A Day of Rage

[cosmickid]

Yeah I agree with all of that, but that has been the argument in many of the other cases I was comparing to.

Can we dispense with the claim that no one was armed? Court documents have charged over 3 dozen people with possessing deadly weapons, and that includes 3 specifically charged with firearms offenses. And most of those folks were arrested after the fact, so a lot more were likely armed since there were no x-ray or weapon check stations set up as you'd have at even a basketball game...

"Others have echoed that view, and conservative and pro-Trump media, like Breitbart, The Epoch Times and the Washington Examiner, have seized on the congressional testimony of FBI Assistant Director Jill Sanborn, who said the bureau did not confiscate firearms from suspects that day. But FBI spokesperson Carol Cratty told NPR that Sanborn was talking only specifically about arrests by the FBI, and not other police agencies that made arrests on the day of the riot — including arrests of people allegedly carrying guns."

 

[mcmurtry66]

I agree with him. He and I certainly don’t agree a lot politically, but he’s right on this. He seems fairly mild-mannered to me and not significantly confrontational - especially compared to other posters here. He can be a little long winded though.

One can be mild mannered and an ahole when everything they post is an insult to people who believe otherwise. The guy literally posts from a site called Republicans R Evil

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

One can be mild mannered and an ahole when everything they post is an insult to people who believe otherwise. The guy literally posts from a site called Republicans R Evil

That’s a real site? I thought you were joking.

 

[mcmurtry66]

That’s a real site? I thought you were joking.

no i'm not joking. i'm sick of the 2,000 word diatribes attacking conservatives as though dems were beyond reproach with countless factual errors from the far left sites he cites. people like cosmic/outside are every bit as dangerous and insane out there in the world spewing their garbage as mas and the rest perpetuating nonsense

 

[Lucy01]

That’s a real site? I thought you were joking.

I am as much a liberal as you are a conservative!

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I understand that you are for some reason convinced that YOUR interpretation of events is the ultimate final word but the case is going to trial. So I'm not sure how I'm not able to have a different interpretation (shared by the prosecution team and plenty of other people, btw)

I do know that the defense argued for a couple of the minor charges to be dropped and the judge ruled that all 6 charges were at the probable cause level and denied the defense motion.

There is no reason to discuss this further, as you seem to take it as a personal affront that I dare to have an opinion on this. Turns out that I was wrong to label the video I watched as an "arraignment", as it was actually the procedure when the judge ruled on the defense motions and I watched it live. There were a number of key elements discussed and I remember being struck by the demeanor of the Prosecution team, who might be surprised to learn that you've unilaterally decided they're wasting their time in prosecuting the case...

Believe it or not, I did not watch the court proceedings or read and watch the accounts and video captures of this incident with the express purpose of attacking you or your position. My opinions on this case were shaped by what I saw and heard long before it became a topic of discussion on this board. So I'm certainly not trying to deliberately provoke your ire by stating a differing opinion. But I wonder why if it's as cut and dried an issue as you want to maintain, this Prosecutor is interested in pursuing a case with charges he has no hope of winning a court battle on...

This is a video which is essentially providing an analysis of the procedure I actually watched live. Again what struck me was the demeanor of the Prosecutor and the way he presents his argument. I'm not Nostradamus, so I'm not sure how the case will be decided. But I watch this guy and I get a sense that he feels extremely confidant in the case he is going to bring to trial. Again, that is my interpretation...

View embedded media

It’s a simple question: do you think it is legal for me to maim somebody running down the street simply because a bunch of people are pointing at him claiming he’s a murderer?

It’s a simple question.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I was on topic. You just don't like the fact there is a double standard.

no you weren't, know it, and are just flat out lying and trolling at this point.

Floyd wasn't attempting to attack anyone, with a mob right behind him that was about to breach the last barrier if a stand wasn't made.

zero in common with the two situations, you know it, and you embarrass and discredit yourself trying to sell that lie..

 

[Stuffshot]

I am as much a liberal as you are a conservative!

That position has already been taken.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

 

[i'vegotwinners]

It’s a simple question: do you think it is legal for me to maim somebody running down the street simply because a bunch of people are pointing at him claiming he’s a murderer?

It’s a simple question.

if the guy is carrying a gun and the people yelling seem to be doing so as a warning, actually, it's about as complicated a question as can be, because it's basically a battlefield call at that point.

while Rittenhouse may have had good intentions, he basically put himself in a situation where he became the cornered animal that feared for it's life, thus did what cornered animals all do at that point.

a tragedy all round, with no purely innocent party, and no purely guilty party.

had none of them gone looking for trouble, none would have found it, despite their intentions.

bad situations sometimes get out of hand.

don't put yourself in them if you don't have to, and no one involved had to.

 

[Lucy01]

That position has already been taken.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

🧐

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

if the guy is carrying a gun and the people yelling seem to be doing so as a warning, actually, it's about as complicated a question as can be, because it's basically a battlefield call at that point.

while Rittenhouse may have had good intentions, he basically put himself in a situation where he became the cornered animal that feared for it's life, thus did what cornered animals all do at that point.

a tragedy all round, with no purely innocent party, and no purely guilty party.

had none of them gone looking for trouble, none would have found it, despite their intentions.

bad situations sometimes get out of hand.

don't put yourself in them if you don't have to, and no one involved had to.

I agree fully with everything but the first Paragraph. To listen to the mob is posse rule, and that’s expressly illegal. It isn’t a battlefield, it’s an American city. You have absolutely no right to take lethal action against somebody simply because others told you he did something violent.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

But there weren't any cops standing in front of them when the shooting occurred. The 3 moved out of the way anticipating that the re-enforcements would take their place. But they didn't wait for the re-enforcements in riot gear to join them physically, which allowed the rioters to surge forward and pound on the glass entrances the 3 had been standing in front of.

That left nothing between the rioters and the small amount of police in the Chamber, who were charged with covering the lawmakers as they evacuated. When the rioters shattered the glass and created a path inside, then at least one of the cops inside unholstered his weapon and pointed it at the rioters to dissuade them from advancing.

It's clear he means business and none of the other rioters seem eager to challenge him, but Babbitt suddenly jumps up and poises herself on the ledge to jump in, and the cop shoots. You can tell she was on the ledge because she sort of explodes backward into the air and falls...

you're trying to use logic and reason to debate an internet troll that deals only in emotion, and see things only as he wants to see them.

you're basically trying to reason with someone who doesn't do reason.

that said, Ashley Babbitt truly is an American tragedy, both for her and the officer who was put in an impossible no win situation by no doing of his own.

as for who should be held accountable for her death, that's the only easy answer here.

Donald Trump.

 

[DANC]

I agree with him. He and I certainly don’t agree a lot politically, but he’s right on this. He seems fairly mild-mannered to me and not significantly confrontational - especially compared to other posters here. He can be a little long winded though.

You don't disagree with him enough - at least posting on here.

The guy(?) is as brainwashed as it gets and doesn't hesitate to post his drivel.

Tolstoy could state his opinion in more concise terms than him.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

That position has already been taken.

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Thank you, Bilbo.

 

[cosmickid]

Same stupid shit you always do. You take legal info filtered from your far left websites and pretend they’re actual pleadings/discovery. It’s idiotic. And you never learn.

I'd be interested in what "far-left websites" I'm relying on here, since my post was basically related to watching the zoom of one of the court proceedings and mainstream media like the NYT video, Newsweek, and a js online analysis of one of the defense funded videos released...

I also know that the felony count discussed in the court proceedings regarding public endangerment refers to the eyewitness account of Richie McGinniss of the Daily Caller, hardly a columnist for a far-left website. I know that because I read his account, and I hardly felt it "exonerated" Rittenhouse...

That’s a real site? I thought you were joking.

I did a google image search in order to find a picture of a political ad that I thought was funny. I read about it in an article, but Rivals was doing one of their upgrades/format changes and I wasn't able to just copy and paste the pic the way I wanted. My computer illiteracy is infamous, and I don't possess the knowledge to post pics any way other than using copy/paste, an option Rivals seems to turn on and off on a whim...

So I did the google search, and of the options, the search revealed the only one I knew how to post on the board was a tweet that used the cartoon. Unfortunately, the name of the account was something crazy like "we hate republicans" or some such nonsense. I knew I'd get some razzing, but mcmurtry seems to have been really offended.

I think I even posted a disclaimer, explaining what happened but for some reason, mcmurtry can't let it go. I never even knew that Twitter account existed, and if I could only have copied the pic the issue would never have arisen.

I've been around Republicans all my life, the only "Democrat" I've known in either my immediate or extended family was my younger brother and he died in Sept. I'd say 95% of the people I knew in high school or also at IU were Republican as well, so if I truly "hated" Republicans my circle of contacts would be extremely limited...

 

[DANC]

Can we dispense with the claim that no one was armed? Court documents have charged over 3 dozen people with possessing deadly weapons, and that includes 3 specifically charged with firearms offenses. And most of those folks were arrested after the fact, so a lot more were likely armed since there were no x-ray or weapon check stations set up as you'd have at even a basketball game...

"Others have echoed that view, and conservative and pro-Trump media, like Breitbart, The Epoch Times and the Washington Examiner, have seized on the congressional testimony of FBI Assistant Director Jill Sanborn, who said the bureau did not confiscate firearms from suspects that day. But FBI spokesperson Carol Cratty told NPR that Sanborn was talking only specifically about arrests by the FBI, and not other police agencies that made arrests on the day of the riot — including arrests of people allegedly carrying guns."

View embedded media

No protester was found to be armed at the Capitol. It's not a claim - it's a fact.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

You don't disagree with him enough - at least posting on here.

The guy(?) is as brainwashed as it gets and doesn't hesitate to post his drivel.

Tolstoy could state his opinion in more concise terms than him.

Anything more than a bumper sticker is a challenge for you.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I'd be interested in what "far-left websites" I'm relying on here, since my post was basically related to watching the zoom of one of the court proceedings and mainstream media like the NYT video, Newsweek, and a js online analysis of one of the defense funded videos released...

I also know that the felony count discussed in the court proceedings regarding public endangerment refers to the eyewitness account of Richie McGinniss of the Daily Caller, hardly a columnist for a far-left website. I know that because I read his account, and I hardly felt it "exonerated" Rittenhouse...

I did a google image search in order to find a picture of a political ad that I thought was funny. I read about it in an article, but Rivals was doing one of their upgrades/format changes and I wasn't able to just copy and paste the pic the way I wanted. My computer illiteracy is infamous, and I don't possess the knowledge to post pics any way other than using copy/paste, an option Rivals seems to turn on and off on a whim...

So I did the google search, and of the options, the search revealed the only one I knew how to post on the board was a tweet that used the cartoon. Unfortunately, the name of the account was something crazy like "we hate republicans" or some such nonsense. I knew I'd get some razzing, but mcmurtry seems to have been really offended.

I think I even posted a disclaimer, explaining what happened but for some reason, mcmurtry can't let it go. I never even knew that Twitter account existed, and if I could only have copied the pic the issue would never have arisen.

I've been around Republicans all my life, the only "Democrat" I've known in either my immediate or extended family was my younger brother and he died in Sept. I'd say 95% of the people I knew in high school or also at IU were Republican as well, so if I truly "hated" Republicans my circle of contacts would be extremely limited...

You have a long history of relying on bs left “links links links” as fact when in truth they’re garbage. Literally everything you wrote about the mccloskeys was inaccurate. Everything. You are a left wing media created automaton wholly devoid of the ability to think for yourself.

 

[DANC]

no you weren't, know it, and are just flat out lying and trolling at this point.

Floyd wasn't attempting to attack anyone, with a mob right behind him that was about to breach the last barrier if a stand wasn't made.

zero in common with the two situations, you know it, and you embarrass and discredit yourself trying to sell that lie..

Floyd was resisting arrest - according to you leftists here, that's reason enough to kill him.

And there was certainly a growing group around the police who were yelling at the police, and not just to get off his neck.

I'm just going by the logic presented here - you don't listen to the cops, you take your chances. And if you get killed, well that's your tough luck.

Now go back in your hole.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I agree fully with everything but the first Paragraph. To listen to the mob is posse rule, and that’s expressly illegal. It isn’t a battlefield, it’s an American city. You have absolutely no right to take lethal action against somebody simply because others told you he did something violent.

every "battlefield" was an innocent place, except for that moment in time when it suddenly wasn't.

that said, i'd have to go back and watch video again to see how accurate my depiction was, and whether anyone could legitimately feel threatened at that moment from Rittenhouse, or seemed in need of defending.

that said, in the era of mass shootings, if someone is walking down the street carrying an assault type looking weapon while the crowd is pointing at him yelling "shooter", is that not instantly a battlefield situation at that point in time, even if looking back on it after the fact indicated possibly otherwise..

the fog of war.

 

[cosmickid]

I agree fully with everything but the first Paragraph. To listen to the mob is posse rule, and that’s expressly illegal. It isn’t a battlefield, it’s an American city. You have absolutely no right to take lethal action against somebody simply because others told you he did something violent.

Rittenhouse was standing armed with an AR-15 in the proximity of someone dying of 4 or 5 gunshot wounds. It wasn't a secluded area- don't you think other people besides Richie McGinniss (who wrote an eyewitness account, which the public endangerment count is essentially based on) witnessed him shooting Rosenbaum?

If he was confident that he acted in self-defense (which in Wisconsin means he had no other option to avoid death or serious injury), then why didn't he just throw up his arms and surrender to a sympathetic witness like McGinniss?

I get that he's a frightened kid, but at some point, he's responsible for his own actions.
You're armed and you shoot someone who is unarmed but you claim is harassing you, then you exacerbate the situation and shoot additional unarmed people and then want to claim it's all self-defense? I believe that's why the defense wanted to get the felony endangerment charge dropped because it's difficult to claim self-defense for actions you take while fleeing after committing a felony...

 

[Spartans9312]

I can understand why that day was traumatizing for some, but I can't help but see this stuff and think of how much the press downplayed and dismissed the damage caused by rioting last summer. Imagine how families in those neighborhoods felt about the "mostly peaceful" events.
People watched their neighborhoods being destroyed, but the response was overwhelmingly dismissive because the violence was being justified by a cause many in the press agreed with. Hope seeing it from the other side will make some reconsider how they viewed those events.

 

[cosmickid]

You have a long history of relying on bs left “links links links” as fact when in truth they’re garbage. Literally everything you wrote about the mccloskeys was inaccurate. Everything. You are a left wing media created automaton wholly devoid of the ability to think for yourself.

Yeah, you attacked me in the same way regarding the Atlanta shootings for having the audacity to suggest that a racist motive made more sense than the claim that he was motivated by some sort of sex hatred. I merely stated my opinion based on the evidence I saw, and you and ranger both made numerous threads attacking me and calling me a race-baiter.

I didn't even try to definitively claim it was a racism-driven crime, just that I thought the evidence for that seemed more compelling than the idea that he murdered multiple middle-aged and elderly women over sex deviancy. Yet you guys just went on and on as if the concept was just something I imagined. I just went back and read thru the thread, and it was the same crap of you guys constantly berating me for daring to express an opinion.

It's the same here in this Rittenhouse thread with ranger acting as if "self-defense" is a foregone conclusion. As if it's impossible for reasonable people to disagree with his personal interpretation, and he's insulted I dared to do so. And the thing is I'm just basically discussing the possibility that it seems like the Prosecution is going to present in court, at least based on the charges they have brought.

I think the fact that McGinniss has said that he felt as if he was in the line of fire and in danger when Rosenbaum was shot casts more than a little doubt on self-defense in the Rosenbaum shooting. I'm not sure how there isn't a minimum finding of guilty on the public endangerment count, which would seem to complicate Rittenhouse trying to claim self-defense in his subsequent actions.

I just think this case is a lot more complex than ranger is maintaining. For example, I wonder about even less discussed elements like an underaged out-of-state minor breaking Wisconsin law by having an illegally obtained weapon and shooting 3 Kenosha locals with essentially no lawful authorization...

 

[DANC]

View embedded media

I can understand why that day was traumatizing for some, but I can't help but see this stuff and think of how much the press downplayed and dismissed the damage caused by rioting last summer. Imagine how families in those neighborhoods felt about the "mostly peaceful" events.
People watched their neighborhoods being destroyed, but the response was overwhelmingly dismissive because the violence was being justified by a cause many in the press agreed with. Hope seeing it from the other side will make some reconsider how they viewed those events.

Is that tweet from the Babylon Bee?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

every "battlefield" was an innocent place, except for that moment in time when it suddenly wasn't.

that said, i'd have to go back and watch video again to see how accurate my depiction was, and whether anyone could legitimately feel threatened at that moment from Rittenhouse, or seemed in need of defending.

that said, in the era of mass shootings, if someone is walking down the street carrying an assault type looking weapon while the crowd is pointing at him yelling "shooter", is that not instantly a battlefield situation at that point in time, even if looking back on it after the fact indicated possibly otherwise..

the fog of war.

It’s innocent until proven guilty. Taking action, Lethal action, without witnessing the act or experiencing a threat to yourself, is execution. This isn’t a battlefield question it’s a simple rule of law.

 

[Spartans9312]

Is that tweet from the Babylon Bee?

I can understand why he was scared shitless. But the press downplayed "mostly peaceful" events last summer.
"Defending the rioters" on YouTube speaks for itself regarding the coverage of events that cost countless lives and did billions in damage.
And those events were damaging and threatening for the people that live in those neighborhoods.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

View embedded media

I can understand why that day was traumatizing for some, but I can't help but see this stuff and think of how much the press downplayed and dismissed the damage caused by rioting last summer. Imagine how families in those neighborhoods felt about the "mostly peaceful" events.
People watched their neighborhoods being destroyed, but the response was overwhelmingly dismissive because the violence was being justified by a cause many in the press agreed with. Hope seeing it from the other side will make some reconsider how they viewed those events.

the multinational corporate conglomerate press do everyone a disservice when they defend the race rioting or the assault on legislators.

as long as both sides have media and political safe havens, justice in both specific cases is totally defeated.

as is all wrongdoing by either side.

a bitter defeat for the citizenry on both sides, and a massive victory for the wrongdoers on both sides.

meanwhile, the multinational corporate conglomerate media play the part of the handlers at a pit bull fight, while the idiot party sheep on both sides never figure out they are the pit bulls being handled..

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I am as much a liberal as you are a conservative!

So my theory is correct.

 

[Lucy01]

So my theory is correct.

No, you’re theory is incorrect.

 

[cosmickid]

Chauvin was convicted of murder, so obviously he is.

The Capitol Police officer was never brought to trial, nor was he identified. The Capitol Police are run by Nancy Pelosi. You connect the dots.

They were both in situations that were tense and faced with hostile environments. One was charged. One wasn't. Double standard.

Well, a bunch of "Patriots" have now posted his info online. Knock yourself out...

Conservatives post the name of Ashli Babbitt's alleged shooter on social media after Trump invokes Capitol rioter

Donald Trump released a statement demanding to know who killed Capitol rioter Ashli Babbitt. In response, people are spreading an alleged name online.

www.yahoo.com

 

[DANC]

Well, a bunch of "Patriots" have now posted his info online. Knock yourself out...

Conservatives post the name of Ashli Babbitt's alleged shooter on social media after Trump invokes Capitol rioter

Donald Trump released a statement demanding to know who killed Capitol rioter Ashli Babbitt. In response, people are spreading an alleged name online.

www.yahoo.com

"The investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber," the DOJ wrote in a statement

Well, that's a strange statement. So, if no evidence is found the officer didn't think it was necessary to shoot, it's OK?

What the hell kind of justification is that? You can shoot anyone as long as there's no evidence you don't reasonably believe it's necessary to shoot someone...... you've got to be kidding me.

Nothing like "the officer was justified because his life was in danger or members of Congress' lives were in danger". No, just that there's no evidence he did not think so?

That's about as much of a non-answer as you can give.

The DOJ is as corrupt as any drug cartel. And probably less honorable.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Can we dispense with the claim that no one was armed? Court documents have charged over 3 dozen people with possessing deadly weapons, and that includes 3 specifically charged with firearms offenses. And most of those folks were arrested after the fact, so a lot more were likely armed since there were no x-ray or weapon check stations set up as you'd have at even a basketball game...

"Others have echoed that view, and conservative and pro-Trump media, like Breitbart, The Epoch Times and the Washington Examiner, have seized on the congressional testimony of FBI Assistant Director Jill Sanborn, who said the bureau did not confiscate firearms from suspects that day. But FBI spokesperson Carol Cratty told NPR that Sanborn was talking only specifically about arrests by the FBI, and not other police agencies that made arrests on the day of the riot — including arrests of people allegedly carrying guns."

