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

[HurleyBird]

Okay so now all you people defending the self defense thing, I'd like to hear you keep explaining it after this nugget.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1301482456793722880

Based on the available information, it's very easy to defend:

1. Kyle fired four shots in rapid succession.
2. Based on McGinnis' testimony, Rosenbaum was making a grabbing motion at the rifle (and therefore facing Rittenhouse) when Rittenhouse opened fire.
3. One of the gunshot wounds shattered Rosenbaum's pelvis.
4. You can't stand with a broken pelvis. At that point, Rosenbaum would have immediately begun to fall.
5. Therefore, the shot in the back can be explained by Rosenbaum falling and turning away from Rittenhouse in the middle of the four round discharge.

Now, the possible exception here is that we hear three additional shots after those four definitely-Rittenhouse rounds. They sound a bit different, and Rittenhouse appears a split moment later in one video in a manner that doesn't suggest he had just discharged additional rounds. The general consensus I've seen is that Rittenhouse most likely did not fire those shots, but if he did, then it might be that one of those caused the gunshot wound to the back and that would look more intentional.

However, it's worth noting that Rittenhouse is only charged with reckless homicide in the death of Rosenbaum. The intentional homicide charge is for Huber, the second victim. If the DA thought they could show that Rittenhouse cold-bloodedly shot Rosenbuam in that back, then they would have charged him with intentional homicide there as well. It's telling that they didn't.

 

[HurleyBird]

Care to share what you find funny, hal?

 

[Meghan54]

Care to share what you find funny, hal?

You can stand with a fractured pelvis. The rest of your conjecture is straight from TV.

 

[HurleyBird]

You can stand with a fractured pelvis.

Admittedly, I did mis-recall the criminal complaint, which I remembered as saying that the pelvis was shattered. I re-read it and it only says fractured. So you're correct there. It wasn't inevitable that Rosenbaum fell after the gunshot wound to his pelvis, only plausible. That doesn't change the analysis much besides shifting some probabilities a bit.

I think the difference between us. I'm not preset on a specific outcome. I'm looking at what I see as the probabilities as honestly as I can. I think that Rittenhouse probably acted in self defense, but I can envision scenarios where Rittenhouse is guilty of murder too. Can you do the same?

If the gunshot wound to the back is a significant sign of Rittenhouse's guilt, why do you think the prosecutor only charged reckless homicide? If the wound was sustained in the four round rapid discharge, it's not because Rittenhouse suddenly flanked Rosenbaum--it's because Rosenbaum was turned around while Rittenhouse was unloading on him. If the wound was sustained afterwards, say, from one the additional three rounds which in this scenario came from Rittenhouse, then almost certainly we're dealing with an intentional cold-blooded murder.

 

[Pohemi]

I think the difference between us. I'm not preset on a specific outcome. I'm looking at what I see as the probabilities as honestly as I can. I think that Rittenhouse probably acted in self defense, but I can envision scenarios where Rittenhouse is guilty of murder too. Can you do the same?

LOL.

 

[HurleyBird]

I'll take that as a "no" then.

 

[woolfe9998]

Based on the available information, it's very easy to defend:

1. Kyle fired four shots in rapid succession.
2. Based on McGinnis' testimony, Rosenbaum was making a grabbing motion at the rifle (and therefore facing Rittenhouse) when Rittenhouse opened fire.
3. One of the gunshot wounds shattered Rosenbaum's pelvis.
4. You can't stand with a broken pelvis. At that point, Rosenbaum would have immediately begun to fall.
5. Therefore, the shot in the back can be explained by Rosenbaum falling and turning away from Rittenhouse in the middle of the four round discharge.

Now, the possible exception here is that we hear three additional shots after those four definitely-Rittenhouse rounds. They sound a bit different, and Rittenhouse appears a split moment later in one video in a manner that doesn't suggest he had just discharged additional rounds. The general consensus I've seen is that Rittenhouse most likely did not fire those shots, but if he did, then it might be that one of those caused the gunshot wound to the back and that would look more intentional.

However, it's worth noting that Rittenhouse is only charged with reckless homicide in the death of Rosenbaum. The intentional homicide charge is for Huber, the second victim. If the DA thought they could show that Rittenhouse cold-bloodedly shot Rosenbuam in that back, then they would have charged him with intentional homicide there as well. It's telling that they didn't.

Would be helpful to hear from McGinnis on this. Since he was only feet away, he ought to know if Rosenbaum went down with his back to Rittenhouse before all the shots were fired. The summary of McGinnis' statements in the criminal complaint does not address this.

This, however, only addresses the issue of the shot in the back. The core issue is what happened before that first video. If Rosenbaum was trying to disarm Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people, especially if accompanied by verbal threats, then Rosenbaum had a legal right to disarm him in defense of self and others.

I'm aware of the statute which says that withdrawal could end the initial provocation and restore the right of self-defense, but it won't work here if Rittenhouse was pointing the gun and making threats because trying to evade an attempt to disarm him doesn't signal the end of the threat. That defense works better with a knife or other melee weapon because running away would signal the intent to not harm. But not in the case of a gun.

Another way of putting it is this: if Rosenbaum had run after him after provocation of pointing and threatening, but stopped his pursuit when Rittenhouse ran away, Rittenhouse could well have stopped running after reaching safe distance, then turned and fired. Rosenbaum could have been entitled to make that assumption depending on what transpired before the video. Bottom line: we don't know for sure why Rosenbaum ran after him, and that is a critical gap in the evidence.

The same logic also applies to the subsequent killing of Huber.

This is going to depend on testimony and, accordingly, it could well go either way.

 

[HurleyBird]

Thanks for the serious response.

Would be helpful to hear from McGinnis on this. Since he was only feet away, he ought to know if Rosenbaum went down with his back to Rittenhouse before all the shots were fired. The summary of McGinnis' statements in the criminal complaint does not address this.

It's worth considering that McGinnis' testimony has already been shown to be somewhat fallible, such as his claim that Rittenhouse fired three times when it was clearly four (possibly more). Memory can be fickle like that, especially during a crisis. Nonetheless, if McGinnis had been able to provide testimony to the effect of Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum in the back as anything other than an accident of circumstance, or if the DA had any other evidence of the same, then you'd think they would have pursued an intentional homicide for the Rosenbaum killing instead of reckless homicide. It's difficult to reconcile things otherwise.

As an aside, McGinnis' relative silence so far is pretty interesting. A lot of reporters might try to maximise their exposure as a career springboard. He's a reporter for the Daily Caller to boot, so odds are pretty strong that he's biased towards right-wing narratives, and therefore if he knew something exculpatory he should be yelling it from the rooftops. The corollary may be true though, that he knows something harmful and doesn't want to hurt the narrative. Anything beyond what we read in the criminal complaint is speculation, of course.

This, however, only addresses the issue of the shot in the back. The core issue is what happened before that first video. If Rosenbaum was trying to disarm Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people, especially if accompanied by verbal threats, then Rosenbaum had a legal right to disarm him in defense of self and others.

I'm aware of the statute which says that withdrawal could end the initial provocation and restore the right of self-defense, but it won't work here if Rittenhouse was pointing the gun and making threats because trying to evade an attempt to disarm him doesn't signal the end of the threat. That defense works better with a knife or other melee weapon because running away would signal the intent to not harm. But not in the case of a gun.

Another way of putting it is this: if Rosenbaum had run after him after provocation of pointing and threatening, but stopped his pursuit when Rittenhouse ran away, Rittenhouse could well have stopped running after reaching safe distance, then turned and fired. Rosenbaum could have been entitled to make that assumption depending on what transpired before the video. Bottom line: we don't know for sure why Rosenbaum ran after him, and that is a critical gap in the evidence.

I agree that's the critical moment, although I think you might be making things sound a bit more binary than they actually are. I don't know if we'll actually get great detail on what transpired before just based on the size of the crowds coupled with the lack of information so far. And, based on the sort of people out that night, any testimony that turns up but isn't well corroborated might best be taken with a pinch of salt.

This is going to depend on testimony and, accordingly, it could well go either way.

That's possible, but I think the biggest threat to Rittenhouse is that he may have said something stupid to authorities. The criminal complaint lists "Statements by the defendant, which were made contrary to his penal interests" as one of the bases for probable cause, but doesn't detail what these might be.

