JWeinCom said:

KLAMarine said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h1wE9gk1kc

Lawyer basically concludes that the shooting of Blake was not unjustified.

Thanks for updating. In the future those, a few key points would be even better.

As for the video itself, I'm not going to watch it, because I'd probably agree with its points. To the best of my knowledge, in a situation like these where (according to the police report which may not be true) multiple warnings were issued, a weapon was present, less lethal options had been attempted, and there is a valid warrant, lethal force is legally justified.

But I think that is missing the point. The more important question is whether the lethal force rules themselves are justifiable.

The laws are skewed heavily in favor of law enforcement. Assuming Blake did have a knife, the risk of him turning around and actually killing people was relatively small. Don't get me wrong I think there was some reasonable apprehension of extreme physical harm or death. But how great must the threat be before you can shoot someone seven times in the back? According to most current laws, any reasonable possibility of force can be justified with a lethal response, but I don't know if I agree with those laws. 

The laws place a significantly higher value on the lives of police officers than the lives of suspects. Others would argue that all lives matter equally, and thus there should be a much higher requirement before lethal force can be used (for instance confirmation of a firearm or even an actual attack). And these laws would, almost certainly, make police less safe. Personally, I'd go for a middle ground. I do generally place a higher value on the officer's lives (assuming they are operating by lawfully themselves and the laws are reasonable), but I think the imbalance is too great. 

There's also a question of, careful I'm about to use a dirty word, defunding the police. There were three police officers involved. If there were two officers and a social worker or someone specifically trained in psychology/deescalation, would the situation have turned out differently? Did the third officer make either the other officers or the suspect safer? There were three officers looking on while George Floyd was killed. Could having some other kind of personnel have led to a better outcome? I don't know the answer, I haven't done the research. But it's a worthwhile question.

The tl:dr version though is that something being legally justified does not make it right. 

How do you know that? Police didn't see him as imminent threat when he pulled the knife on them. They would've shot him, prbly not trying to taser him first. The threat level changed when he walked to the drivers side and tried to enter the vehicle. It was impossible for the police to know if there was a gun in the car or no. More importantly however, as a deadly weapon a car has a lot more potential than a small knife.



Hunting Season is done...

Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
Zoombael said:

There is enough information out there making it evident Kyle was acting in self defense. DonutOperator summed it up in two videos. Including what lead up to the violent outcome.

Getting chased by a violent mob armed with all sorts of weapons and criminal records, a gun being fired behind him while running away. I'm taking a wild guess, but i think Kyles intention was not to end up like this guy...

...who got attacked and kicked unconscious by "peaceful protesters" after he was defending a transsexual man.

Or that 71 yo man...

https://www.fox6now.com/news/broke-his-jaw-man-in-his-70s-attacked-while-trying-to-protect-burning-kenosha-mattress-store

Or the black security guard that was killed in a live stream as he tried to prevent "peaceful protesters" from looting.

To constantly try to shift the blame, not grounded on facts, but an unhealthy amount of misinformation, that is misleading and "in support of criminals".

Not going to view the videos, so you'll have to summarize the key points and show the evidence backing them up. Interested in primary sources, not commentary. Unless this youtuber has access to evidence that the rest of us do not, or is a scholar of Wisconsin criminal law, his commentary doesn't interest me.

Your response to the other post is a complete non-sequitur. 


Seemingly, some people have no interest in the data. Underinformed or misinformed, yet they insist on their capability to give judgement and solution, solely on the basis of siding with social justice. The motto "I am righteous, therefore at the end i am just". Detail don't matter.

I repeat "in support of criminals". Knowingly, unknowningly, directly, indirectly.

WTBU Cancels Virtual Benefit Concert for Massachusetts Bail Fund

http://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/wtbu-organizes-virtual-benefit-concert-for-massachusetts-bail-fund/

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/12/us/portland-protesters-prosecution-dropped/index.html

https://www.postandcourier.com/news/protesters-get-help-from-donations-to-mass-bail-funds/article_1bff564e-abee-11ea-a72d-030d544ec51d.html

Remember when "peaceful protesters" demolished the momument in Portsmouth. The police received contradicting orders. First, they were told to keep people from occupying the spot. Then the Senator in person ordered them to stand down and not get in the way, no matter what happens, so they did. One of the statues was toppled and hit a protester. The man suffered life threatening injuries. An ironic omen. Being crushed unsuspectingly by the ambition that unites them.



Hunting Season is done...

Zoombael said:
JWeinCom said:

Not going to view the videos, so you'll have to summarize the key points and show the evidence backing them up. Interested in primary sources, not commentary. Unless this youtuber has access to evidence that the rest of us do not, or is a scholar of Wisconsin criminal law, his commentary doesn't interest me.

