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

#2,976
#2,976
k-town_king said:
The people chasing him were the "good guy with a gun" the NRA and gun nuts love.
Click to expand...

A pedophile, domestic abuser, and another with a burglary charge are the "good guys with guns"? And those are just the ones that got shot. What are the odds that the 3 that get shot all had criminal records?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel, MemphisVol77, Rickyvol77 and 2 others
#2,977
#2,977
BeardedVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't know or care of the ideology of this kid. If this was a black man being attacked by white supremacists I'd think the same thing. He shot one person that attacked him. He didn't dump mags into a crowd. He didn't fire indiscriminately. He didn't present himself as a mass shooter, he shot one person and immediately retreated. He was surrounded by targets and ran away towards the police. If I saw my neighbor shoot his wife I would not think I need to track him down and try to beat him to stop a mass shooting. I am not defending other parties by doing this.
 
#2,978
#2,978
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...
He had already killed one guy, called his friend and not 911, ran back across the state line home to mommy. I can't believe people are still defending this guy. Oh who am I kidding, of course I can believe people are still defending this guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: k-town_king
#2,979
#2,979
BeardedVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, being objective and totally honest I don't see how any prosecutor in the world can convince a jury of 12 one way or the other on the second and third shootings....I'll have to wait for more info on the first shooting to make my judgment. I don't think its 1st degree either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#2,980
#2,980
DancingOutlaw said:
I don't know or care of the ideology of this kid. If this was a black man being attacked by white supremacists I'd think the same thing. He shot one person that attacked him. He didn't dump mags into a crowd. He didn't fire indiscriminately. He didn't present himself as a mass shooter, he shot one person and immediately retreated. He was surrounded by targets and ran away towards the police. If I saw my neighbor shoot his wife I would not think I need to track him down and try to beat him to stop a mass shooting. I am not defending other parties by doing this.
Click to expand...

Throwing a plastic bag at someone, that doesn't even hit them, is not going to fit the bill for justifying the deadly use of force in self-defense.
 
#2,982
#2,982
BeardedVol said:
Throwing a plastic bag at someone, that doesn't even hit them, is not going to fit the bill for justifying the deadly use of force in self-defense.
Click to expand...
Let's say it doesn't. Let's say he just shot the guy in cold blood with zero provocation. That isn't a mass shooting. He shot the guy and ran away. He could have dumped a mag into the people surrounding him.
 
#2,983
#2,983
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...
Who were they defending as a 3rd person at that point? Where was the intervention? The Rosenbaum altercation already happened. There was no protecting him or acting in his defense. The altercation with Rosenbaum happened and Rittenhouse continued running away. They chased him after it was over.

The argument seems to be little different from you shot my friend so I'll shoot you. If you have to chase someone down to do that when the attacker disengaged and ran away thus no longer posing a threat, at least in Tennessee, you're going to jail if you do.
 
#2,984
#2,984
k-town_king said:
And he was committing a felony already by having the weapon illegally

So its an all around crap show and he is still a murderer going to jail for life.
Click to expand...
Well except the gun charge I've seen listed is a misdemeanor. No way he gets life.

Per CNN

Court records show he's also being charged with possession of a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18, which is a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

Seems the only felon was the one bragging he should have tried harder to kill the kid
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, sierraorange, mr.checkerboards and 2 others
#2,985
#2,985
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So criminal history is equal to exercise of your 1A rights if you disagree with what he’s saying?


Leftist SMMFH.
 
#2,986
#2,986
84Volfan said:
Yes, being objective and totally honest I don't see how any prosecutor in the world can convince a jury of 12 one way or the other on the second and third shootings....I'll have to wait for more info on the first shooting to make my judgment. I don't think its 1st degree either way.
Click to expand...

I think the reports that I initially read were incorrect in stating that the charged him with 1st-degree-intentional-homicide, when according to the actual complaint, they charged him with 1st-degree-reckless homicide:

Whoever recklessly causes the death of another human being under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life is guilty of a Class B felony.

They might be able to make those charges stick as it doesn't require proof of premeditation, but I have a feeling that they will offer to drop the charges for shooting and wounding Grosskreutz, the reckless endangerment, and the weapons charges, and downgrade the two 1st-degree-reckless-homicide charges to 2nd-degree-reckless-homicide charges if he takes a plea deal.
 
#2,988
#2,988
hndog609 said:
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.
Click to expand...


I'm sure he will claim that.

And I'm sure the prosecution will explain why that's a bunch of crap.
 
#2,989
#2,989
DancingOutlaw said:
Let's say it doesn't. Let's say he just shot the guy in cold blood with zero provocation. That isn't a mass shooting. He shot the guy and ran away. He could have dumped a mag into the people surrounding him.
Click to expand...

And how do you feel that scenario would affect the legality of the 2nd and 3rd shootings?
 
#2,990
#2,990
lawgator1 said:
It is not free speech to arm yourself and intentionally provoke a need to use your firearm when your intent all along is to justify that.
Click to expand...
So far I've yet to see any explanation of what caused the first altercation, Was he intentionally provoking a need to use his firearm? Or was someone else or a group doing the provoking and he was trying to get away? So far the earliest instance of anything is a video of him running away with Rosenbaum chasing him until he catches up. Why was he running from an unarmed person? If his goal was to shoot him, he could have done so much earlier without trying to get away.
 
#2,991
#2,991
TheDeeble said:
Who were they defending as a 3rd person at that point? Where was the intervention? The Rosenbaum altercation already happened. There was no protecting him or acting in his defense. The altercation with Rosenbaum happened and Rittenhouse continued running away. They chased him after it was over.

The argument seems to be little different from you shot my friend so I'll shoot you. If you have to chase someone down to do that when the attacker disengaged and ran away thus no longer posing a threat, at least in Tennessee, you're going to jail if you do.
Click to expand...

The "3rd person" would be considered anyone in the immediate vicinity who could be targeted by what the thought was an active shooter situation that were trying to stop. In their situation, they would have no knowledge of whether or not Rittenhouse was motivated to shoot anyone else. Again, that interaction is predicated by the shooting of Rosenbaum, there's no real way to uncouple them, and legality of that shooting is going to have a direct impact on the legality of the 2nd and 3rd shooting.
 
#2,992
#2,992
BeardedVol said:
And how do you feel that scenario would affect the legality of the 2nd and 3rd shootings?
Click to expand...
As I said I don't think their actions are protected by anything. They aren't defending a third party as no one is being shot at or targeted. If they feared for their lives they should have run the opposite way this guy was running. The assailant is retreating and they chased him in order to assault him. If I break into your home, punch you, and run away into the street, your neighbor is not justified in shooting me.
 
#2,994
#2,994
Mick said:
He had already killed one guy, called his friend and not 911, ran back across the state line home to mommy. I can't believe people are still defending this guy. Oh who am I kidding, of course I can believe people are still defending this guy.
Click to expand...
How about you stop cowering away from all the people that keep calling you out in this and the other thread, chief.
 
#2,995
#2,995
DancingOutlaw said:
As I said I don't think their actions are protected by anything. They aren't defending a third party as no one is being shot at or targeted. If they feared for their lives they should have run the opposite way this guy was running. The assailant is retreating and they chased him in order to assault him. If I break into your home, punch you, and run away into the street, your neighbor is not justified in shooting me.
Click to expand...

I think chasing someone out of your home, and continuing to chase them down the street, is a bit different than an active shooter situation in public where you do not know whether the shooter is going to target someone else.
 
#2,996
#2,996
BeardedVol said:
I think chasing someone out of your home, and continuing to chase them down the street, is a bit different than an active shooter situation in public where you do not know whether the shooter is going to target someone else.
Click to expand...
Target someone else? He didn't target anyone in the first place
 
#2,997
#2,997
BeardedVol said:
The "3rd person" would be considered anyone in the immediate vicinity who could be targeted by what the thought was an active shooter situation that were trying to stop. In their situation, they would have no knowledge of whether or not Rittenhouse was motivated to shoot anyone else. Again, that interaction is predicated by the shooting of Rosenbaum, there's no real way to uncouple them, and legality of that shooting is going to have a direct impact on the legality of the 2nd and 3rd shooting.
Click to expand...
That seems to me to be a mighty wide interpretation.

And a weak one with the current information known being that nobody was targeted until he was confronted, even by Rosenbaum. Before anyone was shot, whatever caused Rosenbaum to chase him down, he was running away until someone caught up with him. After Rosenbaum was shot, he continued to run away until the people chasing him down caught up to him when he tripped. And still he was attacked before he shot. He had multiple opportunities to shoot but never did until someone confronted him when he was attempting to flee.

I wouldn't think him being seen as a mass shooter is going to be successful. He might be found guilty of something but I'd be surprised if it's as extreme as some think. (based on the current information)
 
Last edited:
#2,998
#2,998
BeardedVol said:
I think the reports that I initially read were incorrect in stating that the charged him with 1st-degree-intentional-homicide, when according to the actual complaint, they charged him with 1st-degree-reckless homicide:

Whoever recklessly causes the death of another human being under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life is guilty of a Class B felony.

They might be able to make those charges stick as it doesn't require proof of premeditation, but I have a feeling that they will offer to drop the charges for shooting and wounding Grosskreutz, the reckless endangerment, and the weapons charges, and downgrade the two 1st-degree-reckless-homicide charges to 2nd-degree-reckless-homicide charges if he takes a plea deal.
Click to expand...
Yea this is going to be very interesting indeed. The case could potentially be used for years to come.
 
#2,999
#2,999
jaybird_1981 said:
A pedophile, domestic abuser, and another with a burglary charge are the "good guys with guns"? And those are just the ones that got shot. What are the odds that the 3 that get shot all had criminal records?
Click to expand...
The answer is obvious- leftists and several people in this thread openly endorse and celebrate having pedophiles, woman abusers, and violent thugs on their 'team'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10nacvols
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top