Another police shooting - this time in Wisconsin... (2 Viewers)

[Taurus]

I've seen a lot of video and reports in the past couple of days, including some new stuff and now I think I have a clearer picture of how the incident with Rittenhouse all went down.

A car dealer who'd supposedly had already suffered a lot of loss at his dealership from the rioting asked for help defending his business. This militia group decided to go down there and protect the business. At some point rioters set a dumpster on fire and was pushing it towards a gas station adjacent to the car dealership and Rittenhouse, seen on video running that direction with a fire extinguisher in hand, assisted the group in putting out the fire or fires. This is where the shouting match between the rioters and the militia group began where Rosenbaum (the first shot) can be seen shouting "shoot me, n*****!" among many other things at the militia group. At some point soon thereafter, Rittenhouse is separated from the rest of the militia group. His lawyer contends that it was because he was trying to help someone that had been injured, but there is no video or witness to corroborate this, that I've seen. In the next video you see Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse in a parking lot., someone behind them is seen shooting a gun into the air and then Rosenbaum catches up to Rittenhouse behind a car where, according to Rittenhouse's lawyer, Rosenbaum begins to beat Rittenhouse from behind and trying to take the gun from him. Rittenhouse then turns on Rosenbaum and begins firing. Rittenhouse then starts to run away, but then returns to Rosenbaum where someone else is trying to help him. At that point Rittenhouse calls someone and as he's running away again tells the person on the phone that he'd just shot someone. From there it's pretty clear. Rittenhouse is trying to run towards the police barricade when people catch up to him, he trips and falls and is attacked. The first guy tries to kick Ritenhouse who fires at him missing him and he runs off, the next guy hits him with a skateboard and is then shot by Rittenhouse, the lasr pulls out a pistol and is shot in the arm. Rittenhouse then gets up and again runs towards the police who are now advancing towards where the initial incident occured. Rittenhouse then goes up to one of the police cars and the officers in the car are heard screaming at him to get out of the street and step back away from the car.

In the world I'm familiar with, none of that will matter if Rittenhouse was committing a felony by carrying a firearm when and how he was. Deaths that occur while you're engaged in a crime are automatically your fault.

 

[rajncajn]

In the world I'm familiar with, none of that will matter if Rittenhouse was committing a felony by carrying a firearm when and how he was. Deaths that occur while you're engaged in a crime are automatically your fault.

I don't disagree with that, but in terms of damning Rittenhouse it certainly looks a little differently. I still contend that he never should have been there in the first place and that he put himself in harm's way. I'll let Wisconsin law decide if he was breaking the law in doing so and if he was breaking the law then he certainly should be held accountable for his actions. That said, I do believe that he was acting in self-defense and that the people attacking him initially weren't doing so because he was breaking the law, but rather attempting to stop them from breaking the law.

 

[DaveXA]

Not being in a position to protect your family will harm them individually. We're at that point.

Pretty much. We're beyond that in some ways imo. I've pretty much decided I'm not going out with my family into metro areas until the mess subsides. Might not happen soon though.

 

[rajncajn]

I've been trying to find information on the first guy shot & killed, Rosenbaum and there's hardly anything at all about him that I've found besides mixed reports of him living in Waco and/or recently moving to Kenosha. But one report says that his fiance' and daughter live in Waco, but another report says his fiance' says he was in Kenosha to be closer to his daughter.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I don't disagree with that, but in terms of damning Rittenhouse it certainly looks a little differently. I still contend that he never should have been there in the first place and that he put himself in harm's way. I'll let Wisconsin law decide if he was breaking the law in doing so and if he was breaking the law then he certainly should be held accountable for his actions. That said, I do believe that he was acting in self-defense and that the people attacking him weren't doing so because he was breaking the law, but rather attempting to stop them from breaking the law.

I think there are too many holes to know that for sure. We don’t know what was said or done that led to the actual conflicts. We have him running in one direction, a gap in time, then him running in another direction being chased.

We really don’t know who was the instigator in the direct initial conflict. It’s like the Arizona situation. If the kid instigated, got chased, then decided to kill someone once he was losing he’s still legally and morally wrong. We’ve seen a lot of this the last few years but you don’t get to go into a situation armed, instigate a conflict, then use lethal force when the conflict doesn’t go your way.

Regardless of all of that I think most of us agree he and his parents acted irresponsibly by him being there. Fortunately it didn’t cost him his life, and it may be proven that he was in his legal rights, but I think from a moral perspective there’s not much question that people were killed by someone that shouldn’t have been out there with a gun and that this is a terrible situation to turn someone into a folk hero over. Applauding him will create more situations like this.

(I know you’re not, but it’s scary how many people are).

