Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Posts
24,529
Location
Solihull-Florida
The question is, did the Rittenhouse judgement about whether he was able to carry a semi-automatic weapon at 17, set a precedent for the entire state?

i.e. Are you now expecting to see 16 and 17 year olds carrying firearms around? The answer I believe is a firm no. My interpretation is that would still be illegal, because it's subject to a law that needs updating for clarity sake.



For the love of pixi god.
It was already LAW....come on spoon feds.

It's just the prosecutor going ape
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,865
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
But it's perfectly reasonable to claim that someone saying something is "perfectly legal" , when the associated law is unclear (with words potentially destroying the original intent of the law) , is false.

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.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
1,796
It gets worse for Wisconsin.

"At least five people have been killed and more than 40 injured after a car ploughed into a Christmas parade in the US state of Wisconsin, police say."

There won't be any blm riots or anything from the left.

RIP to the victims.

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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
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.

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
28,822
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.

My uncle already blamed Biden and Kamala Harris for the Waukesha incident.

nFb8Nom.jpg

These people are a bit twisted. Not everything is political.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Posts
24,529
Location
Solihull-Florida
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.


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
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Posts
28,822
Soldato
Joined
20 Aug 2019
Posts
3,028
Location
SW Florida
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.


You are effectively stopping mid-sentence and declaring what the entire sentence means.

Read the law. Don't stop half way through.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
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.

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.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
1,796
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:
One person is in custody. The incident does not appear "at this time" to be an act of terrorism, one official said.

The suspect appeared to have been fleeing another scene when he ran into people at the parade, the law enforcement official - who is familiar with the early findings of the investigation - told the BBC's US partner CBS News.

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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
39,655
Location
Surrey
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.
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.

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:
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
39,655
Location
Surrey
You are effectively stopping mid-sentence and declaring what the entire sentence means.

Read the law. Don't stop half way through.

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.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
The question is, did the Rittenhouse judgement about whether he was able to carry a semi-automatic weapon at 17, set a precedent for the entire state?

i.e. Are you now expecting to see 16 and 17 year olds carrying AR-15's around? The answer I believe is a firm no. My interpretation is that would still be illegal, because it's subject to a law that needs updating for clarity sake.

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/
oAAEuWV.jpg

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.

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.

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
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,554
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.

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!
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,554
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
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.

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:

ZYces6z.png

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,302
Not sure how they think they can "protect" the rioters. If they intervene in an argument and threaten someone with guns they are breaking the law. They are allowed guns for self defence, not to be a militia.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,660
Not sure how they think they can "protect" the rioters. If they intervene and shoot someone it's still murder. They are allowed guns for self defence, not to act like a militia.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom