catbarf on 23/11/2021 at 21:20
Quote Posted by Starker
I think we are just living in different worlds. You're living in a world where having a gun means you either don't shoot at all or fill someone with bullets until they stop moving and there are no gray areas in between, because if you don't do it, you're likely to be killed, because everyone who antagonises you is out to get you and wants you dead, either by beating you to death or killing you with your own gun. Warnings are only red flags that make the attacker even angrier and more reckless. Also, anyone could be going around with a gun and shootings are all over the media constantly, inducing a constant low level of fear and paranoia. Therefore everyone shoots to kill, whether law enforcement or ordinary citizens.
Well, I'm living in the same world as the UK, Canada, Australia, and a host of other countries that also prohibit warning shots and/or shooting to wound for their police and have no such expectation before use of force. I've already provided reference to UK policy (no warning shots, no wounding shots, aim center mass and fire only when necessary) and Amnesty International recommends the same, and I can find you more references if you want for other countries.
So I mean, either a
lot of Western countries are on-edge anger-ridden wastelands where police jump straight to shoot to kill because they're all trigger-happy paranoiacs and every antagonist is a would-be killer... or your explanation doesn't hold up.
This really isn't a US thing, and I don't think your characterization is fair.
Quote Posted by Starker
And, in my opinion, if he didn't break the law, then the law should be changed.
They might have been able to get him on second-degree murder in the first shooting. They would have had a better chance with voluntary manslaughter. This seems like yet another example of a widely publicized trial seeking the highest possible charges and then getting burned when the evidence provided doesn't meet the high burden of proof needed. The prosecution also undermined their own case, the defense did a good job of demonstrating that self-defense criteria were met, and the evidence of what started the whole thing is still lacking. (
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit) Here's a good summary of why the jury ruled the way they did.
I won't be surprised if we see a push at a federal level against open-carry and against minors having access firearms. And the friend who bought him the gun is on trial right now for straw purchase. So that's at least something. I'd sooner expect bans than European-style comprehensive licensing.
Quote Posted by Starker
If saying "back off or I'll shoot" is not enough or if somebody keeps advancing after you do a warning shot, then sure, you had no choice. That's perfectly reasonable self-defence.
In this particular case, where you lose me is in the idea that there was clear opportunity to tick all the boxes while Rittenhouse was running away, with Rosenbaum right on his heels, and that Rittenhouse was negligent in not firing warning shots or verbalizing an intent to shoot while running. The burden is on the defendant to exhaust all reasonable alternatives before using force, but what is 'reasonable' depends on the circumstance; even if I thought it was reasonable to give warning shots, I wouldn't expect that from someone who is being chased. Verbal warning, maybe, but given the evidence I have a hard time believing that the man who had threatened to kill Rittenhouse at least twice at that point was going to suddenly give up chase. Remember that the guy who testified that Rosenbaum was lunging for Rittenhouse's gun when he was shot was a friend of Rosenbaum and a named victim in the case, not someone with compelling motive to lie about the circumstances.
Starker on 23/11/2021 at 21:55
I don't know if the guy who testified about the lunging was the victim's friend or at least I haven't read anything about it, but given that he was someone who works for Daily Caller and how polarized things are in the US, I do think he might have been a tad biased, yes. You can misinterpret events even without directly lying and eyewitness testimony is not always the most reliable, especially when witnessing things in the heat of the situation.
Where you lose me is in the interpretation of the basic facts. For me, the fact that the victim was shot from more than a meter away seems to indicate that he never touched the shooter. For you, that's wrong (though as far as I'm concerned you never satisfactorily explained why) and you seem to think that there must have been a struggle for the weapon:
Quote:
Rittenhouse only shot after Rosenbaum caught up with him and started to struggle for control of his rifle
Furthermore, crouching down and jumping like a frog seems to be physically and logistically a very impractical way to gain the control of someone's weapon from behind. And even after the lunge he was apparently unable to reach the shooter, which to me seems to indicate the shooter could have easily avoided the "lunge" and was not in imminent danger.
And lastly, someone turning around and shooting without saying anything counts as shooting without warning to me. Shouting, "Friendly, friendly, friendly," for me does not count as a warning, let alone indicate that you're about to shoot someone.
If we can't seem to agree even on basic things like these, I think it's pointless to continue this conversation, let alone talk about what counts as proportionate in a self-defence situation.
