For the love of pixi god.
It was already LAW....come on spoon feds.
It's just the prosecutor going ape
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
For the love of pixi god.
It was already LAW....come on spoon feds.
It's just the prosecutor going ape
I agree with you that, until the Judge made his decision, it was 100% correct for Politifact to say that the claim of "perfectly legal" was false.
However the second the Judge said that was Legal for Rittenhouse then at that point the statement of "perfectly legal for Rittenhouse........" becomes correct in Law.
The important point is that the claim wasn't "perfectly legal for anyone........" which would still make that statement false, but specifically for Rittenhouse alone and that claim is now legally correct.
Are you really trying to associate the horrific events in Waukesha with BLM or the left? If not what is the purpose of that line in your comment other than to be inflammatory. No-one is reporting any cause yet. A couple of media initially said it was someone fleeing in a vehicle but that isn't showing up now either.. At this time there is no link whatsoever and even Fox News is making that clear.
This! Which is the point I was trying to lead to last night, if only someone could answer questions.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,158
My uncle already blamed Biden and Kamala Harris for the Waukesha incident.
These people are a bit twisted. Not everything is political.
Last edited:
I said there won't be any protests or riots from the blm and left like normal.
It's from the bbc...so wrong on two counts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59369492
My uncle already blamed Biden and Kamala Harris for the Waukesha incident.
These people are a bit twisted. Not everything is political.
Impressive that he knows the situation/motive!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,158
8 hours ago as well!
What it protest-able about it? Do you want cars banned? Waukesha pedestrianised? You aren't really making much sense.
You are effectively stopping mid-sentence and declaring what the entire sentence means.
Read the law. Don't stop half way through.
OMG spoon fed again.
There was protests at the rittenhouse trial and riots after.
All I stated is that it won't happen in this case.
It's really simple to understand....
What do you mean by someone fleeing in a vehicle? They seem to have quite deliberately run people over in a terror style attack.
It seems like quite the coincidence, I guess instead of extremist clerics and infidels we now have talking heads on the news banging on about dubious claims of “white supremacy” in relation to this case and a back drop of scapegoating white people for everything (this case has been cited as an example of “white privilege” for example).
When you’re allowed to demonise a group of people continually then don’t be too surprised if some act on it. It’s not the same background or as extreme as say 1930s Germany, that was a minority rather than the majority and the rhetoric ramped up to 11… But if you do carry on with conspiracies whereby group X has special privileges, everything that’s wrong about society is down to that group etc.. that can drive hatred.
This incident does seem to have been the result of some crazy BLM supporter (he’s been identified, social media posts discovered) and quite plausibly deliberate.
As per Deuse's post, I had read elsewhere (now on BBC) that the car was fleeing another scene and ended up on the parade route and then intentionally ran people over to try to get away.
BBC said:
At the moment there is no link to anything at all. You are making huge assumptions based on social media. It may be a case it was linked to that but at the moment there is no known reason so best not to speculate.
I see what you are getting at. However then we are discussing what constitutes an update to a previous fact check from years ago.
That claim was still false when made in August 2020, and making that claim at that time still remains false as it was unproven and up for debate (as Politifact pointed out) at that time. A correction would surely only apply if it were found to have been wrong to call it false at that time and before it was proven to be "perfectly legal" (which I would contend it still isnt. Not "perfectly" at any rate- he got given the benefit of the doubt with a literal interpretation by the judge , who himself said it was unclear).
Just to clarify, I came into this by disputing the assertion by a poster that politifact " got it completely wrong", which just simply isn't true.
Last edited:
Not at all. The exception, as read, calls into question the intent of the statute.
It's perfectly reasonable to argue that the wording is wrong and undermines the intent.
Again, remember that even the judge said it was unclear and that it took him ages to reach a decision on it.
Well here is a 16-year-old + her father, carrying an AR-15 around, literally right outside the Kenosha courthouse yesterday, in full view of police, media etc:
https://nypost.com/2021/11/21/armed-father-daughter-duo-seek-to-protect-anti-rittenhouse-protesters/
Looking for trouble? Clearly white privilege - if they were black then the police would have shot them (oh wait)...
I presume they're not part of the protest or don't necessarily agree with it but are just there because they were asked - that would be too much irony, what does that dad (a 2nd amendment supporter) expect to do if attacked.
Anyway, that the law might need to be changed IF politicians want it to only cover hunting doesn't negate that as it is currently written it does allow the carrying of long-barreled weapons.
Seems like it's "perfectly legal" right now, contrary to what the fact-checkers at Politifact might like to claim.
OK fair enough, that's plausible too but surely both are speculation right now, I'm not sure that pointing out a plausible explanation is necessarily bad - this is a discussion forum after all
Not it's not 'perfectly reasonable' to not read the whole of the statute.
For example if you only half read one of the applicable statutes; as you are claiming we should do, then you would be convicting 'members of the armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States of possession of such weapons!
Because much like the exceptions for long rifles and shotguns these peope are only excluded from the law by virtue of a later section of the statute!
Well here is a 16-year-old + her father, carrying an AR-15 around, literally right outside the Kenosha courthouse yesterday, in full view of police, media etc:
https://nypost.com/2021/11/21/armed-father-daughter-duo-seek-to-protect-anti-rittenhouse-protesters/
Looking for trouble? Clearly white privilege - if they were black then the police would have shot them (oh wait)...
Excellent spot. Completely blows the false narratives out of the water.
It is completely wrong now, it was dubious back then, they could have pointed out that it was disputed etc.. expressed uncertainty about it, they even acknowledged that there were exceptions to the rules but then dismissed them with some vague handwaving about hunting.
They have a meter on the site where they try to show how false something is, in this case they put it all the way over to the left:
Yet it was clearly disputed and there were good arguments that it was indeed perfectly legal (and which turned out to be quite correct), they have obvious bias and so placed all the weight on the argument they preferred, despite it being the far weaker argument given what the law actually stated. not updating after it was indeed shown to be perfectly legal in court too was silly, doesn't exactly do much for their rep.
It entirely depends on the circumstances leading up to the (hypothetical) shooting, doesn't it?
If they are attacked and believe that their life is in danger, they may be perfectly entitled to argue self-defence — as this case has shown.