Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "What we are witnessing is a system functioning as designed and protecting those it was designed for.
My heart still breaks for the communities and families whose grief now compounds, and the countless others who will be denied and deprived in similar scenes across the country." / Twitter

Mondaire Jones on Twitter: "Outrageous, unjust, devastating — but not surprising.
We deserve a legal system that actually delivers justice. Our work goes on." / Twitter

Cori Bush on Twitter: "The judge. The jury. The defendant.
It’s white supremacy in action.
This system isn’t built to hold white supremacists accountable. It’s why Black and brown folks are brutalized and put in cages while white supremacist murderers walk free.
I’m hurt. I’m angry. I’m heartbroken." / Twitter

Note what they aren't calling for: a pogrom of white people. Many right-wingers live in fear of being treated how they want people they dislike to be treated.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

These questions are meant for anyone.

My previous commentary:

That one is complicated for me, personally. I am not sure I commented on this before. I meant to, but then I think I erased it... Anyway, you can see in the videos that KR is not trapped like it's been said by right-wing sources. After shooting, he easily runs around a car and back around to assess the situation and possibly do even more damage. That said, he does have to go through a narrow space between the front of a car and something in front of the car, either a dumpster or a hitch or something rectangular prism-looking that might be connected or not to another car in front of the space. That choice to go through there could actually be a real choice for a bait and switch but it can't be proved. On the other hand, since he's slowing down, one could try to argue that JR is catching up to him and intends harm and so turning around and shooting once or twice might not be completely unreasonable.

So...

Does Rittenhouse actually have to be trapped with no exits under Wisconsin law? The defense and all right-wing sources on the web seem to quickly breeze over this subject stating it as fact that Rittenhouse was trapped. But if you look at videos, he quickly goes about his way after turning around and shooting.

What about that final shot to the back? Does Wisconsin law allow it? The defense claims that Rosenbaum was lunging forward at the point of the last shot, but that is too late for this claim. So, under Wisconsin law is Rittenhouse privileged to shoot Rosenbaum in the back for defense or for a mistake?

Well, he could be found guilty indeed if he shot even one too many times.

Okay.

The problem is that the prosecutio’s forensic witness admitted on cross that the wound was consistent with the defense theory that the wounds were due to Rosenbaum lunging down. I think that made a huge difference to the jury.

I agree that initially it is a problem because there's a narrative and then the defense proposes a different narrative that in some [other] world of things could be true in theory. To me, the reasonableness of the defense's proposition is dependent upon evidence, first and foremost, and I do not observe any evidence of a lunge forward while falling down, dying, that would create any imminent danger of death. Also--secondary to evidence are inferences from evidence, and so I deduce at the moment and subsequent moments that Rosenbaum is falling, dying, the risk of any harm to Rittenhouse is very diminished. It was already exaggerated a bit claiming he was trapped when he wasn't, but it's even more diminished at any moment where JR's back is exposed. These are deductions one can make from the video(s) evidence and the forensic witness on autopsy wounds can only speak to plausibility of narratives based on wounds where the defense came with a prepared counter-narrative (their job), but the rest of the evidence doesn't seem to show a chance of imminent harm later on.

I hear you. But the benefit of the doubt goes to Rittenhouse. It’s not to him to provide evidence of his innocence. It’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Anytime a forensic witness agrees with the defense theory then that’s created reasonable doubt. That’s all that happened here.

But there's doubt and then there's reasonable doubt. You have to make a distinction between the two. You can look at Rittenhouse and doubt he's a murderer because he is a man-boy who is alleged to like law and order. (Not meant at you, just the royal you). You can doubt all kinds of things that might be true or false. But there has to be a meaning to the phrase _reasonable_ doubt and that means it is reasonable. When someone is falling down in a trapped situation, trapped to the left and trapped to the right after being shot 3 times, there by evidence clearly dying and the shooter has a clear exit with no imminent threat of great harm any longer, the proposition of imminent threat of harm from lunging forward to kill Rittenhouse no longer meets that qualifier reasonable. Personally, I am willing to give a benefit of doubt of a mistaken extra shot, provided that the shooter did not provoke the situation initially, but you had said that isn't part of Wisconsin law to do that.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

So whatever went wrong here, this kid, however misguided, is not the problem, according to the jury. But who is to blame? Something went wrong that should not have happened, which then led to these killings.

What went wrong? The police did not enforce the law when the original riots broke out and looters were allowed to run wild. Because of that dereliction of duty by the police, this chaos resulted, where vigilantes felt the need to step in and fill the vacuum left by the police who were AWOL, in several cities, and this was only one place where law enforcement abdicated and left such a vacuum.

You could blame the media, for reporting the lawlessness and rioting. Maybe censorship is the solution -- never allow the media to report riots and looting, so the public won't know about it and the vigilantes won't be provoked.

But a better solution is for the police to always enforce the law, whatever it takes, rather than allow rioters and looters to run wild. And during this period, when looters/rioters outnumbered and overpowered the cops, police must be authorized to shoot the looters and rioters. This is also what should have been done at the Jan. 6 riots. When the rioters/looters overrun the cops, the order should be given to shoot them, whether they are Red fanatics or Blue fanatics.

As soon as 2 or 3 looters/rioters are shot, the rest will stop, and the chaos will end. And the vigilantes will stay home.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So whatever went wrong here, this kid, however misguided, is not the problem, according to the jury. But who is to blame? Something went wrong that should not have happened, which then led to these killings.

What went wrong? The police did not enforce the law when the original riots broke out and looters were allowed to run wild. Because of that dereliction of duty by the police, this chaos resulted, where vigilantes felt the need to step in and fill the vacuum left by the police who were AWOL, in several cities, and this was only one place where law enforcement abdicated and left such a vacuum.

You could blame the media, for reporting the lawlessness and rioting. Maybe censorship is the solution -- never allow the media to report riots and looting, so the public won't know about it and the vigilantes won't be provoked.

But a better solution is for the police to always enforce the law, whatever it takes, rather than allow rioters and looters to run wild. And during this period, when looters/rioters outnumbered and overpowered the cops, police must be authorized to shoot the looters and rioters. As soon as 2 or 3 looters/rioters are shot, the rest will stop, and the chaos will end. And the vigilantes will stay home.

Here's the problem that bugs me: only a white person could get away with this. If ran down a street towards protestors with a shit eating dump grin on my face with a loaded AK-47 I would have been put down by the police. And that's how a majority of dark skinned people like myself will view this.

 

[blastula]

Not quite. The gun pointing is hardly the deciding issue. The right to self-defense doesn't always mean the right to kill someone. To have the right to use deadly force you have to be threatened by that kind of force. I would vote guilty on the JR charge.

You don’t have to be threatened. You just have to have a reasonable fear of your life or great bodily harm.

Same thing.

In this case, even the prosecution’s forensic specialist admitted that Rosenbaum either had his hand on the weapon, or was very close to it. You most definitely can be shot trying to grab someone’s weapon From them.

From the videos, it looks clear to me that the first shot was before his hand was near the gun. And, in fact, the medical examiner said the shot to the hand was the second shot, the kill shot was the third or fourth. The first shot was to the groin, which would have disabled him. Even if that one was justified (I'd disagree), no more shots were needed after that to stop any threat. It was unjustified homicide. He is responsible for every trigger pull, he doesn't get freebies just because he started shooting.

Furthermore, the uncontradicted evidence is that Zaminski yelled that they should kill Rittenhouse - although I’m not sure if that was directed at Rosenbaum specifically or just shouted.

What do you mean, uncontradicted? I think KR is the only one who claimed that. So, big deal if it was uncontradicted, it was also uncorroborated, as far as I remember.

No way did Rosenbaum not have a reasonable belief that he would be either killed or seriously injured. I don’t see the jury convicting him on that grounds, unless he provoked the attack. i see it boiling down to whether he provoked Rosenbaum and that’s what the prosecution emphasized in closing. That’s why the defense is up in arms over the version of the video they got. Provocation is everything.

It doesn't matter alone whether JZ or JR wanted to kill him, nor whether there wasn't provocation, it first matters whether 5'4" 153 lb. JR would reasonably have had the means to do so with his bare hands.

I do think the second set of shootings were more justified than the JR one though. Those guys did have weapons.

Note that this is very different from the Arbery case. In that situation, the defendant, acting as a citizen cop pointed his rifle at the victim without any provocation. He was trying to stop Arbery from continuing to jog away. He can’t claim self defense at that point. Arbery logically concluded he was being threatened and tried to grab the gun.

I think that case is easier too, but we'll see. IMO, there is a problem that juries too often, typically with cop cases, see the right to self-defense as carte blanche for anyone carrying a gun to kill anyone looking at them the wrong way. As if just having a gun, makes it justified in itself to use it.

 

[blastula]

Not quite. The gun pointing is hardly the deciding issue. The right to self-defense doesn't always mean the right to kill someone. To have the right to use deadly force you have to be threatened by that kind of force. I would vote guilty on the JR charge.

He was threatened with that kind of force. Do you think the law makes it so you have to take a beating? No. You are just making that up.

Yes, the law does say that, you have to take a non-lethal beating without having the right to kill your attacker. You are confused, it said so in this case's jury instructions even.

The defendant may intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if the defendant reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

 

[lpetrich]

I don't have any sources on this, but it will be interesting to see what their spokespeople have to say.
James Queally on Twitter: "I'm sure this will shock no one, but the usual Proud Boys /QAnon telegram channels are reacting like their team just won the Super Bowl right now. Already seeing comments about this setting a "precedent for rioters" and how they will be dealt with in the future." / Twitter

 

[Derec]

Here's the problem that bugs me: only a white person could get away with this.

That is some major league BS.

If ran down a street towards protestors with a shit eating dump grin on my face with a loaded AK-47 I would have been put down by the police.

In 2020, there have been several instances of heavily armed black militias marching with nothing happening to them. For example ...
Black armed protesters march in Kentucky demanding justice for Breonna Taylor

And then, when drunk driver Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed after using an officer's taser against him, armed #BLMers took over the site of the burned down Wendy's with armed force and held it for weeks.

Police did not shoot them, but if they had done so right away, an 8 year old girl would not have been murdered.

And that's how a majority of dark skinned people like myself will view this.

Just like the Rittenhouse case itself, your views on the broader issue of race and guns is completely off-base.

 

[blastula]

James Queally on Twitter: "I'm sure this will shock no one, but the usual Proud Boys /QAnon telegram channels are reacting like their team just won the Super Bowl right now. Already seeing comments about this setting a "precedent for rioters" and how they will be dealt with in the future." / Twitter

Yeah, this could lead to a bunch of KR "hero" wannabes, self-appointed armed citizens patrolling protests.

 

[Derec]

I don't have any sources on this, but it will be interesting to see what their spokespeople have to say.
James Queally on Twitter: "I'm sure this will shock no one, but the usual Proud Boys /QAnon telegram channels are reacting like their team just won the Super Bowl right now. Already seeing comments about this setting a "precedent for rioters" and how they will be dealt with in the future." / Twitter

And alt-left sites are angry at "white supremacists" under their beds.
And left-wing politicians like Bill deBlowjob are still spreading long discredited misinformation.


He fired more unhinged tweets. He is really angry about the verdict.

Reality is that, based on facts and the law, this was the correct verdict. In fact, the state should not have brought charges to begin with, and the only reason they did is politics.

 

[Derec]

The first shot was to the groin, which would have disabled him. Even if that one was justified (I'd disagree), no more shots were needed after that to stop any threat. It was unjustified homicide. He is responsible for every trigger pull, he doesn't get freebies just because he started shooting.

The four shots occurred in quick succession. KR did not wait to see whether his assailant JR was incapacitated, and then seeing that he was, unload a few more to make sure JR was good and dead. He shot four shots and stopped as soon as he saw that his attacker was no longer a threat. Self defense. Not guilty. Free as fuck.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, this could lead to a bunch of KR "hero" wannabes, self-appointed armed citizens patrolling protests.

There have been armed people at protests well before Rittenhouse, on both sides.

 

[TSwizzle]

And alt-left sites are angry at "white supremacists" under their beds.
And left-wing politicians like Bill deBlowjob are still spreading long discredited misinformation.


He fired more unhinged tweets. He is really angry about the verdict.

