Violent riots underway in Kenosha, WI

[ruby sparks]

The idea that the car being a potential weapon is in any way a reasonable justification for shooting him is just plain daft.

It would not be in vacuum. But this guy already showed that he is willing to engage in violence to escape an arrest.
Furthermore, police do not know if there is a gun in the vehicle. Note also that it may not even be his car. His baby mama, who accused him of digitally penetrating her, also said this.

You can read the criminal complaint in the May 2020 case above here. The mother of some of Blake’s children accused him of digitally penetrating her without her consent. “LNB stated she and the defendant have three children together but have never resided together in the eight years they have been on and off. LNB stated the defendant is unemployed, has no vehicle, and would not tell LNB where he was currently living. LNB stated over the past eight years the defendant has physically assaulted her around twice a year when he drinks heavily,” the complaint says.

All I said was that shooting him on the specific basis that he might use the car itself as a weapon is not reasonable. I accept there appear to be other reasons for police to have been very concerned.

So if this wasn't his vehicle, does that mean he also tried to kidnap the kids?

It does seem possible, yes.

If that were the case then him getting into the car would be very concerning, assuming the cops knew it was his partner's car and especially if he was holding a knife. I can see that even holding a knife (if he was) and refusing to drop it or obey requests to stop, and getting into the driver's seat of a car with kids in it, is probably enough, at least in the USA, to legally warrant stopping him by shooting. If that's what was happening, the guy must have in some ways lost his head, trying to do that after a scuffle with two cops who are then pointing guns at him and ordering him to drop a knife and stop.

One thing to note, if it WAS his partner's car then why would there be a knife already on the floor beside the driver's seat? Therefore, if it was not his car, this would add weight to the claim that he was already holding a knife. Presumably the knife can be tested for finger prints. Presumably it can also be ascertained whether he had keys that could have started the car's ignition.

All things considered, I would now, at this point, tend to attach much more blame to Blake than anyone else, and have sympathy for the officers trying to deal with the situation, even if it is still very unfortunate and sad that he was shot. Shooting him 7 times still seems excessive, and in some ways slightly premature. There may even have been a better way to handle it, but the threatening situation unfolded very quickly and it wasn't easy for the cops, who to some extent were probably following what their training might have taught them.

But no, let's pretend that the initial lie that he was trying to break up a fight hasn't been discredited.

I'm not doing that. In fact I had previously said otherwise. And I don't think anyone here is currently still claiming it.

 

[atrib]

Oh, come on now. You are just as aware of the US racial hierarchy as I am. Hispanic is white compared to a black person. In the US, an Arab or someone from the subcontinent of India is not considered white but Arabs and Persians generally consider themselves white.

Arabs, Persians and Indians are certainly Caucasian, even though many Indians are quite dark they still have caucasoid facial features.

Really. I have to tell my Indian friends that they are all white, especially those from south India. That should get a laugh.

 

[ZiprHead]

Just seen on FB. No idea if it's true or not.

Kyle Rittenhouse is going to jail for life. Autopsy confirms that he shot and killed his first victim in the back at least once. Video evidence confirms his first victim was also unarmed for the entire encounter. His lawyers have already starting walking back self-defense claims.

 

[repoman]

But it hits your bias sweet spot so...

 

[marc]

Just seen on FB. No idea if it's true or not.

Kyle Rittenhouse is going to jail for life. Autopsy confirms that he shot and killed his first victim in the back at least once. Video evidence confirms his first victim was also unarmed for the entire encounter. His lawyers have already starting walking back self-defense claims.

From articles:

An autopsy conducted by the Milwaukee Medical Examiner’s Office found that Rosenbaum was shot in the back, the right groin, left hand, and left thigh. His lung and liver were perforated, and his pelvis fractured. He also sustained a graze gunshot wound on his right forehead.

Think more detail is needed to get an idea of the order of shots and direction.

 

[J842P]

Just seen on FB. No idea if it's true or not.

Kyle Rittenhouse is going to jail for life. Autopsy confirms that he shot and killed his first victim in the back at least once. Video evidence confirms his first victim was also unarmed for the entire encounter. His lawyers have already starting walking back self-defense claims.

