Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Oct 20 01:41:29 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Two Custodies One Death
renzo marQuez
Member
Wed Oct 14 13:14:29
Got some news from Kenosha. They found the guy who fired in the air before Rittenhouse wacked Pedomanlet:

Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings

http://nyp...-air-before-kenosha-shootings/

Joshua Ziminski, 35, and his wife “both admitted” to detectives that he “fired off a ‘warning shot’ into the air” during the Aug. 25 protests in Wisconsin, according to a criminal complaint obtained by The Post.

Attorneys for Rittenhouse have called the gunshot a “pivotal moment” that left the 17-year-old alleged militia member fearing he had “no way out” as he was chased by protesters with “no way to know who fired that shot.”

On-the-scene reporter Richie McGinniss has also said the sound of the shot was the moment Rittenhouse “went from running away to aiming his weapon” in what the teen’s attorneys insist was self-defense.
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Oct 14 16:32:17
I really need to post all of my research on the Kenosha shooting for the forum. I've noticed people don't know a lot of the details. This is one of my saved links:

Ziminski was identified as early as August 29th:
http://twi...668/status/1299716883416002562
4chan identified him as "Alex Blaine", which it turned out was an alias of his. His real identity was confirmed as early as September 22nd:
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/3447767.html

I mentioned him before as the "vagrant". He was seen with Rosenbaum at the gas station, holding his pistol by his side while confronting the militia with Rosenbaum. He was later (less than 10 minutes after the gas station) seen walking down the street with Rosenbaum. In the moments before the shooting, he was walking in Rosenbaum's group.

..
Another clarification:

[Renzo]: "things we don't see are (A) what preceded the chase;"
[Seb]: "A) might offer considerable context as to whether Rittenhouse had reasonable grounds to feel threatened for his life."

We *do* know what preceded the chase. It's on video, and there's a witness. I wasn't making up the timeline in the last thread. All of those details were confirmed. This is that section from the last thread again, but with even more details added (in brackets {})for clarity:
• Rosenbaum was seen antagonizing militia minutes before his attack. {this was at the gas station}
• Rosenbaum grabbed and attempted to remove Rittenhouse's rifle on the street. (a precipitating factor and itself a justification for lethal force if force were taken within that particular moment) {this was seen on video. Rosenbaum was in a group of about 5 people that was surrounding Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was seen on video breaking away from this group and running into the parking lot. The witness confirms: This was when Rosenbaum first attempted to disarm Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse here did a "juke move" (witness statement) to dodge Rosenbaum's attempt to disarm him, then fled into the parking lot.

..
Another clarification:

Seb claimed that the witness said that Rosenbaum went for Rittenhouse's rifle only because it was pointed at Rosenbaum. This is false. The witness said that Rittenhouse's rifle was pointed down when Rosenbaum lunged at it. After Rosenbaum lunged, Rittenhouse dodged his rifle away from Rosenbaum's grasp. Rosenbaum continued lunging forward, and Rittenhouse fired. The video seems to back up the witness statement.

..
Seb and Jergul continued making the same misinformed statements, mostly addressed at this point. Jergul still hasn't answered my question, and Seb's ignorance also shows on the subject of OC spray. He really sees no difference between spraying OC at 10 feet and lunging for someone's weapon. He has to continue omitting details to make his absurd claims.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Wed Oct 14 16:48:16
http://www...-antifa-portland-shooting.html
Forwyn
Member
Wed Oct 14 16:49:12
"far-right"

lol
renzo marQuez
Member
Wed Oct 14 16:58:24
CC, thanks for the clarification. Do you by any chance have a link to the video showing the second bullet point? Or is that from a witness?
sam adams
Member
Wed Oct 14 19:06:14
Well ya swordfail, why would cops risk their lives to apprehend an armed violent criminal when some liberal wankoff prosecutor might just release them? Shooting him is a much safer and cleaner choice.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Oct 14 23:38:09
Yeah, I didn't realize the DA dropped gun charges earlier on the guy.

Charge him with accessory to murder
jergul
large member
Thu Oct 15 01:54:03
OC
The question is if the on duty security guard feared he could be incompacitated and killed.

The chemical weapon is a lethal as letting ted bundy tie you up and toss you into the trunk of his car.

You will not die of either directly, but you have great reason to fear for you life.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Oct 15 01:55:45
ON DUTY SECURITY GUARD

fucking lol
Paramount
Member
Thu Oct 15 01:56:26
” people who witnessed the confrontation and the preliminary findings of investigators, produces a much different picture — one that raises questions about whether law enforcement officers made any serious attempt to arrest Mr. Reinoehl before killing him.”

” Five eyewitnesses said in interviews that the gunfire began the instant the vehicles arrived. None of them saw Mr. Reinoehl holding a weapon.”


”Garrett Louis, who watched the shooting begin while trying to get his 8-year-old son out of the line of fire, said the officers arrived with such speed and violence that he initially assumed they were drug dealers gunning down a foe — until he saw their law enforcement vests.”

“I respect cops to the utmost, but things were definitely in no way, shape or form done properly,” Mr. Louis said.”


- -

This is what you may see in third world countries, in authoritarian states and in states where there is no rule of law. My guess is that Trump gave attorney general Barr the order to kill the suspect.
jergul
large member
Thu Oct 15 02:24:02
Forwyn
It actually has no bearing in my jurisdiction. But you guys are authoritarian enough to be triggered, so fine by me :D.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Oct 15 02:46:59
Dudes calling themselves by certain titles denotes no special self-defense privileges, especially when the title is invented.
jergul
large member
Thu Oct 15 05:17:53
Why does it trigger you?
Seb
Member
Thu Oct 15 06:16:04
Grabbing the barrel of someone's gun won't kill you either.

It's what you fear will happen afterwards.

If someone grabs at the barrel of your gun, it might reasonably be thought of as someone trying to prevent it being pointed at them.

(Also there is nothing in the witness statement that suggest Rossenbaum is seeking to disarm Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse juked. You inferred that.)

If someone hits you in the face, steps back and unloads a can of OC in your face, you have a much clearer idea they intend to harm you because they've already harmed you and they are using a chemical to try and incapacitate you (and which is a form of assault) which is likely in order to press home their assault that is obviously more severe than the first assault.

If you consider Rittenhouse justified, it's pretty hypocritical to consider this killing unjustified.

Cherub Cow
Member
Thu Oct 15 07:20:51
[Renzo]: "CC, thanks for the clarification. Do you by any chance have a link to the video showing the second bullet point? Or is that from a witness?"

Sure!
http://twi...how/status/1298558424213594118
I'll admit it's blurry, requiring some serious frame-by-frame evaluation. People usually edit out the blurry section and skip to the parking lot angle, which is why people haven't paid attention to it. It takes some re-watches to see who is who and to see where Rittenhouse was before Rosenbaum starts chasing him. It helps to combine it with the other angles:
http://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1299763228696809472

Rosenbaum is easier to identify since he has an exposed torso. Once identified, you can see Rittenhouse walking down the street beforehand. Then you can see people start running towards Rittenhouse (presumably due to Rosenbaum's yelling, based on witness testimony). Rittenhouse dodges left from Rosenbaum (away from dealership). More people move in on Rittenhouse, including another lunge by Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse then flees into the parking lot.

This video really displays how many people were moving in on Rittenhouse even before the first pistol shot (more than 5 people). You can see them looking for openings to attack. Before the pistol goes off, in the other angles you can see them trying to cut off Rittenhouse's possible escape routes.

This description also backs up the witness testimony (Richie McGinniss) about Rosenbaum trying multiple times to grab Rittenhouse's rifle following verbal intimidation by Rosenbaum. McGinniss described the events in a Daily Caller article (below this paragraph), on Tucker Carlson ( http://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1299512436144377857 ), and on TimCastIRL ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmVXyJY5Eis ).

