Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Police shooting in Wisconsin,protests erupt

Page 16 of 22 [ 340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 22  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

03 Sep 2020, 4:18 am

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
As far as all three of the victims were concerned they were protecting the public against a lone gunman so technically their motivation is slightly more valid than Rittenhouse who is basically perceived as an armed madman,


Only amongst the appologists for the rioting sociopaths...


Yes well the most obvious sociopath is the one you are avoiding
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/28/us/k ... index.html

Witnesses there suggest all three victims were trying to disarm Rittenhouse. To try and cast all the protestors and witnesses who include journalists as "felons" comes off as irresponsible.


This is the "sociopath" you keep talking about?


Seems like someone who was there to help people (regardless of whether they were rioters or citizens defending property) - not seeing any indication of his being a sociopath.


Which is rather strange he never offered to go back and help the people he injured or killed? I imagine Lin Wood will be thorough and he's a fearsome adversary of the left so any skerig of evidence that puts his client in a new light will be trotted out however lame and non-relevant to the case.


If you watch the video of the first person he shot, he went back, then was chased away (after someone else starting first aid)...I doubt any sane person would have stayed to do first-aid after being attacked in the street like he was: It's hard to perform first-aid when you are at risk of harm, which is why in all the first aid courses I have done over the years, one of the first things they teach you is only go in if safe to do so, and I cannot imagine any person would consider those conditions "safe"...Even the ambulances weren't going into the area due to the sociopaths rioting, which was why Kyle had volunteered as EMT.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Sep 2020, 4:33 am

Ok So Kyle called himself an EMT but was he invited by the police to help? he seemed to volunteer himself so lets see if that works some magic on the jury

Next issue is his self defence claim which Lin Wood will use as the crux of his case.

Rittenhouse was bragging that he came to defend property.

Wood will have a hard time defending him since Section 939.48(1m)(ar) of Wisconsin law (I just looked this up) only provides for a "castle doctrine" if, basically, the protesters he killed had unlawfully broken into the defendant's home, vehicle, or place of business. Since nothing in was his property, this defense doesn't apply so his defence team can't use it.

That's a fairly big hole in their narrative that Rittenhouse is some type of hero kid defending his land so Wisconsin law isn't going to help with the self-defence plea.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

03 Sep 2020, 4:54 am

cyberdad wrote:
Ok So Kyle called himself an EMT but was he invited by the police to help? he seemed to volunteer himself so lets see if that works some magic on the jury

Next issue is his self defence claim which Lin Wood will use as the crux of his case.

Rittenhouse was bragging that he came to defend property.

Wood will have a hard time defending him since Section 939.48(1m)(ar) of Wisconsin law (I just looked this up) only provides for a "castle doctrine" if, basically, the protesters he killed had unlawfully broken into the defendant's home, vehicle, or place of business. Since nothing in was his property, this defense doesn't apply so his defence team can't use it.

That's a fairly big hole in their narrative that Rittenhouse is some type of hero kid defending his land so Wisconsin law isn't going to help with the self-defence plea.


So, despite all the information already supplied, and the videos which covered the case, you FINALLY looked something up 8O

And yet, strangely, you looked at the incorrect section: As outlined multiple times in the thread, it is section Section 939.48(1) of Wisconsin law which applies.

At this point, having had the details of this supplied multiple times across this thread (along with other facts which you have continually ignored, such as one of the rioters who were shot having been armed with a handgun), this certainly leads to the impression of you being here as a "troll" rather than a person here in good faith to discuss the issue.

Before adding to this thread further, could you please take some time to actually read past posts in this thread (I feel like I've asked that you do this several times already), and maybe look at at least 1 of the videos included in it so you don't demonstrate further (wilfull?) ignorance on the topic under discussion.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

03 Sep 2020, 5:15 am

Here is the full text of the Wisconsin statute on self-defense:

Wisconsin State Legislature wrote:

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  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.
(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
939.48(1m)(a)1.
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.


Source: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/docume ... s/939.48(1)

I have highlighted the section on provocation, as this could be a central element in the case against Kyle Rittenhouse…

The "castle doctrine/stand your ground" elements (strikethrough) also do not apply here, as stated by a previous post.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

03 Sep 2020, 5:23 am

GGPViper wrote:
Here is the full text of the Wisconsin statute on self-defense:

Wisconsin State Legislature wrote:

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  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.
(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
939.48(1m)(a)1.
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.


Source: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/docume ... s/939.48(1)

I have highlighted the section on provocation, as this could be a central element in the case against Kyle Rittenhouse…

The "castle doctrine/stand your ground" elements (strikethrough) also do not apply here, as stated by a previous post.


Provocation also needs to be proven by the prosecution: Being there to prevent sociopaths from causing damage to property through their rioting is not a valid legal form of "provocation", either...



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Sep 2020, 5:26 am

I have reviewed a couple of videos from you and Wolfram already though....refer back

I also watched this one https://web.ground.news/article/f603c58 ... hoot-first

But thought it was biased

This one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ6b-7_9K4w makes number 3

the lawyers states 939.48 self-defense in the context of defending others - if he believed he was in threat of imminent death.

Second the level of force/threat was sufficient to warrant lethal defence

Third was the defendents beliefs reasonable. (this third point is going to be hard to defend)

So Lin Wood does have some ammunition!

