by any means the only police around and Rittenhouse had his working phone on him the whole damned time.

Could I believe he was in shock and completely confused? Sure. Except Rittenhouse insists that was not the case. He's argued he was in full control of his faculties throughout, and that his choices were deliberate and intentional at every stage.

So, that brings us back around; if it were self defense, why wouldn't you turn yourself in ASAP? What possible reasonable reason could you even have? Even if you called the Kenosha PD, and told them what happened, if they seriously can't handle a multiple homicide, they can take your information and where you'll be when they can spare officers, or tell you which other PD to go to, or something. But you make that contact, and let the police determine how things go from there.

The whole debate on the self defense argument is not "what was Rittenhouse thinking", it is "what would a reasonable person have thought in that situation". So attempting to piece together what Rittenhouse was thinking afterwards based on how you interpret his actions (a dubious exercise already) isn't actually relevant. Edit: I googled it and there's some debate on this: https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/...mental-states/

"Some circuits have indicated, often in dicta, that malice is incompatible with the reasonable fear for one’s safety that is required when acting in self-defense, while other courts have found it consistent for a defendant to possess a preformulated intent to kill another person but also act (and therefore kill) in the moment due to a fear for his or her life or safety."

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, I know that every time I kill people in "self-defense" the first thing I do is to immediately flee, not just the scene, but the actual state.

I mean, you could try to make an argument that he was in a state of shock after killing 3 people....so he just went home. That might even be believeable. Except, by his own testimony, he knew he had to turn himself in.

Oh my god, he crossed state lines? THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!

Although Rosenbaum also crossed state lines to be part of the protest... so does that effect his rights too?

Do you people not live in the US? There are state lines all over the place, and I know people who cross them to get groceries. He crossed state lines because he lived near a state line and he went home.

- - - Updated - - -

If he acted recklessly and put himself in that position, lying about wanting to act as an EMT and instead being there purposefully to intimidate people, then he has no claim to self defense EVEN IF Rosenbaum was running at him. The decisions that Rittenhouse made that put him on that street made him an instigator. He wasn't just a random bystander. He went there to make a statement, to intimidate, and if his intent really was to shoot people who might have been committing property crime then he is absolutely not entitled to a self defense claim. Being put in a "kill or be killed" situation isn't enough to entitle you to getting off on self defense. It's still criminal manslaughter at the very least in this case.

Maybe so. I'm not clear on how "doing something legal but idiotic" before the actual event of the potential crime relates to your right to self defense. He wasn't breaking any laws. Legal experts seem to disagree on that - in the article I linked above one said the case comes down to what happened in three seconds, the other said basically what you did. But maybe it makes him guilty of a much lesser charge. To use a (maybe bad) analogy - let's say you're a terrible skier and you go down a double black diamond, lose control, and knock another skier into a tree - did you just commit manslaughter? Another edit: apparently Colorado sees this as worthy of a 3 month jail sentence: https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94239&page=1.

I was thinking about the difference between Henry Ruggs and Rittenhouse earlier today. Ruggs is obviously guilty, he was driving 158 miles per hour and hit somebody, but the thing he has in common with Rittenhouse is the engaging in risky behavior. The difference between the two is Ruggs was engaging in clearly criminal behavior before the actual confrontation, and Rittenhouse was not (other than the gun charge, which is not relevant to the murder case).

But either way, I'm someone who is not a big believer in long jail sentences, so I posted last week that I don't think it's necessary to put Ruggs in jail for the rest of his life - I'd prefer something like 10 years. I have a similar feeling about Rittenhouse - I have no issue with saying "hey this was reckless, here's a stretch in jail", but I don't think it should be longer than 10 years, and I'd actually put it closer to 5 given the less obviously criminal action.

[Easo]

So an Idiot got shot by an even greater Idiot, that seems to be the gist of it all.

Pretty much, yeah, and now the usual USA politics are riding on the case. Circus, basically.
At this point I am just here to see where the wild ride will stop. Expect protests if he gets acquited, though.

yeah no. That was 100% fake ass crying trying to garner sympathy. You can see this even more when he turns to see if the judge is watching him "cry"

I am sure you are the expert.

[JohnBrown1917]

Cross referencing some of the people who find Rittenhouse to be the hero are also the same folks who find ways to excuse police killing unarmed citizens. As long as the "right people" are being killed then their assailants are going to have their praises sung by sociopaths.

And the "right people" tend to be left-wing activists or PoC, I wonder why.

Ofcourse, this is how MAGA and the police react when the roles are reversed.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKBN25V0G0
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/90951...=1636808927649

[Coniferous]

And the "right people" tend to be left-wing activists or PoC, I wonder why.

Ofcourse, this is how MAGA and the police react when the roles are reversed.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKBN25V0G0
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/90951...=1636808927649

The investigation says it is “highly likely” that this guy shot at the cops (they found a casing in his car consistent with firing out the window, but didn’t find the bullet). There are people on here upset that Rittenhouse didn’t immediately turn himself in… not sure what you think this is evidence of.

[Beefhammer]

Pretty much, yeah, and now the usual USA politics are riding on the case. Circus, basically.
At this point I am just here to see where the wild ride will stop. Expect protests if he gets acquited, though.



I am sure you are the expert.

