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

#3,002
#3,002
Looks like self-defense to me, maybe some lesser charges in there but he should skate on the big ones.
 
#3,004
#3,004
TheDeeble said:
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)
Click to expand...

I think it's easier to say that when you aren't in the actual situation, and can go back and watch video of the scenario and paint a 'woulda-coulda' scenario in your head, but that's the exact opposite of trying to look at the the situation objectively, which is what is going to be required of a jury.
 
#3,005
#3,005
SamRebel35 said:
Shot an unarmed guy who was chasing him to kick the sh** out of him. Is he supposed to wait until he's on the brink of death to use his gun? Or better yet, is he just supposed to let the mob catch him and take his gun from him? What do think the mob would do with his gun? Is his life in danger then? Self defense should absolutely apply even for the first kill.
Click to expand...
Yeah. They want people to be victims. Cant stand when they arent.
 
#3,006
#3,006
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...
By this logic you should attack anyone with a firearm in public as they could become an active shooter at any moment.
 
#3,008
#3,008
TheDeeble said:
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
Click to expand...
You can’t illegally shoot somebody and then shoot more people to facilitate your escape from the first shooting. @BeardedVol posted a WI law that establishes this. No question, IMO, that the Rosenbaum shooting provoked the subsequent altercation. If the Rosenbaum shooting was illegal, then he has no right to self defense under Wisconsin law.

This is my personal opinion.
 
#3,009
#3,009
DancingOutlaw said:
By this logic you should attack anyone with a firearm in public as they could become an active shooter at any moment.
Click to expand...

How is that logical? They didn't attack "anyone with a firearm in public", they attacked a guy who's just discharged his firearm 4-5 times into another person.

Again, which is why the determining legality of the first shooting is going to be important to determining the legality of the second and third.
 
#3,010
#3,010
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...
And shot three white people? You are reaching too hard on this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#3,011
#3,011
DancingOutlaw said:
By this logic you should attack anyone with a firearm in public as they could become an active shooter at any moment.
Click to expand...

It must be the same “logic” used when a cwp person neutralizes an armed robber then the armed robber’s family says he didn’t have a right to do it and it was none of his business what the armed robber was doing.
 
#3,012
#3,012
allvol123 said:
That is not all of what you said. So now you're reduced to selecting snippets of what you said plus insinuations. Got it.
Click to expand...


Oh come on.

Its a perfectly fair inference from all the circumstances that he went to Kenosha hoping that he would find a reason to shoot some protestors, black or otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#3,013
#3,013
BeardedVol said:
And how do you feel that scenario would affect the legality of the 2nd and 3rd shootings?
Click to expand...
The kid didnt have a right to arm himself and take on LEO authority, why do the two trying to stop him get that authority trying to stop him?
Isnt that the argument, kid came looking for power he didnt have. But when someone else takes that same power it's ok?
 
#3,014
#3,014
lawgator1 said:
Oh come on.

Its a perfectly fair inference from all the circumstances that he went to Kenosha hoping that he would find a reason to shoot some protestors, black or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Man you like inferring things that are in no way known. You're a dangerous person.
 
#3,016
#3,016
BeardedVol said:
I think it's easier to say that when you aren't in the actual situation, and can go back and watch video of the scenario and paint a 'woulda-coulda' scenario in your head, but that's the exact opposite of trying to look at the the situation objectively, which is what is going to be required of a jury.
Click to expand...
That's what you are doing with the plastic bag. You think the kid running away had the chance to objectively look at what was being thrown at him while actively running away?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and RockyTop85
#3,017
#3,017
BeardedVol said:
How is that logical? They didn't attack "anyone with a firearm in public", they attacked a guy who's just discharged his firearm 4-5 times into another person.

Again, which is why the determining legality of the first shooting is going to be important to determining the legality of the second and third.
Click to expand...
Kid was attacked and chased before he shot the first time. Why do you keep leaving that out?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#3,018
#3,018
BeardedVol said:
I think it's easier to say that when you aren't in the actual situation, and can go back and watch video of the scenario and paint a 'woulda-coulda' scenario in your head, but that's the exact opposite of trying to look at the the situation objectively, which is what is going to be required of a jury.
Click to expand...
What am I painting? I'm dealing with what's known. He was fleeing from someone or a group. Nobody was shot until someone caught up with him. Afterwards he continued to flee. Nobody was shot again, until he he was kicked on the ground, then hit in the head with a skateboard with a 3rd person running up with a pistol in hand. Would he have cause to believe he was under threat of serious bodily harm or death? I personally say yes. It's a very similar scenario laid out to my carry permit class by our instructor on when defending yourself with a gun is legal and justified.

But there's a lot that's still unknown.
 
#3,020
#3,020
BeardedVol said:
You have to look the situation from the knowledge that they had at the time, which was that Rittenhouse had just opened fire and shot a man.
Click to expand...
except they had zero knowledge or understanding of the situation. Logic says you don't chase down a violent murderer with a skateboard when you have no clue what really happened
 
#3,021
#3,021
RockyTop85 said:
You can’t illegally shoot somebody and then shoot more people to facilitate your escape from the first shooting. @BeardedVol posted a WI law that establishes this. No question, IMO, that the Rosenbaum shooting provoked the subsequent altercation. If the Rosenbaum shooting was illegal, then he has no right to self defense under Wisconsin law.

This is my personal opinion.
Click to expand...
The statute cited, in my opinion, says you can if those people are trying to cause you serious bodily injury or death.

How else is this supposed to be interpreted (unless there's further statutes that clarify what crimes are excluded :

A person who engages in unlawful conduct(Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum) of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack(from skateboard 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(Rittenhouse) 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 (Skateboard and pistol guy).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and 84Volfan
#3,024
#3,024
lawgator1 said:
Oh come on.

Its a perfectly fair inference from all the circumstances that he went to Kenosha hoping that he would find a reason to shoot some protestors, black or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Then it’s fair to say the criminals he shot were there to do the same or worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y9 Vol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top