The official "Ask a cop/deputy anything!" thread

[Pablo Chacon]

There were witnesses that testified to his behavior and threatening to kill the defendant and others in the group with the defendant. There was video evidence of Rosenbaum’s erratic & hostile behavior shortly before he chased and cornered the defendant in the car lot.

Rosenbaum was just released from a mental health treatment facility or hospital earlier that day.
So, the only facts the jurors heard and seen must have left reasonable doubt.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

That might be all that matters for Rittenhouse & his fate, but this case will be picked over for some time. I hope we can learn something from it.

Picking over a case will do nothing. I don’t know if there is much to learn from the case that most rationale people don’t already know.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

There were witnesses that testified to his behavior and threatening to kill the defendant and others in the group with the defendant. There was video evidence of Rosenbaum’s erratic & hostile behavior shortly before he chased and cornered the defendant in the car lot.

Rosenbaum was just released from a mental health treatment facility or hospital earlier that day.
So, the only facts the jurors heard and seen must have left reasonable doubt.

Thanks. It does seem Rosenbaum was someone who didn't need much of a reason.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

Picking over a case will do nothing. I don’t know if there is much to learn from the case that most rationale people don’t already know.

The picking has begun, and this was written before the verdict. May the learning follow.

"After all this mayhem, all this death, what use were the guns that night?

The guns failed to deter attacks against their owners. According to the defense, Rittenhouse’s gun was a reason Rosenbaum pursued him. And Grosskreutz’s gun was the reason Rittenhouse shot him."
"And finally, the guns failed at their most vaunted purpose, helping the good guys fight the bad guys. If Rittenhouse was your good guy, what good did his gun do him? How did it help anyone in the community he was trying to protect? It got two people killed, one person injured, and Rittenhouse himself facing charges of homicide."

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

One would think there was a reason, and that there would be some witness to how the two became antagonistic. I can only assume that no witness was willing to come forward.

They were out there to be violent, incite violence and commit a crime (…or crimes). Their criminal histories tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about those three men. Only career criminals or people with a propensity to commit criminals acts find themselves at riots. Generally speaking, law abiding citizens don't go out and damage other people's property and commit acts that purposely hurt others. Kenosha will never recover from the damage caused during the riots. The people of that city are disenfranchised forever.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

The picking has begun, and this was written before the verdict. May the learning follow.

"After all this mayhem, all this death, what use were the guns that night?

The guns failed to deter attacks against their owners. According to the defense, Rittenhouse’s gun was a reason Rosenbaum pursued him. And Grosskreutz’s gun was the reason Rittenhouse shot him."
"And finally, the guns failed at their most vaunted purpose, helping the good guys fight the bad guys. If Rittenhouse was your good guy, what good did his gun do him? How did it help anyone in the community he was trying to protect? It got two people killed, one person injured, and Rittenhouse himself facing charges of homicide."

I didn’t say it wouldn’t occur, I stated it wouldn’t do anything, as in it won’t be beneficial or change anything.
The rest is all just noise.
2A and self defense prevailed, next up, the trial in Georgia should be wrapping up next week.

[Pablo Chacon]

GA v Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and William "Roddie" Bryan Jr. verdict could really cause an uproar and chaos. Stay tuned

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

GA v Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and William "Roddie" Bryan Jr. verdict could really cause an uproar and chaos. Stay tuned

I have relatives in Brunswick, who have told me that the protesters have being bussed in daily ever since the jury selection started. I strongly encouraged them to leave before the verdict, for their own safety.....

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

I have relatives in Brunswick, who have told me that the protesters have being bussed in daily ever since the jury selection started. I strongly encouraged them to leave before the verdict, for their own safety.....

Wow, I’m not surprised at all.
Very good advice, I hope they heed it and leave ASAP.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

GA v Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and William "Roddie" Bryan Jr. verdict could really cause an uproar and chaos. Stay tuned

That one looks like it will go against the defendants, so each 'side' will have one case to be mad about, & one to brag about.
No violence after the Rittenhouse verdict that I know of.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

They were out there to be violent, incite violence and commit a crime (…or crimes). Their criminal histories tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about those three men. Only career criminals or people with a propensity to commit criminals acts find themselves at riots. Generally speaking, law abiding citizens don't go out and damage other people's property and commit acts that purposely hurt others. Kenosha will never recover from the damage caused during the riots. The people of that city are disenfranchised forever.

