Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[Caracus2k]

Even the judge said it wasnt clear and he wasnt sure -

Schroeder said he had been "wrestling" with the statute for a while, calling it unclear.

"I'd hate to count the hours that I’ve put into it, and I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what is prohibited," he said Friday. "How are ordinary people supposed to know what’s against the law?"

US law is based on English common law and under such law things are lawful unless they are not. There is no middle ground. If the states law is incompetently written such that the letter of the law permits something that was not the intention of the lawmakers than that something is (perfectly) legal....

...as has been pointed out to you there is no grey area.

Specific acts in specific circumstances are either (perfectly) legal or illegal.

The English law tradition is rather different to the law systems that dominate on the continent where they do take a more "you can only do what the law tells you approach" rather than a "everything which is not forbidden is allowed" approach. You can see the application of this when Hancock suggested we could follow continental style laws (we didnt at least in part because of the issues it would cause overturning centuries of laws.

In March 2021 in response to the Coronavirus disease 2019 the Health Secretary Matt Hancock reportedly advised the Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the following terms: 'We’ve got to tell people that they can't do anything unless it is explicitly allowed by law. This advice has been described a 'radical suggestion', and Hancock himself reportedly described it as Napoleonic, "flipping" British tradition, because in Lockdown people would be forbidden from doing anything unless the legislation said, in terms, that they could.'

 

[Jono8]

JFC the argument was already provided in court and the prosecutors had to concede it, they didn't rely on any claims about hunting nor does the legislation require anything about hunting, the defence made the argument without reference to hunting as I literally already pointed out in this thread:



^^^ this is false, you don't have to be 18 necessarily.



^^^ this is misleading, that he wasn't in Wisconsin to hunt doesn't matter.

It was perfectly legal for him to carry that rifle as the law allows it given it is a long-barreled (over 16 inches) rifle and he was 17 years old.

this is why the charges were thrown out, Politifact could have just conceded they were wrong but instead they're doubling down on it.

Nope.

How can a presumption of perfect legality made in Aug 2020 be true, when even the seasoned judge in the case stated the law involved was unclear, and that he found it difficult to interprete/decide on it himself?

 

[Caracus2k]

instead they're doubling down on it.

Much like Jono, the Paedowood celebs and the scum media they can't as they have invested too much lying to keep up a narrative

 

[Jono8]

Your history of dodging questions is well documented in this thread already Jono, I suspect you're just trying to get the thread locked now.

Why would I want the thread locked?

Im just highlighting how wrong you all are about the politifact article.

Also, I don't have to answer stupid irrelevant questions if I don't want to.

 

[dowie]

Nope.

How can a presumption of perfect legality made in Aug 2020 be true, when even the seasoned judge in the case stated the law involved was unclear, and that he found it difficult to interprete/decide on it himself?

Because it was literally shown to be true at the trial. They could update the "fact check" but instead they're just throwing in some weak cope...

Why would I want the thread locked?


Also, I don't have to answer stupid irrelevant questions if I don't want to.

Because you've been rather silly and it might be an explanation for your erratic posting.

You don't have to answer questions but when there are obvious questions that lead from things you've said that seem to be contradictory or when you post assertions without argument or explanation and then aren't going to address the questions raised it might well lead to the conclusion that you can't. It's a bit silly to engage in a discussion thread with an opposing view and vague assertions then be seemingly unable to offer any clarification re: the point you're trying to make.

 

[Dis86]

Why would I want the thread locked?

Im just highlighting how wrong you all are about the politifact article.

Also, I don't have to answer stupid irrelevant questions if I don't want to.

No, all you're doing is the internet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting over the top of everyone instead of actually attempting to discuss the points at hand. As you've done all throughout the thread. It's basically what a child does when they know they're in the wrong.

 

[Jono8]

No, all you're doing is the internet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting over the top of everyone instead of actually attempting to discuss the points at hand. As you've done all throughout the thread. It's basically what a child does when they know they're in the wrong.

I'm discussing this in great detail and I am discussing the points at hand

I know your peeved that I didn't answer your irrelevant question that you knew the answer to, but you will just have to deal with that I guess.

 

[Dis86]

I'm discussing this in great detail and I am discussing the points at hand

I know your peeved that I didn't answer your irrelevant question that you knew the answer to, but you will just have to deal with that I guess.