Daily Caller article:
http://dailycaller.com/2020/08/27/we-witnessed-the-kenosha-shootings-heres-what-really-happened/
"A verbal fight escalated as the victim tried grabbing the alleged shooter’s rifle – twice. The second time, Richie told me, the victim came very close to getting his hand on the man’s gun, trying to grab it away from him. He may have actually made contact, but it’s unclear amid the mayhem. That’s when the shooter fired."

Lots of little details pop up. In the TimCastIRL video, McGinniss explains how Rosenbaum was shot in the back: Rittenhouse was firing while Rosenbaum was lunging. This put Rosenbaum partially below Rittenhouse, so the rifle was pointed downwards for that shot. That's how close they were.

I've been meaning to use Blender to chart out in 3D the angles to show who is who, but for now it just requires time-syncing the events. This weekend I want to finally put everything in sequence in an Imgur gallery so that details can be found more readily and coherently.

..
..
[Jergul]: "The chemical weapon is a lethal as letting ted bundy tie you up and toss you into the trunk of his car. [/] You will not die of either directly, but you have great reason to fear for you life."

To speak to one dimension of your answer: thank you for answering my question. OC spray is indeed not a lethal force weapon. I'm glad that we could come to an understanding there.

To speak to the another dimension of your answer: This seems to be the same "incapacitating"/"incapacitate" argument that Seb repeated in the last thread despite me clarifying OC spray's legal definitions. I'll copy and paste my answer from the last thread:

"• OC spray is not an incapacitating agent.
• For Colorado citizens, OC spray is considered a self-defense tool, not a weapon.
• In Colorado, it is legal to use pepper spray if life or safety is threatened (e.g., if someone points a pistol at you)"

Additionally, in Colorado...
• There exist no statutes stating that OC spray is a deadly weapon
• Users of OC spray have no legal responsibility to provide a warning before use
• OC spray is considered even less lethal than a stun gun; there exist no permits or carriage laws (even minors can carry it, and the post office will ship it)

Another thing to consider:
In military OC spray training (i.e., where "military grade" OC is used — higher OC concentration and/or oil-based), trainees receive 1–3 seconds of a direct stream above the eye brows (stream quality differs; sometimes it's a sharp stream, sometimes it spreads out over the face). Trainees then have to wait a few seconds for the stream to drip into their eyes. Once irritated, trainees must run a kind of gauntlet, running from station to station to complete tasks. Tasks may include..
- Grab a baton and execute baton strikes against a padded person while yelling verbal commands,
- Holding a baton like a rifle or holding a rubber rifle (bayonet stance), have an opponent grab the leading tip of the baton/r.rifle, and perform a soft control technique to remove the opponent's hand from the baton/r.rifle while yelling verbal commands
- Execute handed strikes on a padded person while yelling commands
- Complete various exercises (pushups, jumping jacks, etc.)
- Complete handcuffing procedures (commands and technique) correctly

The gauntlet lasts about 5 minutes, then trainees can get water, milk, char coal pads, etc. It teaches two main points:
1) OC spray is irritating, makes you shoot snot rockets, can restrict breathing, and hurts your eyes
2) You can continue to complete complex tasks after being sprayed

The combined point is that while it's very uncomfortable, it does not make the opponent less lethal. It's a deterrent. It's a self defense tool meant to get people to back off.

..
One more point on OC Spray — perhaps the most important:
While someone could probably find a lawyer so ill-informed that he or she was willing to argue that it's a deadly weapon or a weapon that could incapacitate its victim and put the victim in fear for his or her life, this would be futile, not just for the above reasons but due to OC spray's long history of litigation. Even California — which made futile efforts to ban the taser in the '90s — has deregulated OC spray. To my knowledge, no U.S. court has ever succeeded in litigating OC spray as deadly force or force that justifies a deadly force response.

It is also used by a wide range of civilians, law enforcement, and military. This means that setting a precedent (where OC spray were to be considered deadly force or OC spray justified a reasonable claim of lethal force in response) would undermine OC spray's future utility in self defense. This would be fought not just by private interests (citizens who need protection, the OC companies, etc.) but by the judge responsible for this case. Likely no judge would even allow the defense except in an incredible and extreme case of OC spray use (some scenario that would end up in a "Saw" movie). And this case does not fit the bill.

