US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread III

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

These riots should no longer be worried about, they are very rare and streched from the truth by the news, when most of the time they are peaceful. Also, riots are mostly put down in a few minutes, but they still include these riots.

[Gravlen]

I think they could get him on first-degree intentional homicide for his shooting of Anthony Huber, but I wouldn't say it's any kind of certainty that there will be a conviction.

Perhaps or a lesser charge if they can persuade a jury into that, then again this was the guy with the skateboard? Since skaterboy hit kyle and tried to get in a strike to the dome, perfectly reasonable reaction by kyle to shoot.

I think it's an open question, and will wait to hear what comes out at trial before making up my mind on whether it was reasonable. There's simply too many unknowns here for my taste.

[Relden]

These riots should no longer be worried about,

They should be, given that BLM and antifa will use any excuse to riot.

I think it's an open question, and will wait to hear what comes out at trial before making up my mind on whether it was reasonable. There's simply too many unknowns here for my taste.

How are there "too many unknowns" for you? The whole god damn thing was caught on camera.

[Grinning Dragon]

These riots should no longer be worried about,

They should be, given that BLM and antifa will use any excuse to riot.

I think it's an open question, and will wait to hear what comes out at trial before making up my mind on whether it was reasonable. There's simply too many unknowns here for my taste.

How are there "too many unknowns" for you? The whole god damn thing was caught on camera.

Speaking for myself and I always err on the side of self-defense, but the unknowns are what are not caught on camera and instead rely on witness testimony and we all know eye witness accounts aren't all that factual.

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

These riots should no longer be worried about,

They should be, given that BLM and antifa will use any excuse to riot.

I think it's an open question, and will wait to hear what comes out at trial before making up my mind on whether it was reasonable. There's simply too many unknowns here for my taste.

How are there "too many unknowns" for you? The whole god damn thing was caught on camera.

Riots are rare, you just hear how the news portrays it. Have you seen a riot before? Where? On the news?

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

These riots should no longer be worried about,

They should be, given that BLM and antifa will use any excuse to riot.

I think it's an open question, and will wait to hear what comes out at trial before making up my mind on whether it was reasonable. There's simply too many unknowns here for my taste.

How are there "too many unknowns" for you? The whole god damn thing was caught on camera.

Riots are rare, you just hear how the news portrays it. Have you seen a riot before? Where? On the news?

[Relden]

Have you seen a riot before?

Yes.

Where?

In my city.

On the news?

In my city.

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

Have you seen a riot before?

Yes.

Where?

In my city.

On the news?

In my city.

How many times? In what city?

[Gravlen]

They should be, given that BLM and antifa will use any excuse to riot.


How are there "too many unknowns" for you? The whole god damn thing was caught on camera.

Speaking for myself and I always err on the side of self-defense, but the unknowns are what are not caught on camera and instead rely on witness testimony and we all know eye witness accounts aren't all that factual.

Not everything was caught on camera. We also lack information about Rittenhouse's state of mind at the time, and what he was thinking. Further, there could be additional evidence such as forensics which we don't know about. And finally, there's questions about the laws themselves, and how the question of self defence in such a situation is handled in Wisconsin.

[Relden]

How many times?

Multiple days over last summer.

In what city?

I'm not telling you which city I live in.

[Kerwa]

I really don’t understand this manic desire to convict a kid who made some dumb choices and who was acting in what can reasonably considered self defense. The absolute moral bankruptcy of society.

[Gravlen]

I really don’t understand this manic desire to convict a kid who made some dumb choices and who was acting in what can reasonably considered self defense. The absolute moral bankruptcy of society.

I mean, welcome to the US criminal justice system?

I'm glad this case has opened your eyes to the fact that it is broken, and I hope you'll be able to keep your eyes open long enough to see that there are serious problems beyond this one kid.

[Relden]

I really don’t understand this manic desire to convict a kid who made some dumb choices and who was acting in what can reasonably considered self defense. The absolute moral bankruptcy of society.

It's because the people that he shot were violent rioters, which a huge number of people who use reddit, twitter, NSG and so on share sympathy for.

[Page]

I really don’t understand this manic desire to convict a kid who made some dumb choices and who was acting in what can reasonably considered self defense. The absolute moral bankruptcy of society.

Honestly I pity Rittenhouse and if it were up to me I'd rather he get rehabilitation and deradicalization than prison. It's sad that the propaganda of the ruling class warped an impressionable young mind and turned him against his comrades.

[Relden]

Honestly I pity Rittenhouse and if it were up to me I'd rather he get rehabilitation and deradicalization than prison. It's sad that the propaganda of the ruling class warped an impressionable young mind and turned him against his comrades.

"Turned him against his comrades"?

His comrades being a group of opportunistic rioters...? What...?

[The Reformed American Republic]

I really don’t understand this manic desire to convict a kid who made some dumb choices and who was acting in what can reasonably considered self defense. The absolute moral bankruptcy of society.

Honestly I pity Rittenhouse and if it were up to me I'd rather he get rehabilitation and deradicalization than prison. It's sad that the propaganda of the ruling class warped an impressionable young mind and turned him against his comrades.

He was an idiot but he defended himself against rioters. He didn't turn against anyone.

[Galloism]

Not entitled to claim self-defence...

...when he was being chased down the street by an angry mob shouting things like "get his ass".

Ok

Yes.

If you don't like it, go yell at the Wisconsin legislature.

To use an extreme example:
Imagine that a group from a drug cartell has shot up a rival gang, killing bystanders in the process. One of the shooters is running away, trying to get to safety.

A group of people tries to stop him, shouting "Kill the fucker" while chasing him. He kills some of them when they catch up to him and try to disarm him.