For example, a footnote in the statutes says "When a defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot or use force, he could not claim self-defense. Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 198 N.W.2d 577 (1972)."

That's just one possible avenue he could have hampered his defence by. There are all kinds of ways that Rittenhouse, a highschool dropout who is probably not very bright, and who likely sees cops as "friends," could have sabotaged his legal interests.

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree that's the critical moment, although I think you might be making things sound a bit more binary than they actually are. I don't know if we'll actually get great detail on what transpired before just based on the size of the crowds coupled with the lack of information so far. And, based on the sort of people out that night, any testimony that turns up but isn't well corroborated might best be taken with a pinch of salt.

If what you're suggesting - that we may learn little if anything about what started that confrontation - turns out to be true, then Rittenhouse will probably walk on everything but the underage gun charge. Because it will be like the Zimmerman/Martin case where only one side's narrative is admissible evidence because the other is dead. If Rittenhouse tells a story about Rosebaum suddenly running after him like a wild man with no provocation whatsoever, and there is no one to contradict it, then it's probably game over for the prosecution.

That's possible, but I think the biggest threat to Rittenhouse is that he may have said something stupid to authorities. The criminal complaint lists "Statements by the defendant, which were made contrary to his penal interests" as one of the bases for probable cause, but doesn't detail what these might be.

For example, a footnote in the statutes says "When a defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot or use force, he could not claim self-defense. Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 198 N.W.2d 577 (1972)."

That's just one possible avenue he could have hampered his defence by. There are all kinds of ways that Rittenhouse, a highschool dropout who is probably not very bright, and who likely sees cops as "friends," could have sabotaged his legal interests.

Good point. I didn't notice that in the complaint. I'd really like to know what he said.

I think the case you cited may explain why Rittenhouse is charged with reckless homicide in relation to Rosenbaum, a question you pondered earlier. He may have claimed it was an accidental discharge or an attempt to fire warning shots. If so, it was tactically smart to charge him with reckless homicide as self-defense obviously does not apply when the alleged behavior is reckless.

I'm thinking maybe he said accidental discharge or warning shots on the Rosenbaum killing, and self-defense in relation to Huber. Which leads me to wonder if he had a right of self-defense in relation to Huber, if we assume that Huber went after him because he shot Rosenbaum. Whether Huber had a right to disarm could ultimately depend on whether Rittenhouse is guilty in relation to Rosenbaum in the first place. So the two might end up being linked, meaning it will be an all or nothing scenario in court.

 

[woolfe9998]

Two militia guys travelling to Kenosha from Missouri were arrested for bringing an illegal weapons cache with them. They evidently both have felony records and are not permitted to carry such weapons.

Charges filed against militia members traveling to Kenosha | CNN Politics

Two members of the 417 Second Amendment Militia group from Missouri traveling to Kenosha, Wisconsin, were arrested Thursday by federal officials and charged with illegally possessing a cache of weapons.

www.cnn.com

The cache included, among other things, a silencer. Pondering what legitimate use a silencer could have in any situation involving self-defense in a riot. AFAIK silencers are either for military covert ops, or for getting away with murder.

 

[nickqt]

Two militia guys travelling to Kenosha from Missouri were arrested for bringing an illegal weapons cache with them. They evidently both have felony records and are not permitted to carry such weapons.

Charges filed against militia members traveling to Kenosha | CNN Politics

Two members of the 417 Second Amendment Militia group from Missouri traveling to Kenosha, Wisconsin, were arrested Thursday by federal officials and charged with illegally possessing a cache of weapons.

www.cnn.com

The cache included, among other things, a silencer. Pondering what legitimate use a silencer could have in any situation involving self-defense in a riot. AFAIK silencers are either for military covert ops, or for getting away with murder.

Silencers are useful when you're defending your Patriot home from anti-American Antifa rioters, and don't want to lose your hearing while doing it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Two militia guys travelling to Kenosha from Missouri were arrested for bringing an illegal weapons cache with them. They evidently both have felony records and are not permitted to carry such weapons.