No offense, but this teenage twat showed no remorse from the onset. But now, for the first time since it happened, we are supposed to believe his crocodile tears are real. Fuck off with that. This shitheel wanted to shoot looters earlier in the summer and wished he had his rifle then to do so. He went there under false pretenses to shoot somone.

You don't need to be an expert to k ow that crying was just an act.

[Orange Joe]

I am sure you are the expert.

I mean the kid went to the bar with proud boys shortly after he did this as a celebration. Never once showed any remorse before hand.

You don't need to be an expert to see this.

[Endus]

I mean the kid went to the bar with proud boys shortly after he did this as a celebration. Never once showed any remorse before hand.

You don't need to be an expert to see this.

I just want to point out, again, the Proud Boys are a listed domestic terrorist organization. Antifa isn't (regarding the links above from JohnBrown1917). And yet, the media in the USA likes to pretend it's the other way around.

[uuuhname]

the media in the USA likes to pretend it's the other way around.

as someone pointed out earlier, better to be violent and do so to maintain the status quo than be peaceful and demand societal change.

[Santti]

I just want to point out, again, the Proud Boys are a listed domestic terrorist organization. Antifa isn't (regarding the links above from JohnBrown1917). And yet, the media in the USA likes to pretend it's the other way around.

When it comes to white terrorists in USA, they are called "lone wolves". Never part of any kind of organization, group or trend. Everyone else gets called terrorist.

[Endus]

When it comes to white terrorists in USA, they are called "lone wolves". Never part of any kind of organization, group or trend. Everyone else gets called terrorist.

I just get particularly frustrated seeing violent offenders labeled as "a member of Antifa".

Do you oppose fascism?

Then you're at least sympathetic with Antifa. At best, you might disagree with how far they go.

You can't make the same kind of argument with white supremacist chickenshits like the Proud Boys. There's no moral center, there; they're just cowardly, violent little bigots.

[Egomaniac]

Oh my god, he crossed state lines? THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!

Although Rosenbaum also crossed state lines to be part of the protest... so does that effect his rights too?

Do you people not live in the US? There are state lines all over the place, and I know people who cross them to get groceries. He crossed state lines because he lived near a state line and he went home.

Crossing state lines to be part of the protest isn't the issue. Crossing state lines after shooting people is.

[Coniferous]

I just get particularly frustrated seeing violent offenders labeled as "a member of Antifa".

Do you oppose fascism?

Then you're at least sympathetic with Antifa. At best, you might disagree with how far they go.

You can't make the same kind of argument with white supremacist chickenshits like the Proud Boys. There's no moral center, there; they're just cowardly, violent little bigots.

No. Actually a lot of the arguments against antifa are the same as the arguments against Rittenhouse - that their approach adds gasoline to the fire.

- - - Updated - - -

Crossing state lines to be part of the protest isn't the issue. Crossing state lines after shooting people is.

I was really hoping for a “because” here…

[Egomaniac]

I was really hoping for a “because” here…

"because"... he knew he should have turned himself into the police immediately...rather than drive to another state?

I mean, you're comparing killing three people and fleeing the state to shopping for groceries. This isn't a good look for you.

[Coniferous]

"because"... he knew he should have turned himself into the police immediately...rather than drive to another state?

I mean, you're comparing killing three people and fleeing the state to shopping for groceries. This isn't a good look for you.

I’m mystified by the idea that you think the state line is important. It’s not. His house was across state lines so he went home. You’re just attempting to exaggerate what he did.

[Endus]

No. Actually a lot of the arguments against antifa are the same as the arguments against Rittenhouse - that their approach adds gasoline to the fire.

Which just seems like apologism for fascism.

I can oppose antifa's choices when members engage in violence while recognizing that their objectives are completely defensible and laudable.

Not so much the white supremacist neo-fascist terrorists like the Proud Boys, who we know Rittenhouse was buddy-buddy with.

- - - Updated - - -

I’m mystified by the idea that you think the state line is important. It’s not. His house was across state lines so he went home. You’re just attempting to exaggerate what he did.

Killing two people and trying to kill two more and then "going home" is precisely the problem.

"Across state lines" makes it super clear that the Antioch PD he eventually turned himself in to was not remotely the closest or most appropriate one to go to. It doesn't even have jurisdiction. Which is why they had to call Kenosha PD to come get him, once he did. And, somehow, they weren't too busy with the protests to do so.

Like, leaving the scene of the crime is literally the difference between a tragic traffic accident claiming the life of a pedestrian, and a hit-and-run homicide that will likely be treated as manslaughter. Just the act of leaving the scene of the homicide creates criminal liability, by demonstrating mens rea. You could maybe argue that Rittenhouse felt it wasn't safe, but that excuse ends once he's at the police line, and his actions from there are equivalent to a hit-and-run in this.

Nobody's suggesting his crimes were worse because he crossed state lines when he left. They're using that to point out his voluntarily leaving the scene and not turning himself in to police as he was legally obliged to do.

[Egomaniac]

I’m mystified by the idea that you think the state line is important. It’s not. His house was across state lines so he went home. You’re just attempting to exaggerate what he did.

He should not have gone home. He should have turned himself into the authorities immediately. Fleeing the scene of a crime is a big issue. Crossing state lines in the process of doing so exacerbates that.