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

[Endus]

McGinnis's witness statement said he had it at the low ready, pointed at the ground. This allows for the barrel to be the closest point for Rosenbaum to attack him while also not being pointed at him. Basic shit, man.

So, aimed at Rosenbaum and ready to fire.

A "low ready" isn't apparently what you think. It's a position where you're ready to fire in a split second. You're literally describing a threat position.

Lemme guess, you're one of the bullies that liked to feign punches at peoples faces and enjoy when they flinched aren't you?

That just sounds like projection. Or baiting. Literally nothing I've said would suggest that.

How many punches does Rosenbaum need to hit Kyle before Kyle is allowed to respond to him as a threat?

Punches?

Punches aren't a lethal threat. Even if Rosenbaum had full-on clocked Rittenhouse right in the face, it'd still be murder for Rittenhouse to shoot him.

Rosenbaum never touched Rittenhouse, however. So you're bitching about a delusion you made up, not the facts.

Does Kyle need to wait until Rosenbaum arms himself with Kyle's weapon before he's allowed to view him as a threat?

In this circumstance? When determining whether he's entitled to use lethal force? Yeah.

That's how self-defense works. You have to be at a threat of loss of life or serious bodily injury (and the standard for that is "long-term disability or disfigurement", not taking a few punches) to justify use of lethal force. A brawl doesn't qualify. And there wasn't even a brawl, here.

You assert that Kyle pointed his weapon at Rosenbaum, but if he didn't fire it then Rosenbaum must not have been threatened right?

Uh, no. Aiming a weapon at someone is a lethal threat.

And before you claim Rittenhouse didn't do so, again, there's no way he shot Rosenbaum without aiming the weapon at Rosenbaum.

If a missed projectile attack and a missed attempt to wrest his weapon away aren't threats then an unfired bullet must not be either, right?

Wrong. And there was no "projectile attack" from Rosenbaum. Tossing a nearly-empty bag of garbage is not an attack.

This literally never happened, Kyle walks right past Rosenbaum in the FBI footage. There is no indication that he was ever pursuing him, they were just travelling in the same direction at a walk.

This is a lie.

They had an altercation a block or two away from the parking lot where Rosenbaum died. Rosenbaum left that altercation, and went to this parking lot. Rittenhouse pursued Rosenbaum from that site to the parking lot.

That's what's crystal clear in the aerial footage that was released at trial this week. It's right there, in plain view, and here you are, lying about the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

4) You have already reached the conclusion that Kyle is guilty because of your political biases, you are ignoring all the facts that show Kyle was only acting in self defense.

The only "political biases" on this side is that we don't give white supremacists a pass for murdering people. And that's not a "bias". That's just justice.

[Aurrora]

so you admit there was no intent on Rosenbaum's part to kill Rittenhouse, you just explained in your own words that Rosenbaum had the intent of disarming him. see this is the problem when you have a conclusion and have to spin the narrative to make that conclusion work.

Please, go find the nearest cop and attempt to take their service weapon, see what happens.

[Yetanothernewbie]

Please, go find the nearest cop and attempt to take their service weapon, see what happens.

How many times do you have to be told that Rittenhouse isn't a fucking cop?

[uuuhname]

1) The possession charge is still up for debate and the judge has not made a final ruling on a request to dismiss it.

2) He did not cross state lines with the gun, is was purchased in Wisconsin and remained in Wisconsin the entire time. This is a long debunked narrative that smoothbrains use to try to make Kyle's actions seem worse than they are. It's also funny as its the first border crossing leftists seem to care about.

3) No one had any reason to know Kyle was underage, and even if they did that does not give them cause to attack him. It's funny that you make this claim of illegal activity to try to justify people attacking them when absolutely everyone there was violating curfew(except for the people protecting buildings because they were on private property at the behest of the owner). I guess the area should have just been declared an open pvp zone by your logic.

4) You have already reached the conclusion that Kyle is guilty because of your political biases, you are ignoring all the facts that show Kyle was only acting in self defense.

1) it's only up for debate because you and the judge want to give Rittenhouse the softest sentence possible.

