Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Police shooting in Wisconsin,protests erupt

Page 6 of 22 [ 340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 22  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 Aug 2020, 5:54 am

Brictoria wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:


That certainly supports the information I had seen from multiple sources: Not what the "low information" commentators tried to say (based on one or 2 "news" sources at the time and no actual research), where they imply he wanted to find trouble, and had instigated the conflicts.

I believe Robert Barnes and Viva Frei will be discussing it Sunday night (US time), and it will be interesting to see how they explain\describe what happened from their own legal experience\understanding.

I do agree with the commentator in this video that the carrying of the rifle looks like the only charge he may have problems with, but it may be possible he has appropriate documentation that would be recognised under reciprocal agreements between the states, and so that may not be a problem, either.

As a side note: I wonder how inidcative of the protester population in general the 3 who were shot would be, given that all had criminal records: The odds would be low that taking a random selection of 3 people from the total would result in picking the only 3 with records...And how the ratio compares with other related riots.

Also, I wonder if the rioter shot in the arm will face charges related to brandishing his weapon, particularly with his friend having mentioned on Facebok that he wished he hadn't hesitated, and had instead emptied his magazine into Kyle.


Yep watched the video...the dude with gun t-shirt said
1. Wisconsin law states a 17 yr old can;t wander around woth an AR15 - first charge
2. Why is he wandering around after the 8pm curfew? - second charge
3. Kyle said he was there to protect lives - he failed miserably killing two and seriously injuring one

Even if Rosenbaum was stalking him he was still unarmed. This is turning into another George Zimmerman story



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 Aug 2020, 5:57 am

vermontsavant wrote:
I don't think anyone is making Rittenhouse into hero,but he may have a good case for self defense.

I haven't seen anyone doing that: I have seen some making him out to be evil incarnate, ignoring\avoiding any information which disproves their assertions.

Sadly, to these "low information" people, who prefer to focus on their side (or what they WANT to see) rather than looking into both sides of the story, anyone trying to provide the details\information they are lacking\ignoring is interpreted as trying to make him into a "hero", rather than simply someone trying to bring facts to their attention.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 Aug 2020, 6:01 am

Brictoria wrote:
Sadly, to these "low information" people, who prefer to focus on their side (or what they WANT to see) rather than looking into both sides of the story, anyone trying to provide the details\information they are lacking\ignoring is interpreted as trying to make him into a "hero", rather than simply someone trying to bring facts to their attention.


I assume this is directed at me. I am taking the relevant information..I am willing to accept the kid thought he was entitled to defend himself but that might be why Wisconsin law prohibits children from marching around with a loaded automatic weapon.

The kid is going to jail....no George Zimmerman special concessions...



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 Aug 2020, 6:09 am

Quote:
he dude with gun t-shirt


You mean the lawyer?


_________________
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

29 Aug 2020, 6:10 am

Just looking at Wisconsin law ..."The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself"
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/III/48

"Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury"
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... s/939/I/22

In the second video, there doesn't appear to be a threat of death or great bodily harm

It appears like he was just shooting people based on them chasing him, not an actual threat of death.


_________________
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.


Last edited by TheRobotLives on 29 Aug 2020, 6:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 Aug 2020, 6:20 am

Watch the video I posted.


_________________
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

29 Aug 2020, 6:27 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
Watch the video I posted.

Watch the video I posted of when he shoots people who are chasing him.

His attorney has to prove that everyone he shot posed a threat of death or great bodily harm to him.

The last kid he shot put his hands up defensively, and starting running away from him.

This is about PROOF.

These people may have threatened bodily harm, but that is not good enough.

There needs to be proof that they threatened death or great bodily harm.


_________________
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

29 Aug 2020, 6:33 am

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Sadly, to these "low information" people, who prefer to focus on their side (or what they WANT to see) rather than looking into both sides of the story, anyone trying to provide the details\information they are lacking\ignoring is interpreted as trying to make him into a "hero", rather than simply someone trying to bring facts to their attention.


I assume this is directed at me. I am taking the relevant information..I am willing to accept the kid thought he was entitled to defend himself but that might be why Wisconsin law prohibits children from marching around with a loaded automatic weapon.

The kid is going to jail....no George Zimmerman special concessions...


Nope, it was a generalised statement about the people who, even when relevent information is provided\available, choose to ignore it in favor of what suits their own wishes regarding something which occurred.

The law regarding age restrictions may also not apply due to exemptions in it for rifles\shotguns, written for hunting, but badly drafted and so may also allow his carrying it here:
Quote:
Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

Rittenhouse could be in violation of having a gun within a gun-free zone, if there was one covering, for instance, a school nearby. Also, Illinois law requires anyone who owns any kind of firearm in that state to have a Firearm Owners Identification card, but that is only available to someone 21 or older, or someone with a sponsor who is 21 and eligible for a card.