Starker on 23/11/2021 at 22:37
Quote Posted by catbarf
Well, I'm living in the same world as the UK, Canada, Australia, and a host of other countries that also prohibit warning shots and/or shooting to wound for their police and have no such expectation before use of force. I've already provided reference to UK policy (no warning shots, no wounding shots, aim center mass and fire only when necessary) and Amnesty International recommends the same, and I can find you more references if you want for other countries.
So I mean, either a
lot of Western countries are on-edge anger-ridden wastelands where police jump straight to shoot to kill because they're all trigger-happy paranoiacs and every antagonist is a would-be killer... or your explanation doesn't hold up.
This really isn't a US thing, and I don't think your characterization is fair.
Well, I don't know about that...
(
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/)
Inline Image:
https://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/policekillings_rates.webpHere's are some more recent statistics that tell much the same story: (
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-killings-by-country)
And the official US statistics seem to be undercounted to boot: (
https://theconversation.com/police-killings-of-civilians-in-the-us-have-been-undercounted-by-more-than-half-in-official-statistics-169133)
catbarf on 24/11/2021 at 03:32
Quote Posted by Starker
Where you lose me is in the interpretation of the basic facts.
Defendant says guy touched his rifle, prosecution's star eyewitness says guy was lunging for the rifle, forensic examiner says injuries are consistent with a guy reaching for the rifle and either falling forwards or lunging, there's video showing the altercation- I don't understand how you've possibly concluded Rosenbaum was 'crouching down and jumping like a frog', or that Rosenbaum was unable to reach Rittenhouse. That sounds like we're not even on the same page about the basic facts.
As for this:
Quote Posted by Starker
For me, the fact that the victim was shot from more than a meter away seems to indicate that he never touched the shooter. For you, that's wrong (though as far as I'm concerned you never satisfactorily explained why)
First, the forensic pathologist's statement about distance was based on the presence of gunpowder stippling on Rosenbaum's body, setting an
upper limit, not a lower one. The pathologist's testimony was that the shots were fired 'within a few feet, within four feet or so'.
Second, it's not clear whether he did contact Rittenhouse after at least the first shot was fired. Rittenhouse says he did, which of course there is reason to doubt, but the forensic pathologist also testified that the second shot occurred with Rosenbaum's hand close to or touching the rifle. So Rosenbaum couldn't have been more than four feet away, and was either touching the rifle or close enough to touch the rifle for the second of four shots.
Third,
even if he was a meter away, that's roughly a quarter of a second at a sprint away from physical contact, and the star prosecution witness testified that he was going for the rifle. 'He never touched the shooter' may actually be factually correct- we'll never know- and yet even if it's true, it's fundamentally misrepresenting the facts by omission when you use it as a soundbite to argue that Rosenbaum didn't pose a threat and using force was unwarranted.
So yeah, maybe 'starting to struggle' could be better phrased as 'made a move for physical control of the rifle from within arm's reach', wordy as that is, but either way 'he never touched the shooter' is pure speculation.
Quote Posted by Starker
Well, I don't know about that...
You've missed the point. Go back and re-read. First three sentences.
No warning shots and no shooting to wound is not a US-specific policy.
Draxil on 24/11/2021 at 05:57
(
https://twitter.com/DrewHLive/status/1298558424213594118?s=20) Here is a link to video of the shooting from ground level. It happens very quickly, but if you watch it a couple times you can see that Rittenhouse's testimony that he was "ambushed" by Rosenbaum is accurate; it is even clearer Rosenbaum is the agressor and surprised Rittenhouse from the infrared drone footage which can be seen (
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial/index.html) here. I suspect that Rosenbaum was making good on his earlier threat against Rittenhouse and thought that, alone, he stood a good chance of winning in a fight if he could close the distance. In (
https://globalnews.ca/video/8362302/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-drone-video-shows-1st-shooting-at-close-range) this third angle you can clearly see that Rittenhouse
does point his rifle at Rosenbaum from I'm guessing 10-15 feet, without shooting, and that Rosenbaum slows up for a second, only to pick up speed and close the distance to less than a meter before Rittenhouse turns and shoots. He forced Rittenhouse to flee into a group of cars that had a large group of people on the other side; the situation was more favorable to Rosenbaum than Rittenhouse given that a rifle slung to the body isn't easy to effectively use while running around cars and that Rittenhouse was in unfriendly territory with a bunch of unknown/presumed hostile people ahead of him. Rosenbaum was violent, mentally ill, and I bet a portion of his screwed-up brain told him that he stood a pretty good chance at prevailing against a scared teenage kid who he may have thought was too afraid to use the rifle he carried.
Rosenbaum was a piece of shit, guilty of acts of sexual violence against 9-11 year old boys and domestic abuse against his fiancee. He had no business being out there that night and was clearly up to no good. He rolled the dice and lost. He has been portrayed as a martyr for a social justice cause in the mainstream media when he was really just an asshole out to cause trouble. Rittenhouse also had no business being on the street, had no business carrying a rifle, and seems to be a POS in the making. But it is a ludicrous stretch to say that he committed first degree homicide. Right wing media has made a hero out of him when it should be condemning his actions, his parents, and his upbringing. I wouldn't have shed a tear for him if he had been killed that night.
Starker on 24/11/2021 at 09:12
Quote Posted by catbarf
Defendant says guy touched his rifle, prosecution's star eyewitness says guy was lunging for the rifle, forensic examiner says injuries are consistent with a guy reaching for the rifle and either falling forwards or lunging, there's video showing the altercation- I don't understand how you've possibly concluded Rosenbaum was 'crouching down and jumping like a frog', or that Rosenbaum was unable to reach Rittenhouse. That sounds like we're not even on the same page about the basic facts.
First, the forensic pathologist's statement about distance was based on the presence of gunpowder stippling on Rosenbaum's body, setting an
upper limit, not a lower one. The pathologist's testimony was that the shots were fired 'within a few feet, within four feet or so'.
Second, it's not clear whether he did contact Rittenhouse after at least the first shot was fired. Rittenhouse says he did, which of course there is reason to doubt, but the forensic pathologist also testified that the second shot occurred with Rosenbaum's hand close to or touching the rifle. So Rosenbaum couldn't have been more than four feet away, and was either touching the rifle or close enough to touch the rifle for the second of four shots.
Third,
even if he was a meter away, that's roughly a quarter of a second at a sprint away from physical contact, and the star prosecution witness testified that he was going for the rifle. 'He never touched the shooter' may actually be factually correct- we'll never know- and yet even if it's true, it's fundamentally misrepresenting the facts by omission when you use it as a soundbite to argue that Rosenbaum didn't pose a threat and using force was unwarranted.
So yeah, maybe 'starting to struggle' could be better phrased as 'made a move for physical control of the rifle from within arm's reach', wordy as that is, but either way 'he never touched the shooter' is pure speculation.
All I claimed was that the victim never touched the shooter before the shooting, which you took exception to and started arguing against.
Even based on the grainy videos shot far away, I wouldn't say that the victim laid a hand on the shooter. Here's is one of the videos where you can see the shooter slowing down, turning around, and shooting the victim before he even reaches him (at 18 seconds in the middle of the screen): (
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1460817843314962437/pu/vid/1280x564/Q42kKpFx2Hq_JN2X.mp4?tag=12)
Doesn't really look like a lunge to me. And the shot occurred even before that, so it seems very unlikely that the shooter first saw a "lunge" and then had time enough to react to that and shoot.
And as for testimony, it's far from the sure thing that you make it out to be. The crouching thing was said by the same star witness that you say described it initially as a lunge, which
you are using as a soundbite. Plus it occurred while running, which is an unlikely action to take to reach for someone's weapon. And being close enough to touch the rifle after being shot is not "laying a hand on somebody" before shooting. And remember, the shooter slowed down, turned around, and stopped, further giving the victim time to carry forward with the momentum alone.
But, as I said already, if we can't even agree about the basic facts, there's no point in discussing it.
Quote Posted by catbarf
You've missed the point. Go back and re-read. First three sentences.
No warning shots and no shooting to wound is not a US-specific policy.
I'm not refuting US or UK policy here, but rather your claim that the police in the US are not substantially more trigger happy than the police in other Western countries. And what I said about warning shots I specifically said about my country and you just accidentally assumed I was talking about the UK. And warning shots and verbal warnings were just a couple of possibilities I listed among a plethora of steps that could be taken before you engage in deadly violence against an unarmed person.
Also, what I said goes for the whole sentiment about self-defence and when it's prudent to shoot unarmed people. And police violence in the US is not like in European countries or Canada or Australia, is it? The statistics alone prove that it isn't. The low level of fear and paranoia I described is not something I came up with by myself. I've heard others describe it as well. People living and born in the US. And from the stories people tell of their interactions with the police, I don't ever remember having (or hearing about) anything like it in European countries or the UK (though for sure the policing in European countries is not without problems either). Don't really know anything about policing in Australia or Canada, though, so I can't draw any comparisons there.
Quote Posted by Draxil
Rosenbaum was a piece of shit, guilty of acts of sexual violence against 9-11 year old boys and domestic abuse against his fiancee. He had no business being out there that night and was clearly up to no good. He rolled the dice and lost. He has been portrayed as a martyr for a social justice cause in the mainstream media when he was really just an asshole out to cause trouble. Rittenhouse also had no business being on the street, had no business carrying a rifle, and seems to be a POS in the making. But it is a ludicrous stretch to say that he committed first degree homicide. Right wing media has made a hero out of him when it should be condemning his actions, his parents, and his upbringing. I wouldn't have shed a tear for him if he had been killed that night.
To be clear, I don't condone the actions of the victim. By all accounts, he was extremely aggressive the whole night, abusing people verbally, "false-stepping" armed people to try to provoke a reaction out of them, and calling to them to shoot him. And it was likely he was having problems with his mental health, having tried to commit suicide and being released from the hospital on the day of the shooting and not being able to refill his prescription for bipolar disorder medication. But, as far as we know, the whole night he also didn't try to wrestle away anyone's gun or get in a physical altercation. So any motives you ascribe to him in that regard are pure speculation.
As for sexual violence against children, you keep bringing it up as if to imply he deserved to be killed, but it happened long ago when he was a teen and had had an extremely troubled childhood. From the accounts, he had been abused daily, both sexually and physically. And sexual abuse victims do sometimes end up abusing others in turn.
Jason Moyer on 24/11/2021 at 10:38
Why is the character of one of the victims relevant, but not the character of the person doing the shooting?
zombe on 24/11/2021 at 11:20
I guess it was implicitly meant to question which of the character traits are relevant to the situation.
Starker on 24/11/2021 at 12:22
Yeah, I also briefly mentioned earlier in the thread that the shooter was caught beating up a girl earlier and that he partied with Proud Boys afterwards. To me, things like these seem relevant to what happened, not something people did long ago in the past.
I mean, I just heard in the news that in the trial about the shooting of the black man hunted down by three vigilantes, the defence thought it relevant to mention that the victim had dirty toenails. So apparently the vigilante larping in the US extends not only to being judge, jury, and executioner, but also to being the toenail police.
zombe on 24/11/2021 at 12:52
My two cents incoming ...
Trying for first degree murder was idiotic - it would have not worked here either (another Estonian here) based on the evidence available. As for the self defense ... that is unfair to judge using our metrics. US is kind of a mess (to put it extremely mildly) in regards to anything related to guns and, consequently, different rules need to apply. Here, that shooter would be in deep shit on multiple different points with zero chance of walking free - but it did not happen here.
As an aside. Not trusting my observation/interpretation skills nor my memory - asked my stepfather, who worked as a policeman essentially his whole life, what were the rules around warning shots etc. It depends on the situation - duh. If reasonable / possible: give a clear verbal warning that you will be shot at if you continue, do a warning shot (de facto very effective!, * ), aim for potentially non lethal areas (if you miss then take that as an heightened warning shot) etc. Obviously, all of that requires that you have made clear that you are police and not some thug beforehand.
That shooter twat was not identifying himself as police in line of duty - but the rest still applies. All that can be questioned is the "if reasonable / possible" part.
* Do you have time to tell that you will use the weapon if the opponent does not back off? As far as i can tell, he had the time, but never did anything even remotely qualifying as that - but i was not there and cannot tell for sure.
* Can you do a warning shot? Probably no. Not in crowded space and not in the f* US by a civilian.
* Can you aim to avoid lethal outcome? Probably no. Crowded space.
* Can you shoot and be sufficiently sure you do not hit anything you should not hit? I have no data from his viewpoint to judge. He clearly judged that he should take the shot(s).
* How many shots are needed to neutralize the imminent threat? Not sure, but this looks excessive. Every shot you take could hit something you did not intend and hence should be avoided to begin with. The target was not shooting back - but could be seen as a potential tackling threat for the feeble shithead with a big gun that panics.
The line i draw is that the situation was of his own making giving him the majority of the burden for the outcome (inc. passing a much higher standard of self defense). Even in US, he should not walk free - not even close (unless some unexpected mitigating evidence surfaces).
--------------------------------------------------
(*) He had to do that many times in his line of duty. Super effective. My guess is that the shot serves as a wakeup call for the mind to help the prior verbal warning to sink in. For example, when you mentally are in "fleeing" mode then you do not really care what the police is yelling at you - you are not really listening. That will change after a few warning shots.
If i would be a cynical asshole then i would say that if you keep killing your targets then it becomes difficult to ask or judge if an warning shot would have worked.
