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

#2,901
#2,901
RockyTop85 said:
Shower thoughts: what are the odds the Russians put out the call for people to go defend Kenosha? Seems pretty consistent with what they did in 2016; also seems pretty consistent with the people who showed up.
Click to expand...
They've been doing this for a while and have been exposed. It just got lumped in with all the other russia talk or written off as "Facebook memes". Turns out social media is so easy to manipulate and people are easily divided
 
#2,903
#2,903
RockyTop85 said:
No it’s not. It requires an inference.
Click to expand...
It's not perfectly clear. But it's hard to imagine what else he was trying to do buy intently walking to the car. A knife was found inside the car. I'm not entirely sure if he was going for it or not. But most importantly the Cop had a warranted fear of Blake pulling a weapon from the car
 
#2,904
#2,904
vols4sure said:
No offense, but I find your take ridiculous. Criticize the officer all you want for letting it get to that point, but once he starts making any action that could be construed as reaching for a gun, he was endangering the cop.
Click to expand...
If we are going by the norms of the old West we would have already hung Blake for being a rapist
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel
#2,905
#2,905
utvolpj said:
So he admits the kid didn't shoot until the criminal drew his gun with an intent to kill? This kid seems to have some great control
Click to expand...
And as admitting that he should have done what the kid did....

Hard to say the kid is in the wrong if you go online and talk about doing the same thing.
 
#2,906
#2,906
BeardedVol said:
Maybe. It's going to be determined by how this is applied:

Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48
Click to expand...
A molotov cocktail should count as death or serious bodily harm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y9 Vol
#2,910
#2,910
lawgator1 said:
The victims of DWI do not knowingly seek out DWI drivers then stop suddenly right in front of them. That kid was no victim. You are not a victim if you invite something just to set up your reaction to it. Kid was LOOKING for a reason to shoot.
Click to expand...
You were walking around the party scene on a Friday night you knew what you were getting into.
Its dumb. All around.
 
#2,912
#2,912
BeardedVol said:
Ah...the magical moltov cocktail made from a Kroger bag?

Click to expand...

Grab a plastic bag, throw it.
BeardedVol said:
He shot Rosenbaum for throwing a plastic bag with a water bottle in it that fell 8 feet short of even hitting him. The provocation would be the act of illegally discharging his rifle into Rosenbaum's face. Whether the second and third shootings are considered self-defense is going to be in the hands of the jury. His attorney better hope that it stays local, and doesn't get kicked up to to the 7th circuit.

Picture of your "molotov" smh....
EgX_zx5U4AAcjnY
Click to expand...
You know the difference as you are being chased by a mob after hearing a gunshot? He was already fleeing. This wasnt case of him standing his ground seeing the bag fall short the mob engaging before he ran.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, Orangeslice13, Y9 Vol and 1 other person
#2,915
#2,915
I don't know if it's been brought up yet but in any situation where a person is claiming a defensive action involving a group the invocation of "disparity of force" can come into play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y9 Vol
#2,918
#2,918
LouderVol said:
Grab a plastic bag, throw it.

You know the difference as you are being chased by a mob after hearing a gunshot? He was already fleeing. This wasnt case of him standing his ground seeing the bag fall short the mob engaging before he ran.
Click to expand...

I think you are looking through the situation through the lens of emotion. "I felt unsafe because I heard a gunshot" is most likely not going to fly for stopping, and turning and shooting an unarmed person, running at you or not, especially given that Wisconsin doesn't have a 'stand your ground' clause.

The question before the jury, is going to be was he legally in a position where deadly force was justified in self-defense, if that is where his attorney goes with his defense, and that is going to be predicated on whether or not he was justifiably in fear of his life or great bodily harm from Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum was unnarmed, and didn't fire the shot that Rittenhouse heard, and that is going to come into play in whether or not stopping after the gunshot instead of continuing to retreat, negates self-defense or not. It's definitely not this clear cut case of self-defense from a legal standpoint.
 
#2,919
#2,919
BeardedVol said:
I think you are looking through the situation through the lens of emotion. "I felt unsafe because I heard a gunshot" is most likely not going to fly for stopping, and turning and shooting an unarmed person, running at you or not, especially given that Wisconsin doesn't have a 'stand your ground' clause.

The question before the jury, is going to be was he legally in a position where deadly force was justified in self-defense, if that is where his attorney goes with his defense, and that is going to be predicated on whether or not he was justifiably in fear of his life or great bodily harm from Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum was unnarmed, and didn't fire the shot that Rittenhouse heard, and that is going to come into play in whether or not stopping after the gunshot instead of continuing to retreat, negates self-defense or not. It's definitely not this clear cut case of self-defense from a legal standpoint.
Click to expand...
You keep saying he was unarmed, and haven't shown anywhere we someone has to be armed for a person to claim self defense.
 
#2,920
#2,920
hog88 said:
The bottle had to had something in it, what was it?
Click to expand...

Water, is usually the substance in commercially produced bottles of water, but given how short the bag fell after being thrown, it might have been empty. It definitely was not filled with a flammable liquid and set alight if that is what you are trying to insinuate.
 
#2,921
#2,921
ButchPlz said:
You keep saying he was unarmed, and haven't shown anywhere we someone has to be armed for a person to claim self defense.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to be unarmed, but if the defense is "he felt he was in imminent danger because he heard a gunshot" then Rosenbaum being unarmed, is going to be a factor.

If they fear you felt for your safety is predicated on hearing the gunshot, it's going to be hard to argue self-defense when the person that was shot, was unarmed, and again Wisconsin doesn't have a 'stand your ground' clause, so legally if he could continue to flee, he has to before deadly force is warranted, under the law.

Those are the questions that the jury is going to have to deliberate.
 
#2,922
#2,922
BeardedVol said:
He doesn't have to be unarmed, but if the defense is "he felt he was in imminent danger because he heard a gunshot" then Rosenbaum being unarmed, is going to be a factor.

If they fear you felt for your safety is predicated on hearing the gunshot, it's going to be hard to argue self-defense when the person that was shot, was unarmed, and again Wisconsin doesn't have a 'stand your ground' clause, so legally if he could continue to flee, he has to before deadly force is warranted, under the law.

Those are the questions that the jury is going to have to deliberate.
Click to expand...
You are making up scenarios and pretending to know what you're talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and Y9 Vol
#2,924
#2,924
BeardedVol said:
Water, is usually the substance in commercially produced bottles of water, but given how short the bag fell after being thrown, it might have been empty. It definitely was not filled with a flammable liquid and set alight if that is what you are trying to insinuate.
Click to expand...

Confirmed?
 
#2,925
#2,925
hog88 said:
Confirmed?
Click to expand...

The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag. Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video. A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard on the video, then a male shouts, “**** you!”, then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard. Rosenbaum then falls to the ground.
https://www.mystateline.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2020/08/Rittenhouse.pdf
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top