It's also funny as its the first border crossing leftists seem to care about.

2)*wanking motion*

3) who the fuck cares, that doesn't make what he did any less illegal... holy shit you are pathetic.

4) ah yes, the classic conservative tactic of projecting. nothing you have said makes Rittenhouse out to the the little angle who felt the need to travel to a state he didn't live in to protect property that wasn't even his, and then start shit with protestor's then shot and killed two of them.

- - - Updated - - -

How many times do you have to be told that Rittenhouse isn't a fucking cop?

but he's a teenager and that means you have to be super duper gently with him or he might bruise like a banana.

[Aurrora]

So, aimed at Rosenbaum and ready to fire.

A "low ready" isn't apparently what you think. It's a position where you're ready to fire in a split second. You're literally describing a threat position.

There are several variations of the low ready position, you are using the least favorable interpretation that is not supported by the witness statement.
The low ready position that Richard McGinnis is describing is a position where the gun is pointed at the ground at a 45 degree angle, but shouldered so that is can be raised if needed. It is explicitly stated that it was pointed at the ground in his witness statement.

That just sounds like projection. Or baiting. Literally nothing I've said would suggest that.

Everything you say suggests that, you keep pretending that Rosenbaum wasn't a threat because his attacks had yet to successfully connect.

Punches?

Punches aren't a lethal threat. Even if Rosenbaum had full-on clocked Rittenhouse right in the face, it'd still be murder for Rittenhouse to shoot him.

They absolutely are, people die to punches all the time.

Rosenbaum never touched Rittenhouse, however. So you're bitching about a delusion you made up, not the facts.

It's unclear if he did or not, McGinnis indicated that he was certainly trying to.

In this circumstance? When determining whether he's entitled to use lethal force? Yeah.

That's how self-defense works. You have to be at a threat of loss of life or serious bodily injury (and the standard for that is "long-term disability or disfigurement", not taking a few punches) to justify use of lethal force. A brawl doesn't qualify. And there wasn't even a brawl, here.

No, there was an attempt for Rosenbaum to arm himself with a lethal weapon while depriving Kyle of his ability to defend himself at the same time. There is every reason for Kyle to believe he was at risk of death or great bodily harm being attacked by a masked rioter that didn't respond to verbal attempts to indicate he was not a threat and was not dissuaded from continuing to attack him after seeing that Kyle was ready to defend himself. That justifies lethal force.

Uh, no. Aiming a weapon at someone is a lethal threat.

Well, at least there is something that you can recognize as a threat.

And before you claim Rittenhouse didn't do so, again, there's no way he shot Rosenbaum without aiming the weapon at Rosenbaum.

Kyle didn't aim the weapon at Rosenbaum until Rosenbaum was attacking him.

Wrong. And there was no "projectile attack" from Rosenbaum. Tossing a nearly-empty bag of garbage is not an attack.

It had enough mass in it to fly in a ballistic trajectory and be visible to an FBI plane flying 86,000 feet overhead. It's certainly not the "empty plastic bag" you liars try to make it out to be.

This is a lie.

They had an altercation a block or two away from the parking lot where Rosenbaum died. Rosenbaum left that altercation, and went to this parking lot. Rittenhouse pursued Rosenbaum from that site to the parking lot.

And yet he walks right past him.

The only "political biases" on this side is that we don't give white supremacists a pass for murdering people. And that's not a "bias". That's just justice.

Thinking someone is a "white supremacist" because they won't let a BLM riot burn down private property is most definitely a political bias. Thinking that someone isn't entitled to defend himself because he is on the other side of a political protest from you(actually not even on the opposite side, just on the side that doesn't believe the community of Kenosha should be punished by rioters), is a political bias.

- - - Updated - - -

How many times do you have to be told that Rittenhouse isn't a fucking cop?

How many times do you need to be told the the threat to justify the use of lethal force is the same for a cop as it is for a civilian in Wisconsin? Seriously you want a better trained individual to have a lower level of threat to justify killing someone? What exactly were the people there protesting again?

- - - Updated - - -

4) ah yes, the classic conservative tactic of projecting. nothing you have said makes Rittenhouse out to the the little angle who felt the need to travel to a state he didn't live in to protect property that wasn't even his, and then start shit with protestor's then shot and killed two of them.

HE WORKED THERE IN KENOSHA, he was a member of the community, he lived a short distance away across a border that is utterly meaningless for all but the purposes of tax and politics. How many of the people burning shit down in Kenosha had no connection at all to the town? You know riot tourists were travelling to there from Portland right?

[Skulltaker]

Super Straight. It's something reactionaries made up to troll LGBTQ+ folks and allies, and I think that's all the forum rules will really let me say about it. So the rest is probably best left to google.

Thanks!

Please, go find the nearest cop and attempt to take their service weapon, see what happens.

Told you before how idiotic an argument this is. The mass murderer you defend is a) threatening people with a gun, which a Cop wouldn't for no reason, and b) not a cop, and c) carrying this gun illegally, although that was not obvious.

[postman1782]

Please, go find the nearest cop and attempt to take their service weapon, see what happens.

Taking a cop's weapon is different than taking a fucking kid's weapon that isn't legally allowed to actually fucking carry it. Jesus fucking christ.

[Aurrora]

Told you before how idiotic an argument this is. The mass murderer you defend is a) threatening people with a gun, which a Cop wouldn't for no reason, and b) not a cop, and c) carrying this gun illegally, although that was not obvious.

And I'll tell you again.
a) There is no evidence this happened and the prosecution has not even made this assertion.
b) In Wisconsin police and civilians have the exact same level of threat needed to justify lethal force. Why do you want your trained professionals to have a lower standard required to kill someone?
c) This is still up for debate and is not justification to attack him even if it is true and Rosenbaum would have no knowledge of this anyways.

- - - Updated - - -

Taking a cop's weapon is different than taking a fucking kid's weapon that isn't legally allowed to actually fucking carry it. Jesus fucking christ.

Once again for the slow crowd.
1) The legality is up for debate.
2) The level of threat needed to justify lethal force is the same for a police officer as it is for a civilian in Wisconsin.
3) Even if he was carrying illegally it is not justification to attack him, and Rosenbaum would have no knowledge of his age anyway to use this as a reason to attack Kyle.

[PickleballAce]

Considering the way Rosenbaum threw himself wantonly at Rittenhouse, are we sure that he wasn't aware that Kyle was a minor?

[postman1782]

Considering the way Rosenbaum threw himself wantonly at Rittenhouse, are we sure that he wasn't aware that Kyle was a minor?

Oh, are you thinking that he was trying to go after him based on his history? Instead of knowing that Rittenhouse broke the law? Good job blaming the victim.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again for the slow crowd.
1) The legality is up for debate.
2) The level of threat needed to justify lethal force is the same for a police officer as it is for a civilian in Wisconsin.
3) Even if he was carrying illegally it is not justification to attack him, and Rosenbaum would have no knowledge of his age anyway to use this as a reason to attack Kyle.

1. The legality isn't up for debate, he wasn't old enough, he wasn't hunting, for all we know, he never passed hunter's safety as there is no proof of that, and there is NO FUCKING HUNTING GROUNDS NEAR THE KILLINGS.
2. Prove it. As there is no evidence that Rosenbaum even laid a finger on Rittenhouse, and his friend testified that they weren't even in danger.
3. And again, if Rosenbaum witnessed that illegal act of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at that guy leaving the protest, he was well within his rights to disarm the lawbreaker. In fact, anyone should have that obligation to do it.

And don't post that fucking Medium blog, because it literally isn't evidence when some random fucking moron can make shit up to follow a narrative, especially some random dumbass with no name.

[JohnBrown1917]

Oh, are you thinking that he was trying to go after him based on his history? Instead of knowing that Rittenhouse broke the law? Good job blaming the victim.
.

Its all they have, even though Kyle has 2 more victims beside him.

- - - Updated - - -

Please, go find the nearest cop and attempt to take their service weapon, see what happens.

Are we talking about gun-crazed bloodthirsty cops you see in a lot of authoritian countries(like the US) or the kind that actually got the bare minimum of de-escalation training?

