Police shooting black man in the back ... again (Kenosha, WI)

#2,851
#2,851
BeardedVol said:
You can't claim self defense in a violent situation that you yourself create, not in any states where I've read the laws concerning legal self-defense.. I didn't say that it couldn't be applied I said, that doing so, is going to depend on whether or not the DA proves that 'provocation' has occurred.

The video alone is not going to be the only evidence in the case, you are aware of that correct? Besides that, I don't think the videos themselves paint a clear cut case of self-defense. The DA apparently doesn't believe so either given the charges that he's leveled.
Click to expand...
The videos show plenty- and oh yeah, what about that testimony that you posted about the pedo grabbing for the kid?

You don't think a DA would level huge charges to try to quell a mob? We're you born yesterday? Geez, DAs lose cases all the damn time for overplaying it. In some cases those DAs are elected officials- not sure about this area- but if they are, they'd no incentive to behave a certain way now would they?

Come on man. This is just sad.
 
#2,853
#2,853
BeardedVol said:
True, but it's going to be hard to argue that a kid that owns and presumably has trained with an AR is so disturbed by the sound of a gunshot, that he was justified in shooting an unarmed man.

It will be interesting to see if the DA presents any evidence as to when Rosenbaum grabbed the rifle barrel. McGinnis' statement that I've read sounds like Rittenhouse drew down on him first and that he grabbed the barrel as he was shot the first time; might be able to parlay that into fear of losing his weapon and having it turned on him, but still going to be hard sell if he pointed it at Rosenbaum before he got his hands on the barrel.
Click to expand...

The defense doesn't have to argue sh*t all along your first lines. The prosecution has to prove that he did not fear for his own bodily harm and premeditated the killing of those people, which they absolutely cannot do.

Another WTF post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaybird_1981
#2,854
#2,854
ButchPlz said:
The videos show plenty- and oh yeah, what about that testimony that you posted about the pedo grabbing for the kid?

You don't think a DA would level huge charges to try to quell a mob? We're you born yesterday? Geez, DAs lose cases all the damn time for overplaying it. In some cases those DAs are elected officials- not sure about this area- but if they are, they'd no incentive to behave a certain way now would they?

Come on man. This is just sad.
Click to expand...

Why are you so angry? Not sure what Rosenbaum being a convicted child molester has to do with whether or not this is self-defense, maybe you can expound upon that?

Also, what is it that you are reading in McGinnis' statement that you believe is some sort of slam dunk?
 
#2,857
#2,857
ButchPlz said:
The defense doesn't have to argue sh*t all along your first lines. The prosecution has to prove that he did not fear for his own bodily harm and premeditated the killing of those people, which they absolutely cannot do.

Another WTF post.
Click to expand...

Well, they don't have to, but it would be a pretty poor defense not to respond to the DA asserting that Rittenhouse provoked the 2nd and 3rd shootings with the 1st shooting that wasn't in self-defense.

Not sure why you are getting so upset of the speculation on this case. Are you related to Rittenhouse or something?
 
#2,858
#2,858
ButchPlz said:
From what I understand it is not.
Click to expand...
You have to purchase a rider for civil disorder if you can even get it. Which is why the iT'S JuSt pRoPeRtY, InSuRaNcE WiLl rEpLaCe iT drives me nuts. This property is these people's lives, it's the way they feed their family. Why do you think there were rooftop Koreans in 92? They're bloodthirsty? Or they had every penny they've ever earned in those shops and they'd be homeless if they were looted or burned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel, Vol737, Godfatha and 3 others
#2,859
#2,859
DancingOutlaw said:
You have to purchase a rider for civil disorder if you can even get it. Which is why the iT'S JuSt pRoPeRtY, InSuRaNcE WiLl rEpLaCe iT drives me nuts. This property is these people's lives, it's the way they feed their family. Why do you think there were rooftop Koreans in 92? They're bloodthirsty? Or they had every penny they've ever earned in those shops and they'd be homeless if they were looted or burned.
Click to expand...
Right. Which elevates their risk as an individual living/working in these areas.
 
#2,860
#2,860
golfballs said:
Right. Which elevates their risk as an individual living/working in these areas.
Click to expand...
The irony is the people getting popped are asking for that very outcome. They want the police defunded and local security forces keeping the peace. Meaning you're going to get untrained people with a sketchy understanding of the law and a license to kill. What could go wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sierraorange and MemphisVol77
#2,862
#2,862
DancingOutlaw said:
The irony is the people getting popped are asking for that very outcome. They want the police defunded and local security forces keeping the peace. Meaning you're going to get untrained people with a sketchy understanding of the law and a license to kill. What could go wrong?
Click to expand...

I mean, we've already had that scenario in a lot of places even before this nonsense about de-funding the police started, or have you never had an encounter with a member of the Hawkins County or Churchill Tennessee police departments on U.S. 11W?
 
#2,863
#2,863
BeardedVol said:
I mean, we've already had that scenario in a lot of places even before this nonsense about de-funding the police started, or have you never had an encounter with a member of the Hawkins County or Churchill Tennessee police departments on U.S. 11W?
Click to expand...
Hawkins County is 80% pillheads or methheads, the cops are doing society a favor by clearing them out. I used to read the KTN, it got old seeing another article about some Hawkins Man doing 125 on 11W on his way to his 9th DUI.
 
#2,864
#2,864
BeecherVol said:
I went back and listen to it a few more times and while it isn't real clear it sounds like " we have an alert at this address for a 99 for that subject."