All of the videos leave the question open though how all of this started? there is a gap between Rosenbaum threatening other milita (not Rittenhouse) and Rittenhouse running away before shooting Huber and Grosskreutz



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

03 Sep 2020, 5:30 am

Brictoria wrote:
Provocation also needs to be proven by the prosecution: Being there to prevent sociopaths from causing damage to property through their rioting is not a valid legal form of "provocation", either...

You're still reversing the burden of proof.

"Adequate provocation is an affirmative defense only to first-degree intentional homicide and mitigates that offense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide".

"Adequate provocation includes both subjective and objective components. As to the subjective component, the defendant must actually believe the provocation occurred, and the lack of self-control must be caused by the provocation. As to the objective component, the provocation must be such that would cause an ordinary, reasonable person to lack self-control completely, and the defendant's belief that the provocative acts occurred must be reasonable. State v. Schmidt, 2012 WI App 113, 344 Wis. 2d 336, 824 N.W.2d 839, 11-1903"

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 0344%20Wis.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

03 Sep 2020, 5:44 am

cyberdad wrote:
All of the videos leave the question open though how all of this started? there is a gap between Rosenbaum threatening other milita (not Rittenhouse) and Rittenhouse running away before shooting Huber and Grosskreutz

Right. I wonder if the prosecution will find witnesses to say Rittenhouse and compatriots provoked the mob.

That could explain ...

-the initial reason why the bag was thrown at Rittenhouse
-the nearby gunshot
-the scream of "F YOU"
-Rosenbaum chasing him
-why he retreated
-why he was so scared of unarmed Rosenbaum (he knew he had made him very angry)


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

03 Sep 2020, 6:21 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
All of the videos leave the question open though how all of this started? there is a gap between Rosenbaum threatening other milita (not Rittenhouse) and Rittenhouse running away before shooting Huber and Grosskreutz

Right. I wonder if the prosecution will find witnesses to say Rittenhouse and compatriots provoked the mob.

That could explain ...

-the initial reason why the bag was thrown at Rittenhouse
-the nearby gunshot
-the scream of "F YOU"
-Rosenbaum chasing him
-why he retreated
-why he was so scared of unarmed Rosenbaum (he knew he had made him very angry)


I doubt Mr Rosenbaum needed any provocation...And based on the details from the witness included in the charging documents, there was some distance between Kyle and Mr Rosenbaum when Kyle saw him, and started running, with no indication of there being any interaction between the 2. The witness was also the person who interviewed Kyle on camera where he talked about being there as an EMT, and was also the person who took his shirt off and performed first aid on Mr Rosenbaum, with no indication that Kyle was out of his sight between these events which appear to have been only a few minutes apart.

The charging documents, should you be interested:
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journaltimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/6f/46ff33b7-0bd7-55e6-8f2f-9ded0582862f/5f4933274cde9.pdf.pdf



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Sep 2020, 6:33 am

Rosenbaum's main target was a tall black militiaman whom he kept using the n-word saying "Shoot me n-word"
Infact the group he was taunting was nowhere near Rittenhouse.

So what happened to the rest of the militia? where did they go? how come Rittenhouse was on his own when he shot Rosenbaum? perhaps all this was never caught on film. The witness statements now become crucial.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

03 Sep 2020, 7:02 am

Brictoria wrote:
I doubt Mr Rosenbaum needed any provocation..

Rittenhouse killed a stationary, unarmed man who reached for the barrel of his rifle

Rittenhouse even pulls back, out of reach of Rosenbaum, then shoots Rosenbaum multiple times.

It is a like a scene in the movie Watchman (Kent State college shootings) .. a woman reaches for a National Guardsman rifle and is shot.
Image


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Phoenix20
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 5 Feb 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 97

03 Sep 2020, 9:47 pm

Rittenhouse was a cold blooded murderer who shot dead 3 unarmed people.
It can not be argued that he was mentally unfit or acted in self defence.
He deserves life in prison with no parol.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

03 Sep 2020, 9:51 pm

I see you encountered our resident authority on Trump's total & unassailable innocence. The right has become so insistent he can do no wrong that these posters would have a hard time convincing me they're different people. We've had a lot of posters digging for positives in stories of extreme-right related violence.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

04 Sep 2020, 2:10 am

Phoenix20 wrote:
Rittenhouse was a cold blooded murderer who shot dead 3 unarmed people.
It can not be argued that he was mentally unfit or acted in self defence.
He deserves life in prison with no parol.


Good job on paying no attention whatsoever.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

04 Sep 2020, 3:57 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
Rittenhouse killed a stationary, unarmed man who reached for the barrel of his rifle
Rittenhouse even pulls back, out of reach of Rosenbaum, then shoots Rosenbaum multiple times.
]


No wonder nobody on fox news is looking for the Rosenbaum video. Well that settles that.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

04 Sep 2020, 4:03 am

cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Rittenhouse killed a stationary, unarmed man who reached for the barrel of his rifle
Rittenhouse even pulls back, out of reach of Rosenbaum, then shoots Rosenbaum multiple times.
]


No wonder nobody on fox news is looking for the Rosenbaum video. Well that settles that.

Well, I hope Brictoria and Wolfram87 keep at it.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.