Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

dowie said:
Also LOL, you're literally quoting Politifact who famously got this completely wrong FFS!
Click to expand...

How did they get it "completely wrong"? They said the claim that it was "perfectly legal" ages ago was false. One judge giving the benefit of the doubt to a defendant because it could be interpreted in different ways, doesn't make it "perfectly legal".

Its obviously a badly worded law that doesn't explicitly convey its intention.
 
The absolute state of politfact...

take this gem....

Trump paints false picture of Kyle Rittenhouse shootings ahead of Kenosha visit
Click to expand...

I'm sure Politfact will paint a completely balanced picture of what happened on the night right?

The president correctly describes some minor details about that night. But overall, his comments grossly mischaracterize what happened
Click to expand...

Oh he got the 'minor' details right but 'mischaracterized' what happened i'm sure the Politfact aren't about to do just that right?

So how to they 'characterize' the first incident between Joseph Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse...

Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, approached Rittenhouse and a reporter interviewing him that night and began to chase Rittenhouse after he did a "juke" move. Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse, but it didn’t hit him.

The two ended up in a parking lot, and the reporter told authorities that Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse’s gun. Rittenhouse fired four shots, and Rosenbaum dropped to the ground in front of him.
Click to expand...

Yep totally dishonestly....

No mention of the “If I catch any of you guys alone tonight I’m going to ****ing kill you!” line in the midst of him playing arsonist. Nor the mention of the gunshot that was fired at around the same time by a third party.
 
Jono8 said:
How did they get it "completely wrong"? They said the claim that it was "perfectly legal" ages ago was false. One judge giving the benefit of the doubt to a defendant because it could be interpreted in different ways, doesn't make it "perfectly legal".

Its obviously a badly worded law that doesn't explicitly convey its intention.
Click to expand...

It's not 'the benefit of the doubt'. The way the law was written means KR could not be guilty with the firearm he had because it was in an exemption due to it's size.

The prosecution were just plain incompetent on many matters including this.

Pathetic desperate rear-guard actions from thoroughly discredited organisations and people.
 
chroniclard said:
Let's face it most people who dismiss fact checkers are often right wing conspiracy pushers. :cry:
Click to expand...

Translation crib sheet for normal people who don't speak 'progressive'

'Mostly Peaceful protest' = a riot with often extensive looting and or arson/damage with casualties often having been caused

'Racial-justice protesters' = child raping, repeat felon, domestic abusers who scream racial obscenities about black people at riots whilst threatening to kill people interrupting their criminal antics.

'Racial Justice' = the complete wilful ignorance as to the fact that any adverse statistic from the criminal justice arena is almost exclusively the result of differing underlying rates of (violent) criminality between different groups

'Right wing conspiracy pushers' = People who can objectively assess evidence and call out nonsense spouted by 'progressives'
 
Caracus2k said:
It's not 'the benefit of the doubt'. The way the law was written means KR could not be guilty with the firearm he had because it was in an exemption due to it's size.

The prosecution were just plain incompetent on many matters including this.

Pathetic desperate rear-guard actions from thoroughly discredited organisations and people.
Click to expand...

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

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?"

https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/...ial-dropped-gun-possession-charge/8640342002/
 
If it was illegal then the charge wouldn't have been dropped - it's that simple

So as the charge was dismissed (due to the poor wording of the law) then the statement of "'Perfectly legal' for Rittenhouse to carry a gun" is legally correct, so for politifact to decide not to change their own decision now that the legal issue has been cleared up, shows nothing but bad faith.

In law something either Is or Isn't legal, there is no "well its a bit grey", so once the decision is made as to whether it's is Legal or Illegal, thats the only two choices you get, there is no option for an organisation which is supposed to "fact check" but to correct their ruling in light of the Judges decision. That they won't means they should no longer be considered independent "fact checkers" but instead propagandists with no claim to be factually correct in any other ruling they have ever made, rendering them worthless.
 
Last edited:
ianh said:
If it was illegal then the charge wouldn't have been dropped - it's that simple

So as the charge was dismissed (due to the poor wording of the law) then the statement of "'Perfectly legal' for Rittenhouse to carry a gun" is legally correct, so for politifact to decide not to change their own decision now that the legal issue has been cleared up, shows nothing but bad faith.
Click to expand...

The legal issue has not been cleared up. That is just false. Further into the article I posted:

The judge's ruling is not precedential in the legal sense, said Keith Findley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School and co-founder of the Wisconsin Innocence Project.

"It would take an appellate court ruling to make that binding in other courts," he said.

The judge made a call, and gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt, after he himself was not sure. The law as it stands, is still ambiguous and will be so until the above happens (or i guess lawmakers change the law) ^
 
Jono8 said:
The legal issue has not been cleared up.
Click to expand...

In Rittenshouses case (which is the topic regarding Politifact) it was as he was found not guilty and the charge was dismissed against him. The legal issue regarding "clearing up the law" at a later date has nothing to do with Rittenhouse or his case as what he did was legal in the eyes of the current badly worded law (making Politifact incorrect) so any other talk about the law itself is now a separate "non-Rittenhouse" case.
 
Caracus2k said:
Translation crib sheet for normal people who don't speak 'progressive'

'Mostly Peaceful protest' = a riot with often extensive looting and or arson/damage with casualties often having been caused

'Racial-justice protesters' = child raping, repeat felon, domestic abusers who scream racial obscenities about black people at riots whilst threatening to kill people interrupting their criminal antics.

