Kenosha shooting

[NotsoSure]

Worth watching then. FYI, I just wanted to make sure if was reputable as there is so much rubbish q/anon stuff on YouTube these days. 

[Dadto2]

3 minutes ago, NotsoSure said:

Worth watching then. FYI, I just wanted to make sure if was reputable as there is so much rubbish q/anon stuff on YouTube these days. 

Yup for sure. I thought it was a fair and objective video.

[Mrs Zee]

You can't even make this shit up. 

https://www.facebook.com/7976226799/posts/10160509943196800/ 

[Dadto2]

I reckon he'll walk on the 3 homicide charges. 

[NotsoSure]

Probably. He lives in an ethnically homogenous area and hence the jury (picked at random) by all reports reflects that fact (which given a jury is supposed to be drawn from your "peers" in the relevant jurisdiction, it should). Jury aside, it appears the prosecution didn't do a great job and the facts, as far as I can tell (at least in relation to the 2nd and 3rd victims) at least appear to support the argument he was acting in self-defence. 

These cases always remind me of a couple of favourite sayings of a SC I worked with closely many years ago on a number of matters: "reasonable people can and do disagree about how facts should be interpreted" and "never assume your version of reasonableness is shared or accepted".

Edited November 18, 2021 by NotsoSure

[Dadto2]

Cleared of all 5 charges including the 2 homicide charges.

[Lucrezia Borgia]

this is a good and nuanced article on the case.Rittenhouse is no hero (clearly) but many influential voices in the media distorted facts in order to make them fit a narrative. 

https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-rittenhouse-verdict-shouldnt?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozODg5MDkwLCJwb3N0X2lkIjo0NDMwNzQyMCwiXyI6InhyVkx5IiwiaWF0IjoxNjM3MzYzNjg0LCJleHAiOjE2MzczNjcyODQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi02MTU3OSIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.2_UakGKiZYZVpEH081rpDDrNemxRTDMtOgzuDscrSR8

hmmm, that link may not work - here is the tweet that took me through to the link:

 

 

 

[Dadwasathome]

I was on a forum that is US dominated earlier and a poster made the comment “don’t attack someone without expecting to be shot”

the whole situation around this, from the action that prompted the protests, to the right wing anti-protests, to the politicisation of the judicial system is sordid.

But US acceptance of violence shows how broken their systems is, yet many cannot recognise this.

[Meepy]

It also demonstrates that having guns available freely to the general populace with minimal regulation and restrictions is a dreadful way to live.

[purplekitty]

On 9/11/21 at 4:01 PM, Dadto2 said:

Maybe some good will come out of it and they'll change the archaic gun laws. The second amendment dates back 250 years.

Sandy Hook was that line in the sand.

Nothing happened.

[Kadoodle]

I’m guessing that civil action is now in the pipeline.

[pelagic]

I never thought he’d be convicted. As much as he’s a tossbag of the highest order, what he did is self defence in that country. The part I found most confusing was why the cops let him run toward them with a rifle. If he’d wanted to, he could have taken some cops out. 

[Lesley225]

It seems whoever shoots first is right - surely both people with a gun can say they were attacked.

[egg]

'"due process" blah blah blah.

We all know that if a black man got a gun, crossed state lines and went to a MAGA rally to "protect" property that was not his and got attacked by white men that the black man would not have a hope in hell of being acquitted on grounds of self defence.

Similarly if a woman went to a frat party wearing a short skirt and packing a weapon and then shot someone trying to have sex with her that would also not be self defence in America's courts.

He got off because it was a white conservative judge and a white conservative jury.  If the case escalates up the chain of courts he will continue to encounter white conservatives because they run the legal system.  

[Dadto2]

13 hours ago, egg said:

 

He got off because it was a white conservative judge and a white conservative jury.  If the case escalates up the chain of courts he will continue to encounter white conservatives because they run the legal system.  

I don't think this incident had anything to do with race, but that's the narrative people want to persist with. Peaceful BLM protestors shot dead by right wing, fascist white guy armed to the teeth. It gets labelled as a racial issue and boom they have carte blanche to tear up the city.

The reality is the shooting victims had little interest in the BLM movement, little interest in peaceful protesting, they turned up looking for trouble, like Rittenhouse, and found it, Rosenbaum was a drug addict, who had been convicted of domestic violence and horrific sex crimes against young boys. This is an inconvenient truth as it doesn't quite fit the narrative of peaceful BLM protester. It gets swept up the carpet because you start looking at all the details of the case you quickly realise this wasn't white vs black. This was two groups of angry, agitated people, some whom were armed, all looking for trouble.

And if you take the emotion right out of it look at the facts of the case, it was clear self defense. It doesn't matter what colour or race you are, no jury would find someone innocent in these circumstances with so many independent  witnesses corroborating Rittenhouse's account and so much quality footage. 

I'm not saying there is no systemic racism in the US or the judicial system isn't prejudiced, it is. But in this case the jury returned the right verdict and they would have done the same for a black person. 

[Kadoodle]

I’m willing to bet that he wouldn’t have been there if the protesters were predominantly white and male. 
I’m surprised that they even considered charging him with murder rather than manslaughter.

[egg]

1 hour ago, Dadto2 said:

The reality is the shooting victims had little interest in the BLM movement, little interest in peaceful protesting, they turned up looking for trouble, like Rittenhouse, and found it, Rosenbaum was a drug addict, who had been convicted of domestic violence and horrific sex crimes against young boys. This is an inconvenient truth as it doesn't quite fit the narrative of peaceful BLM protester. It gets swept up the carpet because you start looking at all the details of the case you quickly realise this wasn't white vs black. This was two groups of angry, agitated people, some whom were armed, all looking for trouble.

What does Rosenbaum's history have to do with any of it?  Did the shooter KNOW this. He's arguing self defence - not pretending that he was actioning some sort of divine justice.

I think if you put yourself into a situation where you are likely to need to use lethal force to protect yourself - it's not self defence, it's vigilantism and you need to accept that the consequence might be a criminal conviction.

 

[Dadto2]

1 hour ago, egg said:

What does Rosenbaum's history have to do with any of it?  Did the shooter KNOW this. He's arguing self defence - not pretending that he was actioning some sort of divine justice.

I think if you put yourself into a situation where you are likely to need to use lethal force to protect yourself - it's not self defence, it's vigilantism and you need to accept that the consequence might be a criminal conviction.

No you're not getting my point. People are wanting to turn this into a racial issue, right wing, white supremacist shoots dead BLM protestor and then is found not guilty by a racist, prejudicial jury. That's the narrative.

The reality is, Rosenbaum wasn't a BLM protester, he was there looking for trouble, his character is relevant because it contradicts the BLM supporters narrative of him being there as a peaceful BLM protester. 

Well it is vigilantism. But vigilantes have a right to defend themselves. The real issue, IMO, is that the armed militia were allowed to be there in the first place, legally carrying high powered military grade weapons, patrolling the streets seemingly supported by the police. Crazy. 

[Purpleblaze]

6 hours ago, Dadto2 said:

I don't think this incident had anything to do with race, but that's the narrative people want to persist with. Peaceful BLM protestors shot dead by right wing, fascist white guy armed to the teeth. It gets labelled as a racial issue and boom they have carte blanche to tear up the city.

The reality is the shooting victims had little interest in the BLM movement, little interest in peaceful protesting, they turned up looking for trouble, like Rittenhouse, and found it, Rosenbaum was a drug addict, who had been convicted of domestic violence and horrific sex crimes against young boys. This is an inconvenient truth as it doesn't quite fit the narrative of peaceful BLM protester. It gets swept up the carpet because you start looking at all the details of the case you quickly realise this wasn't white vs black. This was two groups of angry, agitated people, some whom were armed, all looking for trouble.

And if you take the emotion right out of it look at the facts of the case, it was clear self defense. It doesn't matter what colour or race you are, no jury would find someone innocent in these circumstances with so many independent  witnesses corroborating Rittenhouse's account and so much quality footage. 

I'm not saying there is no systemic racism in the US or the judicial system isn't prejudiced, it is. But in this case the jury returned the right verdict and they would have done the same for a black person. 

Sorry but I don’t believe for one second if Rittenhouse was black the same verdict would have been reached. It’s one set of rules for white men and another set of rules for everyone else.

[LifesGood]

If he was black he would be dead. 

[Dadto2]

3 hours ago, LifesGood said:

If he was black he would be dead. 

Yup most likely.

[pelagic]

12 hours ago, Purpleblaze said:

Sorry but I don’t believe for one second if Rittenhouse was black the same verdict would have been reached. It’s one set of rules for white men and another set of rules for everyone else.

You're right, but more because he would have been shot when he was running toward the police with a rifle. If it made it to court, I do think he'd have been let off on the same grounds. Especially if he'd shot the same guy at the beginning. That crowd is really ready to point at and brag about any people of colour who agree with them philosophically. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by pelagic

[pelagic]

I just read this which is pretty interesting, though doesn't seem to have been upheld in any way by the actual court involved. 

https://www.facebook.com/Antimatter.Me/posts/3658611830838242

[Dadto2]

22 hours ago, pelagic said:

I just read this which is pretty interesting, though doesn't seem to have been upheld in any way by the actual court involved. 

https://www.facebook.com/Antimatter.Me/posts/3658611830838242

That just seems like another emotionally charged rant. The irony is, his first sentence says "'I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around" and then he proceeds to post more ignorance and misinformation. The problem with such controversial and emotive incidents is that people become so enraged, the truth gets lost along the way. They're angry and want justice. And when they post on social media, they conveniently leave out information or twist things slightly to bolster their argument. e.g he writes:

 

"First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings."

Court documents obtained by Wisconsin Right Now from the Pima County (Arizona) Clerk of Courts confirm Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity with children, including anal rape, masturbation, oral sex, and showing minors pornography. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old. He was convicted of two amended counts as part of a plea deal

That information is readily available to anyone with internet access. 

If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester

Not sure where he got that from. Did Rittenhouse provoke any of this? No. Rosenbaum chased after him and tried to grab his gun.  Then Huber chased after Rittenhouse and hit him with a skateboard and Gutierrez pulled his gun and pointed it at Rittenhouse. And in the eyes of the law, this makes Rittenhouse the victim.

You could argue that the shooting of Rosenbaum was excessive. He wasn't armed, Rittenhouse was. But Rosenbaum tried to grab his gun, it would be reasonable of Rittenhouse to think that if Rosenbaum got his gun it would be used against him and so he believed Rosenbaum posed a deadly threat. I guess the fact he carried a gun is what put him in danger in the first place and justified him using deadly force.  But anyway it was up to the prosecutors to disprove self-defence and they couldn't do that. 

 

 

 

[Dadto2]

On 22/11/2021 at 8:50 AM, pelagic said:

You're right, but more because he would have been shot when he was running toward the police with a rifle. If it made it to court, I do think he'd have been let off on the same grounds. Especially if he'd shot the same guy at the beginning. That crowd is really ready to point at and brag about any people of colour who agree with them philosophically. 

Yup i agree with you there.