Was that done in self defence, and thus not punishable? You seem to think so.

Under WI law, this would seem to almost certainly be self defense.

Here's the law (you can ignore 1m and all that under it, as that's WI's castle doctrine - no one is in their castle in this scenario - what's important is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6).

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. 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.

(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.

(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.

(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

Provocation is handled in 2a, 2b, and 2c. In such a case as you described, the behavior described is certainly unlawful behavior likely to provoke others. It's also almost certainly not done with the intent to essentially bait the others into attacking him as described in section 2c.

So if he's fleeing with all his might, that likely serves as adequate notice under 2b (I believe this can be either verbal or nonverbal, so long as it's "adequate"), and the drug cartel member likely gets self defense back in full without qualification. If his fleeing was not "adequate notice", then being attacked by a crowd with disparity in force (and especially if they have weapons, like in this case) would likely meet the standard under 2a of imminent death or great bodily harm and that he had made all reasonable efforts to escape the deadly force.

Wisconsin self defense law is exceptionally broad.

To highlight a recent case that is just bonkers insane, here's one decided at the WI supreme court this year and is headed back for retrial.

The basic circumstances are this:

A Mr. Alan Johnson broke into his brother-in-law's house in order to look for child porn. He had a reasonable belief that his brother-in-law was engaging in storing and possibly disseminating child porn, and went in, clearly unlawfully, to find evidence. He also carried a handgun in case there was a confrontation.

He was largely successful in his mission. He managed to get into the brother-in-law's computer and found child porn on said computer.

As he was recording this evidence, the brother-in-law discovered him. There's a little back and forth. The brother-in-law was not wearing a shirt and unarmed, and attacked him. He shot the brother-in-law 5 times during the fight.

Now, the original trial court refused to give an instruction on perfect self defense because it felt no reasonable person could view this as an unlawful attack - after all, he was in the brother-in-law's home unlawfully. However, the high court pointed out the state of mind of the brother-in-law in his own home isn't the relevant standard, it's the state of mind of the person on trial, so they did not get to the question of whether the brother-in-law had the castle doctrine on his side. Therefore they instructed that the instruction on both perfect and imperfect self defense must be given, and sent it back down for retrial.

[Galloism]

So #1 Was self defense. What about body 2 and no arm?

By the way, even if the shooting of Rosenbaum is determined to be self defence, he may still be convicted of recklessly endangering the safety of the reporter standing nearby, whom he almost hit during the first altercation.

Incidentally, WI law explicitly covers innocent bystanders being hit accidentally, but since McGinnis wasn't hit, it's a little weird.

(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.

Now what does "infliction of harm" mean? He wasn't hit, so maybe that wasn't "infliction of harm", but it's hard to say. It certainly doesn't amount to any of the crimes listed for McGinnis since he didn't die and wasn't injured.

[Ifreann]

Honestly I pity Rittenhouse and if it were up to me I'd rather he get rehabilitation and deradicalization than prison. It's sad that the propaganda of the ruling class warped an impressionable young mind and turned him against his comrades.

He was an idiot but he defended himself against rioters. He didn't turn against anyone.

He saw a Facebook post from a far right militia calling for volunteers to help them oppose protests against police brutality and racial injustice and decided to answer that call. Sure sounds to me like he was turned against his comrades at some point prior to that.

[Galloism]

He was an idiot but he defended himself against rioters. He didn't turn against anyone.

He saw a Facebook post from a far right militia calling for volunteers to help them oppose protests against police brutality and racial injustice and decided to answer that call. Sure sounds to me like he was turned against his comrades at some point prior to that.

Actually, this is a known falsehood.

He was already in Kenosha at the time said Facebook post was posted (he was working). There's no evidence he saw the Facebook post, and Dominick Black, the provider of the gun, stated while in custody that Rittenhouse accompanied him based on some kind of discussion or agreement with one of the owners of car source.

Prosecution stipulated to this fact in the last hearing.

[Kerwa]

I mean, welcome to the US criminal justice system?

I'm glad this case has opened your eyes to the fact that it is broken, and I hope you'll be able to keep your eyes open long enough to see that there are serious problems beyond this one kid.

I am well aware of the manifold deficiencies of the criminal justice system and have been for a long time. I expect that. It’s the gleeful cheerleading from the sidelines that shows the moral bankruptcy of the whole situation.

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... t-76-times

Officers charged in death of Georgia man shot 76 times

[Rusozak]

I mean, welcome to the US criminal justice system?

I'm glad this case has opened your eyes to the fact that it is broken, and I hope you'll be able to keep your eyes open long enough to see that there are serious problems beyond this one kid.

I am well aware of the manifold deficiencies of the criminal justice system and have been for a long time. I expect that. It’s the gleeful cheerleading from the sidelines that shows the moral bankruptcy of the whole situation.

It doesn't help that the far right has canonized this kid as some kind of hero, romanticizing the situation as some kind of noble crusade against crime. At best he was defending himself. There's nothing to celebrate.

[Galloism]

I am well aware of the manifold deficiencies of the criminal justice system and have been for a long time. I expect that. It’s the gleeful cheerleading from the sidelines that shows the moral bankruptcy of the whole situation.

It doesn't help that the far right has canonized this kid as some kind of hero, romanticizing the situation as some kind of noble crusade against crime. At best he was defending himself. There's nothing to celebrate.

True facts.

[Relden]

It doesn't help that the far right has canonized this kid as some kind of hero, romanticizing the situation as some kind of noble crusade against crime. At best he was defending himself. There's nothing to celebrate.

Maybe they wouldn't have if the media and politicians didn't spend all year long acting as enthusiastic backup dancers for the riots.