'Racial Justice' = the complete wilful ignorance as to the fact that any adverse statistic from the criminal justice arena is almost exclusively the result of differing underlying rates of (violent) criminality between different groups

'Right wing conspiracy pushers' = People who can objectively assess evidence and call out nonsense spouted by 'progressives'
Click to expand...

Case in point. :cry:
 
ianh said:
If it was illegal then the charge wouldn't have been dropped - it's that simple

So as the charge was dismissed (due to the poor wording of the law) then the statement of "'Perfectly legal' for Rittenhouse to carry a gun" is legally correct, so for politifact to decide not to change their own decision now that the legal issue has been cleared up, shows nothing but bad faith.

In law something either Is or Isn't legal, there is no "well its a bit grey", so once the decision is made as to whether it's is Legal or Illegal, thats the only two choices you get, there is no option for an organisation which is supposed to "fact check" but to correct their ruling in light of the Judges decision. That they won't means they should no longer be considered independent "fact checkers" but instead propagandists with no claim to be factually correct in any other ruling they have ever made, rendering them worthless.
Click to expand...

Not true at all, law is often a judgement call, its not black and white.
 
ianh said:
In Rittenshouses case (which is the topic regarding Politifact) it was as he was found not guilty and the charge was dismissed against him. The legal issue regarding "clearing up the law" at a later date has nothing to do with Rittenhouse or his case as what he did was legal in the eyes of the current badly worded law (making Politifact incorrect) so any other talk about the law itself is now a separate "non-Rittenhouse" case.
Click to expand...

At the time Politifact wrote that fact check, they were correct in saying that the Facebook post in question saying it was "perfectly legal" for him to have been holding that rifle was false. How could it be "perfectly legal", if it was even ambiguous to the judge?
 
I'm not even sure the law is unclear

948.60 states at subsection 2(a) that someone under 18 possessing a dangerous weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor, but subsection 3(c) says that does not apply to rifles / shotguns unless:
it is shortbarreled (941.28), or

the person is not compliant with the provisions of:
29.304 - certain conditions applying to under 16s, and
29.593 - the person is hunting without a certificate

Kyle had a long barelled rifle and 304 / 593 are not relevant because he was neither under 16 nor hunting. If the exception was intended only to apply where the person was hunting (as I think the prosecution was suggesting), it does not say that!
 
weringo said:
I'm not even sure the law is unclear
Click to expand...

So you are saying the judge was stupid and wasted his time for thinking it was unclear?

It is unclear, because as the prosecution pointed out, it undermines the statute itself -

Conversely, prosecutors contended that if the exception was interpreted that way, it would "swallow the whole statute" and wouldn't make any sense. Under that interpretation, prosecutors said, the law would criminalize possession of nunchucks by a 17-year-old, but allow them to carry loaded assault-style rifles.

https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/...ial-dropped-gun-possession-charge/8640342002/
 
Jono8 said:
How did they get it "completely wrong"? They said the claim that it was "perfectly legal" ages ago was false. One judge giving the benefit of the doubt to a defendant because it could be interpreted in different ways, doesn't make it "perfectly legal".

Its obviously a badly worded law that doesn't explicitly convey its intention.
Click to expand...

Of course, it's a badly worded law given what the intentions might have been, that doesn't negate that they got it wrong. You don't find someone guilty based on what the law should have said if better drafted and the hunting stuff is a cope on their part after being called out - the defence specifically stated they weren't relying on that and argued their point simply based on the two conditions present in the legislation.

Let's be realistic here, you've been clutching at straws all through this thread, putting loads of weight on the prosecution arguments when they had a fairly weak case and overcharged. Not able to answer follow up questions (I guess in part because you were just making vague assertions based on snippets of what you saw the prosecution say in court and then weren't able to provide explanations/arguments aside from deflection and references to the prosecution - it's a bit silly.)
 
chroniclard said:
They seem to get most things correct and dont seem especially biased either way. Though righties get more "false" fact checks then others, because they lie more.
Click to expand...

But by Jono8s statement the law is unclear. As is also the judges statement. Therefore that site cannot make a definitive statement.
 
Dis86 said:
But by Jono8s statement the law is unclear. As is also the judges statement. Therefore that site cannot make a definitive statement.
Click to expand...

They didnt say whether it was legal or not legal. They simply said it was false to say it was "perfectly legal"...which was (and still is) true.

They even said

"Whether Rittenhouse violated Wisconsin law by possessing a firearm underage is the subject of ongoing litigation. But the Facebook post claimed that it was "perfectly legal" for the teenager to carry an assault-style rifle in Kenosha.


At best, that’s unproven. At worst, it’s inaccurate. Either way, we rate the post False."
 
dowie said:
Of course, it's a badly worded law given what the intentions might have been, that doesn't negate that they got it wrong.
Click to expand...

They got nothing wrong! They simply stated it was false to claim it was perfectly legal....which was correct.

They even clarified at the end saying:

"Whether Rittenhouse violated Wisconsin law by possessing a firearm underage is the subject of ongoing litigation. But the Facebook post claimed that it was "perfectly legal" for the teenager to carry an assault-style rifle in Kenosha. At best, that’s unproven. At worst, it’s inaccurate. Either way, we rate the post False."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom