Another police shooting - this time in Wisconsin... (1 Viewer)

Okay, I get it, we are now reaching for reasons to force race into legal discussions. Race might not have any reason being discussed in a legal case, but we need to find a reason to make it a topic of discussion. I wish I could see things through that lens where every legal debate has to include a racial angle, but I’m a simple man.

I’m not pro-vigilante, I am however pro-fork around and find out.
No, you don’t get it - KR deputized himself to go police a black lives matter protest of a police shoot (this is where you insert that Jacob Blake had a warrant for sexual assault) - can you see the racial connection yet?

and your last sentence is wrong too
- you’ve implied that since KR shot a pedophile, et al, it’s all good- KR knew nothing of the victims but their record somehow make this a good shot - crystal pure vigilantism
KR effed around and found out that the law polices young white boys differently than nons
he needn’t have bothered since any sentient being could have told him that
 

 
I dont get how people dont understand that we have a right to defend ourselves!
I think people do understand that.

Even if some don’t, many state laws have made it extremely clear that that is the case.

Things are way more complex than you are letting on, and people’s responses (especially on this site) aren’t nearly as simplistic.
 
I think people do understand that.

Even if some don’t, many state laws have made it extremely clear that that is the case.

Things are way more complex than you are letting on, and people’s responses (especially on this site) aren’t nearly as simplistic.
Yeah, when it comes to certain emotionally charged issues, all too often, nuance gets tossed out the window.
 
Does self defense null out manslaughter charges?

If the answer is no, then people should instead be mad at the State of Wisconsin instead of the judge, jury and prosecutor. That is unless it was the prosecutor's decision to pursue an impossible case.

edit: google says yes. nevermind.
 
Last edited:
Does self defense null out manslaughter charges?

If the answer is no, then people should instead be mad at the State of Wisconsin instead of the judge, jury and prosecutor. That is unless it was the prosecutor's decision to pursue an impossible case.

edit: google says yes. nevermind.

Yep - Self-defense operates as a privilege to kill (homicide in all of its forms) or injure (battery in its forms). Sometimes it’s called “justified homicide” or “justified battery”. So it would apply to any charge directly related to the act(s) performed in self-defense.
 
Yep - Self-defense operates as a privilege to kill (homicide in all of its forms) or injure (battery in its forms). Sometimes it’s called “justified homicide” or “justified battery”. So it would apply to any charge directly related to the act(s) performed in self-defense.
I for one didn’t realize it was called by those other terms.

Reminds me of the story a few years back where a kid broke into a man’s home in New Orleans, and as the kid was escaping the home owner shot him (I believe paralyzing the kid). People were up in arms because the kid (at that point) wasn’t posing a threat, but folks argued that it was justified (given this kid was a repeat offender). “Justification” is such an interesting term given the circumstances.

 
Last edited:
I for one didn’t realize it was called by those other terms.

Reminds me of the story a few years back where a kid broke into a man’s home in New Orleans, and as the kid was escaping the home owner shot him (I believe paralyzing the kid). People were up in arms because the kid (at that point) wasn’t posing a threat, but folks argued that it was justified (given this kid was a repeat offender). “Justification” is such an interesting term given the circumstances.

I wish I could find that article, I think it took place between 2011-2012 maybe? I believe a thread was even posted here on the EE board.

I don’t remember that incident - but people throw words around that don’t necessarily fit what actually matters. I’m talking about how some places describe self-defense in their law, which I think always requires some form of reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury posed by the person against whom the force is used. Just because person is a repeat offender doesn't seem to be directly relevant to that question, regardless of what people might call it.
 
Yes, but I wouldn't conflate vigilantism with this case because one, we don't know conclusively that that's what it was, and 2 there's not enough evidence to disprove conclusively that KR was defending himself.

This was a self-defense case, not a vigilante case. By the letter of the law, KR had a right to be there and legally had the right to defend himself.

Morally, that's an entirely different matter and KR was an idiot for going there in the first place.

We seriously disagree here. This case is all about vigilantism and the extent to which one can go to "protect someone else's property" in a volatile environment, find themselves in a potentially volatile situation and are free and clear to blast their way out of it....killing 2 people and injuring a 3rd....

If you don't think this opens the door to more vigilantism in future in the great state of WI (and perhaps elsewhere) then we have nothing to talk further about....it's the why he was there in the first place....
 
We seriously disagree here. This case is all about vigilantism and the extent to which one can go to "protect someone else's property" in a volatile environment, find themselves in a potentially volatile situation and are free and clear to blast their way out of it....killing 2 people and injuring a 3rd....

If you don't think this opens the door to more vigilantism in future in the great state of WI (and perhaps elsewhere) then we have nothing to talk further about....it's the why he was there in the first place....
1. Rosenbaum threatened him much earlier in the night. Threatened to kill him if he caught him alone.
2. When Rosenbaum did catch him alone KR was walking down the street. He chased him onto the lot, the drone footage clearly shows that. So he wasn't just standing in the parking guarding the place.
3. He had as much of a right to be there as the protestirs and rioters. The three he shot were not there to peacefully protest. They were setting dumpsters on fire. At least Rosenbaum was and that's what started this mess.
4. These laws have been on the books in Wisconsin for a minimum of 10 years, and open carry has been on the books much longer.
5. People keep making it all KR. He is to blame for everything. And if that makes you sleep better at night go for it. The reality is if Rosenbaum did not continue escalating things none of this would have happened. Rosenbaum walked the 4 miles to Kenosha. He also started the dumpster fire KT put out. Which lead to him threatening to kill KR. He gave chase. At some point people need to quit celebrating these idiots. He rolled the dice in a stupid game and reaped the results.
 