Reality is that, based on facts and the law, this was the correct verdict. In fact, the state should not have brought charges to begin with, and the only reason they did is politics.

They really are unhinged.

 

[lpetrich]

Right-wingers are gloating.

House Judiciary GOP on Twitter: "Justice." / Twitter

Rep. Matt Gaetz on Twitter: "Kyle Rittenhouse committed no crimes.
Acquitted on ALL COUNTS!
Now do BLM…" / Twitter
I've seen some rumors that Rep. MG wants to hire KR as a staff member.

Lauren Boebert on Twitter: "Today is a great day for the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense.
Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty on all counts!
Glory to God!" / Twitter

Candace Owens on Twitter: "NOT GUILTY.
Kyle Rittenhouse is free.
The criminal mob corporate enterprise that is masquerading as a movement concerned about black lives— FAILS.
Justice wins the day." / Twitter

 

[Derec]

To celebrate the not guilty verdict, here are some memes.

 

[Derec]

Just a couple more, I swear, and then I'll stop.

 

[lpetrich]

Zack Beauchamp on Twitter: "At least three House Republicans have already said they want Kyle Rittenhouse to be their intern (pix link)l" / Twitter
Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Madison Cawthorn. Who else might offer an internship? Lauren Boebert? MTG?


New York Post on Twitter: "Rep. Matt Gaetz open to offering Kyle Rittenhouse internship if acquitted (links)" / Twitter
Rep. Matt Gaetz open to offering Kyle Rittenhouse internship


Paul Gosar on Twitter: "Justice was served for #KyleRittenhouse and he is fully exonerated. As I said last year, obviously self-defense. I will arm wrestle @mattgaetz to get dibs for Kyle as an intern." / Twitter
noting
Matt Gaetz on Twitter: "NOT GUILTY!!!!!!!" / Twitter


PatriotTakes on Twitter: "Madison Cawthorn offers Kyle Rittenhouse “an internship,” says he isn’t guilty, and tells followers to also “be armed and dangerous.” (vid link)" / Twitter

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From the videos, it looks clear to me that the first shot was before his hand was near the gun. And, in fact, the medical examiner said the shot to the hand was the second shot, the kill shot was the third or fourth. The first shot was to the groin, which would have disabled him. Even if that one was justified (I'd disagree), no more shots were needed after that to stop any threat. It was unjustified homicide. He is responsible for every trigger pull, he doesn't get freebies just because he started shooting.

No--a groin shot is not going to be immediately disabling. And even if it is it takes time to evaluate whether someone is down. Firing another shot takes much less mental processing than evaluating whether the next shot is necessary. The reality is that you can end up with multiple shots fired into a target that is clearly down without any wrongdoing.

 

[lpetrich]

(KR being offered an internship by at least three right-wing Congressmembers...)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This comes just one day after @GOPLeader announced his intent to reward white supremacist members of Congress who incite violence.

Same party who just appointed 200+ judges, many unqualified, to federal courts- 70% of whom were white men.

And that’s just scratching the surface." / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

As to KR pleading self-defense, I think that he acted threatening and provoked some people. It's as if he killed his parents and he then begged for mercy by saying that he is an orphan.

Opinion | Kenosha Tells Us More About Where the Right Is Headed Than the R.N.C. Did - The New York Times

The most revealing thing to happen in conservative politics this week did not involve the Republican National Convention, at least not directly. Instead, it took place in Kenosha, Wis., in the aftermath of a shooting on Tuesday night that killed two people and wounded a third.

Then about the complicated events around KR shooting those three people.

"To the conservative media, however, what happened in Kenosha was eminently justifiable and even cause for celebration."

What happened in Kenosha was a tragedy. Rittenhouse should not have been there, and we should agree — all of us — that the shooting should not have happened. We should also be troubled by police action, or the lack thereof, against armed militias. Tacit support from Kenosha police (at one point, an officer thanks the group for being there) almost certainly contributed to the permissive environment that led to the shooting. It is reminiscent, in that way, of the events in Charlottesville in 2017, where an official review found that law enforcement failed to “maintain order” and “protect public safety” leading to fights, skirmishes and the vehicular murder of a protester.