Charges filed against militia members traveling to Kenosha | CNN Politics

Two members of the 417 Second Amendment Militia group from Missouri traveling to Kenosha, Wisconsin, were arrested Thursday by federal officials and charged with illegally possessing a cache of weapons.

www.cnn.com

The cache included, among other things, a silencer. Pondering what legitimate use a silencer could have in any situation involving self-defense in a riot. AFAIK silencers are either for military covert ops, or for getting away with murder.

Silencers are used by real American's who don't want to wake the children up. THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

 

[dawp]

Blake was accused of 3rd degree sexual assault and there are people stating as fact that 3rd degree sexual assault involves a minor victim and that is not true

here is here is wording of that section of the statue

Third Degree Sexual Assault: A person can be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than $10,000 for committing third degree sexual assault. This includes:

• Sexual intercourse with a person without consent of that person, or
• Sexual contact with intentional penile ejaculation with a person without consent of that person.

Definitions and Wisconsin Laws

Definitions and Wisconsin Laws

www.uwrf.edu

 

[HomerJS]

Blake was accused of 3rd degree sexual assault and there are people stating as fact that 3rd degree sexual assault involves a minor victim and that is not true

here is here is wording of that section of the statue

Definitions and Wisconsin Laws

Definitions and Wisconsin Laws

www.uwrf.edu

In a slightly unrelated point this looks like a poorly worded definition. Trump himself admitted for a form of 3rd degree sexual assault fingering strange women without their permission.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Suspect in Portland killing of far-right protester 'shot dead' by US marshals

Federal and local officers were trying to arrest Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, on an arrest warrant, says sheriff’s office

www.theguardian.com

Funny how they didn't take the leftist peacefully.

Maybe the leftist should have surrendered peacefully

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe the leftist should have surrendered peacefully

Funny how that breaks down-

You are being redirected...

But, Antifas! They're the real problem.

 

[Pohemi]

Funny how that breaks down-

You are being redirected...

But, Antifas! They're the real problem.

This is why I miss the eye-roll emote in the 'like button' selections lol

 

[Pohemi]

Maybe the leftist should have surrendered peacefully

Yeah, I only read a brief initial report the day following that, but it stated that according to the officers on-scene, he pulled a gun out either as they were approaching him or after they had already made contact. Not wise.

 

[Maxima1]

So, we're supposed to believe a reddit meme offers accurate information?

You didn't read the thread, so you don't realize that he was on the AZ records showing that he was a level 3 sex offender.

So the guy on the so called "law and order" team is now in favor of illegal behavior? It was illegal for him to be there in the first place illegally open carrying

Hurleybird pointed it out earlier, but it doesn't look like he violated the statute. Even if he did, he might be able to make an affirmative defense on it. Even if he couldn't, it's not that relevant to everything else.
😂

Deleted

I orginally posted a video of what I thought was Kyle and then deleted it as I wasn't sure. Did more research and it does appear to be him. And the reason I think the video is pertinent is that the narrative goign around was that he was some church kid who was just trying to heal the world. I'm not an attorney but I think character would come in if the defense tried to argue that.

Did you think the same about Trayvon? There was evidence he liked to get into fights, but none of it was admitted in the courtroom. Kyle isn’t initial attacker here and, a lot of people say the little girl that girl was fighting was his sister. Rosenbaum also is definately worse in the character department anyway, not even counting the sex offense felonies. Just watching the videos of that night.

You can stand with a fractured pelvis. The rest of your conjecture is straight from TV.

Why are we talking in hypotheticals when there is video?

https://imgur.com/0Ix5Uqx

Would be helpful to hear from McGinnis on this. Since he was only feet away, he ought to know if Rosenbaum went down with his back to Rittenhouse before all the shots were fired. The summary of McGinnis' statements in the criminal complaint does not address this.

Kyle was facing away from Rosenbaum when the three last shots are fired. Moreover, he’s to Rosenbaum’s far left, yet the back GSW was right lung and liver. See above gif. Most likely reason was that when Rosenbaum fell forward, he exposed his back.

This, however, only addresses the issue of the shot in the back. The core issue is what happened before that first video. If Rosenbaum was trying to disarm Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people, especially if accompanied by verbal threats, then Rosenbaum had a legal right to disarm him in defense of self and others.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=3497957983549807&ref=watch_permalink

Around 56:00, you can see Rosenbaum starting to pick up the pace and go to the sidewalk. Shortly after is when Kyle notices and the chase begins. This isn’t self-defense. Rosenbaum was the aggressor and was not in imminent danger or major bodily harm from the kid.

