Police shooting in Wisconsin,protests erupt

Post Reply New Topic

You are missing the point of my question that I am posing. If Rittenhouse was "chums" with the milita whom Rosenbaum was taunting minutes earlier why would they leave Rittenhouse to fend for himself against somebody who already made himself known to them as an adversary?

After the crowd passed the premises and Kyle believed the threat of further destruction had passed, he became increasingly concerned with the injured protestors and bystanders congregating at a nearby gas station with no immediate access to medical assistance or help from law enforcement. Kyle headed in that direction with a first aid kit. He sought out injured persons, rendered aid, and tried to guide people to others who could assist to the extent he could do so amid the chaos. By the final time Kyle returned to the gas station and confirmed there were no more injured individuals who needed assistance, police had advanced their formation and blocked what would have been his path back to the mechanic’s shop. Kyle then complied with the police instructions not to go back there. Kyle returned to the gas station until he learned of a need to help protect the second mechanic’s shop further down the street where property destruction was imminent with no police were nearby.

Ignoring the fact that this is presented by the defence team...

... Let's not ignore this...

Police Officer Rusten Sheskey has told investigators that it wasn't just his life he was defending when he fired his weapon seven times at Jacob Blake last month in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He said he used deadly force during the chaotic encounter because he was afraid Blake, while attempting to flee the scene, was trying to kidnap a child in the backseat of the vehicle.

"He's got my kid. He's got my keys," Sheskey heard a woman say, according to attorney Brendan Matthews, who is representing the officer. If Sheskey had allowed Blake to drive away and something happened to the child "the question would have been 'why didn't you do something?'" Matthews said.

That explanation, provided in an exclusive interview with CNN, offers the most detailed rationale to date for Sheskey's highly scrutinized decision to shoot Blake, who is Black, as he leaned into an SUV with his children inside it on August 23. Cellphone video of the shooting went viral on the internet, sparking days of protests and rioting in the lakeside city of Kenosha. The shooting, which Blake's family has said resulted in paralysis from his waist down, was widely condemned as yet another unjustified shooting of a Black person by police.

The attorney's comments to CNN come as authorities in Wisconsin announced this week that the results of an investigation by the state Department of Justice would soon be turned over to a retired police chief serving as an independent consultant for his review. The consultant is in turn expected to forward the case to local prosecutors along with an analysis intended to help determine whether criminal charges against Sheskey are warranted. The officer remains on paid administrative leave.

Matthews told CNN he typically does not talk about pending cases but said he felt compelled to provide some additional detail to counter what he described as an "incomplete, inaccurate" narrative that has emerged to date. Matthews directly disputed assertions by Blake's family and lawyers that he was unarmed and posed no threat to the officers.

You will notice that I explicitly indicated the producer.

The reason for posting was the additional\clearer footage it included, as you are obviously aware having trimmed that from your reply to make your partisan remark.

I'd rather ensure people have as much information as possible, rather than encourage "low-information"\partisan habits where people only care about\research one side of an issue.

Ok thanks for the heads up, but you only ever seem to take the side of a notoriously brutal police state I'm not even sure you've ever been to & most of us live here.

Peace out.

Yes rather strange if he's so confident that he's innocent.

It also includes a possible reason why Kyle was initially chased (whether true or not, it is impossible to know).

I would think Rittenhouse would have to jump at a plea deal, vs risk LIFE in prison.

Judging by the fact kyle is hiding and resisting extradition I think he knows what's waiting for him when he faces witness statements that he provoked protestors.

That is precisely what I said earlier that Lin Wood has no choice. The issue know is whether the authorities can drag Rittenhouse from his rat-hole and take him back kicking and screaming to Wisconsin.

Similarly, you have this constant (pavlovian) responce that he "provoked" the protestors who he shot, yet whenever verifiable evidence (or in fact any, given that the actual evidence held\presented by the police does not include it, and I have seen nothing published to indicateit occuring) is requested, you slink away, unable to provide it...

Barnes explicitly stated that the prosecution will find antifa witnesses who say Rittenhouse provoked them.

It may not be true.

It may be subjective.

However, Barnes describes this as a failing of the defense team "lock down" all witnesses into a testimony.

Similarly, you have this constant (pavlovian) responce that he "provoked" the protestors who he shot, yet whenever verifiable evidence (or in fact any, given that the actual evidence held\presented by the police does not include it, and I have seen nothing published to indicateit occuring) is requested, you slink away, unable to provide it...If you don't have evidence that supports your assumptions, the least you could do would be to prefix your assumptions with an indication that it is merely an assumption, and has nothing to support it: unless you are dishonestly seeking to "hide" facts that do not support your wishes by making false claims?.

From what I can tell, L. Lin Wood and John Pierce don't have background in these types of cases\this states's laws, and have been having problems getting local lawyers (related to their background, not the case), which has caused the delays, as well as other failings so far regarding the defence case.

The point I was making is that there are certain member(s) who have a reputation for making statements (such as that Kyle provoked Mr Rosenbaum), yet every time they are asked what evidence they have to support their claim which they had asserted as being a fact, they either run off to hide, ignore that request when replying, or (rarely) admit that is was an assumption, not a fact...And then repeat the process in another thread (or even the same one). This shows great disrespect for those reading their posts and seeking an honest discussion\explanation of events, as well as leading to problems (such as with the Brionna Taylor case) where people were lied to\had facts hidden from them, and were later surprised by the results.

Sadly, to those dishonest people, pushing their agenda is more important than ensuring only factual information is supplied, or making it clear when something is an assumption\not supported by facts\evidence.