 

[rajncajn]

I think there are too many holes to know that for sure. We don’t know what was said or done that led to the actual conflicts. We have him running in one direction, a gap in time, then him running in another direction being chased.

We really don’t know who was the instigator in the direct initial conflict. It’s like the Arizona situation. If the kid instigated, got chased, then decided to kill someone once he was losing he’s still legally and morally wrong. We’ve seen a lot of this the last few years but you don’t get to go into a situation armed, instigate a conflict, then use lethal force when the conflict doesn’t go your way.

I completely agree. There is still a lot of information that we don't know & I hope all of that comes to light and gives the jury a much easier decision, without theory, speculation and outside opinions influencing their decision. As it stands, the video evidence does imply that the initial altercation started with the militia putting out the dumpster fire and, by appearances, the rioters (Rosenbaum specifically) seem to be the instigators. That's definitely not to say that there wasn't something outside of that video that caused Rosenbam to chase after & attack Rittenhouse, but as it stands I have a hard time seeing the charges stick as they are. They may end up doing a plea deal if Rittenhouse is still guilty of illegally carrying the weapon.

Regardless of all of that I think most of us agree he and his parents acted irresponsibly by him being there. Fortunately it didn’t cost him his life, and it may be proven that he was in his legal rights, but I think from a moral perspective there’s not much question that people were killed by someone that shouldn’t have been out there with a gun and that this is a terrible situation to turn someone into a folk hero over. Applauding him will create more situations like this.

(I know you’re not, but it’s scary how many people are).

Definitely agree there as well. but I also think it's scary how quickly people are to decide that he's a white supremacist there to hunt protesters. I don't know if that's true or not, but I still haven't seen any evidence to support that.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I completely agree. There is still a lot of information that we don't know & I hope all of that comes to light and gives the jury a much easier decision, without theory, speculation and outside opinions influencing their decision. As it stands, the video evidence does imply that the initial altercation started with the militia putting out the dumpster fire and, by appearances, the rioters (Rosenbaum specifically) seem to be the instigators. That's definitely not to say that there wasn't something outside of that video that caused Rosenbam to chase after & attack Rittenhouse, but as it stands I have a hard time seeing the charges stick as they are. They may end up doing a plea deal if Rittenhouse is still guilty of illegally carrying the weapon.

I think this is eerily similar to the Trayvon Martin case. In both instances, we have an armed person with "law and order" intentions that shouldn't have ever been where they were. We have a gap in time, then a clear indication they were in danger and they chose to use lethal force.

With what we know now I can't imagine a conviction of murder. Manslaughter maybe if it's determined he didn't have a legal right to be there and armed. I think any prosecutor that pushes a murder charge with the evidence we are aware of (maybe they have some we aren't) isn't very good at their job. You're not going to find 12 people who don't have a reasonable doubt in this scenario.

 

[Wisco Steve]

I've been trying to find information on the first guy shot & killed, Rosenbaum and there's hardly anything at all about him that I've found besides mixed reports of him living in Waco and/or recently moving to Kenosha. But one report says that his fiance' and daughter live in Waco, but another report says his fiance' says he was in Kenosha to be closer to his daughter.

Victims of shooting during Kenosha protests engaged gunman

A man known for his love of skateboarding, a Texas transplant to the state and a college student acting as a volunteer medic were killed or wounded this week by a 17-year-old gunman during a night of protests on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin.

www.tmj4.com

 

[rajncajn]

Victims of shooting during Kenosha protests engaged gunman

A man known for his love of skateboarding, a Texas transplant to the state and a college student acting as a volunteer medic were killed or wounded this week by a 17-year-old gunman during a night of protests on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin.

www.tmj4.com

I've found more info since then. It wouldn't be helpful to the discussion and would only appear as victim blaming to share.

 

[SaintJ]

Definitely agree there as well. but I also think it's scary how quickly people are to decide that he's a white supremacist there to hunt protesters. I don't know if that's true or not, but I still haven't seen any evidence to support that.

It's also amazing how quickly people are to decide that he had a right to cross state lines and walk into that situation armed to the teeth, in order to protect private property which did not belong to him, and then to "defend himself" in a situation he largely created by walking up to a large, agitated crowd while openly carrying an automatic rifle.

Maybe the people in the crowd were the ones who had a right to be scared and to try to disarm him before he started mowing people down like Dylan Roof, or Brentan Tarrant, or Patrick Crusius -- white folk who just happened to be carrying automatic weapons up to a crowd of innocent minorities.

Let's say a black man dressed in fatigues, body armor and a black beret carrying an AR-15 and a bunch of magazines was striding across the street towards, say, an anti-abortion protest, or one of those recent parades. He's not pointing the weapon directly at anyone, but he's moving with confidence and intent. Somebody in the crowd gets antsy and a couple of guys figure they need to rush him before he starts firing. They try to tackle him and he kills a couple of people in the scuffle.