Sounds like bullshit. He was clearly being chased and clearly trying to run away the entire time. One of the guys discharged a handgun, and Rosenbaum, the first person killed, repeatedly lunges at Rittenhouse. The fact that a bullet may have hit him in the back, or that Rosenbaum was unarmed, do not really affect Rittenhouse's self-defense claim. I've posted detailed analyses of the videos from reputable sources.

The question remains, will they be able to prove that he provoked the attack? If so, I'm not sure how that plays out with him clearly running away.

 

[J842P]

Think more detail is needed to get an idea of the order of shots and direction.

We have the shooting on video. Rosenbaum was trying to tackle Rittenhouse as him and another guy, who discharged a pistol immediately before, were chasing him down. Why do people keep ignoring this?

 

[Arctish]

But no, let's pretend that the initial lie that he was trying to break up a fight hasn't been discredited.

I'm not doing that. In fact I had previously said otherwise. And I don't think anyone here is currently still claiming it.

It hasn't been shown to be a lie. It hasn't been discredited at all.

The initial claim came from an eyewitness. There has been zero evidence presented that the witness wasn't truthfully reporting what s/he actually saw.

It may be the case that there was more to the story than that particular person knew. Or it may be the case that s/he genuinely believed that the fight was the most pertinent detail and focused on it. Or it may be the case that for whatever reason, the reporter didn't include statements from other witnesses that would have provided a more complete picture.

I think what Derec is attempting to do here is what he keeps trying to do wrt witness statements in the Michael Brown shooting. He's pretending those statements were discredited when in fact they weren't.

The police union has presented a different version of events than what the eyewitness reported in the early stories about Blake. It might be more complete and accurate, or it might be cherry-picked and skewed. Either way, it does not provide the slightest bit of evidence that anyone was lying about Blake intervening in a fight.

 

[Arctish]

Think more detail is needed to get an idea of the order of shots and direction.

We have the shooting on video. Rosenbaum was trying to tackle Rittenhouse as him and another guy, who discharged a pistol immediately before, were chasing him down. Why do people keep ignoring this?

No one is ignoring the video. But the video doesn't show what or who started the conflict.

We don't know why Rittenhouse was running with Rosenbaum and that reporter in pursuit, or why Rosenbaum appeared to be angry.

There were other armed civilians in the same place as Rittenhouse. None of them were being chased, and none of them interfered with the people chasing Rittenhouse. Why is that?

There is so much to this story we don't know.

 

[repoman]

Ok, I am starting to like Jacob Blake Senior now

 

[Trausti]

Does the acorn fall far from the tree?

 

[J842P]

Ok, I am starting to like Jacob Blake Senior now

View attachment 29195

I always find these conspiracy theories hilarious, basically, it amounts to admitting you had a shitty education, or were a shitty student. I don't think you can blame that on the Jews. I learned about Leopold and Belgian colonialism in my public school. And indeed, Jews were probably overrepresented in the sorts of people teaching students about this.

I think, fundamentally, that the non-religious roots of anti-semitism are basically an inferiority complex. It's not surprising it's so popular among black nationalist types.

 

[Derec]

So Biden still meeting with Jacob "Brussels Sprouts" Blake Sr. even after the revelation of his racism and antisemitism?

 

[barbos]

Jacob Blake English grammar is worse than mine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And here are the various ways people can be armed, which does include vehicles. Here it is ranked by frequency:

Note that this is the WaPo definition. The government definition has far fewer categories and puts many of these in the "unarmed" category.

Anyway, [this study](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9133.12269) I'll note doesn't show that if you are unarmed, non-attacking, and black you are more likely to get shot than a white person. Rather, that's only the case for the (relatively small group) of "other". And anyway, this is such a naive analysis it's not really worth much. For a better quality study, one that really tries to get to the heart of the issue, and it's one of the better ones I've seen on the subject of race and police shootings, is the one by Roland Fryer:

https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/p...-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force

It concludes that:

On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force –officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account

So, it's pretty surprising. On the one hand, it does show that black/hispanic men are more likely to have an interaction that involves force with police, even when you take context into account, but they find no difference in officer-involved shootings.