Rittenhouse did not own the gun, his lawyer said Friday.

"Kyle did not carry a gun across state line," L. Lin Wood said in a tweet Friday morning. "The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident. The gun never left the state of Wisconsin."

Source: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

I'm not sure he would be going to jail as a result of what happened, but again, it comes down to what a Jury decide, not what anyone here believes.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 Aug 2020, 6:35 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Watch the video I posted.

Watch the video I posted of when he shoots people who are chasing him.

His attorney has to prove that everyone he shot posed a threat of death or great bodily harm to him.

The last kid he shot put his hands up defensively, and starting running away from him.

This is about PROOF.

These people may have threatened bodily harm, but that is not good enough.

There needs to be proof that they threatened death or great bodily harm.


Something you may not have noticed if you haven't looked into this: The last person he shot had a hand-gun in his hand and was bring it up towards him...

I suggest you look at the last video Wolfram87 or I posted, as both actually discuss the issue (with video) from a legal standpoint, rather than an "I believe this so it must be true" view.



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 Aug 2020, 6:48 am

A violent mob chasing you is a "a threat of death or great bodily harm" by definition.


Quote:
The last kid he shot put his hands up defensively, and starting running away from him.


You mean the guy with a gun in his hand who hesitates when he has the gun pointed at him, but then comes at him again? That guy?

That guy's name is Gaige Grosskreutz, on probation for drugs and weapons offenses, and a member of the People's Revolution movement. He has since expressed his regret that he did not empty his gun into Ritterbaum.


_________________
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

29 Aug 2020, 6:52 am

Brictoria wrote:
Something you may not have noticed if you haven't looked into this: The last person he shot had a hand-gun in his hand and was bring it up towards him...

I suggest you look at the last video Wolfram87 or I posted, as both actually discuss the issue (with video) from a legal standpoint, rather than an "I believe this so it must be true" view.

I am discussing this from a legal standpoint, as I cited Wisconsin law.

His attorney has to prove each and everyone he shot posed a threat of death or great bodily harm.

In truth, it appears like he was shooting people who were chasing him.

Regarding the last kid he shot, I do see the gun, however, it's unclear if he ever pointed it at the kid.


_________________
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.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

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

29 Aug 2020, 6:53 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
A violent mob chasing you is a "a threat of death or great bodily harm" by definition.

It has to be a real threat not a potential threat.

Otherwise, we could kill anyone who may do something.


_________________
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.


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 Aug 2020, 6:57 am

So you're saying they'd have to actually shoot him before posing a "real" threat?


_________________
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.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 Aug 2020, 6:58 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Something you may not have noticed if you haven't looked into this: The last person he shot had a hand-gun in his hand and was bring it up towards him...

I suggest you look at the last video Wolfram87 or I posted, as both actually discuss the issue (with video) from a legal standpoint, rather than an "I believe this so it must be true" view.

I am discussing this from a legal standpoint, as I cited Wisconsin law.

His attorney has to prove each and everyone he shot posed a threat of death or great bodily harm.

In truth, it appears like he was shooting people who were chasing him.

Regarding the last kid he shot, I do see the gun, however, it's unclear if he ever pointed it at the kid.


Again, have a look at Wolfram87's linked video, or the video I linked earlier: Both have real lawyers analyzing them from a legal point of view, discussing what was happening (from videos they show) along with how it would affect\be affected by the applicable laws.

Just because you aren't happy he shot people doesn't mean it was "wrong" (legally) that he did so, which is where listening to an impartial lawyer explain events (much as a defence lawyer might in a case) can help get a different view\understanding of what occurred, and why.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

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

29 Aug 2020, 7:06 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
So you're saying they'd have to actually shoot him before posing a "real" threat?

I am saying his lawyer will have to prove in court that he was in a life or death struggle with each of the people he shot, and a reasonable person would of shot/killed these people.

How his defensive team wants to prove it is up to them.

One way could be to get witness testimony if one of them said, "I am going to kill you".


_________________
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.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

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

29 Aug 2020, 7:27 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
So you're saying they'd have to actually shoot him before posing a "real" threat?

I am saying his lawyer will have to prove in court that he was in a life or death struggle with each of the people he shot, and a reasonable person would of shot/killed these people.

How his defensive team wants to prove it is up to them.

One way could be to get witness testimony if one of them said, "I am going to kill you".

My understanding is that they were chasing him, because he shot someone earlier.

They were shouting, "That's the shooter".

So, it appears that they were not trying to harm him, rather they were trying to disarm him, stop him from shooting someone else?

So, it seems like it will be very difficult for his defense team to prove that the people he shot were trying to cause him great bodily harm.


_________________
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.