Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Police shooting in Wisconsin,protests erupt

Page 3 of 22 [ 340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 22  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,907
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Aug 2020, 11:38 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Interesting discussion between 2 lawyers analysing what happened, one of whom is a former police officer and District Attorney (a bit over 2 hours long, first 30-40 minutes covers a fair bit of information):


Also goes over applicable laws, and how the events can be construed from both sides.


It's not hard too see the teen took things into his own hands and figured executing people on the streets was an ok and fine thing to do. And the police just let him walk away initially even though witnesses even told them he had shot people. I mean even if it turned out later he acted in self defense(which I do doubt) still I figure if you shoot multiple people at least an initial arrest is warranted.


_________________
We won't go back.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 Aug 2020, 12:01 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Interesting discussion between 2 lawyers analysing what happened, one of whom is a former police officer and District Attorney (a bit over 2 hours long, first 30-40 minutes covers a fair bit of information):


Also goes over applicable laws, and how the events can be construed from both sides.


It's not hard too see the teen took things into his own hands and figured executing people on the streets was an ok and fine thing to do. And the police just let him walk away initially even though witnesses even told them he had shot people. I mean even if it turned out later he acted in self defense(which I do doubt) still I figure if you shoot multiple people at least an initial arrest is warranted.


If you watch the videos, rather than reading other people's analysis, in both shootings, he is trying to retreat\escape a mob. In the second, he is running towards police and looks like he may be trying to surrender to them, but they ignore him.

Also, there is no indication, based on the videos, that he "took things into his own hands and figured executing people on the streets was an ok and fine thing to do": Each time he fired was in reaction to events around\targetted at him.



Phoenix20
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 5 Feb 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 97

28 Aug 2020, 12:05 am

Police react by instinct and use force to neutralise/kill hostile threat.
Police do not have the time to think about mentally ill or intoxicated person that poses a threat.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,907
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

28 Aug 2020, 12:17 am

Brictoria wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Interesting discussion between 2 lawyers analysing what happened, one of whom is a former police officer and District Attorney (a bit over 2 hours long, first 30-40 minutes covers a fair bit of information):


Also goes over applicable laws, and how the events can be construed from both sides.


It's not hard too see the teen took things into his own hands and figured executing people on the streets was an ok and fine thing to do. And the police just let him walk away initially even though witnesses even told them he had shot people. I mean even if it turned out later he acted in self defense(which I do doubt) still I figure if you shoot multiple people at least an initial arrest is warranted.


If you watch the videos, rather than reading other people's analysis, in both shootings, he is trying to retreat\escape a mob. In the second, he is running towards police and looks like he may be trying to surrender to them, but they ignore him.

Also, there is no indication, based on the videos, that he "took things into his own hands and figured executing people on the streets was an ok and fine thing to do": Each time he fired was in reaction to events around\targetted at him.


I watched the video before I read much of other people analysis...and looked like he was certainly just shooting people. Also he shouldn't have even been there he traveled across state lines and shot people in a different state...why couldn't he have stayed home? Even if his firing was a reaction he killed two people and severely injured a third surely he has to have some accountability, I mean he straight up shot a person point blank in the head.

And well how did he not take things into his own hands? he figured he was 'securing the property' and he could use whatever force he wanted in doing so.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,907
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

28 Aug 2020, 12:22 am

Phoenix20 wrote:
Police react by instinct and use force to neutralise/kill hostile threat.
Police do not have the time to think about mentally ill or intoxicated person that poses a threat.


Yeah that is a severe problem. If they are meant to keep the peace they need to learn how to think about mentally ill and intoxicated people and how to deal with it without killing them before they even get a trial. Shoot first should never be the encouraged mentality, but kind of seems it is.

Just working on instinct is not good enough, if someone cannot analize a situation before just going totally on instinct they probably shouldn't be a police officer.


_________________
We won't go back.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 Aug 2020, 12:41 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Interesting discussion between 2 lawyers analysing what happened, one of whom is a former police officer and District Attorney (a bit over 2 hours long, first 30-40 minutes covers a fair bit of information):


Also goes over applicable laws, and how the events can be construed from both sides.


It's not hard too see the teen took things into his own hands and figured executing people on the streets was an ok and fine thing to do. And the police just let him walk away initially even though witnesses even told them he had shot people. I mean even if it turned out later he acted in self defense(which I do doubt) still I figure if you shoot multiple people at least an initial arrest is warranted.


If you watch the videos, rather than reading other people's analysis, in both shootings, he is trying to retreat\escape a mob. In the second, he is running towards police and looks like he may be trying to surrender to them, but they ignore him.

Also, there is no indication, based on the videos, that he "took things into his own hands and figured executing people on the streets was an ok and fine thing to do": Each time he fired was in reaction to events around\targetted at him.


I watched the video before I read much of other people analysis...and looked like he was certainly just shooting people. Also he shouldn't have even been there he traveled across state lines and shot people in a different state...why couldn't he have stayed home? Even if his firing was a reaction he killed two people and severely injured a third surely he has to have some accountability, I mean he straight up shot a person point blank in the head.

And well how did he not take things into his own hands? he figured he was 'securing the property' and he could use whatever force he wanted in doing so.


