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

#2,951
#2,951
BeardedVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. Here's how it reads to me assuming Rosenbaum was not a justified shooting

A person who engages in unlawful conduct(Rittenhouse) of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack(from skatebaord and pistol guy) is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack(By skateboard and pistol guy) which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct(Rittenhouse) 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(Rittenhouse) is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person(Rittenhouse) is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant(skateboard and pistol guy) unless the person(Rittenhouse) reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means(running from his attackers) to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant (Skatebaord and pistol guy).

We'll assume Rittenhouse provokes an attack on Rosenbaum. It is the unlawful conduct. He can't claim self defense from other attacks unless he feels he is in threat of serious bodily harm or death. And in the event he does use self defense against serious bodily harm or death from the people responding to his unlawful conduct he has to use every reasonable means to escape before he uses deadly force.

He attacks Rosenbaum. Runs from the others. They chase him down and attack him with a skateboard used as a weapon and a pistol in the hand of the other guy. I'd think that's justified fear of serious bodily harm or death.

The way it reads to me is just because he committed an unlawful act, doesn't give bystanders the right to chase him down and attack him with a skateboard or other weapon. It says the person committing the lawful act can't do "x" unless the following happens. It's already acknowledging he committed an unlawful act, but still has the ability to defend himself under certain conditions.
 
Last edited:
#2,953
#2,953
0nelilreb said:
#Allegedly .. aren’t you glad you don’t have to prove it ?
Click to expand...
i'd say with the charges they have a great amount of evidence. Not like there are not 1000 eye witnesses who all say the same thing.

He better hope the Ab or some other ws group protects him in prison.
 
#2,956
#2,956
TheDeeble said:
Yes. Here's how it reads to me assuming Rosenbaum was not a justified shooting

A person who engages in unlawful conduct(Rittenhouse) of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack(from skatebaord and pistol guy) is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack(By skateboard and pistol guy) which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct(Rittenhouse) 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(Rittenhouse) is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person(Rittenhouse) is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person(Rittenhouse) reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means(running from his attackers) to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant (Skatebaord and pistol guy).

We'll assume Rittenhouse provokes an attack on Rosenbaum. It is the unlawful conduct. He can't claim self defense from other attacks unless he feels he is in threat of serious bodily harm or death. And in the event he does use self defense against serious bodily harm or death from the people responding to his unlawful conduct he has to use every reasonable means to escape before he uses deadly force.

He attacks Rosenbaum. Runs from the others. They chase him down and attack him with a skateboard used as a weapon and a pistol in the hand of the other guy.

The way it reads to me is just because he committed an unlawful act, doesn't give bystanders the right to chase him down and attack him with a skateboard or other weapon. It says the person committing the lawful act can't do "x" unless the following happens. It's already acknowledging he committed an unlawful act, but still has the ability to defend himself under certain conditions.
Click to expand...

That's going to be crux of the argument, were Huber and Grosskreutz justified in chasing and and assaulting Rittenhouse given that he'd just shot Rosenbaum, were they acting in good faith under subsection 4 of Wisconsin's self-defense law?

A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

If the answer is found to be "yes", it's going to be difficult to use a self-defense argument in the 2nd and 3rd shooting, even though Huber hit him with the skatboard and Grosskreutz was armed himself.
 
#2,957
#2,957
BeardedVol said:
That's going to be crux of the argument, were Huber and Grosskreutz justified in chasing and and assaulting Rittenhouse given that he'd just shot Rosenbaum, were they acting in good faith under subsection 4 of Wisconsin's self-defense law?

A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

If the answer is found to be "yes", it's going to be difficult to use a self-defense argument in the 2nd and 3rd shooting, even though Huber hit him with the skatboard and Grosskreutz was armed himself.
Click to expand...
How is it 3rd party intervention when the assailant is retreating? If you see a man punch another and you shoot him as he runs away who are you protecting?
 
#2,959
#2,959
DancingOutlaw said:
How is it 3rd party intervention when the assailant is retreating? If you see a man punch another and you shoot him as he runs away who are you protecting?
Click to expand...
Its not 3rd party intervention because he had already removed himself from the first shooting and person shot. The crowd chasing him at that point became vigilantes
 
#2,960
#2,960
DancingOutlaw said:
How is it 3rd party intervention when the assailant is retreating? If you see a man punch another and you shoot him as he runs away who are you protecting?
Click to expand...

If he's successful in proving that the 1st shooting was in fact illegal and not an act of self-defense, then I'd imagine that the DA would characterize their chasing after him and subsequent assault as an attempt to disarm him and stop any further shooting.
 
#2,961
#2,961
BeardedVol said:
If he's successful in proving that the 1st shooting was in fact illegal and not an act of self-defense, then I'd imagine that the DA would characterize their chasing after him and subsequent assault as an attempt to disarm him and stop any further shooting.
Click to expand...

Last guy came dangerously close to succeeding. That was bad, I will see myself out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BartW
#2,962
#2,962
84Volfan said:
Its not 3rd party intervention because he had already removed himself from the first shooting and person shot. The crowd chasing him at that point became vigilantes
Click to expand...

It's a reasonable take on the situation. It's also reasonable to say that Huber and Grosskreutz were using justifiable force trying to disarm a person who'd just shot another individual.