Now, assuming the police haven't shot him before he gets his second foot off the curb, in your wildest dreams do you think he's getting anything less than murder one? Or that people start saying "he was standing his ground" or "acting in self-defense" or "these facts are unclear"?

LMAO.

 

[SaintJ]

Definitely agree there as well. but I also think it's scary how quickly people are to decide that he's a white supremacist there to hunt protesters. I don't know if that's true or not, but I still haven't seen any evidence to support that.

Pretty sure he went there to reason with them, calm down the situation, and make sure everyone got home safely. That's why he was conferring with the police tank column earlier in the evening. Moreover, no way it could have been that he was hoping to intimidate people by openly carrying a weapon in order to force them to do his bidding, or that of him and his buddies, because clearly that would be against his defense of the rights of free men everywhere.

Besides, black protestor hunting season doesn't start in Wisconsin for out-of-state hunters until November 15.

So, yes, I probably won't be able to prove that he was there to hunt protestors -- he didn't have a tree stand, his boots weren't covered in protestor urine, and he wasn't wearing protestor hunter red, white and blue -- so you have me there, although I am pretty sure I can make the "white supremacist" part stick.

My bad. I should have realized this.

Now, rajncajn, my man, you are probably thinking I am one of those snarky, know-it-all SJW types, and of course you're right -- I am. But I am hoping that through all this you'll see that you are operating almost exclusively in confirmation bias mode, to which everyone can be susceptible, wherever they are on the IQ range or the spectrum. Peace.

 

[rajncajn]

It's also amazing how quickly people are to decide that he had a right to cross state lines and walk into that situation armed to the teeth, in order to protect private property which did not belong to him, and then to "defend himself" in a situation he largely created by walking up to a large, agitated crowd while openly carrying an automatic rifle.

Maybe the people in the crowd were the ones who had a right to be scared and to try to disarm him before he started mowing people down like Dylan Roof, or Brentan Tarrant, or Patrick Crusius -- white folk who just happened to be carrying automatic weapons up to a crowd of innocent minorities.

Let's say a black man dressed in fatigues, body armor and a black beret carrying an AR-15 and a bunch of magazines was striding across the street towards, say, an anti-abortion protest, or one of those recent parades. He's not pointing the weapon directly at anyone, but he's moving with confidence and intent. Somebody in the crowd gets antsy and a couple of guys figure they need to rush him before he starts firing. They try to tackle him and he kills a couple of people in the scuffle.

Now, assuming the police haven't shot him before he gets his second foot off the curb, in your wildest dreams do you think he's getting anything less than murder one? Or that people start saying "he was standing his ground" or "acting in self-defense" or "these facts are unclear"?

LMAO.

If there's video of them attacking him unprovoked I think it's going to be pretty difficult pinning a murder conviction on him.

But to another matter, You're not helping this discussion by adding in incorrect or unsupported facts. Rittenhouse wasn't carrying an "automatic" rifle and there's nothing to support that he walked up to an agitated crowd. In the videos that were shown, they certainly didn't look to be scared and that's even further supported by Rosenbaum chasing after him. There has been no evidence so far that Rittenhouse was trying to provoke anyone and comparing this situation to Dylan Roof et al is nowhere near accurate. In addition, Rittenhouse wasn't wearing body armor, a black beret or fatigues and in all of the many videos showing him, he was never acting in the manner in which you describe. We can agree that he shouldn't have been there. We can agree that he probably shouldn't have been carrying a weapon and we can agree that it's very possible that he provoked the attack, but tossing in all these other details and hypotheticals that really have no standing only muddies the water. If you have anything that supports your theory then I would be happy to recant and revise what I think from seeing the evidence, but for now I still see a stupid kid doing stupid things that ended up with people being killed.

 

[rajncajn]

although I am pretty sure I can make the "white supremacist" part stick.

Please do, because I haven't seen it so far.

Now, rajncajn, my man, you are probably thinking I am one of those snarky, know-it-all SJW types, and of course you're right -- I am. But I am hoping that through all this you'll see that you are operating almost exclusively in confirmation bias mode, to which everyone can be susceptible, wherever they are on the IQ range or the spectrum. Peace.

I can deal with the snark & I do get it. I know that you're frustrated and I'm sorry when, I know, I come across as condescending. I get you & I do care, just know that, man. Peace to you as well.

 

[James Spader]

As am I for gun rights in Texas. We are spending a lot of time at the range right now (in masks and socially distanced, of course).

Bless you, ammo cost is so very high that I am afaid to burn through my reserves.

 

[James Spader]

Stocking up on guns to protect us individually only harms us collectively.

I completely disagree. What will you use to defend your family then? A sidearm is a great equalizer especially for women.