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

#3,027
#3,027
TheDeeble said:
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 this excludes :

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).
Click to expand...

That would appear to provide him the opportunity to raise self defense as a defense to those guys. .


Where did that come from? I ask, because as written it would provide cover to a person who is robbing a bank and is confronted by a armed security guard who the criminal shoots and kills. Assuming it was a kill or be killed situation.
 
#3,028
#3,028
#3,030
#3,030
ClearwaterVol said:
That would appear to provide him the opportunity to raise self defense as a defense to those guys. .


Where did that come from? I ask, because as written it would provide cover to a person who is robbing a bank and is confronted by a armed security guard who the criminal shoots and kills. Assuming it was a kill or be killed situation.
Click to expand...

Why would you chase a guy with a gun if you were defending yourself?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
#3,031
#3,031
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...

Just to confuse the situation more (as if it needed such) wouldn't them pursuing the shooter be him fleeing from armed vigilantes? Could self-defense be warranted if fearing for great harm or death without due process?

Not actually making that argument but just showing what a shitshow this could turn into legally.
 
#3,032
#3,032
TheDeeble said:
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).
Click to expand...
I see what you’re saying. I just think/thought there’s no way a state is going to say you can murder someone and then shoot someone else to facilitate an escape from the scene. So far, the only WI case I can find is from 1977 and it’s more on your side. I’ll look more after work if I have time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel
#3,035
#3,035
RockyTop85 said:
I see what you’re saying. I just think/thought there’s no way a state is going to say you can murder someone and then shoot someone else to facilitate an escape from the scene. So far, the only WI case I can find is from 1977 and it’s more on your side. I’ll look more after work if I have time.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting question. I'm not claiming to be an expert. Just an opinion of what's written. There may be more to the law that further expands on the subject, but wasn't posted.
 
#3,036
#3,036
LouderVol said:
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?
Click to expand...

So your proposing that he had no knowledge that a plastic bag thrown at him from behind, which fell very short of even making contact with him, and he wouldn't have seen if he were running away, is some how justification for 'fear of imminent death' and warrants the use of deadly force?

Removes yourself from the emotion-laden camaraderie that you feel towards the guy, and say that out loud to yourself, and see if that makes sense under any circumstances.
 
#3,037
#3,037
hndog609 said:
Just to confuse the situation more (as if it needed such) wouldn't them pursuing the shooter be him fleeing from armed vigilantes? Could self-defense be warranted if fearing for great harm or death without due process?

Not actually making that argument but just showing what a shitshow this could turn into legally.
Click to expand...

It definitely begs the question, and I think whether the first shooting is considered 'provocation' or not is definitely going to go into the equation per se to determine whether or not the use of deadly force in the second and third shootings were justified.
 
#3,038
#3,038
TheDeeble said:
It's an interesting question. I'm not claiming to be an expert. Just an opinion of what's written. There may be more to the law that further expands on the subject, but wasn't posted.
Click to expand...
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Ok, it may be here in the definition of self defense. This at least answers @ClearwaterVol question about the security guard (who would not be behaving unlawfully by stopping a robber).

So maybe the Rosenbaum shooting isn’t the only issue. There’s a question of whether he had a reasonable belief that the two others were behaving unlawfully. That’s a closer question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#3,041
#3,041
BeardedVol said:
If you own firearms, especially if you have a concealed carry permit, you should make yourself aware of the self-defense laws in the states you carry in; they aren't nearly as broad as some of you believe.

There was no "mob" chasing him until after he shot Rosenbaum. His first kill is most likely not going to get considered self-defense since Rosenbaum was unarmed, and threw a plastic bag at him that never hit him. The question will be on the second killing and the shooting of the armed Grosskreutz considered 'self-defense' or whether Rittenhouse provoked the situation by shooting Rosenbaum.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, hjeagle1vol, davethevol and 1 other person
#3,045
#3,045
BeardedVol said:
Like groundhog day in here...

Again, you do realize that video is of the 2nd and 3rd shooting, and he'd already shot Rosenbaum prior to this, correct?
Click to expand...
You have referenced narrow self defense laws yet keep saying this like it means anything. They had no clue what happened and have no justification for attacking him so long after the event
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#3,046
#3,046
RockyTop85 said:
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Ok, it may be here in the definition of self defense. This at least answers @ClearwaterVol question about the security guard (who would not be behaving unlawfully by stopping a robber).

So maybe the Rosenbaum shooting isn’t the only issue. There’s a question of whether he had a reasonable belief that the two others were behaving unlawfully. That’s a closer question.
Click to expand...

If they were following or chasing him with no weapons or at the very least keeping distance just to be able to report his whereabouts to police (even though Rittenhouse walked up to police to tell them what happened when all this was over,) then that would be fine imo as long as they don't initiate a confrontation. If he shot under those circumstances then no way would that be justified according to the earlier posted statute. But he tripped on the ground then was kicked, hit in the head with a skateboard, and had a 3rd person running up on him with a pistol in hand. Imo, that's not lawful behavior at that point and I could see him fearing serious bodily harm or death (with reference to the law earlier posted). Even though he already committed an unlawful act (assuming he's guilty) he didn't pose a threat to any of those guys as he was running away from them.
 
Last edited:
#3,047
#3,047
utvolpj said:
You have referenced narrow self defense laws yet keep saying this like it means anything. They had no clue what happened and have no justification for attacking him so long after the event
Click to expand...

I've referenced Wisconsin self-defense laws, they actually aren't that narrow, just relatively specific as most self-defense laws are, and they did have a clue what happened as more than just those two people were chasing him and yelling about him shooting someone, not to mention the report of five 5.56 shots being discharged inside a hundred yards.

I find it interesting, that you seem to be willing to go to bat for Rittenhouse, and believe without question that he thought he was defending his life in shooting Rosenbaum in an act of clear cut self-defense, even though he was unarmed, didn't fire the shot that Rittenhouse heard, and didn't even connect with the laughably thrown plastic bag, but can't fathom that Grosskreutz and Huber could have believed that they were acting in defense of those around them by trying to disarm Rittenhouse, who'd just shot someone 5 times.

Some of you guys seem to be completely incapable of even trying to look at this scenario from even a minimal position of objectivity.
 
#3,049
#3,049
#3,050
#3,050
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top