And, like Renzo pointed out, Dolloff's lawyer didn't even touch that possibility in Dolloff's defense. He ignored the OC spray and made the claim that Dolloff thought Keltner was reaching for a pistol.

TLDR: Give up on the OC spray narrative. At *least* move on to the "Dolloff thought Keltner was going for a pistol" narrative. It's also flimsy, but it's an effort to make a legitimate defense.
renzo marQuez
Member
Thu Oct 15 08:18:48
CC, thanks for posting the video. I probably had seen it at some point but didn't watch closely. Will check it out later on a bigger screen. It does at least appear to show that Pedomanlet wasn't the only one after Rittenhouse which I believed was likely the case but hadn't actually seen before.

"TLDR: Give up on the OC spray narrative. At *least* move on to the "Dolloff thought Keltner was going for a pistol" narrative. It's also flimsy, but it's an effort to make a legitimate defense."

I think it might be viable. It depends heavily on what, if anything, the shooter told the cops and what the other evidence (videos we haven't seen, eyewitness statements, etc.). For the sake of the discussion, here's what I would argue in support of the shooter - relying on http://www...shooting-photos-full-sequence/

-At Frame #: 2630, Capture time: 3:36:46 PM, the deceased is pointing his pepper spray at the camera or someone behind the camera. The deceased does not appear to have any reasonable reason to do this from the evidence we have available.
-The shooter may have been acting as security for whoever the deceased was pointing at or someone in the immediate vicinity.
-It would have been reasonable for the shooter to step between the deceased and whoever he was providing security for.
-Shooter extends his arm trying to get the deceased to stop advancing towards whoever he was protecting. Although the shooter's arm makes contact with the deceased's chest, this occurred because the deceased was advancing while the shooter was in a static, defensive position. Frame #: 2631, Capture time: 3:36:52 PM
-This makes the deceased the aggressor and his slap delivered at Frame #: 2632, Capture time: 3:36:52 PM was a crime.
-The deceased has a holstered handgun on his left side that is visible at Frame #: 2634, Capture time: 3:36:52 PM. The shooter's defense is arguably strengthened if he was aware of this.
-We can see that the slap knocks the hat off the shooter and knocks his glasses out of position.
-Shooter can argue that he was put on queer street, his vision was fucked up by the slap and sudden light exposure (bonus points if the glasses were prescription), and he saw the deceased raising something in his right hand.
-He thought it was a gun (again, strengthened if he saw or felt the gun earlier or had otherwise been made aware that the deceased had a gun).
-As the deceased raised what the shooter thought was a gun, the shooter had no choice but to use deadly force in order to protect himself from being killed.

A lot of this is speculative. Hopefully, we'll get additional evidence regarding how they initially came into contact (what I posted above may not be correct but seems plausible) and who raised first.
jergul
large member
Thu Oct 15 08:19:50
CC
The security guard had reasonable grounds to believe the chemical weapon would incompacitate him and cause him to be killed.

Has anyone unsuccessfully mounted the defence? That would be the precedent you are looking for.

Would a reasonable person fear for his life after being physically, assaulted, then blinded?

I would be utterly freaked out. And I have been in far more of my fair share of fights.
TJ
Member
Thu Oct 15 08:33:22
"Grabbing the barrel of someone's gun won't kill you either."

If the weapon holder has his finger on the trigger the grabber could easily be killed by pulling on the barrel. Never grab, if you must parry the weapon and then attempt to remove from the holder. It is idiocy to chase a person with a weapon as a civilian. No way out is another issue altogether.

renzo marQuez
Member
Thu Oct 15 08:35:35
jergul
large member Thu Oct 15 08:19:50
"I would be utterly freaked out. And I have been in far more of my fair share of fights."

