Police shooting in Wisconsin,protests erupt

Post Reply New Topic

*sigh* Ok I will extract the shots that show it.

However, I have to go out to breakfast first.

It's clear, Rosenbaum is propelled backwards after the first shot, so I don't know what you're trying to say.

Yes, Rosenbaum was running towards him, and then BLAST, is propelled backwards.

Before doing so, have a look at the charging documents (specifically the last paragraph on page 3, continuing until about the middle of page 4 of the following):
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journaltimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/6f/46ff33b7-0bd7-55e6-8f2f-9ded0582862f/5f4933274cde9.pdf.pdf

Maybe it will help you understand what occurred.

I find your responses strange.

You post a video, then when challenged on your video, you ask us to look at "charging documents".

This is the frame right after the first shot, and despite Rosenbaum running towards Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum is propelled backwards (of course) from the rifle shot.

Notice how Rittenhouse changed positions to be on the other side of the car now.

He probably moved there to be safer.

While on the other side of the car, Rittenhouse shoots several more times into falling Rosenbaum?

Even shooting Rosenbaum in his back as he's falling?

How can this possibly be self-defense?

Rittenhouse was safe behind the car.

An unarmed, falling man is not a threat.

I thought this was interesting ...

If the prosecutor can prove one single illegal action, then Rittenhouse loses his entire self-defense for all killings.

Strangely, the image is not available to be viewed...

One other point I guess you haven't noticed: The direction Kyle runs from at the start of the video, and which he runs back again after shooting Mr Rosenbaum is the same. If you look at the video, from around 38 seconds point, you can see it is Mr Rosenbaum's FEET towards the camera, not his head, so he fell in the direction Kyle was running TOWARDS, not back away from him...

And the first shot you hear is NOT Kyle shooting - at around 10 minute, 40 seconds into this, you can see where that first, single shot came from.

But does the video show evidence Rosenbaum was
i) moving toward Rittenhouse
ii) carrying a loaded weapon
iii) threatening Rittenhouse with the weapon?

Seems to still be some gaps in the justifiable homicide story

As has been pointed out in this thread and to yourself on multiple occasions, your points ii) and iii) have no bearing on this case.

If you feel the need to "contribute" further, could you take the time to read the information provided, as well as watch the linked videos.

Had you done so, you would be well aware that Mt Rosenbaum does not need to be carrying a "loaded weapon", (or, for that matter, any weapon):


The pertinent portion of this being:


As should be quite clear, what is required is the "reasonable belief" that the force used is needed "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.". "Great bodily harm or death" CAN be caused by unarmed people, and can also be caused by a person attempting to take a weapon from a person, should they manage to take control of the weapon.

To put this in simple terms for your understanding:
Mr Rosenbaum, by electing to try and initiate a confrontation, chasing Kyle when he wished to avoid this confrontation, throwing an object (inside a bag) at him, and then trying to grab his weapon, would have (theoretically) presented the appearance of a person intending to cause "imminent death or great bodily harm" to Kyle, from Kyle's point of view.

Maybe YOU don't like what happened, but neither would Kyle...He had been there providing first-aid to rioters, made what effort he could to remove himself from Mr Rosenbaum's vicinity (The witness statement used in the charging documents indicate that Mr Rosenbaum was trying to initiate some sort of engagement with Kyle, and that Kyle wanted no part in it and so started running from that area, with Mr Rosenbaum electing to chase him), but was pursued, had an object thrown at him by the pursuer, and then had the pursued lunging at him to try and get his weapon - Can you think of a reasonable explanation for how (from all evidence available - actual facts, not assumptions) this unprovoked series of events aimed at him would be seen by him as being other than intended to cause him "imminent death or great bodily harm"?

I for one know kids with assault rifles are full of s**t.

Your total ignorance towards the concept of range safety, as if military weapons belong with high schoolers who don't know to lock them the f**k up during riots, is very telling.

This kid shot human beings knowingly. Yeah, walk it back.

Blake is the type of criminal that most of us would not want around our familes at all.

Based on his criminal record, I still can't understand why he thought his actions (including ignoring the police) were a "good idea"...It's not like it was his first time dealing with them, where "misunderstandings" would be possible, after all, so he should have been aware of what was expected of him in the circumstances.

Are you his lawyer? I thought that's what Lin wood is being paid for...to pursuade the jury Kyle Rittenhouse felt justified in killing two people and seriously injuring one. There's still a lot of dodgy things that happened (otherwise why go through all this legal charade over Rittenhouse's right to self-defence).

This is a discussion forum not an undergraduate legal class so I am not sure why are you getting so defensive?

Let's just say that I'm not a fan of people spreading incorrect\false information\lies, when they have had the actual information supplied to them on multiple occasions: It makes it seem like they are being willfully ignorant, or pushing an agenda rather than trying to have an honest discussion.

The court will be presenting two sets of objective facts

1. The videos which show the events as they transpired
2. The relevant laws pertaining to the state of Wisconsin

My guess is the prosecutor and defence lawyers will interpret both 1/2 in the most favourable light for their respective clients.

A lot of the evidence you presented Bric are your interpretations of videos and laws.

I'm doing the same.

Asking about:

when video and other evidence already demonstrated he did not have one, and that one was not required for a "self defence" claim isn't exactly providing evidence, though...

That's up to the court to decide based on the laws. Walking toward somebody with a plastic bag warranted lethal force.

Unless you have access to material I don't, there does not seem to be any assault rifles nor military rifles involved here.