Again jono, I'm so sorry that a question about the defendant and his charges is not relevant in a thread about erm...the defendant and his charges.
I don't think you understand what a discussion is. In a discussion you respond to the points of the others. That involves answering questions. Something you're not very good at. Not very good at all. Anyway, thought you were crawling back under your bridge for the night? Mrs Troll kicked you out?

 

[Caracus2k]

@Jono8

Just look at the actual statutes and then you might see why you are wrong.

I don't expect you will because you're the sort of poster that's ideologically driven to talk nonsense even when the truth is staring you in the face but we can always hope.


From the Wisconsin Statutes direct:

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2) 

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

So seems quite clear up until this point that KR was breaking the law... right up until we go on and read the rest of the statute!

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

So let me say again that the prohibition of possession of a rifle or shotgun by a person under 18 *only* applies if the weapon also violates s. 941.28!

So what dies s. 941.28 say?

941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

941.28(1) (1) In this section:

941.28(1)(a) (a) "Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.

941.28(1)(b) (b) "Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.

941.28(2) (2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

No mention of hunting, state lines, gloves or any other nonsense you might want to drag up.



So in summary s.948.60 makes it illegal for someone under 18 to possess a 'dangerous weapon'

In terms of rifles so far as 'dangerous weapons' go under s.948.60 **this only applies** to rifles also in contravention of 941.28

Long barrelled rifles (over 16 inches) are not in contravention of s.941.28 and so are not in contravention of s.948.60!


And as such the gun Kyle had was legally in his possession!!

and if you are wondering about the ....

or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

bit

then:

ss. 29.304 only applies to those under 16

29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

and 29.593 relates to conditions under which one may go hunting and what is required to obtain authorisation

so neither are relevant to Kyle Rittenhouse and so he wasn't 'not in compliance' with these either!

 

[Jono8]

Because it was literally shown to be true at the trial. They could update the "fact check" but instead they're just throwing in some weak cope...

But they are still correct, and you are still wrong.

It wasn't "perfectly legal", and still isn't.

The very fact that the judge had such a hard time over it and stated as much, should highlight to you that you are wrong. Him making a ruling on it does NOT solve the flaw in the way it is written.

Because you've been rather silly and it might be an explanation for your erratic posting.

You don't have to answer questions but when there are obvious questions that lead from things you've said that seem to be contradictory or when you post assertions without argument or explanation and then aren't going to address the questions raised it might well lead to the conclusion that you can't. It's a bit silly to engage in a discussion thread with an opposing view and vague assertions then be seemingly unable to offer any clarification re: the point you're trying to make.

Oh we are back to this nonsense again.

 

[Twinz]

The brass knuckles vs long rifle language may have something to do with how easily concealed a given weapon is. I think it's silly to ban the general public from concealing weapons. Criminals in jurisdictions with such laws will not think twice about carrying a concealed weapon and know that they have the upper hand when they attack law-abiding. citizens.

That being said, left-leaning jurisdictions seem to like this sort of approach.

 

[Jono8]

US law is based on English common law and under such law things are lawful unless they are not. There is no middle ground. If the states law is incompetently written such that the letter of the law permits something that was not the intention of the lawmakers than that something is (perfectly) legal....

...as has been pointed out to you there is no grey area.

Specific acts in specific circumstances are either (perfectly) legal or illegal.

The English law tradition is rather different to the law systems that dominate on the continent where they do take a more "you can only do what the law tells you approach" rather than a "everything which is not forbidden is allowed" approach. You can see the application of this when Hancock suggested we could follow continental style laws (we didnt at least in part because of the issues it would cause overturning centuries of laws.

Are you saying the USA has no interpretation rules such as literal/golden/mischief?

Are you saying that judicial interpretation is always only ever literal?

 

[Jono8]

The brass knuckles vs long rifle language may have something to do with how easily concealed a given weapon is. I think it's silly to ban the general public from concealing weapons. Criminals in jurisdictions with such laws will not think twice about carrying a concealed weapon and know that they have the upper hand when they attack law-abiding. citizens.

That being said, left-leaning jurisdictions seem to like this sort of approach.

It's not just brass knuckles though (that's just an example). It's any dangerous weapon.

Taking the literal meaning does make the statute absurd and clearly hobbles its intention.

