Black man shot in Kenosha, riots starting all over again...

[rob63]

Let’s be clear, I’m not talking about deadly force, because my experience is limited with that. I’m speaking about going “hands on,” and how it MAY also be the same for deadly force. In MY experience, those who very little history of dealing with PoC before becoming LE are move faster in going hands on.
As an example, I worked with white officer, that had lateraled from a pretty nasty place in Illinois, but he also grew up around PoCs. That dude treated everybody the same, it made no difference if you had a Ass whupping coming, it was going to happen. But he never jumped the gun early. Mainly, and we discussed this, he “wasn’t afraid” of Black people. Conversely, I was with another officer and we got a call about a “black guy trying to break into a house. We arriv, and the dude is knocking on the front door. The other officer tackled him, and crack his skull against the stoop. I was like WTF? The officer was a good officer, I respect him to this day, but this guy was from a small Indiana town his first real interactions with PoC was after he became LE.
Another thing I saw repeatedly, was how some officers are so quick to cuff, and legally they could, black kids and stick them in the back of the car for a possession charge, but white child’s would be sat on the curb, uncuffed. Things like that I took note of, because the same officers would differ in how they treated individuals. Did I think they were racist? No. I thought, “he more comfortable handling the white kids in polos and khakis, than the black kids in LeBron Jersey and sagging pants.” I understood their thinking, but it still picked at me a bit.

I would rep, but have to spread it around. In any case, thanks for sharing this, it helps me to better understand what the heck is going on.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I would rep, but have to spread it around. In any case, thanks for sharing this, it helps me to better understand what the heck is going on.

Dangit. I tried to get him too, but no luck.

 

[KG1]

I would rep, but have to spread it around. In any case, thanks for sharing this, it helps me to better understand what the heck is going on.

Got him for the three of us. I wish more people could have a better understanding of what the heck is really going on.

 

[ditcherman]

Dangit. I tried to get him too, but no luck.

Got him.
Very insightful look into some things we can’t help, and some things we probably can.

 

[jamil]

So maybe what woke people are calling systemic racism is really cross-cultural unfamiliarity/insecurity. The solution for that seems obviously more integration and not less. Where I go biking often I see a group that is there almost every time I’m out there. Two white guys, two black guys. Maybe they’re coworkers or neighbors, but they go biking together a lot. They’re obviously good friends. The other day I passed picnic area and noticed the same group sitting around a table, biking gear on, laughing, joking, shooting the ****. That’s how society should be, and probably would become if ideologues would just allow social evolution to happen at its own pace.

I see white people and black people together rioting, fighting against an imagined enemy. But it does not appear that it’s the same kind of friendship that binds them. Allies are not necessarily friends. That relationship appears to be artificial. Those cyclists bike together because they obviously enjoy each other’s company while doing what they like doing. Do the “protestors” riot together because they enjoy each other’s company?

 

[protias]

[video=youtube_share;QhYiuOccDI0]http://youtu.be/QhYiuOccDI0[/video]

Another possible twist. Maybe this is why the DA is charging him with the weapons charge. If he can get that to stick he could probably argue that Kyle’s “illegal” possession of a firearm incited the crowd to chase him, thereby thwarting the self defense claim. I think it’s a tough sell. Even if the weapons charge sticks, the thing that incited the crowd was Kyle putting out their dumpster fire.

Everything Rittenhouse did was within the law.

https://wiba.iheart.com/featured/vi...to-talk-about-the-kyle-rittenhouse-situation/

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/139-...ode/eric-trump-bumbling-biden-and-a-70899423/

 

[KG1]

So maybe what woke people are calling systemic racism is really cross-cultural unfamiliarity/insecurity. The solution for that seems obviously more integration and not less. Where I go biking often I see a group that is there almost every time I’m out there. Two white guys, two black guys. Maybe they’re coworkers or neighbors, but they go biking together a lot. They’re obviously good friends. The other day I passed picnic area and noticed the same group sitting around a table, biking gear on, laughing, joking, shooting the ****. That’s how society should be, and probably would become if ideologues would just allow social evolution to happen at its own pace.

I see white people and black people together rioting, fighting against an imagined enemy. But it does not appear that it’s the same kind of friendship that binds them. Allies are not necessarily friends. That relationship appears to be artificial. Those cyclists bike together because they obviously enjoy each other’s company while doing what they like doing. Do the “protestors” riot together because they enjoy each other’s company?

I think it's more like a commonality of mindset in the "protestors" case. They like doing what they are doing.

 

[rob63]

So maybe what woke people are calling systemic racism is really cross-cultural unfamiliarity/insecurity. The solution for that seems obviously more integration and not less. Where I go biking often I see a group that is there almost every time I’m out there. Two white guys, two black guys. Maybe they’re coworkers or neighbors, but they go biking together a lot. They’re obviously good friends. The other day I passed picnic area and noticed the same group sitting around a table, biking gear on, laughing, joking, shooting the ****. That’s how society should be, and probably would become if ideologues would just allow social evolution to happen at its own pace.

I see white people and black people together rioting, fighting against an imagined enemy. But it does not appear that it’s the same kind of friendship that binds them. Allies are not necessarily friends. That relationship appears to be artificial. Those cyclists bike together because they obviously enjoy each other’s company while doing what they like doing. Do the “protestors” riot together because they enjoy each other’s company?

Related to that... my son is 19, he has several friends that are black. They hang out together, etc. He recently had a "woke" female try to cancel him because he failed to change his background to a black color on a social media app. She accused him of being a racist and honestly thinks she is striking a blow for justice by alienating him and his friends. He told me that the strangest part is that the girl in question doesn't actually have any black friends herself. Fortunately, they are all secure enough to ignore her, but the ideologues make it harder for all of us to understand each other.

 

[jamil]

Everything Rittenhouse did was within the law.

https://wiba.iheart.com/featured/vi...to-talk-about-the-kyle-rittenhouse-situation/

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/139-...ode/eric-trump-bumbling-biden-and-a-70899423/

I’m not saying it wasn’t. The lawyer in the video actually said he believes everything Kyle did was legal. He’s just giving some insight about what the likely strategy from the prosecution would be. And I think that’s why the weapons charge is important. That’s the only other crime he’s charged with.

They have the first deadee, Rosenpedo, on video having a verbal altercation with the armed group, specifically about their weapons. It seems like the prosecution would try to say that was the thing that incited Rosenpedo to go after Kyle. The defense for that seems logically to be to argue that Kyle was legal to carry because the law ambiguously carves age out of the law. And then point out that Kyle putting out the dumpster fire seemed to have a more immediate impact on Rosenpedo’s rage.

But another important point made in the video is that the law covering how instigation impacts a SD claim, the defendant is still justified in using deadly force if he exhausted means of escape. So basically the Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply if a crime was committed by the defendant which incited the reaction which cases him to fear for his life. I think the circumstances even fit that. Rather than shoot kyle ran away. He only turned when he ran out of places to run and when he heard a gunshot coming from the crowd. And when he was running down the street and tripped, what more could he have done, besides let them take his rifle and potentially have it used on him.

 

[KG1]

I’m not saying it wasn’t. The lawyer in the video actually said he believes everything Kyle did was legal. He’s just giving some insight about what the likely strategy from the prosecution would be. And I think that’s why the weapons charge is important. That’s the only other crime he’s charged with.

They have the first deadee, Rosenpedo, on video having a verbal altercation with the armed group, specifically about their weapons. It seems like the prosecution would try to say that was the thing that incited Rosenpedo to go after Kyle. The defense for that seems logically to be to argue that Kyle was legal to carry because the law ambiguously carves age out of the law. And then point out that Kyle putting out the dumpster fire seemed to have a more immediate impact on Rosenpedo’s rage.

But another important point made in the video is that the law covering how instigation impacts a SD claim, the defendant is still justified in using deadly force if he exhausted means of escape. So basically the Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply if a crime was committed by the defendant which incited the reaction which cases him to fear for his life. I think the circumstances even fit that. Rather than shoot kyle ran away. He only turned when he ran out of places to run and when he heard a gunshot coming from the crowd. And when he was running down the street and tripped, what more could he have done, besides let them take his rifle and potentially have it used on him.

Not only did Rittenhouse run away but he was being pursued by red shirt guy and it’s at that point red shirt guy became the aggressor.

It was also reported by an eye witness that red shirt guy caught up with Rittenhouse and attempted to grab the rifle at which time he was shot in the struggle.

I truly believe that if red shirt guy hadn’t become the aggressor and chased after Rittenhouse the outcome would have been different.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Discover blocks donations to site raising money for Kyle Rittenhouse defense



https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets...te-raising-money-for-kyle-rittenhouse-defense

Thanks for sharing. I’m working right now to shift all of my auto-payments on Discover over to USAA. I ripped into the Discover person and asked if it was their role to limit where I can spend money or facilitate my payment to where I choose to spend money?

F them.

 

[chipbennett]

[video=youtube_share;QhYiuOccDI0]http://youtu.be/QhYiuOccDI0[/video]

Another possible twist. Maybe this is why the DA is charging him with the weapons charge. If he can get that to stick he could probably argue that Kyle’s “illegal” possession of a firearm incited the crowd to chase him, thereby thwarting the self defense claim. I think it’s a tough sell. Even if the weapons charge sticks, the thing that incited the crowd was Kyle putting out their dumpster fire.

Again, people fail to read the very statutes they cite. (Though the video does a pretty decent job of breaking it down; I've seen other people try to argue this statute who clearly don't read past the first clause of (2)(a).)

As with 948.60, read through the statute and decide for yourself.

939.48(2):

Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.


(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.


(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

Let's break that down:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct...

Whoa! Hold up. Rittenhouse was not engaged in otherwise unlawful activity. FULLSTOP. This section does not apply to the circumstances.

But, let's pretend it does (such as those who are still under the misconception that he was illegally carrying a long gun as a 17 year old). Let's continue under that (false) premise:

A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack...

Well, hold up again. Rittenhouse was not engaged in conduct "of a type likely to provoke others to attack him". The mere carry of a firearm, absent more, does not meet this criterion. Logic dictates this. Statistics dictate this. I'm pretty sure ample precedent case law dictates this. Mere carry of a firearm is a constitutionally protected activity that, alone, does not and cannot be construed to provoke.

(And we can combine that with the factual record regarding what else Rittenhouse was doing. He was a) standing in front of an establishment, b) providing medical first aid to injured protesters, and c) walking down the street trying to join back up with his companions. These activities are not of a type likely to provoke others to attack him.)

Shall we continue, though? Let's further assume (falsely) that his conduct was somehow construed to be of a type likely to provoke an attack. Surely he has lost the privilege of claiming self-defense now, right?

...is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense...

Whoops! Even if he provoked an attack, if that attack puts him in reasonable fear of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he is still entitled to claim self-defense.

The crowd chased him, threw things at him, fired a gun while chasing him, and then when they caught him, tried to take his firearm. Those factors clearly point to reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

But, can he use deadly force in self-defense in that circumstance? Let's see what the statute says:

In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

Rittenhouse ran from the crowd, multiple times. At the point that he first used deadly force in self-defense, his assailant had caught up to him and was reaching for his firearm. In that situation, there is no other recourse. More importantly, it was reasonable for Rittenhouse to believe that he had exhausted every other reasonable means to escape.

But, all of that is just subsection (2)(a). What about (2)(b)?

(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

Rittenhouse never engaged the crowd; he only ever tried to avoid the crowd. Multiple times, he ran from the crowd, and the crowd chased him. He clearly signaled his desire/intent to withdraw from the engagement (it is a stretch to call it a "fight", given that it was one-sided). Thus, he clearly falls under this section.

As for (2)(c):

(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

There is ample evidence that Rittenhouse was in the area for purely lawful reasons, and to my knowledge, zero evidence that he was in the area with the intent to create a situation in which he provoked others for the purpose of creating an excuse to use deadly force. This may be argued by the prosecutor, but it is merely specious, wishful thinking.

So, in the end, this statute doesn't change anything. There is no way that this statute puts Rittenhouse in further jeopardy.

 

[chipbennett]

I certainly don’t. But I don’t think that’s the argument. I think the notion is, that police are more willing, or quicker, to employ deadly force on persons of color. In my experience, from a “hands on perspective,” that’s not wrong in many cases. However, that is rarely based on the race of the officer, but typically their previous familiarity with PoCs. I’ve seen white officers show Herculean patience with some PoCs (when I would have smacked them long ago), I’ve seen Black officers drop a PoC at the drop of a hat.

It has been a minute since I've looked, but I believe that aggregate statistics show that simply not to be true. At worst, there is no bias regarding police willingness or speed to shoot PoC - and there is some evidence to support the opposite claim, that PoC are statistically less likely to be shot, and that police take longer to decide to shoot PoC (the latter, I question whether the difference was actually statistically significant).

 

[chipbennett]

Let’s be clear, I’m not talking about deadly force, because my experience is limited with that. I’m speaking about going “hands on,” and how it MAY also be the same for deadly force. In MY experience, those who very little history of dealing with PoC before becoming LE are move faster in going hands on.
As an example, I worked with white officer, that had lateraled from a pretty nasty place in Illinois, but he also grew up around PoCs. That dude treated everybody the same, it made no difference if you had a Ass whupping coming, it was going to happen. But he never jumped the gun early. Mainly, and we discussed this, he “wasn’t afraid” of Black people. Conversely, I was with another officer and we got a call about a “black guy trying to break into a house. We arriv, and the dude is knocking on the front door. The other officer tackled him, and crack his skull against the stoop. I was like WTF? The officer was a good officer, I respect him to this day, but this guy was from a small Indiana town his first real interactions with PoC was after he became LE.
Another thing I saw repeatedly, was how some officers are so quick to cuff, and legally they could, black kids and stick them in the back of the car for a possession charge, but white child’s would be sat on the curb, uncuffed. Things like that I took note of, because the same officers would differ in how they treated individuals. Did I think they were racist? No. I thought, “he more comfortable handling the white kids in polos and khakis, than the black kids in LeBron Jersey and sagging pants.” I understood their thinking, but it still picked at me a bit.

Thanks, Kut. I appreciate this perspective.

I wonder if part of the issue is that there are many cultural differences from rural to urban (and I don't mean that as a proxy/euphemism for racial cultural differences) that are difficult for LE to overcome (and I assume such LE would e more frequently exposed to those cultural differences, and more frequently impacted by engaging with them)? If that is the case, are we as a society past the point where those who are subjected to the sort of disparate treatment as you describe can no longer effect change by enduring the injustice and then trying to educate afterward? (Maybe so?)

Part of the resistance by the general public to a lot of petition for redress of grievance, I think, is because it is wrapped up on the response to the injustice, and what is seen as extreme over-reaction. The black kid handcuffed in the back of the patrol car for possession while the white kid is sitting on the curb, for example - maybe the black kid is justified in however he responds to that, but it garners little sympathy all too often, when that response is seen as far beyond the offense. (There are probably lots of better examples than this one.)

I'm really just thinking out loud, mixing up the response of society at large and LEO interactions, and trying to understand/bridge the gap in the lack of understanding that is at the root of all of this.

But, back to your original example: what is the solution for the culturally naive/inexperienced LEOs in those situations?

 

[chipbennett]

Not only did Rittenhouse run away but he was being pursued by red shirt guy and it’s at that point red shirt guy became the aggressor.

It was also reported by an eye witness that red shirt guy caught up with Rittenhouse and attempted to grab the rifle at which time he was shot in the struggle.

I truly believe that if red shirt guy hadn’t become the aggressor and chased after Rittenhouse the outcome would have been different.

Yep.

I realize that this decision isn't controlling, because it is from the DCA in a different district, but they are words of wisdom all the same:

That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook.

- Stinson v State (1971)

(And, yes, I quote this all the time. Sadly, it is germane all too often.)

 

[The Bubba Effect]

In addition to the difficulty an officer from one culture might have in "reading" people from an unfamiliar culture, I figure that some people are simply generally afraid of black men.

It is typical to fear what you don't know, but if it were just fear of the unknown, then I would expect the same fear applied toward other unknown cultural groups, like guys from China or India. My gut tells me that isn’t the case, but I have no real evidence.

I am just talking out my rear here, but trying to honestly wrestle with the issue.

I think it is a reasonable thing to say that a lot of people are afraid of black men in general.

 

[churchmouse]

Thanks for sharing. I’m working right now to shift all of my auto-payments on Discover over to USAA. I ripped into the Discover person and asked if it was their role to limit where I can spend money or facilitate my payment to where I choose to spend money?

F them.

CKW did this with her Discover card this morning. Tore some poor fool a new orifice.

 

[NKBJ]

In addition to the difficulty an officer from one culture might have in "reading" people from an unfamiliar culture, I figure that some people are simply generally afraid of black men.

It is typical to fear what you don't know, but if it were just fear of the unknown, then I would expect the same fear applied toward other unknown cultural groups, like guys from China or India. My gut tells me that isn’t the case, but I have no real evidence.

