Kenosha Shooting - split from The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[mariomike]

This maybe should have it's own thread but seems to go in the same vein as vigilanteish people showing up at protests and doing stupid things that lead to their deaths.


It's all very premature and the spin is already starting but yet another example of Darwanism at play.

:facepalm:

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[PuckChaser]

The shooting itself is at 1:14 of the video. Danielson is the man in light shorts and a dark shirt walking from left to right towards a person (in a light top also walking left to right) who eventually shoots him. Just before the gun shots you can see what appears to be a cloud of gas coming from Danielson and moving up and towards the shooter followed almost immediately by two gun shots. Danielson then turns away and walks a few steps before collapsing while what appears to be the shooter runs away to the right.

It's all very premature and the spin is already starting but yet another example of Darwanism at play.

:facepalm:

That cloud is a pretty big stretch and awfully convenient conclusion to support a view of "Trumpers" causing mayhem. Are you trying to say that the shooter was justified in using deadly force because he was getting maced? That alleged cloud of mace looks to occur almost simultaneous with the first gunshot. That means unless the shooter was a Navy SEAL, he was already holding the firearm as under 2 seconds from draw to 2 shots is something that takes years to practice.

I'll throw your assumption here a loop with actual logic in that its more likely that Aaron Danielson (he has a name; its awfully disgusting to dehumanize a murder victim as just a "Trumper") turned to face someone who said something to him, noticed the individual had a firearm drawn and tried to mace him (if he even had mace) as the only thing he could do to protect against an immediate deadly force threat. There's no drawing motion from the shooter (unless he's appendix carrying as his back is to camera) and that shooter doesn't grab his face or act like he's been maced so either it missed, it was ineffective or the mace doesn't exist.

 

[FJAG]

That cloud is a pretty big stretch and awfully convenient conclusion to support a view of "Trumpers" causing mayhem. Are you trying to say that the shooter was justified in using deadly force because he was getting maced? That alleged cloud of mace looks to occur almost simultaneous with the first gunshot. That means unless the shooter was a Navy SEAL, he was already holding the firearm as under 2 seconds from draw to 2 shots is something that takes years to practice.

I'll throw your assumption here a loop with actual logic in that its more likely that Aaron Danielson (he has a name; its awfully disgusting to dehumanize a murder victim as just a "Trumper") turned to face someone who said something to him, noticed the individual had a firearm drawn and tried to mace him (if he even had mace) as the only thing he could do to protect against an immediate deadly force threat. There's no drawing motion from the shooter (unless he's appendix carrying as his back is to camera) and that shooter doesn't grab his face or act like he's been maced so either it missed, it was ineffective or the mace doesn't exist.

Feel free to dismount from your high horse.

Nowhere do I even suggest that the shooting was justified. To you it's simultaneous; not so to me. The spray starts toward the ground, then comes up and then there's a shot. I'll grant that with the streets and buildings and distance, sounds can be deceiving but quite clearly at the start of the video, Danielson was already moving towards the shooter while the shooter was walking at angle to the right and not towards Danielson.

Read my post again re Danielson's name. I start by saying that there was a caravan parade of Trumpers. There was. I then say that it included Patriot Prayer members. It did. And then I said that Aaron Danielson was a part of that group. He was. He was a victim and he was a Trumper. Nowhere do I attempt to dehumanize him as "just a Trumper". Those are your words and thoughts, not mine.

As to your actual logic - well sure. That's undoubtedly what happened. Thanks for correcting me. How could I possibly have missed all those things that you saw.

As I said. "The spin has already started."

:cheers:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This maybe should have it's own thread but seems to go in the same vein as vigilanteish people showing up at protests and doing stupid things that lead to their deaths.

In Portland today a large group of Trumpers decided to drive through a BLM protest. Amongst the crowd were a number of members of Patriot Prayer who are far right wingers with a history of these types of things.

Amongst that group was an individual named Aaron Danielson (but also identified as Jay Bishop which allegedly is a pseudonym used within the group) who together with a friend was walking around the downtown area allegedly spraying people with mace or pepper or bear spray. This is video of him being fatally shot by what was (again allegedly) an Antifa protester in response to being sprayed. This website has perhaps one of the clearest copies of the video (there's almost always a video these days) of the shooting (I take what's said in it with a barrel of salt). Note the video is in two parts with the aftermath first and the shooting a bit further on.

The shooting itself is at 1:14 of the video. Danielson is the man in light shorts and a dark shirt walking from left to right towards a person (in a light top also walking left to right) who eventually shoots him. Just before the gun shots you can see what appears to be a cloud of gas coming from Danielson and moving up and towards the shooter followed almost immediately by two gun shots. Danielson then turns away and walks a few steps before collapsing while what appears to be the shooter runs away to the right.

It's all very premature and the spin is already starting but yet another example of Darwanism at play.

:facepalm:

Maybe the left will begin to appreciate the 2nd amendment yet.

 

[OldSolduer]

Maybe the left will begin to appreciate the 2nd amendment yet.

The civil war has begun. Its just not like that last civil war they had.

This one may last longer.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

I wasn't online all weekend, so I am just working my way through this thread, answering posts directed at me as I come to them ... so I'll be starting with responding to stuff on page one. In response to my initial post ...

He had just shot someone else in the head.  The crowd were trying to disarm him.  He has zero claim to self defence.

The first guy -- Joseph Rosenbaum A.K.A. "JoJo" -- was also a self-defence shooting in my view based on the videos I've seen. Again, this is all broken down in great detail from multiple angles in the "Donut Operator" video I linked to.

The first shooting happened when Rittenhouse was being chased/attacked by several people including Rosenbaum. Someone (not Rittenhouse -- you can see the muzzle flash well off to his right) shoots a pistol. It's not clear who was the target of that shot, but clearly Rittenhouse would have heard that shot as you can see him turn towards the shooter. In the midst of this Rosenbaum throws something at Rittenhouse and charges him behind some cars. It's then that Rittenhouse fires several shots at his attacker then immediately attempts to render first aid, and makes a phone call (possibly to 911) before the mob chases him yelling "kill him".

This is all plainly visible in the video. Even the New York Times, hardly a bastion of White Supremacy and pro-gun-nuttism, confirms this analysis that Rittenhouse was acting in self defence: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

In my view, the first shooting was clearly self defence, as were the other two.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

The only "positive" from this is that the kid wasn't properly trained or there could have been absolute carnage on that street.

Interestingly, every single shot he took hit it's intended target. Plus he was very conservative in the number of shots he fired. He performed as well as you'd hope any trained operator would under extremely stressful circumstances.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

>The one you refer to can't be a video of him shooting a person in the head and then radioing that "I just killed somebofy".

I don't know of one which shows Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum in the head.  What is amply available is the one in which Rosenbaum chases Rittenhouse in amongst some parked cars, and a shot fire by someone other than Rittenhouse is heard.  Marry that up with what McGinnis had to say: "McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the defendant%u2019s gun." 

I'm comfortable with "reasonable attempt to retreat" and "self-defence".

I refer you back to the very first post in this thread, where I linked to a video from YouTuber "Donut Operator" who is an ex-SWAT guy who does videos on, inter alia, police shootings. He does a detailed breakdown of all three shootings and has video of the first/Rosenbaum shooting.

For ease of reference: https://youtu.be/pbsOIoqcit4

The New York Times also did a breakdown of the first shooting with some screen shots but no video: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it%u2019s unclear why. The weapon%u2019s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

 

[Donald H]

For we Canadians, there seems to be too much emphasis on which side is to blame.
In any case, there's another shooting in California already with no deaths so far. Suggesting a civil war may be a little premature but the reference to Darwinism may be appropriate.
I have no link yet but I'll look for one.

Perhaps the title of this thread could be changed to be more inclusive of Americans shooting each other throughout the country?

edit: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/31/police-investigate-possible-shot-fired-at-la-trump-caravan/

 

[Ralph]

I had to do the same the last time I went overseas. Spent  hundreds of dollars worth of ammo on my personal AR15 and Sig 9mm to make up for the lack of training and practice during predeployment.

Which tour/which BG? You'd think the infantry unit in charge of training would have had access to more ammo/training. We did 9mm PWT 4 on my last A'stan tour (better than nothing) and that was post-combat mission...

 

[shawn5o]

I never heard of Rodef = One Who Pursues. Perhaps one of our legal ppl can explain or debunk this.


August 30, 2020
Kyle Rittenhouse and The Law of the Pursuer
By Civis Americanus
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/08/kyle_rittenhouse_and_the_law_of_the_pursuer.html

Wisconsin recently charged Kyle Rittenhouse with first degree murder for killing two people who were, from what I can see from the videos, attacking him with weapons. Whether Rittenhouse should have been in Kenosha in the first place, and with a weapon a 17-year old cannot legally carry in public, is a separate issue for courts of law to decide. The question at hand is however why he was charged with murder while his surviving alleged assailants were, as far as I know, not charged with anything.

This leads to the need to educate potential jurors (i.e. all citizens who are eligible to serve on juries) proactively about important self-defense principles. This must happen before they are called for jury duty because it is illegal to do so afterward. Jurors need to understand the simple concept of din rodef, "the law of the pursuer." This gives defense attorneys a single word – rodef -- to explain the concept if jurors are not already familiar with it.

Rodef = One Who Pursues

A rodef (plural rodfim) is somebody who pursues somebody else with the objective of causing death or serious physical injury. Din rodef entitles the one pursued, or a bystander, to use reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, to stop the rodef from completing the intended violent crime. The principle is actually very similar to most modern laws. Deadly force cannot be used if lesser force will suffice, and the rodef ceases to be a rodef the instant he desists from his violent actions. Din rodef is also reflected by the modern adages (in the context of a fight or argument) such as "Never follow anybody into the parking lot" and "Never follow the other guy home" because these are prima facie evidence of malicious and violent intent. It's hard for a rodef to claim innocence or self-defense when things go bad.

More at link above

 

[shawn5o]

Which tour/which BG? You'd think the infantry unit in charge of training would have had access to more ammo/training. We did 9mm PWT 4 on my last A'stan tour (better than nothing) and that was post-combat mission...

Hi Ralph

I remember in 1977 Wainwright we had no ammo for training. It was "military noise" and "bang, bang - you're dead"

:rofl:

 

[brihard]

I never heard of Rodef = One Who Pursues. Perhaps one of our legal ppl can explain or debunk this.


August 30, 2020
Kyle Rittenhouse and The Law of the Pursuer
By Civis Americanus
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/08/kyle_rittenhouse_and_the_law_of_the_pursuer.html

Wisconsin recently charged Kyle Rittenhouse with first degree murder for killing two people who were, from what I can see from the videos, attacking him with weapons. Whether Rittenhouse should have been in Kenosha in the first place, and with a weapon a 17-year old cannot legally carry in public, is a separate issue for courts of law to decide. The question at hand is however why he was charged with murder while his surviving alleged assailants were, as far as I know, not charged with anything.

This leads to the need to educate potential jurors (i.e. all citizens who are eligible to serve on juries) proactively about important self-defense principles. This must happen before they are called for jury duty because it is illegal to do so afterward. Jurors need to understand the simple concept of din rodef, "the law of the pursuer." This gives defense attorneys a single word – rodef -- to explain the concept if jurors are not already familiar with it.

Rodef = One Who Pursues

A rodef (plural rodfim) is somebody who pursues somebody else with the objective of causing death or serious physical injury. Din rodef entitles the one pursued, or a bystander, to use reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, to stop the rodef from completing the intended violent crime. The principle is actually very similar to most modern laws. Deadly force cannot be used if lesser force will suffice, and the rodef ceases to be a rodef the instant he desists from his violent actions. Din rodef is also reflected by the modern adages (in the context of a fight or argument) such as "Never follow anybody into the parking lot" and "Never follow the other guy home" because these are prima facie evidence of malicious and violent intent. It's hard for a rodef to claim innocence or self-defense when things go bad.

More at link above

That’s a principle in Jewish Talmudic legal philosophy. So far as I can tell it’s a term that has no legal meaning outside of that. It seems like someone is trying to import a concept from another system that might fit neatly here- but it has no inherent meaning in the situation before us. American self defense law is quite sufficiently fleshed out already.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Is Wisconsin a stand-your-ground state? Would that not serve as grounds enough? I have no dog in this fight, just a curiosity question.