Your response to the other post is a complete non-sequitur. 


Seemingly, some people have no interest in the data. Underinformed or misinformed, yet they insist on their capability to give judgement and solution, solely on the basis of siding with social justice. The motto "I am righteous, therefore at the end i am just". Detail don't matter.

I repeat "in support of criminals". Knowingly, unknowningly, directly, indirectly.

WTBU Cancels Virtual Benefit Concert for Massachusetts Bail Fund

http://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/wtbu-organizes-virtual-benefit-concert-for-massachusetts-bail-fund/

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/12/us/portland-protesters-prosecution-dropped/index.html

https://www.postandcourier.com/news/protesters-get-help-from-donations-to-mass-bail-funds/article_1bff564e-abee-11ea-a72d-030d544ec51d.html

Remember when "peaceful protesters" demolished the momument in Portsmouth. The police received contradicting orders. First, they were told to keep people from occupying the spot. Then the Senator in person ordered them to stand down and not get in the way, no matter what happens, so they did. One of the statues was toppled and hit a protester. The man suffered life threatening injuries. An ironic omen. Being crushed unsuspectingly by the ambition that unites them.

I'm simply not going to click every link you post and view every video. Because, I have limited time and other things to do. I asked you to give key points so I can figure out if the video contains any evidence, if the person has any expertise, and overall if the video is worth watching. Because, again, I'm not going to watch every video on the topic (and neither are you) so I need some information to determine if a video is worthwhile. Your word that it explains the situation well is not enough. Not reading/watching literally everything everyone tells you to does not equal not being interested in the details. 

Your post is also flaming and putting words in my mouth, so don't quote me or address me anymore unless it's for mod related reasons, and don't direct those kinds of attacks towards other users. 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 01 September 2020

Zoombael said:

How do you know that? Police didn't see him as imminent threat when he pulled the knife on them. They would've shot him, prbly not trying to taser him first. The threat level changed when he walked to the drivers side and tried to enter the vehicle. It was impossible for the police to know if there was a gun in the car or no. More importantly however, as a deadly weapon a car has a lot more potential than a small knife.

There were 3 officers, all armed and trained, against 1 man. You're telling me that with all their combined effort, they aren't capable of simply disarming him, cuffing him, and taking him to jail so he can answer to the law? They're trained to deescalate the situation and stop any conflict before it gets out of hand in the safest way possible. This entire situation could have easily been avoided if they had just non-lethally apprehended him and taken him to jail from the start. 

They shouldn't have even let him get to the driver's side and let the situation get that far in the first place. And it most certainly doesn't justify putting 7 bullets in his back. Going by what you're saying, they'd have to be rock stupid to let him get into his car, start it, and let him have the chance to cause real damage. If they're really that incompetent, they've got no business wearing a badge. 



Hardware Comparison Threads:

PlayStation 4/Xbox One/Nintendo Switch: 2019 vs. 2020
(https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/241660/ps4xbons-2019-vs-2020/1/)

Jumpin said:

This is Trump's America:

Post descriptions and key points for videos please. 



Around the Network
Zoombael said:

Getting chased by a violent mob armed with all sorts of weapons and criminal records, a gun being fired behind him while running away.

You bringing up criminal records as a reason for why this is self defense is strange, considering the shooter wouldn't have the slightest idea about any of that when he made the decision to kill people.

And what some people don't seem to understand is that self defense has to be reasonable.

Someone tries to slap you in the face, but you knock their hand away = reasonable self defense
Someone tries to slap you in the face, but you shoot them in the head = not reasonable self defense

People running after you by itself is not enough to claim self defense if you murder one of them. The killer would have to prove that his life was in danger, or that he reasonably believed it was, and also that he had exhausted all other options before murdering the man, who was unarmed.
As far as I know, we don't yet know why he was running and why they were following him in the first video. Maybe he already fired his gun at someone else, or threatened to do so, etc.

I don't know about you, but pointing an AR-15 at an unarmed person will probably be enough to make them back off. You don't actually have to kill them. Maybe in an extreme case, you'd fire a warning shot.
You should also not murder an unarmed person for having a plastic bag thrown at you. According to the police report, that was the object being thrown in the video. ("Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag".)

It's possible that the killer thought that the gunshot fired at the sky by another person standing further away was aimed at him, but it was not, and it is not reasonable to shoot an unarmed person just because you heard a gunshot. That's not self defense but the exact reason why idiots should not bring guns to these places.