We seriously disagree here. This case is all about vigilantism and the extent to which one can go to "protect someone else's property" in a volatile environment, find themselves in a potentially volatile situation and are free and clear to blast their way out of it....killing 2 people and injuring a 3rd....

If you don't think this opens the door to more vigilantism in future in the great state of WI (and perhaps elsewhere) then we have nothing to talk further about....it's the why he was there in the first place....
I don't know that you guys really disagree, so much as you're emphasizing different aspects of the case to make your points.

However, I don't think it's fair to characterize KR as "blasting his way" out of the situation. I looked at the video on WP again today, and KR was running from the first guy - who for some reason was chasing an armed person - before shooting. He was running from the others - who were chasing and assaulting him, trying to grab his weapon - before falling and then shooting. The video alone allowed the defense to easily meet its burden of production on self-defense, which then forced the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. An acquittal was legally the correct result.

Someone can hold that view and also believe it shows the idiocy of what you describe as vigilantism. It was monumentally stupid and incredibly poor judgment that KR was there at all. You - a 17 year old civilian - are going to insert yourself and your gun into a known volatile situation, where you know you might have to use deadly force and potentially kill or severely injure other people if things go bad for whatever reason. And for what purpose? To protect property. Property no doubt covered by an insurance policy. I would agree that whatever mindset makes people think that is somehow a good idea, has got to go.
 
I would also add the prosecutor had a hand in picking that jury. I don't know exactly how the process works but I know for a fact he at least was part of it. The judge kicked a guy of the jury for telling a racist joke, but people are calling the judge a racist now. This judge has been on the bench since 1983 and not one claim of that in all this time. At the last minute the jury was told they were permitted to consider lesser charges because the prosecution knew they were going to lose and hoped this might give them a chance, according to the opinion of a Wisconsin Supreme Court judge on WTMJ. The jury took 3.5 days. Watched additional film and still voted unanimously that KR was not guilty. Yet that isn't enough. I have said multiple times if you don't like the laws then talk to your congressman.
 
We seriously disagree here. This case is all about vigilantism and the extent to which one can go to "protect someone else's property" in a volatile environment, find themselves in a potentially volatile situation and are free and clear to blast their way out of it....killing 2 people and injuring a 3rd....

If you don't think this opens the door to more vigilantism in future in the great state of WI (and perhaps elsewhere) then we have nothing to talk further about....it's the why he was there in the first place....
Is/was he a vigilante? Yes. Did his decision to act vigilante lead to the confrontation at the protest? Probably. Did KR end up having to defend himself because he was attacked at the protest? That seems pretty apparent from everything shown in the court.

Wisconsin law basically states you can't defend someone's property outside some very narrow definitions. But Wisconsin law also allows people to use deadly force to defend themselves if their lives feel threatened.

The prosecution didn't tie the vigilantism into the self-defense argument. I think where the law fall short here is there's no prohibition against allowing firearms at a protest, which if worded correctly would disallow a self-defense case where firearms were used where it's explicitly banned.

Imo, to prevent vigilantism and protesting, make it illegal to show up at a protest with firearms, in the same way firearms are prohibited in other establishments.
 
We seriously disagree here. This case is all about vigilantism and the extent to which one can go to "protect someone else's property" in a volatile environment, find themselves in a potentially volatile situation and are free and clear to blast their way out of it....killing 2 people and injuring a 3rd....

If you don't think this opens the door to more vigilantism in future in the great state of WI (and perhaps elsewhere) then we have nothing to talk further about....it's the why he was there in the first place....
And fwiw, I never said this wouldn't lead to more vigilantism. Just that vigilantism had nothing to do with the self-defense case. I see why they should be tied together, but Wisconsin law doesn't have that provision.
 
Is/was he a vigilante? Yes. Did his decision to act vigilante lead to the confrontation at the protest? Probably. Did KR end up having to defend himself because he was attacked at the protest? That seems pretty apparent from everything shown in the court.

Wisconsin law basically states you can't defend someone's property outside some very narrow definitions. But Wisconsin law also allows people to use deadly force to defend themselves if their lives feel threatened.

The prosecution didn't tie the vigilantism into the self-defense argument. I think where the law fall short here is there's no prohibition against allowing firearms at a protest, which if worded correctly would disallow a self-defense case where firearms were used where it's explicitly banned.

Imo, to prevent vigilantism and protesting, make it illegal to show up at a protest with firearms, in the same way firearms are prohibited in other establishments.
Didn't the prosecution try to make the argument that KR created the situation in which the shootings happened?

I don't know what "provocation" means in criminal law, but it's a stretch to say that KR provoked his own need for self defense simply by being there with a weapon. Bad judgment - absolutely. But none of his actions in Kenosha, as far as I'm aware, provoked anything up to the point the shooting started.

Now, what those guys did in the Arbery case would seem to fit the definition of "provocation" in that the shooter directly confronted Arbery who was trying to get away from them, and when he tries to fight back under their threat, the guy shoots him. If THAT dude gets off, something's wrong.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom