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.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
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.
Yup, which would be very ironic given that is what is being protested against.
Yep like what happened with Rittenhouse.
Really walking around like that is just looking and hoping for trouble.
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.
But the claim was that it was "perfectly legal" , which was false. They even clarified at the end saying that at best it is unproven, which would still make asserting something was perfectly so, false. The claim wasn't "its quite likely that Rittenhouse will have been found to be within the literal wording of the law". That claim wouldn't have been false.
How on earth can you think you are correct about this, when a seasoned Wisconsin judge found it unclear and took ages deciding how to rule on it? If it was "perfectly legal" back in August 2020 surely the judge would have immediately chucked the charge and stated it the law was perfectly clear?
That statement, at that time, was false, which politifact correctly pointed out. There is nothing for them to "correct".
It's not, it's true! If it's false then why hasn't the 16 year old pictured above been arrested?
Yes, see the bit of my post where I acknowledge that they give a brief mention to then dismiss the obvious dispute which was the stronger argument and stuck their truth meter all the way to the left
The judge did chuck the charge though, the defense argued it in court and it was chucked because... it was perfectly legal for Kyle to carry the rifle.
The statement now is clearly shown to be true, they could update it. At the time it was disputed, albeit it seems like a pretty convincing case that it was true when the law is actually examined yet they put the needle all the way over to the left
No one is saying not to read the whole statute. The issue is that the wording in those exceptions undermines the statute itself and renders it quite absurd. It would then be prudent to take into consideration the intent of the statute.
Of its so 100% clear and perfect why did the judge (who will know far more about all of this than any of us) have such a hard time with it and express that it wasn't clear?
I agree, and I also think that applies to Rittenhouse.
It's all the way to the left because the claim was that it was "perfectly legal" when it was clearly heavily debatable and unclear. Again, the judge himself found it unclear.
But that statement was not true at the time of writing. What they were claiming was false, was the assertion that it was "perfectly legal" , which was false because the statute was clearly contested/unclear (and in legal terms still is).
That isn't how the law works, if it is clearly allowed as it has been drafted then you can't just overrule that by claiming they intended to not draft it like that.
Because it is badly drafted, note the posted didn't say the legislation is 100% clear in the quote of his that you use, you've seemingly inserted that yourself. The legislation seems to be badly drafted but does indeed provide the exceptions the defence have argued and it is indeed perfectly legal for Kyle to have carried that rifle.
the correct thing to do would have been perhaps to express some uncertainty, not declare it to be false and then to update and acknowledge that it is indeed legal.
I also think that applies to the rioters, even more so. Though it's kinda irrelevant, none of that affects the right to self defence.
So they shouldn't state with such certainty that it's false then! There was a strong argument in favour of the claim which they've dismissed with some handwaving re: hunting, they should have properly acknowledged that and left it as disputed then update it to True when the charges were chucked.
It was true though, they just didn't realise it. The point is though it's clearly shown to be true now ergo they should update the fact check.
But it was deemed false, because of the assertion of it being "perfectly legal". That was false, and will remain to have been false at the time of writing.
No that was true and has shown to be true in court. The defence have asserted that it was legal all along and they were shown to be correct; it is perfectly legal.
They should have at least expressed uncertainty about it instead of completely dismissing the strong argument in favour and they should have updated it now.
Why are you so opposed to them updating it? Why are you happy with them putting all the weight on one side of the argument?
It will only be true when it's ruled upon or changed by those that have the power to change it.
And even when/if that weapons, politifact will still have been correct to assert that Aug 2020 post as being false.
What's amusing is the girl is a righty and yet she has a Walkie talkie right where the rifle butt would go if she was to use her weapon - to use another posters favourite word - they are a pair of larp'ersWell 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.
It is true! The defence have argued that all along and they were right as shown in court. the law didn't change, it was there all along, the defence argued that it allows for the open carry of a long-barreled rifle by Kyle and they were correct. that law was in place at the time of the fact check.
No, they were wrong, they just didn't know it. They should have expressed uncertainty and they should have later updated it.
A judge making an interpretation ruling on the charge on a statute he himself found unclear =/= making what Rittenhouse did perfectly legal. It gives him the benefit of the doubt with a literal interpretation, so he had the charged dropped, sure. However it doesn't mean a judge in a future case won't rule differently on the disputed wording and intention of that statute.
Wrong. see here:
LOL and there it is, another massive cope... I'm sure the DA's office will love to waste more time in court charging another teenager with carrying a long-barreled rifle given the egg on face suffered when a judge has already shown them the law allows it...
The wording isn't disputed btw.. and that the legislators might have intended something else is for them to address.
They did. Their fact check is literally saying there is uncertainty (which is why the assertion that it was "perfectly legal") was false.
The fact check itself is saying: "No, that's not right. You can't claim it is "perfectly legal" as it is unproven at the moment and disputed"