Death of George Floyd and Subsequent Riots.

[Cope]

I'm confused, is illegally carrying a gun just a sign you're a good law abiding citizen protecting yourself, or that you're a menace to others and must be shot in self defense? Was the person trying to disarm Kyle Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse pointed a gun at him not acting in self defense themself? I don't see why his being a convicted felon is of note (certainly Kyle Rittenhouse was not aware of the criminal record of a random protester), aside from the fact that it establishes neither Rittenhouse, or this person possessing a handgun, were legally armed.

So to track here: Kyle Rittenhouse travelling to a protest with an AR-15 he did not legally possess = good. This other person traveling to a protest with a handgun they did not legally possess = Bad. Kyle Rittenhouse pointing a gun at someone = self defense. Protester trying to disarm the man pointing a gun at him =/= self defense. Kyle Rittenhouse shooting the man trying to disarm him because he pointed a gun at them? Self defense. Person trying to disarm the man pointing a gun at them so they don't get shot? Not self defense.

Do I have that ironclad logic correct?

It is not debatable that it is illegal under Wisconsin law for anyone under 18 to possess a firearm, and that it is illegal to transfer a firearm to the possession of someone under 18. This isn't in dispute, this is Wisconsin Law.

This is at least the fourth time you have asserted said that Rittenhouse brandished his firearm prior to being pursued by Rosenbaum. Since this alleged brandishing is central to your thesis claim that Rittenhouse was not acting out of self-defense, one would expect that you had some evidence to support it.

[Infidel144]

I'm confused, is illegally carrying a gun just a sign you're a good law abiding citizen protecting yourself, or that you're a menace to others and must be shot in self defense? Was the person trying to disarm Kyle Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse pointed a gun at him not acting in self defense themself? I don't see why his being a convicted felon is of note (certainly Kyle Rittenhouse was not aware of the criminal record of a random protester), aside from the fact that it establishes neither Rittenhouse, or this person possessing a handgun, were legally armed.

So to track here: Kyle Rittenhouse travelling to a protest with an AR-15 he did not legally possess = good. This other person traveling to a protest with a handgun they did not legally possess = Bad. Kyle Rittenhouse pointing a gun at someone = self defense. Protester trying to disarm the man pointing a gun at him =/= self defense. Kyle Rittenhouse shooting the man trying to disarm him because he pointed a gun at them? Self defense. Person trying to disarm the man pointing a gun at them so they don't get shot? Not self defense.

Do I have that ironclad logic correct?

What you have is you just making wub up as you go along.
You are continuing to repeat your assertions about Rittenhouse initiating conflict by pointing his gun at people, despite being requested, and failing, to provide evidence. I even linked you to the criminal complaint.

Anyway, unlike in, say, Florida, Wisconsin does not have a stand your ground law (they also do not have duty to retreat, it should be noted). The castle doctrine would not apply here either,
obviously.

No one said anything about the castle doctrine or stand your ground.
"While Wisconsin has no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available may be a consideration regarding whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."
State of Wisconsin v Wenger
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wi-court...s/1224386.html

It is not debatable that it is illegal under Wisconsin law for anyone under 18 to possess a firearm, and that it is illegal to transfer a firearm to the possession of someone under 18. This isn't in dispute, this is Wisconsin Law. There is only a very limited exception for hunting.

As Rittenhouse pled not guilty, it is, or will be, in dispute...

[Pontifex Maximus]

It is not debatable that it is illegal under Wisconsin law for anyone under 18 to possess a firearm, and that it is illegal to transfer a firearm to the possession of someone under 18. This isn't in dispute, this is Wisconsin Law. There is only a very limited exception for hunting.

The Constitutionality of that law is debateable. In any event, I doubt he regrets breaking a possession law when not doing so would have definitely led him to at least sustain very serious injuries, if not death.

[Infidel144]

Kyle Rittenhouse, who deviously and treacherously hunted down Peaceful Protesters by cunningly running away from them, has not had a new arrest warrant issued nor had his bail increased in a hearing yesterday:
Judge declines new arrest warrant for Kyle Rittenhouse

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A judge on Thursday refused prosecutors’ request to issue a new arrest warrant for an 18-year-old from Illinois accused of killing two people during a police brutality protest in Wisconsin last summer.


Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger alleged that Kyle Rittenhouse failed to update his address when he moved out of his Antioch apartment in November, amounting to a bail violation.


In addition to a new arrest warrant, Binger asked Judge Bruce Schroeder to increase Rittenhouse’s bail by $200,000. Rittenhouse’s attorneys countered that Rittenhouse is in hiding due to threats.

Schroeder refused both of Binger’s requests. During a testy hearing the judge said people out on bail often fail to update their addresses and aren’t arrested. He ordered Rittenhouse attorney Mark Richards to turn over Rittenhouse’s current physical address but said it would be sealed to the public and only he and the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Department would have access to it.


The judge refused to give Binger the address, saying he didn’t want more violence in Kenosha. The move — and the comment — left Binger flabbergasted.

“I hope you’re not suggesting sharing this with our office would lead to further violence,” Binger said

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-ritt...4297036dfff212

[Aexodus]

So we can chalk up ‘rittenhouse fled on bail’ to a long list of false claims.

[Vanoi]

So we can chalk up ‘rittenhouse fled on bail’ to a long list of false claims.

Show me one source that claims Kyle fled and simply just didn't tell the court of his whereabouts.

[Cope]

Show me one source that claims Kyle fled and simply just didn't tell the court of his whereabouts.

Aexodus is referring to a false claim made by another user which was inspired by a somewhat misleading tweet.

Rittenhouse has apparently fled while on bail. Color me shocked!

https://twitter.com/DRoseTV/status/1357070052646912009

[Infidel144]

Minneapolis Council Moves To Defund Police, Establish 'Holistic' Public Safety Force
June 26, 2020
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-up...ic-safety-forc
With violent crime on the rise in Mpls., City Council asks: Where are the police?
September 15, 2020
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/0...are-the-police
Minneapolis City Council alarmed by surge in crime months after voting to defund the police
September 16
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/min...und-the-police
Some Minneapolis city council members would like a redo on defunding the police: report
Sept. 28, 2020
https://thehill.com/changing-america...ers-would-like
Minneapolis violence surges as police officers leave department in droves
November 13, 2020
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...2d8_story.html
Minneapolis to spend $6.4M to recruit more police officers
Feb. 14, 2021
https://www.weau.com/2021/02/14/minn...'s%20death.

[Cope]

A new poll reveals that almost half of all liberals (44%) believe that a thousand or more unarmed black Americans were killed by police in 2019. This is ten times more than the top likely estimate (the available data shows there were between 13-27). The report also found that liberals believed a majority of people killed by police were black (the available data indicates that it is less than a quarter).

Spoiler for How many unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019?: 

Spoiler for In 2019 what percentage of people killed by police were black?: 

[Vanoi]

Less than a quarter of deaths would still be a pretty big over-representation relative to their population size.

[Lord Thesaurian]

A new poll reveals that almost half of all liberals (44%) believe that a thousand or more unarmed black Americans were killed by police in 2019. This is ten times more than the top likely estimate (the available data shows there were between 13-27). The report also found that liberals believed a majority of people killed by police were black (the available data indicates that it is less than a quarter).

Spoiler for How many unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019?: 

Spoiler for In 2019 what percentage of people killed by police were black?: 

What’s striking to me is that everyone, even conservatives, consistently overestimated the figures. The power of mass media.

[PointOfViewGun]

A new poll reveals that almost half of all liberals (44%) believe that a thousand or more unarmed black Americans were killed by police in 2019. This is ten times more than the top likely estimate (the available data shows there were between 13-27). The report also found that liberals believed a majority of people killed by police were black (the available data indicates that it is less than a quarter).

Was the same question asked about white people?