When they were at the gas station, Rosenbaum’s statements and behavior by instigating crap with the militia are very telling. He says, “I’ll fuck you with everything you got”, and I believe he’s also the one who says, “Let’s jack them and take their guns, that’s what I say”.

I don’t see Kyle, but he does accuse someone of pointing a gun, saying “Why’d he do that?. Where’d he go? Someone else: He ran off”. He then tries to go after whoever it was, he was angry about, people block him, and one of the girls says, “It’s not worth it. It’s not worth it. You’re going to get us all shot”.

I'm aware of the statute which says that withdrawal could end the initial provocation and restore the right of self-defense, but it won't work here if Rittenhouse was pointing the gun and making threats because trying to evade an attempt to disarm him doesn't signal the end of the threat. That defense works better with a knife or other melee weapon because running away would signal the intent to not harm. But not in the case of a gun.

Lol You make it seem like the chase occurred at the gas station, which would be enough distance to know that the person just wants to get away.

Another way of putting it is this: if Rosenbaum had run after him after provocation of pointing and threatening, but stopped his pursuit when Rittenhouse ran away, Rittenhouse could well have stopped running after reaching safe distance, then turned and fired.

This is why the whole thing is retarded as a self-defense claim. If Kyle was actually a big threat, he could easily have killed Rosenbaum if he wasn’t at tackling distance initially. Kyle could have turned around at basically any point and killed him.

Rosenbaum could have been entitled to make that assumption depending on what transpired before the video.

Lol. As if he was thinking like that considering that he was slowing himself down by holding the bag with three soup cans and then throwing it at Kyle towards the end of the chase.

 

[soundforbjt]

Lol. As if he was thinking like that considering that he was slowing himself down by holding the bag with three soup cans and then throwing it at Kyle towards the end of the chase.

Aren't you in the wrong thread...

Page 3 - Trump: The protesters are arming themselves! With SOUP!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

 

[Jhhnn]

You didn't read the thread, so you don't realize that he was on the AZ records showing that he was a level 3 sex offender.

So what? That doesn't mean the guy is forbidden to interact with minors. It's a lame diversion, anyway, considering that Kyle was acting all grown up with that AR strapped to his chest.

 

[nickqt]

So what? That doesn't mean the guy is forbidden to interact with minors. It's a lame diversion, anyway, considering that Kyle was acting all grown up with that AR strapped to his chest.

So? So? Victim blaming, are you fucking blind bro?

Level 3 Sex Offender in Arizona.

The guy deserved to be shot by a 17 year old child who was in Wisconsin to kill political opponents.

So?!?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

lol look at all these FINE peaceful people.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1302237738385707009

 

[Maxima1]

So what? That doesn't mean the guy is forbidden to interact with minors. It's a lame diversion, anyway, considering that Kyle was acting all grown up with that AR strapped to his chest.

I bring this up because it was not a coincidence. What normal person tries to find and then chase someone with a rifle, which is shown clearly in the Facebook stream I posted? A reasonable person with the rifle would think this isn't a normal person that they are dealing with, yet you guys think Kyle should just take it up the ass and just hope he doesn't get beat up and/or have the rifle used against him.

Even some of the liberals started to come around.

Column: Here’s why Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen shooting suspect in Kenosha killings, is likely to get off

Kyle Rittenhouse is going to walk. This is my conclusion as I emerge, blinking in the light, from the rabbit hole I’ve been down all week of self-defense law, jury-instruction language, charg…

www.chicagotribune.com

So? So? Victim blaming, are you fucking blind bro?

Level 3 Sex Offender in Arizona.

See above. You love defending thug behavior.

The guy deserved to be shot by a 17 year old child who was in Wisconsin to kill political opponents.

What do you believe shows proof of intent to murder? Wearing gloves? Just going there armed? Firearm crossing state lines? Illegal possession of gun? Why can't cops use reasoning like this to establish threat again? The irony is fucking hilarious.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It's funny how bringing a gun escalates to easy death in many cases. It's almost like guns are really good at what they're designed for, violence.