I certainly didn't defend these guys! But who wants 17yr olds running the streets with long guns in dangerous times? Does anyone see a problem here?
I'm surprised Rittenhouse didn't get something.
Kenosha will decide if it can heal. Many cities have gone through worse.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

That one looks like it will go against the defendants, so each 'side' will have one case to be mad about, & one to brag about.
No violence after the Rittenhouse verdict that I know of.

I don’t see it as a “side” issue other than prosecutor v. defender, but I know what you mean. But to be totally clear and fair, these two trials are vastly different.

I’ve read that the Kinosha protest are scheduled for Sunday for whatever reason. Perhaps they require additional time to bus them in. Who knows.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

I certainly didn't defend these guys! But who wants 17yr olds running the streets with long guns in dangerous times? Does anyone see a problem here?
I'm surprised Rittenhouse didn't get something.
Kenosha will decide if it can heal. Many cities have gone through worse.

I don’t see an issue with a 17 year old with a long rifle, but the law does. They dropped the weapon charge in Kyle’s case. There was a reason for that.

In the US, you can be sent to war at 17 year old with a fully automatic weapon. I’d consider that “dangerous times”, yet I don’t see anyone rioting or protesting that fact.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

I don’t see an issue with a 17 year old with a long rifle, but the law does. They dropped the weapon charge in Kyle’s case. There was a reason for that.

In the US, you can be sent to war at 17 year old with a fully automatic weapon. I’d consider that “dangerous times”, yet I don’t see anyone rioting or protesting that fact.

I wonder more about the laws as written than about if the jury found those laws followed.
You certainly get more training, supervision, command structure, etc, in the military than what Kyle had. One of the reasons we don't allow private militias, but depend on professional police forces instead.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

I wonder more about the laws as written than about if the jury found those laws followed.
You certainly get more training, supervision, command structure, etc, in the military than what Kyle had. One of the reasons we don't allow private militias, but depend on professional police forces instead.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I’m not here to debate the law or the 2A, I was responding to some questions regarding the trial since I watched the entire trial.

Regardless of Kyle’s training or lack of, the 3 rioters that were shot didn’t have the right to chase and or attack him, they paid the price when he exercised his right to defend himself with deadly force.

One question, if Kyle was 18 on or before before 25 Aug 2020, what issue would you have with what occurred?

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

I don't see an issue with a 17 year old with a long rifle, but the law does. They dropped the weapon charge in Kyle's case. There was a reason for that.

In the US, you can be sent to war at 17 year old with a fully automatic weapon. I'd consider that "dangerous times", yet I don't see anyone rioting or protesting that fact.

They dropped the weapon charge because the rifle barrel met the min length. His sisters boyfriend, who was the strawbuyer, has been charged separately.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

They dropped the weapon charge because the rifle barrel met the min length. His sisters boyfriend, who was the strawbuyer, has been charged .

I know that.

Yes, it was clearly not a SBR.

The “straw buyer” has a good chance of beating that charge as well.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

....

One question, if Kyle was 18 on or before before 25 Aug 2020, what issue would you have with what occurred?

You're kidding, right?
All I see is reason for none of them to be there. I know my wife & I stayed home that night.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

I know that.

Yes, it was clearly not a SBR.

The "straw buyer" has a good chance of beating that charge as well.

I think so too.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

You're kidding, right?
All I see is reason for none of them to be there. I know my wife & I stayed home that night.

Nope, you’ve mentioned his age several times, so I’m not kidding.

Do you feel that because you see no “reason for none of them to be there” that they shouldn’t be allowed to be?

That’s the great thing about theses United States of America. As a citizen you have the right to move to whatever state aligns with your beliefs and values. I choose to live in a free state that values the constitution and a citizen’s rights.

If I want to walk down Main St. with my AR pistol with a silencer strung across my back, and open carrying my Sig P320, I can do so and not expect to be chased, attacked, or assaulted. Nor do I have to worry about a LEO stopping me and asking for a permit, or my ID. Not that I have, but it’s a possibility.

Also, if you chose to be a protestor, rioter, spectator, or anything else during that night or any of the other nights of “mostly peaceful protest”, you were free to do so.

If you don’t like that your state, city or town has rights that you don’t value or like, you’re free to try and change them through the process or move. Isn’t it great?

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

Nope, you’ve mentioned his age several times, so I’m not kidding.
Do you feel that because you see no “reason for none of them to be there” that they shouldn’t be allowed to be?
.... Isn’t it great?

I do feel that a minor, and the others, should not have been out there after the previous violence, and when there was a curfew.
That's what a curfew is for.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

I do feel that a minor, and the others, should not have been out there after the previous violence, and when there was a curfew.
That's what a curfew is for.

That applies to just about every rioter that got in on the action last year.