[Mayhem]

Trying to grab someone's gun away from them is an attack on them, if you don't believe me find the closest cop and see what happens if you try to take his service weapon.

Riddle me this, can you shoot a cop if they try to take your gun from you?

I can't believe you people are this stupid.

[Yadryonych]

Riddle me this, can you shoot a cop if they try to take your gun from you?

I can't believe you people are this stupid.

Ah yes, a false equivalence of a law enforcer and an assailant. My favourite

[Endus]

Ah yes, a false equivalence of a law enforcer and an assailant. My favourite

The entire pont of Mayhem's post is ridiculing Aurrora's false equivalence. So take it up with Aurrora.

[beanman12345]

How many times do you need to be told the the threat to justify the use of lethal force is the same for a cop as it is for a civilian in Wisconsin? Seriously you want a better trained individual to have a lower level of threat to justify killing someone? What exactly were the people there protesting again?

I've been watching this trial, WGN newscast, and this was asked yesterday from the defense attorney to the cop who was on the stand. Prosecution objected because it's not the same, and was sustained. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[Endus]

They absolutely are, people die to punches all the time.

That doesn't make an unarmed person threatening to punch you a lethal threat.

This isn't a matter of opinion. The law is crystal clear on this point. You're wrong.

It's unclear if he did or not, McGinnis indicated that he was certainly trying to.

Grabbing the gun is not an attempt to injure Rittenhouse.

No, there was an attempt for Rosenbaum to arm himself with a lethal weapon while depriving Kyle of his ability to defend himself at the same time. There is every reason for Kyle to believe he was at risk of death or great bodily harm being attacked by a masked rioter that didn't respond to verbal attempts to indicate he was not a threat and was not dissuaded from continuing to attack him after seeing that Kyle was ready to defend himself. That justifies lethal force.

Nope.

No indication Rosenbaum was trying to "arm himself".
Rittenhouse was perfectly capable of defending himself without lethal force.
Fearmongering about masks when we've had more than a year of a pandemic is really, really pathetic.
There's no justification for any fear of death or great bodily harm, here.
Rosenbaum had already had an altercation with Rittenhouse and knew Rittenhouse was lying about the "friendly" shit. And we can tell it was a lie, too, given the multiple people he shot.

Literally every step of your statement there was a lie.

Kyle didn't aim the weapon at Rosenbaum until Rosenbaum was attacking him.

False. If Rittenhouse was running away, there's no way Rosenbaum could have grabbed at the gun barrel unless Rittenhouse turned and aimed at Rosenbaum.

You kinda have to aim a weapon at someone before you can shoot them, y'know. Obvious shit.

It had enough mass in it to fly in a ballistic trajectory and be visible to an FBI plane flying 86,000 feet overhead. It's certainly not the "empty plastic bag" you liars try to make it out to be.

Basically anything "flies in a ballistic trajectory". A Nerf football flies in a ballistic trajectory. A water balloon. A cupcake. A wet sponge.

Who said it was "empty"? There was an empty water bottle inside, and some other trash. Nothing dangerous. Nothing heavy enough to be dangerous as a weapon, in particular.

And yet he walks right past him.

Wait, was Rosenbaum hiding, or did Rittenhouse walk past him knowing he was there?

Pick your story and stick to it, thanks.

Thinking someone is a "white supremacist" because they won't let a BLM riot burn down private property is most definitely a political bias.

I think Rittenhouse is a white supremacist because he's been seen hanging out with Proud Boys, who are a white supremacist terrorist organization.

Also, opposing BLM protests is pretty definitively just white supremacist shit.

Thinking that someone isn't entitled to defend himself because he is on the other side of a political protest from you(actually not even on the opposite side, just on the side that doesn't believe the community of Kenosha should be punished by rioters), is a political bias.

I said back when this happened and I'll repeat it again that if Rittenhouse had decked Rosenbaum and fled, or had struck Rosenbaum with the butt of the rifle and fled, we wouldn't be here. That would've fallen within self defense bounds in the circumstances, nobody would be dead, and this wouldn't be a story.

That's not what happened.