[Infidel144]

"The Minneapolis City Council has unanimously approved paying six social media influencers to spread city-approved messaging and updates throughout the upcoming murder trial of former officer Derek Chauvin, who has been charged in George Floyd's death."

"The city says social media partners will help dispel potential misinformation, and that the influencers will intentionally target Black, Native American, Somali, Hmong and Latinx communities with their messaging."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneap...e-floyd-death/

[Aexodus]

Messaging and updates that are so reliable, the government needs to pay people to spread them.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Yes



Can you prove this?



When did he goad people on, and that probably doesn't negate self defence?

Footage from earlier in the day shows Rosenbaum threatening to kill Rittenhouse and telling him along the lines of "you better watch out, I'll *** kill you!"

Rittenhouse was alone and fleeing when Rosenbaum and several others chased him, one man with a pistol admitted to firing a single round in Rittenhouse's direction [at him] at which time Rittenhouse turned around and shot Rosenbaum repeatedly as Rosenbaum attempted to seize control of his rifle.

Rittenhouse then resumed running and wound up having to engage two more men, one armed with a pistol [not the same man who had previously shot at him from behind] and a man who had hit him hard with a skateboard.


Every instance of the use of lethal force by Rittenhouse was lawful self-defense.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

"The Minneapolis City Council has unanimously approved paying six social media influencers to spread city-approved messaging and updates throughout the upcoming murder trial of former officer Derek Chauvin, who has been charged in George Floyd's death."

"The city says social media partners will help dispel potential misinformation, and that the influencers will intentionally target Black, Native American, Somali, Hmong and Latinx communities with their messaging."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneap...e-floyd-death/

This alone is a sufficient basis for a change of venue at a minimum and perhaps a dismissal of all charges.

State actors [i.e. local government officials] have embarked on a campaign to taint the jury pool and to make it impossible to empanel a fair and impartial panel and they are also attempting to coerce the court and the jury with the threat of using social media to instigate a riot if they do not get the ruling they expect.

If I were the presiding trial court judge in that case I would dismiss the charges against Chauvin. In any event, there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction of murder so the matter should be disposed of without the need for the jury to deliberate. George Floyd was in respiratory distress when he was first encountered, his first words were "I can't breathe" and he ultimately died from respiratory distress caused by multiple drug intoxication [fentanyl, methamphetamine, cannabis, and alcohol]. He had a lethal level of fentanyl in his blood. Homicide was not the cause of death.


Nothing in the Minnesota statute supports a charge of 2nd degree murder.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19


Nothing supports a charge of 3rd degree murder for that matter.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195


At most it is a manslaughter offense, perhaps manslaughter in the second degree.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205

[Infidel144]

This site is to contain the documents related to the Chauvin trial:
https://www.mncourts.gov/media/State...avDerekChauvin

[Infidel144]

Minnesota appeals court to the district court on its' decision re the request to re-instate the third-degree murder charge against Chauvin:
"This court’s precedential opinion in Noor became binding authority on the date itwas filed. The district court therefore erred by concluding that it was not bound by the
principles of law set forth in Noor and by denying the state’s motion to reinstate the charge
of third-degree murder on that basis. We reverse the order of the district court and remand
for reconsideration of the state’s motion. On remand, the district court has discretion to
consider any additional arguments Chauvin might raise in opposition to the state’s motion.
But the district court’s decision must be consistent with this opinion."

https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/med...on03052021.pdf

[Aexodus]

I'm confused, what happened here, and why, and what are the implications.

[Infidel144]

The 3rd degree murder charge was dismissed last year because it says "others"
" Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years"

The judge said "others" does not apply, Chauvin's actions could only be dangerous to Floyd.

However in the Noor case, Noor was convicted of Third degree murder after killing (by shooting her) a woman who called the police to report a crime, as she approached Noor and his partner.

The prosecution argued the two cases were similar enough that the charge should be reinstated. They were convincing enough for the appeals court to tell the judge to look at it again.

If the judge does decide to reinstate the charge this gives the jury another option if the jury convicts.