you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Klondike 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

1) there's no way Rittenberg knew any of that at the time. You can't just shoot people and then after the fact go "good thing he was kinda a dirtbag." The only way it would be relevant is if the defense were to argue "Rosenberg never would've done such a thing!" which seems unlikely.

2) I'm having a hard time buying that. I admit I'm no expert on laws pertaining to open carry (because doing so is fucking dumb, you are pre-escalating the situation before it's even begun, why advertise that you are armed?), but if you can claim a fear for your life because someone is running toward you, that seems simply ridiculous.

5) There's a video out there somewhere (I can no longer find the link on Reddit) that's a compilation of people's cell phone videos. It shows him getting up after the attack with the crowd running from him. He turns toward the crowd and appears to be aiming in their direction (his back is to the camera). There's the sound of quite a few gunshots. So like I said, someone else said it wasn't him shooting, and maybe that's the case. But I guess it's up to investigators and the justice system now.

6)

Nope it's not but police brutality is dealt with in a court of law.

Ok but that's like the point, it's NOT. How many times have we heard that the cops simply got reprimanded with paid leave? How many get fired but then later reinstated quietly? How many times do we have to hear "oops, lost the bodycam footage"? When a cop actually gets charged, it's an outlier, and nevermind an actual conviction. For some reason, the "good cops" are all too eager to protect "bad cops".

The system is corrupt to it's core and needs major reform. Police need to be held accountable for their actions. Should they have to hesitate before pulling the trigger and think "Is what I'm doing illegal?" Abso-fucking-lutely.

[–]AsInBeer 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

1) It goes to Rosenberg's intent. It's not about what Rittenberg knew, it's about whether or not the attacking individual was known to be the sort of person who was confrontational, aggressive and prone to violence because that makes it more likely he was displaying those some behaviors at the time.

(In fact, we know he was. We have him approaching Rittenberg in an apoplectic rage earlier in the night.)

But we dont' need that. We have his extensive violent criminal record.

2) This is not how criminals and open carry advocates see it. What criminals see is an unmanageable number of people around them who have guns. What open carry advocates believe is criminals like easy vicitims who can't fight back. Conceal carry states are even better because , yeah, criminals really have no idea who is packing.

6) all the things your referencing are problems. But it's not an epidemic of police violence towards innocent people or criminal suspects who pose no threat to them. All those things are problems that happen in the world, but if you look at the words you used, you might get an idea that it's not how often it happens, it's how often you hear about it. You hear about it every single time it happens. You hear about every single officer involved shooting of any Black suspect. How many is that? What % of the time does it happen? Whatr are the details around the case? Are the cops White or Black? How many times does it happen to White suspects?

When you look into answering these questions, it becomes clear- there is no epidemic of White cops shooting Black suspects.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/745731839/new-study-says-white-police-officers-are-not-more-likely-to-shoot-minority-suspe

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/white-cops-dont-commit-more-shootings/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/cops-shoot-white-guy-fresno-nobody-pays-attention-hank-berrien