In the US, defendants claiming self-defense are judged by a reasonable person standard, not an eggshell skull standard.
Seb
Member
Thu Oct 15 08:37:34
TJ:

Oops. Meant someone grabbing the barrel of your gun won't kill you.

jergul
large member
Thu Oct 15 08:45:01
TJ
How idiotic is it to slap, then try to mace someone with a weapon?

RM
No reasonable person would allow themselves to be incompacitated in a violent confrontation.
TJ
Member
Thu Oct 15 08:47:39
Seb:
No one should assume anything in a confrontation. Doing so can easily get you killed. It is obvious who the aggressors were in the Rittenhouse case.
TJ
Member
Thu Oct 15 08:51:05
Jergul:

"How idiotic is it to slap, then try to mace someone with a weapon?"

Anyone with a reasonable thought process should be able to determine the answer my postings.
Pillz
Member
Thu Oct 15 09:06:18
It's difficult to understand how Seb and jergul have so much difficulty with this topic
jergul
large member
Thu Oct 15 09:10:48
Pillz
We think both of them are guilty of some degree of criminal homicide.

The fun part here is watching you maneuvre into anatomically impossible positions.

#contortionstogetheadupass
jergul
large member
Thu Oct 15 09:11:22
in our jurisdictions*
Forwyn
Member
Thu Oct 15 10:18:19
jergul still erroneously calling the guy a security guard, like it has relevance. Lol
Forwyn
Member
Thu Oct 15 10:20:12
"The fun part here is watching you maneuvre into anatomically impossible positions."

I know, it's so crazy that two separate incidents can involve separate aggressors and have separate applications on whether or not the self-defense claim was valid.

It's okay. Seb can't understand the concept of an aggressor either. It's why he harps about hypocrisy.
jergul
large member
Thu Oct 15 13:28:39
Oh, there is exactly on difference we are pointing to. The politics of the people killed.
obaminated
Member
Thu Oct 15 14:10:17
Wrong.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Oct 15 14:21:31
There's also a difference in aggressor.

Far more important than personal ideology, unless you're a retarded leftist.
Seb
Member
Thu Oct 15 14:23:57
Even CC, professional contrarian extraordaire, isn't willing to try and argue the shooter was the aggressor here.
Seb
Member
Thu Oct 15 14:25:27
TJ:

If that were, from a legal standpoint, true; then there's no way to determined the required test in law regarding fear of serious harm or death. It would always be true.
renzo marQuez
Member
Thu Oct 15 14:28:14
Seb
Member Thu Oct 15 14:23:57
"Even CC, professional contrarian extraordaire, isn't willing to try and argue the shooter was the aggressor here."

We don't know who the aggressor was here. We can argue either way. But that issue is not determinative if the deceased was the aggressor. The shooter still had to meet the reasonableness standard. There's a reason his family attorney has hinted at the "I thought it was a gun" defense.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Oct 15 14:31:51
Initiating physical force makes you the aggressor.

Witness statements corroborate the claim that an unlicensed dude offering illegal services interjected himself into a shouting match and shoved the victim.
renzo marQuez
Member
Thu Oct 15 14:38:16
Forwyn
Member Thu Oct 15 14:31:51
"Witness statements corroborate the claim that an unlicensed dude offering illegal services interjected himself into a shouting match and shoved the victim."

You should take a look at my Thu Oct 15 08:18:48 post and the photographs linked in it. Some photographs suggest the deceased was the aggressor. It's unclear and I caution against taking either side definitively.

Additionally, that the shooter was offering illegal services is unlikely to eliminate his right to self-defense... similar to Rittenhouse's gun possession charge.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Oct 15 14:45:16
The pictures seem to support the claim.

Keltner was shouting at a reporter and raised his hand.

Dolloff interjected himself - without the legal protections of a licensed security guard - and shoved Dolloff away, and got slapped in response.