This isn't about whether Rittenhouse was entitled to defend himself; everyone is entitled to that. It's that Rittenhouse chose to escalate to lethal violence without justification on two distinct occasions, killing two people and seriously injuring a third. That's not self defense any more.

How many times do you need to be told the the threat to justify the use of lethal force is the same for a cop as it is for a civilian in Wisconsin?

I don't care how many times you repeat the lie; it remains a lie.

[Paranoid Android]

Judge Schroeder in the Rittenhouse trial, for some strange reason, decided to give the jury a law school class on the hearsay rule, which veered off into a discussion of a Bible passage on the trial of Paul. https://t.co/UHgUvrXTMs

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/s...moKf8ywSQ&s=19

This judge is so bias.

I posted earlier that before the trial the victims couldn't be called victims l,but could be called rioters or protesters. He also took time to scold the media in another tirade,which shows he listening to outside influencs.

In short the weight is on the scale of injustic.

[tehdang]

It's also funny as its the first border crossing leftists seem to care about.

Rittenhouse supporters should grab protest signs saying "No human being is illegal" and "End violence against DREAMERS" to really confuse the bumper sticker crew.

No, there was an attempt for Rosenbaum to arm himself with a lethal weapon while depriving Kyle of his ability to defend himself at the same time. There is every reason for Kyle to believe he was at risk of death or great bodily harm being attacked by a masked rioter that didn't respond to verbal attempts to indicate he was not a threat and was not dissuaded from continuing to attack him after seeing that Kyle was ready to defend himself. That justifies lethal force.

I truly don't get why people picked the disarming of an armed individual as a major point of defense. Rosenbaum conceals himself behind a car and comes out as Rittenhouse passes by, and confronts and tries to disarm Rittenhouse. They've got a police detective on the stand agreeing that "Mr. Rosenbaum is in hiding as my client arrives."

Well, at least there is something that you can recognize as a threat.

This hits upon the big problem surrounding those who deny Rittenhouse his means of self-defense. They want to define lethal threats, or grievous bodily harm, down just low enough to excuse everyone that didn't actually fire a gun. Then, they want to define clearly malicious conduct to just barely include everything Rittenhouse did prior to firing. The law, nor common sense, supports this kind of special pleading.

Thinking someone is a "white supremacist" because they won't let a BLM riot burn down private property is most definitely a political bias. Thinking that someone isn't entitled to defend himself because he is on the other side of a political protest from you(actually not even on the opposite side, just on the side that doesn't believe the community of Kenosha should be punished by rioters), is a political bias.

The major bias in this shooting, by people throwing accusations at Rittenhouse to see if any stick, is from people that never would think of purchasing and using a gun to defend themselves. They've only thought through scenarios that involve them running and waiting for a police response, or cowering behind locked doors, secure in their estimation that an attacker would have nothing to gain by harming them. This is fine, in some respects, for people without assets or connections to a community. But it puts them far behind people with the means to defend themselves if assaulted.

As can be readily guessed by some of the arguments proffered here.

The political biases present here are too commonplace to rise above the biases against self defense against battery. Its effects are also common. Massive presumption of innocence and excuses against attackers and chasers of Rittenhouse, minimum presumption of good faith and defensive motives against Rittenhouse. It barely deserves mention in today's political environment.

Think it over.

Seriously you want a better trained individual to have a lower level of threat to justify killing someone? What exactly were the people there protesting again?

Its just too ironic that someone justifies police needing to discover a lower level of threat to act compared to a citizen. The protests and violence in Kenosha apparently sought to give police more reason to shoot than non-police, would you look at that.

[uuuhname]

Rittenhouse supporters should grab protest signs saying "No human being is illegal" and "End violence against DREAMERS" to really confuse the bumper sticker crew.

right wingers really cannot for one second stop letting you know how truly detestable they are.

[Endus]

right wingers really cannot for one second stop letting you know how truly detestable they are.

Not to mention not having the cajones to directly confront any of the people tehdang clearly disagrees with, instead trying to just engage in some back-slapping with a fellow partisan, pushing nonsense that's been pre-emptively debunked already.