Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Police shooting in Wisconsin,protests erupt

Page 15 of 22 [ 340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 22  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

03 Sep 2020, 2:07 am

cyberdad wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Gaige Grosskreutz, the third assailant.


He's the only one left alive, could he have pulled the gun out of his bag for self-defence?


Maybe...There appears much less chance of that, based on evidence available, than there is that Kyle shot the 3 people in self defence, though.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Sep 2020, 2:07 am

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Someone discharged a gun very close to him, behind him, in a crowd that was focused on him and intent on harming him. Whether they actually aimed at him is what's irrelevant in those circumstances.


Not sure how hearing a gun discharge justifies shooting into a crowd?


Not sure how shooting only at the individuals who were the threat to his safety justifies an accusation of "shooting into a crowd", either...


None of Rittenhouse's three victims were armed so perhaps you are suggesting he (Rittenhouse) suffers from visual hallucinations that he believed all of his victims were armed despite the fact they weren't.


Well, besides the fact that one of the people killed was armed with a skateboard (which he had used as a weapon) and had a hand on the weapon which Kyle held (which, based on my understanding, counts as "armed" under the appropriate laws), and another who was shot in the arm was carrying a handgun, the actual laws applicable in this case which relate to self defence only requires a belief that he was at risk of "great bodily harm", which does not require a weapon in order to be inflicted.

But you already would have known this, had you read earlier posts...


A skateboard isn't technically a weapon but I guess that's for the courts to decide. Grosskreutz was holding a gun after he was shot, no doubt he pulled it out following getting shot in the arm as the picture suggests. Rosenbaum died in a hail of bullets and was unarmed.

So if Robot is correct Rittenhouse is facing at least a minimum of 12 yrs at least for Rosenbaum's killing.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

03 Sep 2020, 2:13 am

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Someone discharged a gun very close to him, behind him, in a crowd that was focused on him and intent on harming him. Whether they actually aimed at him is what's irrelevant in those circumstances.


Not sure how hearing a gun discharge justifies shooting into a crowd?


Not sure how shooting only at the individuals who were the threat to his safety justifies an accusation of "shooting into a crowd", either...


None of Rittenhouse's three victims were armed so perhaps you are suggesting he (Rittenhouse) suffers from visual hallucinations that he believed all of his victims were armed despite the fact they weren't.


Well, besides the fact that one of the people killed was armed with a skateboard (which he had used as a weapon) and had a hand on the weapon which Kyle held (which, based on my understanding, counts as "armed" under the appropriate laws), and another who was shot in the arm was carrying a handgun, the actual laws applicable in this case which relate to self defence only requires a belief that he was at risk of "great bodily harm", which does not require a weapon in order to be inflicted.

But you already would have known this, had you read earlier posts...


A skateboard isn't technically a weapon but I guess that's for the courts to decide. Grosskreutz was holding a gun after he was shot, no doubt he pulled it out following getting shot in the arm as the picture suggests. Rosenbaum died in a hail of bullets and was unarmed.

So if Robot is correct Rittenhouse is facing at least a minimum of 12 yrs at least for Rosenbaum's killing.


Have a look at the last video I posted: It goes into the instructions a jury is supplied with, along with video of what happened - nothing in it is directed at ponting you to think one way or another.

And remember, if people here aren't able to agree on this, what is the liklihood a jury would all agree he was guilty in a murder trial (I'm not sure what percentage is needed for a guilty verdict in this area, but in most areas it is 100%, I believe).



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

03 Sep 2020, 2:21 am

An improvised weapon is still a weapon.

And no, he has the gun drawn well before getting shot. When Rittenhouse points the rifle at him he makes surrendering motions, but he makes a move to attack again once the rifle isn't aimed at him. That is why he got shot.

Also, he's holding the pistol in his right hand. You really think he used his freshly injured arm to pull out a gun after he was shot?


_________________
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.


Last edited by Wolfram87 on 03 Sep 2020, 2:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

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

03 Sep 2020, 2:21 am

cyberdad wrote:
[
So if Robot is correct Rittenhouse is facing at least a minimum of 12 yrs at least for Rosenbaum's killing.

No.

1. He's being charged with reckless endangerment of McGinniss.
2. He's being charged with reckless endangerment of an unknown male on the video.

https://www.axios.com/kyle-rittenhouse- ... 67ef4.html


_________________
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.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Sep 2020, 2:49 am

Ok so 6 charges

Count 1: First degree reckless homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
Count 2: First degree endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon
Count 3: First degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
Count 4: Attempt first degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
Count 5: First degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon
Count 6: Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18

Quite a few steeples to hurdle for Lin Wood



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

03 Sep 2020, 2:52 am

/\… Well, that's up to approx. 170 years + Life Imprisonment in total if convicted to serve consecutive sentences.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Sep 2020, 2:52 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
An improvised weapon is still a weapon.


But I mean a jury needs to be convinced a skateboard is an improvised weapon and secondly Huber's motivation was to protect his girlfriend from getting killed.

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,



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

03 Sep 2020, 2:59 am

Yep, these three felons surely had nothing but the safety of their fellow man in mind, I'm sure.


_________________
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.


Last edited by Wolfram87 on 03 Sep 2020, 2:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

03 Sep 2020, 2:59 am

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...



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Sep 2020, 3:04 am

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.



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

03 Sep 2020, 3:13 am

One was convicted of sexual assault of a minor and was on the sex offender registry.

One was on probation for unspecified weapons and drug charges.

And one was convicted of (I think miltiple counts of) domestic violence.

Grosskreutz may also have been convicted of burglary, but information is a bit muddy. What is clear is that he was not legally allowed to own or carry that gun, so throw that in there, too.


_________________
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.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

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

03 Sep 2020, 3:21 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
One was convicted of sexual assault of a minor and was on the sex offender registry.

One was on probation for unspecified weapons and drug charges.

And one was convicted of (I think miltiple counts of) domestic violence.

Grosskreutz may also have been convicted of burglary, but information is a bit muddy. What is clear is that he was not legally allowed to own or carry that gun, so throw that in there, too.

So, it was like "THE PURGE"?

Rittenhouse was taking out undesirables?

So, that makes it OK?

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.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

03 Sep 2020, 3:28 am

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.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Sep 2020, 3:55 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
One was convicted of sexual assault of a minor and was on the sex offender registry.

One was on probation for unspecified weapons and drug charges.

And one was convicted of (I think miltiple counts of) domestic violence.

Grosskreutz may also have been convicted of burglary, but information is a bit muddy. What is clear is that he was not legally allowed to own or carry that gun, so throw that in there, too.


You miss the point that the three men's criminal record isn't on trial here, its their conduct on the day, so far the witness statements and criminal complaints against Rittenhouse support all three men were trying to disarm Rittenhouse, Having horns and a tail doesn't matter if you are trying to save lives disarming a madman.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Sep 2020, 3:59 am

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.