The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Oexmelin]

A collateral damage of USA gun fetichism seems to be the very idea of proportionality.

[Maximus]

Murder is an appropriate response to property damage, but property damage isn't an appropriate response to murder.

[DGuller]

Murder is an appropriate response to property damage, but property damage isn't an appropriate response to murder.

That's a really bullshit argument.  I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment, I'm just being a janitor for garbage arguments.  Usually the person being murdered is the one dealing out the property damage, whereas the person whose property is damaged usually has absolutely nothing to do with the murder.  No one (yet) is going through the minority neighborhoods and randomly shooting at inhabitants there in response to the property damage caused by riots.

[derspiess]

He was being chased before he turned and shot the first guy.  One of the rioters had also shot a pistol into the air prior to Rittenhouse turning and shooting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

[grumbler]

He was being chased before he turned and shot the first guy.  One of the rioters had also shot a pistol into the air prior to Rittenhouse turning and shooting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

We don't know which group of rioters pistol-shooting guy belonged to, but it doesn't matter.  Rittenhuse was present with one group of rioters in violation of the law, and he was armed knowing the potential consequences of his vigilante actions.  I feel sorry for him for being as big a dope as the rest of the people who thought it a good idea to carry weapons that night, but the fact is that he killed people under circumstances that make it hard to argue that he was following the law when he did it.

I'll wait for the evidence before assuming guilt or innocence, but I can say that his self-defense case looks very feeble to me.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is he trying to kill more people or to flee?

People taking it on themselves to be police is a dangerous situation.

That's just one of the lunacies of the gun fetish ideology.  Pretty soon after the shooting starts no one will have a solid idea of which guy with the gun is the good guy and which one with the gun is the bad guy.  They just know whether a guy with a gun is shooting at other guys with a gun, go figure out whether pulling the trigger will be defending an innocent or murdering an innocent.

This gets to the heart of the matter.  What we are seeing are the consequences of the NRA fantasy scenario of well armed citizens thronging the streets.  Once the shooting starts, total chaos and mayhem inevitably results.  Shots are ringing out and some guy with an AR-15 is running around with shouts that he killed someone (which it turns out is accurate) - how is that going to end up when everyone is exercising their second amendment rights to carry firearms and skateboards?

We need to get back to the traditional American notion that firearms are for recreational purposes or for parents who want to increase the probability their children die by accidental death or suicide. Nor for playing Dirty Harry in American streets.

[Sheilbh]

He was being chased before he turned and shot the first guy.  One of the rioters had also shot a pistol into the air prior to Rittenhouse turning and shooting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

I imagine this'll be a big part of the case, but I've copied the prosecution on this about the which includes some witness statements not just the video analysis - we'll get more no doubt and it's obviously their best case so handle with care. But it's not really clear what happens at the start:

Detective Cepress interviewed McGinnis and indicates the following: Before the shooting, McGinnis was interviewing the defendant. The defendant told McGinnis that he was a trained medic. McGinnis stated that he (McGinnis) has handled many ARs and that the defendant was not handling the weapon very well. McGinnis said that as they were walking south another armed male who appeared to be in his 30s joined them and said he was there to protect the defendant. McGinnis stated that before the defendant reached the parking lot and ran across it, the defendant had moved from the middle of Sheridan Road to the sidewalk and that is when McGinnis saw a male (Rosenbaum) initially try to engage the defendant. McGinnis stated that as the defendant was walking Rosenbaum was trying to get closer to the defendant. When Rosenbaum advanced, the defendant did a "juke" move and started running. McGinnis stated that there were other people that were moving very quickly. McGinnis stated that they were moving towards the defendant. McGinnis said that according to what he saw the defendant was trying to evade these individuals.

McGinnis described the point where the defendant had reached the car. McGinnis described that the defendant had the gun in a low ready position. Meaning that he had the gun raised but pointed downward. The butt of the gun would have been at an angle downwards from the shoulder. McGinnis stated that the defendant brought the gun up. McGinnis stated that he stepped back and he thinks the defendant fired 3 rounds in rapid succession. McGinnis said when the first round went off, he thought it hit the pavement. McGinnis felt something on his leg and his first thought was wondering whether he had gotten shot. McGinnis was behind and slightly to the right of Rosenbaum, in the line of fire, when the defendant shot.

McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off, the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum. McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words. McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the defendant's gun. McGinnis demonstrated by extending both of his hands in a quick grabbing motion and did that as a visual on how Rosenbaum tried to reach for the defendant's gun. Detective Cepress indicates that he asked McGinnis if Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun when the defendant shot. McGinnis said that he definitely made a motion that he was trying to grab the barrel of the gun. McGinnis stated that the defendant pulled it away and then raised it. McGinnis stated that right as they came together, the defendant fired. McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum
was shot, he had leaned in (towards the defendant).

McGinnis stated that after the defendant shot he ran back towards the hospital towards the middle of the road. McGinnis stayed and turned his attention to Rosenbaum. McGinnis stated that he then heard other shots really soon after.

It then moves to the third video and other shootings and I think at that point it becomes a bit clearer, because surely you can't expect or want people who've just witnessed a shooting to assume it was probably okay because it was in self-defence? Again to use the mugging example if you try and stop someone from mugging an old lady, but someone steps out of a shop at that moment and just sees you punching a random guy, then it's fair that they genuinely believe you're just assaulting someone, right? This is the issue between wanting the public to be involved in a reasonable, proportionate way and discouraging vigilantism. As DG says, the risk is multiplied a lot once you have guns - but I think so is the sort of genuine fear might have, the US has a lot of mass shootings, so how are bystanders to know whether they're preventing a terrorist attack or, assuming what he says is true, self defence? And I think if you're in a space carrying a weapon like this then it seems reasonable to me for people who will walk onto the street, and spot you with a gun and the other person on the ground, to assume you're the cause of the problem.

I don't know what the law is in Wisconsin - and Oex makes a good point. From an English perspective if the force is necessary then you look at if it was a reasonable use of force ("If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."). I'm not sure given the description in the prosecution and even being chased that shooting in response feels either reasonably necessary or reasonable.

[The Minsky Moment]

Wisconsin law:

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.

It gets more complicated however, because the scope of the justification narrows quite a bit if the "self-defender" is engaged in criminal activity or "provocation"

[Valmy]

Well, the crime was illegally carrying the weapon...

The kid involved seems to have become a conservative hero.  That is troubling.  It's the first time a teenage mass shooter has gotten political support.

So you're certain he had no right to self defense?

Where did he say that? The fact he was doing it while committing a crime makes it complicated though.

I mean this kid illegally crossed state lines with a weapon to confront people. It is hardly like he was assualted on his property or something.

Why is killing people always excused? Is there any time it is bad to kill people anymore? Anytime I see some poor fuck get killed so many people rush in to justify the killing. What happened to law, order, and justioce?

It goes back to the Trayvon Martin thing, if you can just claim self defense than how can killing anybody ever be bad? Just claim self defense and your gold, especially with no other witnesses. I don't get it. But sure enough the "conservatives" just rush in with this bizarre extremist doctrine. If you kill somebody and claim self defense can a prosecutor prove it WASN'T self defense? It's impossible, you cannot prove a negative.

But hopefully all these issues will be sorted out in court, to establish if anybody can just shoot anybody else if they feel a little scared and get away with it.

I know real conservatives do not stand for this idiocy. This is similar, though much worse obviously as lives are at stake, as those radical nutballs on the left who continually excuse the illegal activities of those who use these protests to commit crimes.

[The Minsky Moment]

Rittenhouse will get his chance to present a self-defense justification to a jury; sadly two of his victims will never get to tell their side of the story  ...

I do think it's sad that a 17 year old kid has to face the prospects of decades in prison - what I saw from the limited footage of him was a naive and foolish young man deluded into thinking he was doing the right thing, oblivious to fact he was making a fraught situation more dangerous. What happened was shocking and yet not surprising. As long as we keep glorifying vigilante amateurism, these scenes will continue to recur and likely escalate.

[Syt]

Video:

https://twitter.com/ShannonSharpe/status/1299783390573465600?s=20

Is this noncompliance?

We were told, noncompliance is a death sentence. I need an explanation.

[Maximus]

That's a really bullshit argument.  I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment, I'm just being a janitor for garbage arguments.  Usually the person being murdered is the one dealing out the property damage, whereas the person whose property is damaged usually has absolutely nothing to do with the murder.  No one (yet) is going through the minority neighborhoods and randomly shooting at inhabitants there in response to the property damage caused by riots.

It would be a bullshit argument if it was an argument.

[Razgovory]

Well, the crime was illegally carrying the weapon...

The kid involved seems to have become a conservative hero.  That is troubling.  It's the first time a teenage mass shooter has gotten political support.

So you're certain he had no right to self defense?

I'm not a lawyer, maybe you can get self-defense if you are committing a crime.  It would be good news to burglars and robbers.  If he gets off the message is clear, if you see a right-winger with a gun; shoot first.  The law will not protect you from him.

[Syt]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/appeals-court-temporarily-halts-protections-journalists-legal-observers/story?id=72688755

Appeals court temporarily halts protections for journalists, legal observers in Portland

A three-judge panel on Thursday temporarily halted protections for journalists and legal observers covering the unrest In Portland, Oregon.

Last week, federal Judge Michael Simon ruled that journalists and legal observers were exempt from federal officers' physical force, arrest or other treatment if the officers "reasonably know" that a person is a journalist or legal observer.

But in a 2-1 decision, the judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, agreed with the government that Judge Simon's initial ruling was too broad.

"Given the order's breadth and lack of clarity, particularly in its non-exclusive indicia of who qualifies as "Journalists" and "Legal Observers," appellants have also demonstrated that, in the absence of a stay, the order will cause irreparable harm to law enforcement efforts and personnel," two of the three judges wrote. "This means that journalists could be subjected to the same physical force as that of the individuals participating."

Attorney William Barr said in a statement that he thought the decision was "an important step."

"Last night, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit entered an order temporarily blocking an injunction entered by a federal district court in Portland that imposed extensive but vaguely defined constraints on federal law enforcement personnel striving to protect the federal courthouse and surrounding areas in Portland from destruction," Barr said.

"In practical effect, the district court's order prevented the federal government from effectively addressing violent mobs through the general crowd-control measures that are required, and it unacceptably increased the risk of serious injury to federal law enforcement officers. The Ninth Circuit's decision is an important step that will allow federal officers to continue carrying out their important security responsibilities without being subject to untenable conditions."

Federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security and US Marshals have been deployed to the area around the federal courthouse in Portland for the majority of the summer in response to to unrest in the aftermath of the George Floyd's killing.

The Department of Homeland Security has come under heavy scrutiny for the deployment of federal agents there and journalists have extensively documented their role.

[Eddie Teach]

Why is Portland ground zero for these protests, a city with very few black people?