I am just talking out my rear here, but trying to honestly wrestle with the issue.

I think it is a reasonable thing to say that a lot of people are afraid of black men in general.

My theory is that commonly
(1) people are hard wired to stay clear of unfamiliar people or groups of people
(2) the tools of discernment are fine tuned to hunt for differences
(3) the most prominent differences found get acted upon
(4) and if they're all the same race then the wrong color of boutonniere can get somebody shot.


So one day a Nicaraguan priest, a Nigerian police officer and a Nashville democrat walk into a bar...

 

[jamil]

Again, people fail to read the very statutes they cite. (Though the video does a pretty decent job of breaking it down; I've seen other people try to argue this statute who clearly don't read past the first clause of (2)(a).)

As with 948.60, read through the statute and decide for yourself.

939.48(2):


Let's break that down:



Whoa! Hold up. Rittenhouse was not engaged in otherwise unlawful activity. FULLSTOP. This section does not apply to the circumstances.

But, let's pretend it does (such as those who are still under the misconception that he was illegally carrying a long gun as a 17 year old). Let's continue under that (false) premise:



Well, hold up again. Rittenhouse was not engaged in conduct "of a type likely to provoke others to attack him". The mere carry of a firearm, absent more, does not meet this criterion. Logic dictates this. Statistics dictate this. I'm pretty sure ample precedent case law dictates this. Mere carry of a firearm is a constitutionally protected activity that, alone, does not and cannot be construed to provoke.

(And we can combine that with the factual record regarding what else Rittenhouse was doing. He was a) standing in front of an establishment, b) providing medical first aid to injured protesters, and c) walking down the street trying to join back up with his companions. These activities are not of a type likely to provoke others to attack him.)

Shall we continue, though? Let's further assume (falsely) that his conduct was somehow construed to be of a type likely to provoke an attack. Surely he has lost the privilege of claiming self-defense now, right?



Whoops! Even if he provoked an attack, if that attack puts him in reasonable fear of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he is still entitled to claim self-defense.

The crowd chased him, threw things at him, fired a gun while chasing him, and then when they caught him, tried to take his firearm. Those factors clearly point to reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

But, can he use deadly force in self-defense in that circumstance? Let's see what the statute says:



Rittenhouse ran from the crowd, multiple times. At the point that he first used deadly force in self-defense, his assailant had caught up to him and was reaching for his firearm. In that situation, there is no other recourse. More importantly, it was reasonable for Rittenhouse to believe that he had exhausted every other reasonable means to escape.

But, all of that is just subsection (2)(a). What about (2)(b)?



Rittenhouse never engaged the crowd; he only ever tried to avoid the crowd. Multiple times, he ran from the crowd, and the crowd chased him. He clearly signaled his desire/intent to withdraw from the engagement (it is a stretch to call it a "fight", given that it was one-sided). Thus, he clearly falls under this section.

As for (2)(c):



There is ample evidence that Rittenhouse was in the area for purely lawful reasons, and to my knowledge, zero evidence that he was in the area with the intent to create a situation in which he provoked others for the purpose of creating an excuse to use deadly force. This may be argued by the prosecutor, but it is merely specious, wishful thinking.

So, in the end, this statute doesn't change anything. There is no way that this statute puts Rittenhouse in further jeopardy.

Jesus Christ Chip. WTF? What ghosts are you arguing at? They must have rankled you pretty hard to go at them like that.

About the weapons charge. I posted an article that quoted two Wisconsin lawyers who specialize in 2a/firearms cases. Both said that the carveout was intended for hunting, but the wording made it easy to interpret that it applies to any purpose. One of the lawyers said something to the effect that if it were his case, he would argue for some rule that gives benefit of doubt to the defendant for such laws. I’ll take the practicing lawyer’s word for it who is familiar with litigating firearms cases in Wisconsin. Seeing his explanation for it, I do think that Kyle was technically legal for carring the firearm, and I hope he beats it.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

He wasn't surrendering. I saw it as more of a "hold on" distraction.

This... looking for the video again... my first impression was a "startle reflex" from the shot going off that struck skateboarder dude, not a "surrender"... then an immediate resumption.

The still image that looks like a hands-ups surrender was an instant only during that startle reflex at the sound of the gunshot, IMO.

Looking for the video again to re-evaluate...