 

[FJAG]

I never heard of Rodef = One Who Pursues. Perhaps one of our legal ppl can explain or debunk this.
...
This leads to the need to educate potential jurors (i.e. all citizens who are eligible to serve on juries) proactively about important self-defense principles. This must happen before they are called for jury duty because it is illegal to do so afterward. Jurors need to understand the simple concept of din rodef, "the law of the pursuer." This gives defense attorneys a single word – rodef -- to explain the concept if jurors are not already familiar with it.

I'll take a quick stab at this.

Never heard of Rodef in my years as a lawyer. Googled it to find it's a concept under traditional Jewish law so doesn't have a basis in either our or American common law and/or codified criminal law.

There is no need to "educate" jurors before they are called to jury duty. In American trial practice each of the prosecutor and the defendant can explain their view of the facts and law to the jury after the evidence is in and before they do their deliberations. In addition, after the lawyers have finished, the judge will sum up the legal principles involved and direct the jury on what the various legal principles mean. In other words, the judge tells them what the law is and the jury then determines how the facts apply within the legal framework. (That's not to say that juries don't screw up from time to time. Even judges do. That's why there are transcripts and appeal courts)

Criminal laws vary from state to state (unlike Canada which has a single criminal code) but generally follow similar legal principles. The law of self defence is firstly codified (see up-thread for a citation of the Wisconsin provision) and secondly interpreted by judges and generally allow a person to take such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent serious injury or death. The law is relatively clear. Fact situations rarely are.

Is Wisconsin a stand-your-ground state? Would that not serve as grounds enough? I have no dog in this fight, just a curiosity question.

Not as such. See here.

:cheers:

 

[shawn5o]

Thanks Brihard and FJAG.

:cheers:

 

[blacktriangle]

Which tour/which BG? You'd think the infantry unit in charge of training would have had access to more ammo/training. We did 9mm PWT 4 on my last A'stan tour (better than nothing) and that was post-combat mission...

Not to throw this too far off-topic, but If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say probably a deployment with NATO Mission Iraq (NMI).

 

[PuckChaser]

Nowhere do I even suggest that the shooting was justified. To you it's simultaneous; not so to me. The spray starts toward the ground, then comes up and then there's a shot. I'll grant that with the streets and buildings and distance, sounds can be deceiving but quite clearly at the start of the video, Danielson was already moving towards the shooter while the shooter was walking at angle to the right and not towards Danielson.

You're watching what you want to watch. This is the full video from Justin Dunlap: https://youtu.be/YhHbkMHsjW0?t=16 At the 20 second mark, you hear a hiss (someone sprayed mace, Dunlap moves closer and the cloud gets him opposite side of the street) but if you watch the YouTube video clock, the first round comes after the hiss but before the 21 second mark. 2nd round is fired before the 22 second mark. Simple video editing software will tell you the exact millisecond gap between the sounds, but that means the shooter already has his firearm drawn and at least at a low ready. There's no indication anywhere that the mace came from Danielson and his torso makes no rapid motion before the shots that would indicate raising a mace can and spraying unlike the shooter who made an abrupt change to shooting stance. At the end of the day, is being maced justification for deadly force? Especially when all logic points to the shooter approaching the victim with his firearm already drawn? Literally the only reason to bring the mace up is to use it as a mitigating factor to justify self-defense, when it fact the mace may have been Danielson's only chance at surviving after being approached by someone with a drawn firearm.

As I said. "The spin has already started."

Sure is, and using mace as a mitigating factor for a murder is just one way of spinning an incident to fit a narrative.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I doubt anyone will put much effort into blurring the line for [responding with] deadly force to include mace.  That invites exploring all the other possible provocations: urine, chunks of concrete, bags of excrement, and many other favoured tools of violent protestors.

 

[Donald H]

I doubt anyone will put much effort into blurring the line for [responding with] deadly force to include mace.  That invites exploring all the other possible provocations: urine, chunks of concrete, bags of excrement, and many other favoured tools of violent protestors.

Just lucky for we Canadians who don't get to take their guns to riots on the street, so one side can kill the other! I think it's going to get a lot more violent with a lot more shootings before the election.

And then when Trump/Biden loses, why Brad, they're really going to start watering that tree of liberty with each other's blood.