Picture taken at 3:36:52 seems to confirm Dolloff made first contact.
jergul
large member
Thu Oct 15 15:32:49
RM
Ultimately, both cases need to wait until the trials provide a verdict.
renzo marQuez
Member
Thu Oct 15 15:48:01
jergul
large member Thu Oct 15 15:32:49
"RM
Ultimately, both cases need to wait until the trials provide a verdict."

It's possible that one or neither goes to trial. The Rittenhouse case definitely should not. We have enough evidence to know with a high degree of certainty that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. The prosecutor will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense if Rittenhouse receives a fair trial. (As I noted in the prior thread, the general rule in the US is that the prosecutor has to disprove the defendant's self-defense claim.)

We need more evidence on the Denver shooting because we can't even answer the most basic question with any confidence.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Oct 15 22:12:11
here's Trump confirming (& celebrating) the extrajudicial killing of Reinoehl (that a couple people talking about here above :p)

http://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1316801262277455872
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 16 02:21:01
Renzo:

*Sigh*. Missing the point. Of course he can claim "I thought he had a gun".

Cast your mind back to my original post. My point was not "is this man guilty" or "what is the best defence he could raise", my point was the kinds of arguments and contortions required to argue Rittenhouse is justified but this chap is guilty.

"I thought he was reaching for a gun" isn't really comparable because few consider it something Rittenhouse could reasonably believe. So it is necessary to set that fairly strong argument to one side and examine the other options (less strong) that are more comparable to the kinds of argument deployed to exculpate Rittenhouse to highlight the rampant hipocrisy and motivated reasoning being deployed to square the circle of what is clearly a very partisan perspective.

Though of course you do raise the point about the individual shot being armed as an element in Rittenhouse case on the basis a gun shot was likely heard by Rittenhouse coming from behind him.

Regrettably, Rosenbaum was very clearly not armed when he was shot, and Rittenhouse was obviously aware of that as both hands were reaching for the gun that the young man was pointing or preparing to point at Rosenbaum.
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 16 02:22:11
"Additionally, that the shooter was offering illegal services is unlikely to eliminate his right to self-defense... similar to Rittenhouse's gun possession charge."

Well at least someone has remembered to be at least a little bit consistent.
renzo marQuez
Member
Fri Oct 16 06:41:10
Seb
Member Fri Oct 16 02:21:01
"*Sigh*. Missing the point. Of course he can claim "I thought he had a gun".

Cast your mind back to my original post. My point was not "is this man guilty" or "what is the best defence he could raise", my point was the kinds of arguments and contortions required to argue Rittenhouse is justified but this chap is guilty."

I never missed your point. I addressed your point at length. And you point is retarded. Rittenhouse has a much clearer and stronger self defense.

RE: Rittenhouse
1. Rittenhouse does not appear to have been the aggressor... however, even if he was he regained the right to self defense by retreating before no safe retreat options were still available.
2. At the time of each shot, a reasonable person in Rittenhouse's shoes would have feared he was about to be killed or seriously injured.
3. There's enough publicly available video, audio, and statements from witnesses to say 1 and 2 with high confidence.

RE: Denver
1. Unclear who the aggressor was.
2. Denver shooter's family attorney suggests the defense won't rely on your and jergul's silly "I feared for my life because muh pepper spray." The potential defense laid out in my Thu Oct 15 08:18:48 post relies on questionable assumptions and a considerable amount of speculation.
3. We have some audio and still photos but not enough to answer the most basic questions about the interaction between the shooter and the deceased.

""I thought he was reaching for a gun" isn't really comparable because few consider it something Rittenhouse could reasonably believe."

Every reasonable person believes Rittenhouse's fear of death or serious bodily harm was reasonable. Rittenhouse was chased, heard a gunshot behind him, and had his chaser grab for his gun immediately prior to the use of deadly force.

"So it is necessary to set that fairly strong argument to one side"

It's the best argument the defense will have but it's still much weaker than Rittenhouse's claim for the reasons discussed above. We don't know who the aggressor in Denver was. It's somewhat unlikely that the Denver shooter didn't see that the deceased had pepper spray in his hand. It has in his hand for the entire interaction. And we don't know if the Denver shooter was even aware that the deceased was strapped.