 

[Caracus2k]

@Jono8

I have read the relevant law

I think I can understand the relevant law

I have directed you to the two relevant statues that show that possession of a long barrelled rifle by Kyle was explicitly not against the law as such weapons are exempt.

Either show where I have made an error in reading the statutes or be quiet on the matter


I don't want some nonsense politifact article or some other scum media article please go to the Statutes and show how Kyle was breaking the law if you think you can

 

[Jono8]

@Jono8

I have read the relevant law

I think I can understand the relevant law

I have directed you to the two relevant statues that show that possession of a long barrelled rifle by Kyle was explicitly not against the law as such weapons are exempt.

Either show where I am in error in reading the statutes or be quiet on the matter


I don't want some nonsense politifact article or some other scum media article please go to the Statutes and show how Kyle was breaking the law if you think you can

I never said he was breaking the law in terms of this. I'm simply stating that politifact was not wrong in saying a Facebook post stating it was "perfectly legal" was false.

To me saying something is "perfectly legal" implies zero ambiguity in the law in question. In actual fact, there was quite a bit of ambiguity with it, as pointed out by the judge himself.

The judge deciding on a literal interpretation of the wording and handing Kyle the benefit of the doubt is fine also. However that doesn't settle the matter or decide precedent. I would bet most lawyers wouldn't be 100% confident in advising 17 year olds to start waltzing around Wisconsin with AR-15's unsupervised, until this is settled.

 

[Caracus2k]

I never said he was breaking the law. I'm simply stating that politifact was not wrong in saying a Facebook post stating it was "perfectly legal" was false.

Not that we needed any further proof but you are just trolling now. If something being done is not 'breaking the law' then it has to be legal in a place like the US.

To me saying something is "perfectly legal" implies zero ambiguity in the law in question. In actual fact, there was quite a bit of ambiguity with it, as pointed out by the judge himself.

I have literally posted the statues there's no ambiguity in the way the law is written!

Statute 'A' say something is illegal only if statute 'B' also applies

and when you look at statute 'B' it doesn't apply and so the something (possession of a long rifle in this case) isn't illegal

I'm not a Wisconsin Judge and I can read the statutes and see this!

The judge deciding on a literal interpretation of the wording

Yes judges cant just make up new laws or amend existing ones on the fly. There is no room for 'interpretation' here s.941.28 is quite clear as to what is exempted and s.948.60 explicitly requires a rifle to also be in contravention of s.941.28

and handing Kyle the benefit of the doubt is fine also

No benefit of the doubt the law, as written, allowed Kyle to have the gun. End of

However that doesn't settle the matter or decide precedent.

There is no precedent to set because the law, as written, is already explicit on this matter and so no interpretation is
required

I would bet most lawyers wouldn't be 100% confident in advising 17 year old to start waltzing around with AR-15's unsupervised, until this is settled.

I imagine Wisconsin will change their laws because as it stands a 17 year old could walk about all day with the type of gun Kyle had and there's nothing they could legally be prosecuted for! *unless they are in contravention of some other law

 

[dowie]

But they are still correct, and you are still wrong.

It wasn't "perfectly legal", and still isn't.

The very fact that the judge had such a hard time over it and stated as much, should highlight to you that you are wrong. Him making a ruling on it does NOT solve the flaw in the way it is written.

It's not his job to solve any flaws re: intent, the defence was clearly able to argue that as the law stands currently it is indeed legal for a 17 year old to open carry a long-barreled rifle in that state, I'm not sure why you're struggling with this.

 

[deuse]

I can't believe that the left media are still saying false things.
And there followers agree with these lies.

I hope he sues the lot of them

 

[Rroff]

I can't believe that the left media are still saying false things.
And there followers agree with these lies.

I hope he sues the lot of them

It is kind of worrying how much intentionally misconstrued information is being pushed - never mind I'm still seeing some claiming he shot 3 black people, etc.

Even if there are good intentions, and I question that, that is how injustices are done and there is nothing good about that.

 

[StriderX]

I know it's mildly tangential... but regarding the previous discussion about the differences in justice some people can face in the US.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/21/us/chris-belter-assault-sentence/index.html

A man who pleaded guilty to the rape and sexual assault of four teenage girls will avoid prison time after a New York state judge said time behind bars would be inappropriate.

Truly baffling.