Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[Rroff]

Truly baffling.

I can kind of see the problem in that he is quite young and people with that kind of record don't tend to fair well in prison in the US (not that he deserves anything better) - but surely there are facilities that are suited to that kind of situation. The outcomes seems entirely inappropriate.

The whole plea deal situation with a case like that is kind of messed up as well.

 

[deuse]

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



Truly baffling.

Another liberal judge done the same in CA.
The people recalled him.

Some states have a mandatory sentence.

 

[Jono8]

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.

You're the one struggling, and what you have said just simply isn't true. I also never claimed its his responsible to solve flaws. In fact earlier I specifically went over how his decision cannot (in terms of the actual law). He can make a ruling for a particular case, but that doesn't solve it, as I have gone over previously.

Is your argument that a judge's only option when deciding on an unclear law is literalism? What about original intent/originalism?

 

[ianh]

Is your argument that a judge's only option when deciding on an unclear law is literalism? What about original intent/originalism?

Again an act is either Legal or Illegal and its then upto how the law is written to decide if you are one side or the other and in this case the Judge has decided that what Rittenhouse did was Legal, which makes Politifacts current refusal to change it's page a bad decision for impartiality.

However, as a separate event Poliifact are right to say that the Law is now going to be reviewed but right now it would be incorrect to say that the claim that what Rittenhouse did was legal is a false claim, which is what their page still says.

 

[deuse]

You're the one struggling, and what you have said just simply isn't true. I also never claimed its his responsible to solve flaws. In fact earlier I specifically went over how his decision cannot (in terms of the actual law). He can make a ruling for a particular case, but that doesn't solve it, as I have gone over previously.

Is your argument that a judge's only option when deciding on an unclear law is literalism? What about original intent/originalism?

"If after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other related sources. Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation that would create an absurd result which the Legislature did not intend."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction

 

[Jono8]

"If after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other related sources. Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation that would create an absurd result which the Legislature did not intend."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction

So you are agreeing with me?

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

@Jono8

you're the sort of poster that's ideologically driven

I don't really care about this question if it was or wasn't legal for him to carry that weapon. The idea that YOU aren't ideologically driven is laughable though. You are up there with the most ideologically driven posters on here so that statement is a bit rich.

 

[Jono8]

Again an act is either Legal or Illegal and its then upto how the law is written to decide if you are one side or the other and in this case the Judge has decided that what Rittenhouse did was Legal, which makes Politifacts current refusal to change it's page a bad decision for impartiality.

However, as a separate event Poliifact are right to say that the Law is now going to be reviewed but right now it would be incorrect to say that the claim that what Rittenhouse did was legal is a false claim, which is what their page still says.

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.

If even the judge had a really hard time with it how can the term "perfectly" be applied to it.

If they said "seems to be legal " or "most likely legal" then I'm sure politifact wouldn't have said the claim was false.

 

[deuse]

So you are agreeing with me?

That's there for you to read and learn.

 

[deuse]

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.

If even the judge had a really hard time with it how can the term "perfectly" be applied to it.

If they said "seems to be legal " or "most likely legal" then I'm sure politifact wouldn't have said the claim was false.

PolitiFact roasted for previous 'fact-check' claiming Kyle Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal.

 

[VincentHanna]

Are you even reading the posts? That's what everyone is talking about.

 

[deuse]

Are you even reading the posts? That's what everyone is talking about.

Are you and your gang still believing the lies the liberal media are coming out with?

I gave the member a link so he could read what he was arguing about.
The PolitiFact post is just to tell members they make mistakes.

Oh. And quote people if you want an answer.

 

[doodah]

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



Truly baffling.

Reminds me of that Brock kid a few years ago, without knowing the details it seems a joke of a sentence as it was with Brock. Good lawyers/rich families work well in these situations.

 

[Jono8]

I don't really care about this question if it was or wasn't legal for him to carry that weapon. The idea that YOU aren't ideologically driven is laughable though. You are up there with the most ideologically driven posters on here so that statement is a bit rich.

I've found this thread really interesting. Everything is all so black and white to people, even when it comes to the law, and interpretations of it, which are often anything but.

There is rarely any interesting debate to be had about anything, because most of the time it just decends into "lefty liberals bad" or "lefty media is lying!" .

It's also hilarious to see people assuming my ideology. I voted Conservative every time before brexit came about. Ive also never once voted Labour or green / for any party or person that would be deemed very left wing. I'm firmly quite centrist politically.

 

[Jono8]

That's there for you to read and learn.

You've literally posted the argument that I am making. So...thanks for backing me up?

"If after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other related sources. Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation that would create an absurd result which the Legislature did not intend."

Another judge could decide that taking the literal interpretation, creates an absurdity in the meaning and intent of the law (which I would argue it does, because it means a 17 year old can't carry around nunchucks or brass knuckles, but could carry around a whole array of long barrelled rifles and shotguns freely...which is just silly).

 

[chroniclard]

I've found this thread really interesting. Everything is all so black and white to people, even when it comes to the law, and interpretations of it, which are often anything but.

There is rarely any interesting debate to be had about anything, because most of the time it just decends into "lefty liberals bad" or "lefty media is lying!" .

It's also hilarious to see people assuming my ideology. I voted Conservative every time before brexit came about. Ive also never once voted Labour or green / for any party or person that would be deemed very left wing. I'm firmly quite centrist politically.

You are arguing with quite unpleasant righty loons though, some of them, so you are in fact a lefty.

 

[deuse]

You've literally posted the argument that I am making. So...thanks for backing me up?

"If after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other related sources. Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation that would create an absurd result which the Legislature did not intend."

Another judge could decide that taking the literal interpretation, creates an absurdity in the meaning and intent of the law (which I would argue it does, because it means a 17 year old can't carry around nunchucks or brass knuckles, but could carry around a whole array of long barrelled rifles and shotguns freely...which is just silly).

No way in hell did you read all the links and crossed referenced them with WI law.
Just stop it troll.

 

[Caracus2k]

I don't really care about this question if it was or wasn't legal for him to carry that weapon. The idea that YOU aren't ideologically driven is laughable though. You are up there with the most ideologically driven posters on here so that statement is a bit rich.

If you can find a post where I am presented with objective facts (like the specific wording of legislation) not opinion and yet still won't yield then your position might have some merit.

 

[deuse]

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.

 

[VincentHanna]

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.