View embedded media

Ashley Babbitt was not armed. She was the person we were discussing.

 

[DANC]

Ashley Babbitt was not armed. She was the person we were discussing.

He can't name anyone who was armed at the Capitol because there were none.

 

[Stuffshot]

"The investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber," the DOJ wrote in a statement

Well, that's a strange statement. So, if no evidence is found the officer didn't think it was necessary to shoot, it's OK?

What the hell kind of justification is that? You can shoot anyone as long as there's no evidence you don't reasonably believe it's necessary to shoot someone...... you've got to be kidding me.

Nothing like "the officer was justified because his life was in danger or members of Congress' lives were in danger". No, just that there's no evidence he did not think so?

That's about as much of a non-answer as you can give.

The DOJ is as corrupt as any drug cartel. And probably less honorable.

You wrote, "as long as there's no evidence you don't reasonably believe..." etc. etc. etc.

But of course there was evidence supporting the idea that the guards and members of Congress were all in fear of their safety.

We all (including you) know there were a couple hundred people in that little, narrow dead-end hallway, who were yelling, screaming, banging on the door and windows, totally out of control, demanding to get in, and all this happened 30 or 40 minutes and several hundred feet past two-three-four-five (six?) other security perimeters the same mob had ignored.

That may not be enough evidence to satisfy you about anything, but it is a lot of evidence for most others to reasonably believe that anyone in the way of that out-of-control mob was in danger of serious physical harm.

 

[DANC]

You wrote, "as long as there's no evidence you don't reasonably believe..." etc. etc. etc.

But of course there was evidence supporting the idea that the guards and members of Congress were all in fear of their safety.

We all (including you) know there were a couple hundred people in that little, narrow dead-end hallway, who were yelling, screaming, banging on the door and windows, totally out of control, demanding to get in, and all this happened 30 or 40 minutes and several hundred feet past two-three-four-five (six?) other security perimeters the same mob had ignored.

That may not be enough evidence to satisfy you about anything, but it is a lot of evidence for most others to reasonably believe that anyone in the way of that out-of-control mob was in danger of serious physical harm.

Uh, I took that from the statement from the DOJ.

If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Ashley Babbitt was not armed. She was the person we were discussing.

One of the posters justifies the shooting because it was "effective" WTF, so was Tiananmen Square. That doesn't make it legal. An officer much make an individualized judgment that a particular person needs to be shot.

Another poster says it's a go, because other people in the crowd might have had weapons.

It's clear from the video that the cop was going to shoot the first person to stick their head through the window or door. There is no evidence of a verbal warning. I believe it should have gone to a GJ.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Well, a bunch of "Patriots" have now posted his info online. Knock yourself out...

Conservatives post the name of Ashli Babbitt's alleged shooter on social media after Trump invokes Capitol rioter

Donald Trump released a statement demanding to know who killed Capitol rioter Ashli Babbitt. In response, people are spreading an alleged name online.

www.yahoo.com

It should be public information. It was a public event. Now people should leave him alone.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

It should be public information. It was a public event. Now people should leave him alone.

totally dishonest post.

once it becomes public, there is no his being left alone ever, and you know it.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

One of the posters justifies the shooting because it was "effective" WTF, so was Tiananmen Square. That doesn't make it legal. An officer much make an individualized judgment that a particular person needs to be shot.

Another poster says it's a go, because other people in the crowd might have had weapons.

It's clear from the video that the cop was going to shoot the first person to stick their head through the window or door. There is no evidence of a verbal warning. I believe it should have gone to a GJ.

beyond ridiculous argument.

and yes, that last barrier was the line in the sand, as any attack being defended always has.

and AB as a soldier knew that, and knew she was playing Russian roulette which each forbidden line she crossed.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It’s a simple question: do you think it is legal for me to maim somebody running down the street simply because a bunch of people are pointing at him claiming he’s a murderer?

It’s a simple question.

I think it's a mistake for you to assume you know why Huber was chasing Rittenhouse. I'm also not sure it matters. Even if Huber witnessed the first shooting, wasn't he the one chasing Rittenhouse at this point? I don't think self-defense or defense-of-others can apply when you attack someone who is retreating from the confrontation.

I'll be surprised if Rittenhouse gets convicted of any form of homicide, to be honest.