From what I can tell, in the first video I saw he wasn't "just shooting people", he was defending himself having somehow ended on the ground with a person swinging a skateboard at his head and another raising a gun towards him.

The "crossing state lines" and "securing the property" could simply come down to him (and others) not liking seeing wanton destruction of innocent people's property by un undisciplined mob, and so had travelled there to act as a deterence (a person is less likely to damage property when there is a risk of something happening to them).

Thus far, it seems it will likely come down to events surrounding the first shooting - was it "justified" (based on legal terminology, not pavlovian "he shouldn't have done that") and will be determined in court, taking into account events leading up to and around it (his being chased, gunshots around him, something thrown at him, etc. - possibly even including events around other similar riots around the country) - It could be self defence, it may not be - The best way to avoid disappointment over the verdict is to keep an open mind, not decide that you "prefer" one set of facts, and view everything in a way which supports those facts.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,907
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

28 Aug 2020, 12:47 am

Brictoria wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Interesting discussion between 2 lawyers analysing what happened, one of whom is a former police officer and District Attorney (a bit over 2 hours long, first 30-40 minutes covers a fair bit of information):


Also goes over applicable laws, and how the events can be construed from both sides.


It's not hard too see the teen took things into his own hands and figured executing people on the streets was an ok and fine thing to do. And the police just let him walk away initially even though witnesses even told them he had shot people. I mean even if it turned out later he acted in self defense(which I do doubt) still I figure if you shoot multiple people at least an initial arrest is warranted.


If you watch the videos, rather than reading other people's analysis, in both shootings, he is trying to retreat\escape a mob. In the second, he is running towards police and looks like he may be trying to surrender to them, but they ignore him.

Also, there is no indication, based on the videos, that he "took things into his own hands and figured executing people on the streets was an ok and fine thing to do": Each time he fired was in reaction to events around\targetted at him.


I watched the video before I read much of other people analysis...and looked like he was certainly just shooting people. Also he shouldn't have even been there he traveled across state lines and shot people in a different state...why couldn't he have stayed home? Even if his firing was a reaction he killed two people and severely injured a third surely he has to have some accountability, I mean he straight up shot a person point blank in the head.

And well how did he not take things into his own hands? he figured he was 'securing the property' and he could use whatever force he wanted in doing so.


From what I can tell, in the first video I saw he wasn't "just shooting people", he was defending himself having somehow ended on the ground with a person swinging a skateboard at his head and another raising a gun towards him.

The "crossing state lines" and "securing the property" could simply come down to him (and others) not liking seeing wanton destruction of innocent people's property by un undisciplined mob, and so had travelled there to act as a deterence (a person is less likely to damage property when there is a risk of something happening to them).

Thus far, it seems it will likely come down to events surrounding the first shooting - was it "justified" (based on legal terminology, not pavlovian "he shouldn't have done that") and will be determined in court, taking into account events leading up to and around it (his being chased, gunshots around him, something thrown at him, etc. - possibly even including events around other similar riots around the country) - It could be self defence, it may not be - The best way to avoid disappointment over the verdict is to keep an open mind, not decide that you "prefer" one set of facts, and view everything in a way which supports those facts.


Alright well I will try to find further videos on the full incident, but from what I gathered he had already fired when he got mobbed. I mean just like anyone else he should get a full trial and evidence looked at, if they can find he acted more in at least what he thought was self defense that should be considered regardless of any political leanings he has. Either way it still just seems wrong he was allowed to walk away after that and return home like he committed deadly violence(regardless of the reason) and so probably should have been arrested on the spot. I mean hell I'd expect if I was to kill someone in self defense I'd still expect to be arrested on the spot till they can further investigate.
But even for example george floyd, at least deserved a fair trial in court rather than being killed on the street...but granted there are some who care more for the justice of that teen than they care about the justice for george floyd who didn't even get the chance of a trial.


_________________
We won't go back.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 Aug 2020, 1:03 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Interesting discussion between 2 lawyers analysing what happened, one of whom is a former police officer and District Attorney (a bit over 2 hours long, first 30-40 minutes covers a fair bit of information):


Also goes over applicable laws, and how the events can be construed from both sides.


It's not hard too see the teen took things into his own hands and figured executing people on the streets was an ok and fine thing to do. And the police just let him walk away initially even though witnesses even told them he had shot people. I mean even if it turned out later he acted in self defense(which I do doubt) still I figure if you shoot multiple people at least an initial arrest is warranted.


If you watch the videos, rather than reading other people's analysis, in both shootings, he is trying to retreat\escape a mob. In the second, he is running towards police and looks like he may be trying to surrender to them, but they ignore him.

Also, there is no indication, based on the videos, that he "took things into his own hands and figured executing people on the streets was an ok and fine thing to do": Each time he fired was in reaction to events around\targetted at him.


I watched the video before I read much of other people analysis...and looked like he was certainly just shooting people. Also he shouldn't have even been there he traveled across state lines and shot people in a different state...why couldn't he have stayed home? Even if his firing was a reaction he killed two people and severely injured a third surely he has to have some accountability, I mean he straight up shot a person point blank in the head.