For the second killing, the argument by the killers defenders is that it is self defense to kill someone for trying to stop/disarm you after you murdered someone.
It is not.

The people in the video are heard telling people he shot someone, and they seemingly try to grab his gun when he falls over. One of the people trying to stop him were seemingly holding a gun, but they did not fire at the killer for the duration of the video, even after he fell over. Unfortunately the killer didn't have the same regard for human life and didn't hesitate to shoot and kill them when they got close enough to take away his weapon.

The killer is currently charged on these counts:

Count 1: FIRST DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
Count 2: FIRST DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS
WEAPON
Count 3: FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
Count 4: ATTEMPT FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS
WEAPON
Count 6: POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18
Count 7: FIRST DEGREE MURDER <---- (Newly added, after authorities reviewed the evidence.)

This 17 year old illegally carried the weapon, and then fled state lines after killing several people.

...who got attacked and kicked unconscious by "peaceful protesters"
killed in a live stream as he tried to prevent "peaceful protesters"

Do not try to conflate peaceful protesters with the violent ones.
This kind of dishonest generalization and dehumanization has no place here. Don't do it again.

Last edited by Hiku - on 02 September 2020

Why are people defending a guy that was running around the streets with an assault rifle?

To me people doing that are either a terrorist, a lunatic or both.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

If this is discussion about the Kenosha killer dude...yeah. Guys, he literally was a minor with an AR-15 assault rifle, deliberately travelling to a location with intent to stir up shit. Whether the actual 'killing' was in self defense or not, literally everything I've read on the matter makes it clear he went to Kenosha with bad intents. He WANTED someone to attack him. he WANTED an excuse to kill someone.

What happened beyond that is irrelevant, when it comes to culpability. If you are defending him, then you are on the wrong side. Period. Fullstop.



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

Trump really is the biggest piece of shit to ever be called president.

He's basically condemned any future COVID-19 victims in America with his own petty incompetence.

If America's justice system wasn't so fucked up, Trump would be in prison for being an accessory to mass murder.



CaptainExplosion said:

Trump really is the biggest piece of shit to ever be called president.

He's basically condemned any future COVID-19 victims in America with his own petty incompetence.

If America's justice system wasn't so fucked up, Trump would be in prison for being an accessory to mass murder.

yeah, I read that and...hoo boy. Talk about breaking your nose to spite your face (I think that's the phrase). 

Look, republicans and conservatives of America, I get it. I do. Fiscal responsibility and tradition are important. You like your religion and your guns way too much, and [redacted comment about how it seems an awful lot of conservatives are pretty obviously racist], but like, there comes a time when you gotta realize that, as the phrase possibly goes, he's just hurting America by completely failing at diplomacy. 

You're on a broken leg kicking the doctors trying to help you because you don't like their skin colour. 

Trump's narcissism is legendarily stupid. He cares so much about the percieved image of he and the rest of america being 'strong' that he won't even help the WORLD health organization develop a vaccine to put an end to the global pandemic because it might help Chinese people.

Seriously, how can anyone pretend this, paired with 'build that wall' and 'shithole countries' and 'they're sending rapists and thugs' and 'putting mexican kids in cages' and the muslim country ban ISN'T blatant racism and bigotry and xenophobia? I have to dance around my words to not call anyone racist for fear of being banned when the cheeto nazi LITERALLY campaigned on a platform of bigotry and exclusion? I can't say any one person is racist unless I know them, but based on the way their leaders act, the people that support them, the campaign promises that resonate, and shit like this, it's fair to say that - at the very least - a whole lot of conservatives are super duper okay with racism if they get what they want and can send a middle finger to China, the middle east, mexico, and africa.

I know it isn't nice to say and I'll get a lot of kickback, but that's where the evidence points, and this thing with the vaccine is the latest in a long line of conservative americans blatantly saying 'Fuck this country, too!'

Seriously. How is any of this conscionable? How can any of you even begin to justify any of this? How can anyone possibly be so shortsighted and stupid to NOT see this as the remarkably stupid, ignorant, selfish, dumbass, moronic decision that it is? I'm not even sure I want to hear the responses I'll get because they'll all be so, SO very bad and devoid of logic and reason and sympathy and compassion and be shortsighted and blind and tone deaf. I feel like I'm shouting in the void and the void is crying back 'hyuck, america first, motherfucker'

**Edit** IT's not even America First anymore, it's "ONLY AMERICA AND FUCK EVERYONE ELSE". I get the idea that you gotta look out for number 1 first. You can't help others before you help yourself, but that's not what this is. this is 'we help ourselves....and fuck the rest of y'all'



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II