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

[hog88]

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

You're going to have to point out where it says water was in a bottle, I'm missing it.

Something was in that bad otherwise it wouldn't have went a foot being thrown. I don't care if it Nolin Ryan doing the throwing.

 

[TheDeeble]

Seems to me there's just a bunch of assumptions being thrown around. Has there been any evidence of what was occurring before the videos? All we see is him running away in each video with people chasing/throwing things/attacking him. Did he instigate something? Or was he previously attacked/felt unsafe and was running from the people chasing him? Based on the little video evidence seen it looks like self defense to me because we don't see him instigating anything. Just running from people until someone chasing him gets close enough to put hands on him.

Seems to me like one of the stupidest things you could do is chase/charge someone that is armed when you are unarmed. Not sure how anyone thinks that will end well for the unarmed person.

 

[Y9 Vol]

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

Would you continue to pursue an armed person and throw things/shout obscenities at them?

 

[davethevol]

The lawyer for Nick Sandman is now going to help this Kyle kid.

 

[BeecherVol]

Virginia Senate advances bill to downgrade charge for assaulting police, end mandatory jail term

That should take care of everything.

 

[jp1]

The lawyer for Nick Sandman is now going to help this Kyle kid.

Can't say I would want to be the friend that loaned him the gun.

 

[0nelilreb]

The lawyer for Nick Sandman is now going to help this Kyle kid.

Uh oh , I’m betting Wisconsin DA doesn’t want Nicks attorneys anywhere around this case . Neither does CNN Lol

 

[BeardedVol]

Would you continue to pursue an armed person and throw things/shout obscenities at them?

The question before the jury isn't going to be whether or not it is wise to chase after a person with a rifle and cuss at them, it's going to be whether Rittenhouse was justified in using deadly force against Rosenbaum to begin with, and that will most likely affect whether or not it was justified against Huber and Grosskreutz if they were found to be acting under 'provocation' by Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum.

This is not a clear cut case of self-defense, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[Y9 Vol]

The question before the jury isn't going to be whether or not it is wise to chase after a person with a rifle and cuss at them, it's going to be whether Rittenhouse was justified in using deadly force against Rosenbaum to begin with, and that will most likely affect whether or not it was justified against Huber and Grosskreutz were found to be acting under 'provocation' by Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum.

This is not a clear cut case of self-defense, no matter how much you want it to be.

I did not ask about the case. I asked you a question.

 

[BeardedVol]

I did not ask about the case. I asked you a question.

You want to know whether I personally believe it is wise to chase after a person with what appears to be a loaded rifle? No.

 

[TheDeeble]

The question before the jury isn't going to be whether or not it is wise to chase after a person with a rifle and cuss at them, it's going to be whether Rittenhouse was justified in using deadly force against Rosenbaum to begin with, and that will most likely affect whether or not it was justified against Huber and Grosskreutz if they were found to be acting under 'provocation' by Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum.

This is not a clear cut case of self-defense, no matter how much you want it to be.

Based on text posted earlier in the thread I don't think the first altercation would automatically make him guilty of the other two.

If Rittenhouse feared he was under threat of serious bodily injury or death then he would be justified.

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

In every video he's running from people chasing him down. He makes no attempt at engagement until they catch up with him. One guy hits him in the head with a skateboard after he was kicked on the ground by someone else. And the last guy I think is the one with the pistol in hand. I'd think either would qualify as belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. And what was he doing before this? Looked like he was exhausting a reasonable means to escape before defending himself by running away.

 

[lawgator1]

You were walking around the party scene on a Friday night you knew what you were getting into.
Its dumb. All around.

I love how the right wingers 1) attack Blake by in part pointing to his criminal history, warrants, etc., but 2) defend that kid by saying that in that moment he was just defending himself -- ignoring his history of loony tunes militia and white supremacist statements, his support of Trump, and his having traveled to the area for the specific purpose of confronting black protestors.

 

[hndog609]

You want to know whether I personally believe it is wise to chase after a person with what appears to be a loaded rifle? No.

How relevant it might be will obviously be up to a jury but if I were playing defense attorney for a moment I'd posit questioning the mindset of a person that was apparently so willing to do violence to someone they'd pursue while ignore the fact the person was armed with a rifle.

 

[BeardedVol]

Based on text posted earlier in the thread I don't think the first altercation would automatically make him guilty of the other two.

If Rittenhouse feared he was under threat of serious bodily injury or death then he would be justified.



In every video he's running from people chasing him down. He makes no attempt at engagement until they catch up with him. One guy hits him in the head with a skateboard after he was kicked on the ground by someone else. And the last guy I think is the one with the pistol in hand. I'd think either would qualify as belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. And what was he doing before this? Looked like he was exhausting a reasonable means to escape before defending himself.


View attachment 302889


View attachment 302888

You know that's the second and third shooting right? Those people are chasing him, after he had already shot Rosenbaum. Him having done so, is going to be a determining factor in who was in the right in the 2nd and 3rd shootings. Were they chasing him under a condition of 'provocation' because of an illegal shooting of Rosenbaum? If so, then he's not going to be able to use self-defense as an excuse for killing one and wounding another. If they were not chasing him under a condition of 'provocation', then he may be able to use self-defense in shooting them if he was found to be reasonably in fear of death or great bodily injury .