"and examine the other options (less strong) that are more comparable to the kinds of argument deployed to exculpate Rittenhouse to highlight the rampant hipocrisy and motivated reasoning being deployed to square the circle of what is clearly a very partisan perspective."

"Muh pepper spray" is not close to Rittenhouse's case. I've laid out my thoughts about both cases and focused on the law and the pertinent facts. There's a reason you have focused on irrelevant things... because the facts and the law are not on your side. You were suggesting in previous threads that Rittenhouse was the aggressor because he put out a fire. This is not true. It's also not relevant because Rittenhouse fled and his flight would have regained him the right to defend himself even if he was the aggressor. You've suggested repeatedly that Pedomanlet merely wanted to "remonstrate." This again is a retarded take based on his behavior earlier that night (yelling "SHOOT ME NIGGA"), immediately prior to the shooting (chasing Rittenhouse, throwing the bad at him in the parking lot, lunging for his gun), and lengthy criminal history. And even if Pedomanlet merely wanted to remonstrate, it doesn't matter. His subjective intent is not relevant here. We evaluate whether Rittenhouse's actions were objectively reasonable.

"Though of course you do raise the point about the individual shot being armed as an element in Rittenhouse case on the basis a gun shot was likely heard by Rittenhouse coming from behind him."

It's not a required element. But it does support the reasonableness of Rittenhouse's fear.

"Regrettably, Rosenbaum was very clearly not armed when he was shot, and Rittenhouse was obviously aware of that as both hands were reaching for the gun that the young man was pointing or preparing to point at Rosenbaum."

Pedomanlet was trying to arm himself with Rittenhouse's gun at the time he was shot. You're also making a lot of assumptions about what Rittenhouse was "obviously aware" of. Rittenhouse was fleeing, heard a gunshot from the rear, turned, had Pedomanlet lunge for his gun, and fired. We don't know whether he knew Pedomanlet was unarmed. He still acted in self defense regardless because Pedomanlet was trying to arm himself with Rittenhouse's gun. "Don't give up your gun" is one of the lessons of firearms training.

Seb
Member Fri Oct 16 02:22:11
"Well at least someone has remembered to be at least a little bit consistent."

I've been consistent the entire time.
TJ
Member
Fri Oct 16 08:16:11
Seb:

"the required test in law regarding fear of serious harm or death"

The required test will be a Court of Law from the evidence provided to a jury. Nothing left for me to say other than:

The Gambler-KR

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
Forwyn
Member
Fri Oct 16 11:58:43
"similar to Rittenhouse's gun possession charge."

Rittenhouse's gun charge is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not he was the aggressor; only relevant in cases of asinine state laws that preclude self-defense.

"Guard's" status is relevant, as it determines whether his intervention was justified.

"Well at least someone has remembered to be at least a little bit consistent."

Look at Seb, just trying to be "consistent". Fucking lol
obaminated
Member
Fri Oct 16 17:16:16
2nd degree murder. Jergul and seb are hardest hit.
jergul
large member
Fri Oct 16 17:44:55
Obam
So same as one of the charges Kyle is facing.
obaminated
Member
Sat Oct 17 05:25:24
Pretty pathetic jergul.
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 17 05:54:12
You are the one suggesting charges prove something. Which I agree, I found pretty pathetic.
Seb
Member
Sat Oct 17 08:29:24
Obaminated:

Yeah, I said I think both he and Rittenhouse should be charged. They both were.

You are the fuckwits trying to argue one should the other not.

Forwyn
Member
Sat Oct 17 13:38:03
Because Rittenhouse was clearly not the aggressor; even the charging documents acknowledged this. He made multiple attempts to disengage.

He should be charged for...not being beaten or worse by angry assailants.

Vs. A guy where the aggressor is ambiguous but most likely the improperly licensed guard who interjected himself into a shouting match and made it physical, and made no attempts to disengage.

Yeah. They're exactly the same.

Lol. You fucking retard.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share