It's why determining t the legality of the first shooting is going to be so important to both the prosecution and the defense.
 
#2,963
#2,963
BeardedVol said:
It's a reasonable take on the situation. It's also reasonable to say that Huber and Grosskreutz were using justifiable force trying to disarm a person who'd just shot another individual.

It's why determining t the legality of the first shooting is going to be so important to both the prosecution and the defense.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with WI law, but I will research when I get more time, and get back with you when I have a viable response.

Edit. I never saw or heard the crowd ask him to drop his weapon or wait for law enforcement. The fact they went for him when he fell with a weapon that could cause grave bodily harm in my opinion is what gives him right to self defend....i think had they all surrounded him non violently and ask him to wait for law enforcement he would not have shot anyone. The reasoning behind this is he didn't shoot the second man when he backed up with upraised hands....this is an interesting case to follow.
 
#2,964
#2,964
jp1 said:
Last guy came dangerously close to succeeding. That was bad, I will see myself out.
Click to expand...

Given that Rittenhouse shot Huber in front of him, Grosskreutz would have probably had a decent self-defense argument for shooting Rittenhouse himself instead of trying to disarm him.
 
#2,966
#2,966
1. Don't forget the media has an agenda and it tends to not involve waiting for full information before rocketing their version in front of as many uninformed people as possible.
2. Police were called because Jacob Blake was waving a knife around and in conjunction with a domestic situation (not because he was roaming the countryside as a non-violent friendly fellow). While en route, dispatch informed police that Blake had an outstanding warrant in regard to his recent sexual assault and domestic abuse charges.
3. Police deployed a taser and it failed, as they are prone to do more than we'd like, despite being a great tool.
4. My research thus far, very early, is showing that Blake said he had a gun in the car and was going to go get it. He continued to brandish the knife while disregarding officer commands to drop it, which would have ended the situation PEACEFULLY, if he'd have complied with such lawful orders.
5. When he reached into the car, officers fired. Why? Because he already has one weapon and says he's getting a gun next from the location he's reaching into.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.checkerboards
#2,967
#2,967
84Volfan said:
I don't see how anyone can legitimately claim this video doesn't show self defense regardless of the first shooting.
Click to expand...
Lmao. You can't regardless away a murder.

How did they know he wasn't going to commit a mass shooting?

The people chasing him were the "good guy with a gun" the NRA and gun nuts love.
 
#2,968
#2,968
BeardedVol said:
If he's successful in proving that the 1st shooting was in fact illegal and not an act of self-defense, then I'd imagine that the DA would characterize their chasing after him and subsequent assault as an attempt to disarm him and stop any further shooting.
Click to expand...
So he's running away(towards the police mind you), shooting no one, but he needs to be confronted? Why? So he can have a reason to shoot other people?
It's idiotic logic.
 
#2,969
#2,969
Here is my thoughts, which probably don't mean much.

1. There was already the incident at the gas station between protestors and the militia. The sense of aggression was put into place there.

2. In the first shooting, the young man is on the run, He is basically in fight or flight mode. He is running and being chased. A shot comes from a handgun from one of the protestors. Does he think the shot is at him, he is on the run. He gets between two cars, at that moment it seems after a shot he chooses fight and pops the guy. He goes around the car and then comes back and stays and makes a phone call. Who does he call? But he seems to stay on site of the incident.

3. Mob comes after him and he is back in flight mode. Mob catches him and one kicks him while on the ground. Another hits him in the head with a skateboard and there goes the first shot at that scene. "Paramedic" comes up with with hands up but as he comes closer, pulls out a handgun and the second shot at the scene tears into his arm. He gets up and rifle is pointed to the ground. More shots are heard behind him he turns. You hear two more rounds. are they from him or from the crowd.
4. He walks past police and nothing happens. He goes home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Vol
#2,970
#2,970
k-town_king said:
i'd say with the charges they have a great amount of evidence. Not like there are not 1000 eye witnesses who all say the same thing.

He better hope the Ab or some other ws group protects him in prison.
Click to expand...

You can say and I can say #Allegedly but right now that’s all anyone can say . Lots of moving parts . The only thing we all know for certain is 2 are dead and one now has a new nick name , lefty .
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, ETV and Hoosier_Vol
#2,971
#2,971
k-town_king said:
Lmao. You can't regardless away a murder.

How did they know he wasn't going to commit a mass shooting?

The people chasing him were the "good guy with a gun" the NRA and gun nuts love.
Click to expand...
By the WI law that @BeardedVol and I were discussing you can regardless it away....and it's alleged murder by the way...this is America where it us innocent until proven guilty...
 
#2,973
#2,973
DancingOutlaw said:
So he's running away(towards the police mind you), shooting no one, but he needs to be confronted? Why? So he can have a reason to shoot other people?
It's idiotic logic.
Click to expand...

It's doing to depend on the legality of shooting Rosenbaum, whether it was considered 'provocation', and whether Huber and Grosskreutz were considered to be acting in good faith under subsection 4 of Wisconsin's self-defense law in using force to try to disarm Rittenhouse to prevent him from shooting anyone else As it could be argued that given the situation, they would have no way of knowing that he wasn't planning on shooting someone else.

You have (try) to objectively look at the situation from the perspective of all parties involved, not just the one that you agree with ideologically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCP201 and RockyTop85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top