It's going to hinge on whether or not the first shooting is deemed self-defense, and wether or not Huber and Grosskreutz were justified in chasing him down after he shot Rosenbaum. If they were found to be acting to disarm an active shooter, actual self-defense or not, he may still not be able to use self-defense as a legal defense when/if it goes to court.

 

[jp1]

I love how the right wingers 1) attack Blake by in part pointing to his criminal history, warrants, etc., but 2) defend that kid by saying that in that moment he was just defending himself -- ignoring his history of loony tunes militia and white supremacist statements, his support of Trump, and his having traveled to the area for the specific purpose of confronting black protestors.

Doesn't look like he had any confrontations with black protestors.

 

[Vol737]

Uh oh , I’m betting Wisconsin DA doesn’t want Nicks attorneys anywhere around this case . Neither does CNN Lol

That dude isn’t done shredding the MSM yet! I’m just gonna go ahead and put this lawyer on retainer. Just in case...

 

[BeardedVol]

How relevant it might be will obviously be up to a jury but if I were playing defense attorney for a moment I'd posit questioning the mindset of a person that was apparently so willing to do violence to someone they'd pursue while ignore the fact the person was armed with a rifle.

I'm sure they will, but it will also depend on what the jury instructions are, and whether a 'self-defense" defense is even allowed. I'm sure more information will come out in the coming months, hopefully there is more video that sheds light on Rittenhouse's previous interactions with Rosenbaum.

 

[0nelilreb]

Based on text posted earlier in the thread I don't think the first altercation would automatically make him guilty of the other two.

If Rittenhouse feared he was under threat of serious bodily injury or death then he would be justified.


In every video he's running from people chasing him down. He makes no attempt at engagement until they catch up with him. One guy hits him in the head with a skateboard after he was kicked on the ground by someone else. And the last guy I think is the one with the pistol in hand. I'd think either would qualify as belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. And what was he doing before this? Looked like he was exhausting a reasonable means to escape before defending himself by running away.


View attachment 302889


View attachment 302888

Mask , Hoodie , skateboard , putting yourself in a riot after dark .. ( check ) “ doing what any good man should do “ ( fail ), procreating ( fail ) staying alive for your family at home ( ultimate fail ) .

 

[0nelilreb]

I love how the right wingers 1) attack Blake by in part pointing to his criminal history, warrants, etc., but 2) defend that kid by saying that in that moment he was just defending himself -- ignoring his history of loony tunes militia and white supremacist statements, his support of Trump, and his having traveled to the area for the specific purpose of confronting black protestors.

It’s odd with all the black protesters to choose from that white supremacy didn’t rear its ugly head huh?

 

[Ernest T. Vol]

I love how the right wingers 1) attack Blake by in part pointing to his criminal history, warrants, etc., but 2) defend that kid by saying that in that moment he was just defending himself -- ignoring his history of loony tunes militia and white supremacist statements, his support of Trump, and his having traveled to the area for the specific purpose of confronting black protestors.

So, you would charge him with "Trump support"? What citation is that, counselor?

 

[allvol123]

I love how the right wingers 1) attack Blake by in part pointing to his criminal history, warrants, etc., but 2) defend that kid by saying that in that moment he was just defending himself -- ignoring his history of loony tunes militia and white supremacist statements, his support of Trump, and his having traveled to the area for the specific purpose of confronting black protestors.

Cool. So you're equating Blake's criminal history to the kid's free speech. Lawyers.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Doesn't look like he had any confrontations with black protestors.

The vast majority of these protests that devolve into riots are instigated by white people.

 

[k-town_king]

Based on text posted earlier in the thread I don't think the first altercation would automatically make him guilty of the other two.

If Rittenhouse feared he was under threat of serious bodily injury or death then he would be justified.



In every video he's running from people chasing him down. He makes no attempt at engagement until they catch up with him. One guy hits him in the head with a skateboard after he was kicked on the ground by someone else. And the last guy I think is the one with the pistol in hand. I'd think either would qualify as belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. And what was he doing before this? Looked like he was exhausting a reasonable means to escape before defending himself by running away.


View attachment 302889


View attachment 302888

He had already murdered someone. You can't claim self defense after you murder somebody.

 

[jp1]

I love how the right wingers 1) attack Blake by in part pointing to his criminal history, warrants, etc., but 2) defend that kid by saying that in that moment he was just defending himself -- ignoring his history of loony tunes militia and white supremacist statements, his support of Trump, and his having traveled to the area for the specific purpose of confronting black protestors.

Gonna need a link to the claims of white supremacist statements and traveling to confront black protestors.

 

[hndog609]

I'm sure they will, but it will also depend on what the jury instructions are, and whether a 'self-defense" defense is even allowed. I'm sure more information will come out in the coming months, hopefully there is more video that sheds light on Rittenhouse's previous interactions with Rosenbaum.

Agreed. Just putting it out there that the mindset of the person shot, who was by no means whatsoever just a person standing around in the crowd, is going to be examined also.

Legal stuff can get really weird but I would be shocked (more than Appy St over Michigan shocked) at them being able to toss out self-defense arguments in this case.