And well how did he not take things into his own hands? he figured he was 'securing the property' and he could use whatever force he wanted in doing so.


From what I can tell, in the first video I saw he wasn't "just shooting people", he was defending himself having somehow ended on the ground with a person swinging a skateboard at his head and another raising a gun towards him.

The "crossing state lines" and "securing the property" could simply come down to him (and others) not liking seeing wanton destruction of innocent people's property by un undisciplined mob, and so had travelled there to act as a deterence (a person is less likely to damage property when there is a risk of something happening to them).

Thus far, it seems it will likely come down to events surrounding the first shooting - was it "justified" (based on legal terminology, not pavlovian "he shouldn't have done that") and will be determined in court, taking into account events leading up to and around it (his being chased, gunshots around him, something thrown at him, etc. - possibly even including events around other similar riots around the country) - It could be self defence, it may not be - The best way to avoid disappointment over the verdict is to keep an open mind, not decide that you "prefer" one set of facts, and view everything in a way which supports those facts.


Alright well I will try to find further videos on the full incident, but from what I gathered he had already fired when he got mobbed. I mean just like anyone else he should get a full trial and evidence looked at, if they can find he acted more in at least what he thought was self defense that should be considered regardless of any political leanings he has. Either way it still just seems wrong he was allowed to walk away after that and return home like he committed deadly violence(regardless of the reason) and so probably should have been arrested on the spot. I mean hell I'd expect if I was to kill someone in self defense I'd still expect to be arrested on the spot till they can further investigate.
But even for example george floyd, at least deserved a fair trial in court rather than being killed on the street...but granted there are some who care more for the justice of that teen than they care about the justice for george floyd who didn't even get the chance of a trial.


That's the problem with the media: they whip people up into a frenzy based on a minimal amount of information, which may or may not tell the complete story.

Also, there are people who want justice for all, and so try to make sure both sides of a controversial issue are available rather than just a single side - George Floyd (and the recent shooting victims) deserve justice...But so do the police officers and this youth, and people attacking them/assuming they are guilty based on limited facts is not contributing to this.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

28 Aug 2020, 4:19 am

Why in the first place no one seems concerned about a 17yo taking an assault weapon into crowdy streets at a moment of unrest? 8O

IMO, that's where the problem starts. 17yos are kind of expected to be irresponsible and make bad decisions, that's why they can't e.g. buy liquor for themselves. But for some reason I completely can't get, no one thought that a teenager going to a place of social unrest with a deadly weapon was a problem - until actual people died.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 Aug 2020, 4:24 am

This image shows the shooter aiming at people who weren't threatening him.

Image



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

28 Aug 2020, 4:25 am

There’s no defense that I can think of for that 17-year-old.

What was he doing with a gun in the first place? Why did he travel all that way to be in the midst of the protests?

And it’s freaky that the cops didn’t stop him.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 Aug 2020, 4:30 am

The far right have members who arrive at BLM and antifa protests fully armed and the police always leave them alone as they are in groups and the protesters normally keep their distance.

This particular dude wandered into the protestors alone so was asking for trouble as it would be intimidating to see an armed man approaching unarmed protesters. My guess is he was itching for provocation but we will let the courts decide.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

28 Aug 2020, 4:41 am

Coming from a country where anti-government protests are just a part of local culture - How comes the police takes no issue with any groups of armed people during unrest? 8O


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 Aug 2020, 4:43 am

cyberdad wrote:
The far right have members who arrive at BLM and antifa protests fully armed and the police always leave them alone as they are in groups and the protesters normally keep their distance.

This particular dude wandered into the protestors alone so was asking for trouble as it would be intimidating to see an armed man approaching unarmed protesters. My guess is he was itching for provocation but we will let the courts decide.


Guessing you hadn't bothered to read earlier posts\linked articles, or research the topic...
Quote:
About 15 minutes before the first shooting, police officers drive past Mr. Rittenhouse, and the other armed civilians who claim to be protecting the dealership, and offer water out of appreciation.

Mr. Rittenhouse walks up to a police vehicle carrying his rifle and talks with the officers.

He eventually leaves the dealership and is barred by the police from returning. Six minutes later footage shows Mr. Rittenhouse being chased by an unknown group of people into the parking lot of another dealership several blocks away.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

It seems likely he had to leave for a "bathroom break" or some other reason: There's nothing indicating he wandered into the protesters: it seems more plausible he was trying to find his way back to the dealership and relative safety where he had been and the rioters, looking for trouble, came across him. Based on the footage, the only times he fired was in responce to an attack on himself: hardly the actions of someone "looking for trouble".



Steve1963
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2020
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,012
Location: western MA, USA

28 Aug 2020, 4:44 am

magz wrote:
How comes the police takes no issue with any groups of armed people during unrest? 8O
Because it is legal to openly carry firearms in the state of Wisconsin. He wasn't breaking any laws until he shot someone.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

28 Aug 2020, 4:46 am

Steve1963 wrote:
magz wrote:
How comes the police takes no issue with any groups of armed people during unrest? 8O
Because it is legal to openly carry firearms in the state of Wisconsin.

For minors, too?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>