• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

police-involved shooting in Kenosha, WI...unrest ensues

Page 30 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Wreckem said:
Everything you are basing it on the assumption he didn’t brandish and point his weapon at protesters first. Eye witness statements are contrary to that which is why I called it murder and continue to call it murder.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. When a gun is pointed at you, you have a right of self-defense, including trying to disarm the person brandishing. In an escalating sequence of causally related events, whoever put the other in reasonable fear first is the one who is legally in the wrong.

That having been said, verbals threats, if they were concrete and physical, could justify the brandishing as a deterrent act of self-defense.

Which is why I'm not ready to call this one just yet.

One thing I am clear on is that this kid should never have been there armed with an assault rifle. And he wouldn't have been had it not been through radicalization likely by way of social media.
 
Wreckem said:
Everything you are basing it on the assumption he didn’t brandish and point his weapon at protesters first. Eye witness statements are contrary to that which is why I called it murder and continue to call it murder.
Click to expand...

The dude was literally running away in EVERY instance. At ZERO points did he instigate anything. He wasn't the one saying "SHOOT ME!"

Openly carrying a weapon during riots isn't a sign that says "You are free to assault me and knock me unconscious at anytime"

And "eye witness statements" have been proven wrong time and time again. It is literally the worst evidence a lawyer can try and use in court as seen with countless other police instances where people got butt-hurt that they won their Darwin award (e.g. Michael Brown)
 
KMFJD said:
andy ngo lol

spreading their lies again

4ZWo8TY.jpg

https://twitter.com/x/status/1298806278597283846
Click to expand...

All of this is 100% irrelevant and the posters making issue of it know it.

That said, I would also point out that Rosenbaum, who HP called a "child rapist," was convicted of sexual contact with a minor in Arizona when he was 18 years old. The AZ statute makes it a crime to have sexual contact with anyone under 18. So it is far from clear what the nature of his offense was. It could have been him having sex with his high school girlfriend, whose parents found out and called the cops.

Someone on one of those tweets claimed it as a "class C felony" so his victim had to be 12 or under, but there is no "class C felony" in AZ so I suspect he is full of shit.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
The dude was literally running away in EVERY instance. At ZERO points did he instigate anything. He wasn't the one saying "SHOOT ME!"

Openly carrying a weapon during riots isn't a sign that says "You are free to assault me and knock me unconscious at anytime"

And "eye witness statements" have been proven wrong time and time again. It is literally the worst evidence a lawyer can try and use in court as seen with countless other police instances where people got butt-hurt that they won their Darwin award (e.g. Michael Brown)
Click to expand...

Yelling shoot me is not a threat. Heated arguments don’t give someone the right brandish and point a firearm at another person especially when you started the argument.

The videos doesn’t show the original altercation where Kyle reportedly approached the people and started an argument with them.

The police have done the investigation. The other guy with a gun hasn’t been charged and Kyle has. You are basically saying the cops are incompetent.

They have all the evidence, where as you and I don’t.

The kid broke the law and decided to go roleplay fake cop. He did something stupid. Then he killed two people and shot another.

The most plausible scenario here is he decided to play fake cop and approached people. He started arguing with them and he brandished the gun. This is not out of the realm of possibility because of how poorly he was handling that thing all night. Once he brandished, the other guy pulled out his handgun and then the kid realized he was in over his head and tried to flee. At that point he’s the original threat and People are chasing him because they are trying to stop him. He kills one. Then they chase him even more because he just killed someone. Then he kills another.

The cops have investigated. Kid fled the scene and state. Other guy called 9-11 and stayed at the scene. Kids in jail. Other guy is not.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9998 said:
One thing I am clear on is that this kid should never have been there armed with an assault rifle. And he wouldn't have been had it not been through radicalization likely by way of social media.
Click to expand...

And Jaskalas point there as he stated multiple times is - regardless of "he should be there" - it doesn't in anyway negate his right to defend his own life.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
And Jaskalas point there as he stated multiple times is - regardless of "he should be there" - it doesn't in anyway negate his right to defend his own life.
Click to expand...

And you deleted the other portion of my post in which I first addressed that issue directly. Pointing your gun at people immediately gives them a right of self-defense, including a right to disarm, unless the brandishing itself was justified as self-defense. In which case, it would have been a verbal threat of bodily harm. A fact not yet established here. Rosenbaum saying "shoot me n***a" is not a threat. But then, people were saying a lot of things and it's very chaotic in the video, so we'll see.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yes, exactly. When a gun is pointed at you, you have a right of self-defense, including trying to disarm the person brandishing. In an escalating sequence of causally related events, whoever put the other in reasonable fear first is the one who is legally in the wrong.

That having been said, verbals threats, if they were concrete and physical, could justify the brandishing as a deterrent act of self-defense.

Which is why I'm not ready to call this one just yet.

One thing I am clear on is that this kid should never have been there armed with an assault rifle. And he wouldn't have been had it not been through radicalization likely by way of social media.
Click to expand...
Or the police looking the other way.
 
Jaskalas said:
If only you would give the victim of their crimes, Rittenhouse, that same regard. And respect his right to live. His right to defend himself from assault.

Are you going to tell me because he was 17, because he crossed state line... that Rittenhouse somehow forfits his right to live? That he can be chased down and attacked, from the beginning? BEFORE he defends himself? BEFORE he shoots anyone?

Posters here are telling me an innocent person can and should be attacked on the streets of the city. And now I hear excuses for why that is. Because he's young. Because he didn't live there. Guess the riot had to lynch him then. Is that what you stand for? Is that what you believe? Because that is what you have been telling me here. And I am disgusted beyond measure. Beyond belief. That you reject self defense.

You have crossed a bridge I cannot follow.
Click to expand...
You are disgusted because your dumbass keeps putting words in other people's mouths and misrepresenting not just the known facts and evidence so far but what other posters are stating.
Nobody once said that Kyle deserved to die. But he WAS the one that initiated brandishing a weapon at others. So they should just allow him to wave his gun at people and be okay with it, I guess? Because muh freedumbs.
Not sure why you refuse to see this...especially after a police investigation found him in the wrong and filed multiple charges.
 
KMFJD said:
abc3340.com

Teen accused of killing 2 thrust into debate over protests

ANTIOCH, Ill. (AP) — A white 17-year-old who says he went to protests in Wisconsin to protect businesses and people has become a flashpoint in a debate over anti-racism demonstrations that have gripped many American cities and the vigilantism that has sometimes met them.
abc3340.com abc3340.com

extradition hearing delayed for a month
Click to expand...
From the link:
The medical examiner found that Rosenbaum was shot in the groin and back — which fractured his pelvis and perforated his right lung and liver — and his left hand. He also suffered a superficial wound to his left thigh and a graze wound to his forehead.
Click to expand...
Shot in the back may mess up his self defense claim.
 
Last edited:
s0me0nesmind1 said:
And Jaskalas point there as he stated multiple times is - regardless of "he should be there" - it doesn't in anyway negate his right to defend his own life.
Click to expand...
He was in illegal potion of a firearm. Why are you defending a criminal? Do you know more than the police who have charged the kid with homicide? Are you somehow more informed then they are?
 
Jaskalas said:
If only you would give the victim of their crimes, Rittenhouse, that same regard. And respect his right to live. His right to defend himself from assault.

If Democrats are united against self defense, if the Party stands against our right to LIVE....

There are plenty of policy issues the Left has wrong, with regards to how we obtain a secure and sustainable future. But they are still much closer to what I want to achieve than the Republicans will ever be. HOWEVER, if you insist on violating our most basic right to live and if you lap praise on violent rioters assaulting people on the streets.... you will not like my answer.

If you want to burn it down like the rioters, then by god, that can be achieved too. Civil discourse is at an impasse here. I can only hope you see reason from madness as the trial presents the same evidence I have already presented here. Are you going to tell me because he was 17, because he crossed state line... that Rittenhouse somehow forfits his right to live? That he can be chased down and attacked, from the beginning? BEFORE he defends himself? BEFORE he shoots anyone?

Posters here are telling me an innocent person can and should be attacked on the streets of the city. And now I hear excuses for why that is. Because he's young. Because he didn't live there. Guess the riot had to lynch him then. Is that what you stand for? Is that what you believe? Because that is what you have been telling me here. And I am disgusted beyond measure. Beyond belief. That you reject self defense.

You have crossed a bridge I cannot follow.
Click to expand...
Several people on the streets said KR pointed his gun at them. Brandishing a weapon will get people's attention in a negative way. He had done that enough times until the crowd tried to disarm him. He eventually shot someone. How many times during Trayvon Martin were we told following someone is not a crime. The crowd was engaged in self defense and KM killed 2 people.

I don't give KR regard because he did not belong there. He was illegally open carrying a loaded weapon pointing it at people.
 
HomerJS said:
Several people on the streets said KR pointed his gun at them. Brandishing a weapon will get people's attention in a negative way. He had done that enough times until the crowd tried to disarm him. He eventually shot someone. How many times during Trayvon Martin were we told following someone is not a crime. The crowd was engaged in self defense and KM killed 2 people.
Click to expand...

You silly goose, you only have the right to defend yourself if you have a gun!
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
The dude was literally running away in EVERY instance. At ZERO points did he instigate anything. He wasn't the one saying "SHOOT ME!"

Openly carrying a weapon during riots isn't a sign that says "You are free to assault me and knock me unconscious at anytime"

And "eye witness statements" have been proven wrong time and time again. It is literally the worst evidence a lawyer can try and use in court as seen with countless other police instances where people got butt-hurt that they won their Darwin award (e.g. Michael Brown)
Click to expand...
No he was not. He pointed his illegal weapon enough times at people until they tried to disarm him. They tried to take his gun not kill him. That likely changed when KR shot the fist person.

The crowd was engaged in self defense. KR was the aggressor until shit went horribly wrong
 
HomerJS said:
No he was not. He pointed his illegal weapon enough times at people until they tried to disarm him. They tried to take his gun not kill him. That likely changed when KR shot the fist person.

The crowd was engaged in self defense. KR was the aggressor until shit went horribly wrong
Click to expand...

lol your perception of reality is rather hilarious.
 
I know this is controversial, but should citizens be allowed to wander the streets with rifles? I just don't understand the value that right brings over the insanity of people wandering the streets armed like the military. Based on the results of this freedom, it's a net negative?

If you ever you needed proof that such free access to weapons is stupidity, this would be it. I'm all for being able to own handguns and rifles for self defense and use on farms or for hunting etc. People do not need the right to wander main street with an M4 like John fucking Rambo.

The type of individual who thinks to themself, 'Hey, I am going to camo up, grab my weapons, and go patrol the streets during protests and riots' is probably acting more on some misguided ego or radicalization, than on good intentions IMO.
 
Right-wing authoritarians have their talking points.

This kid who illegally carried a rifle and shot political opponents is a hero. The people who were murdered deserved it, because they aren't right-wing authhoritarians.

It is now the official stance of right-wing authoritarians that protesters can be murdered at will by right-wing authoritarians.

There's no arguing with them. They don't care. Their in-group is allowed to kill people now.

Deal with it.
 
nickqt said:
Right-wing authoritarians have their talking points.

This kid who illegally carried a rifle and shot political opponents is a hero. The people who were murdered deserved it, because they aren't right-wing authhoritarians.

It is now the official stance of right-wing authoritarians that protesters can be murdered at will by right-wing authoritarians.

There's no arguing with them. They don't care. Their in-group is allowed to kill people now.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...
This kid and the group he showed up with seem to be there to instigate trouble. Where is slowbuck and his constant babbling about agitators?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top