As I said its not crystal clear but its apparent to me she said something in between 99 and subject.

Yes, they were told he left but he either circled the block or never did. Maybe he left the house and that satisfied her. Maybe the girl calling knew he was going to be arrested and thought they may not come if she told them he was gone. Apparently there come a point where she wasn't cooperating after she originally did. IDK.

I firmly believe the cops showed up to arrest Blake for the warrant that was issued. And it makes good sense why it escaulated that quickly given the reason for the 911 call had apparently been diffused without incident.

When someone doesn't want to be arrested it creates a bad situation for everybody. Im sure you have some edgy cops that don't mind it may even like it, but the ones I know would rather it not put them or anyone else at risk. At the end of the day they are people just the same as me.
Its not a job I envy for that reason.
Click to expand...

I’m not saying he actually did leave or that they mistook someone else for him. Clearly he was there during the relevant portions and he’s the one that got shot. The relevance of those exchanges is that their expectations going in give a sense of how much work they needed to do to re-orient to the situation before justifiably engaging in the struggle that ends up with the shots. It’s the same concept as whether they knew he had a warrant. You may have understood that, but I wasn’t sure it was clear.

Anyways, I’m not sold that shooting him was morally justifiable, but it’s at least a close call and the facts that make it a close call in that moment aren’t really the fault of the police. So the clearest “room for improvement,” if any, would be almost entirely in those first few moments.

In that sense, I think it’s more the anticipation or expectation of the struggle than the enjoyment of it that causes problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel
#2,865
#2,865
BeardedVol said:
I mean, we've already had that scenario in a lot of places even before this nonsense about de-funding the police started, or have you never had an encounter with a member of the Hawkins County or Churchill Tennessee police departments on U.S. 11W?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you could just randomly raid every third house in Hawkins county and find meth. Doesn't change the fact that it's a running joke with the surrounding departments that if an officer gets fired from their current agency, Hawkins County or Church Hill one will still hire them. It's that way in a lot f places around the country.
 
#2,866
#2,866
BeardedVol said:
It's going to be pretty difficult for any defense attorney to paint the first person he killed as "self defense" under Wisconsin law. Probably going to make the 2nd and 3rd shootings difficult to frame as self defense as well if Rittenhouse shooting and killing Rosenbaum is considered 'provocation'.

McGinnis told police he was walking with Rittenhouse and warning the teen he was not handling his weapon well. Shortly thereafter McGinnis then saw Rosenbaum and others moving quickly toward Rittenhouse. According to the complaint, Rosenbaum appears to throw a plastic bag at the teenager. The complaint states that Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed throughout the encounter. McGinnis told police he saw Rittenhouse raise the gun. “McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum. McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words.” The complaint states that McGinnis stated that Rosenbaum was attempting to grab the barrel of the gun when he was shot.

Rittenhouse charged with multiple counts of homicide
Click to expand...
“The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.“

That makes it a closer call on the first one, but McGinnis’s description doesn’t resemble the videos I saw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, Orangeslice13 and MemphisVol77
#2,867
#2,867
RockyTop85 said:
“The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.“

That makes it a closer call on the first one, but McGinnis’s description doesn’t resemble the videos I saw.
Click to expand...

The one video that shows Rosenbaum throw the bag doesn't give that clear of a view once he's close to Rittenhouse. I'd say McGinnis' and other eyewitness' testimony is going to come into heavily into play for both the defense and the prosecution, maybe even more so than the videos.
 
#2,868
#2,868
BeardedVol said:
The one video that shows Rosenbaum throw the bag doesn't give that clear of a view once he's close to Rittenhouse. I'd say McGinnis' and other eyewitness' testimony is going to come into heavily into play for both the defense and the prosecution, maybe even more so than the videos.
Click to expand...
I’ll have to rewatch. Anybody saying this is a slam dunk for either side doesn’t know wtf they’re talking about. Juries do what they want and half the time you talk to them and they weren’t even interested in the law.

I still wouldn’t convict him, but the jury is going to be instructed in a way that makes it hard not to. But they don’t always follow the law. Only slam dunks seem like the reckless endangerment for firing into the crowd and the unlawful possession.

Seen anything in the burden of proof re: defenses? It varies depending on the defense in some states.
 
#2,869
#2,869
BeardedVol said:
The one video that shows Rosenbaum throw the bag doesn't give that clear of a view once he's close to Rittenhouse. I'd say McGinnis' and other eyewitness' testimony is going to come into heavily into play for both the defense and the prosecution, maybe even more so than the videos.
Click to expand...
Nm. Found it.

III. Self-Defense


¶ 12 Self-defense is generally viewed as an affirmative defense. See, e.g., State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, ¶ 64, 255 Wis.2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413. "An `affirmative defense' is ... `a defendant's assertion raising new facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the plaintiff's or prosecution's claim even if all allegations in the complaint are true.'" State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, ¶ 39, 255 Wis.2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244 (citation and emphasis omitted). When an affirmative defense is successfully put at issue, the burden is on the State to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.[5]See Head, 255 Wis.2d 194, ¶ 106, 648 N.W.2d 413. It is error if the jury is not so advised; omission of a burden of proof is a misstatement of the law that renders the jury instructions erroneous. See Patterson,329 Wis.2d 599, ¶ 53, 790 N.W.2d 909.

State v. Austin, 836 NW 2d 833 - Wis: Court of Appeals 2013 - Google Scholar
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top