I will say, I generally find that econometricians are just better at these analyses. I'll also note, Roland Fryer is the youngest black man ever to get tenure at Harvard, since I suppose, that matters.

Which is what I have been saying all along. The problem with the police isn't with shootings, it's with roughing up criminals--which occasionally results in deaths like George Floyd.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just seen on FB. No idea if it's true or not.

Kyle Rittenhouse is going to jail for life. Autopsy confirms that he shot and killed his first victim in the back at least once. Video evidence confirms his first victim was also unarmed for the entire encounter. His lawyers have already starting walking back self-defense claims.

A hit in the back isn't enough to disprove a self defense claim. (People can turn to flee faster than people can make the shoot/no-shoot decision. Hence you get bad guys who had an oh-shit-he's-armed realization, try to flee and get shot before the shooter realizes it's over.) Thus I do not find this credible.

 

[Trausti]

Note that this is the WaPo definition. The government definition has far fewer categories and puts many of these in the "unarmed" category.

Anyway, [this study](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9133.12269) I'll note doesn't show that if you are unarmed, non-attacking, and black you are more likely to get shot than a white person. Rather, that's only the case for the (relatively small group) of "other". And anyway, this is such a naive analysis it's not really worth much. For a better quality study, one that really tries to get to the heart of the issue, and it's one of the better ones I've seen on the subject of race and police shootings, is the one by Roland Fryer:

https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/p...-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force

It concludes that:


So, it's pretty surprising. On the one hand, it does show that black/hispanic men are more likely to have an interaction that involves force with police, even when you take context into account, but they find no difference in officer-involved shootings.

I will say, I generally find that econometricians are just better at these analyses. I'll also note, Roland Fryer is the youngest black man ever to get tenure at Harvard, since I suppose, that matters.

Which is what I have been saying all along. The problem with the police isn't with shootings, it's with roughing up criminals--which occasionally results in deaths like George Floyd.

What’s the annual rate of police shooting people who do not resist arrest?

 

[laughing dog]

Just seen on FB. No idea if it's true or not.

Kyle Rittenhouse is going to jail for life. Autopsy confirms that he shot and killed his first victim in the back at least once. Video evidence confirms his first victim was also unarmed for the entire encounter. His lawyers have already starting walking back self-defense claims.

A hit in the back isn't enough to disprove a self defense claim. (People can turn to flee faster than people can make the shoot/no-shoot decision. Hence you get bad guys who had an oh-shit-he's-armed realization, try to flee and get shot before the shooter realizes it's over.) Thus I do not find this credible.

Someone claiming self-defenses needs to prove it. Proving a negative is not possible.

 

[J842P]

A hit in the back isn't enough to disprove a self defense claim. (People can turn to flee faster than people can make the shoot/no-shoot decision. Hence you get bad guys who had an oh-shit-he's-armed realization, try to flee and get shot before the shooter realizes it's over.) Thus I do not find this credible.

Someone claiming self-defenses needs to prove it. Proving a negative is not possible.

I believe, actually, that the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of force was unjustified. Proving a negative, in the logical, philosophical sense, is problematic. But these sorts of things exist in courts of law all the time.

In the Anglo-American tradition, the onus is on the prosecution.

 

[Toni]

A hit in the back isn't enough to disprove a self defense claim. (People can turn to flee faster than people can make the shoot/no-shoot decision. Hence you get bad guys who had an oh-shit-he's-armed realization, try to flee and get shot before the shooter realizes it's over.) Thus I do not find this credible.

Someone claiming self-defenses needs to prove it. Proving a negative is not possible.

I believe, actually, that the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of force was unjustified. Proving a negative, in the logical, philosophical sense, is problematic. But these sorts of things exist in courts of law all the time.

In the Anglo-American tradition, the onus is on the prosecution.

Police officers must report and justify every single time they draw their weapon. Departments must do their jobs and protect the public rather than their own hides.