Well, it's clear you have nothing more interesting to offer as you've resorted to just using your favourite Internet buzz words again.
That's why I said "wording and intention", as in they don't logically work together.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Well, it's clear you have nothing more interesting to offer as you've resorted to just using your favourite Internet buzz words again.
That's why I said "wording and intention", as in they don't logically work together.
Fair point, it is, however, a big talking point on social media with people making that suggestion and as you mentioned it in here it's worth pointing out that it doesn't have much relevance to the case/right to sefl defence.
Doens't matter, this is the bit you're struggling with I think - that they might have only intended it to apply to hunting but then drafted it badly so that it provides broad exemptions is on them to correct, the law as it stands currently allows it.
They didn't, their truth meter is all the way over to the left and they dismissed the argument in favour (which was far stronger) and put all the emphasis on the argument against - it's clear bias but you can't admit it.
You keep on ignoring that they could and really should update it now it has been clearly resolved in court.
(apologies to everyone else for getting stuck in a Jono-hole here)
No, you clearly dont understand the concept between fact checking a comment made at a point time and how their corrections work.
You also don't seem to understand the concept behind rulings on unclear statutes.
You claimed that politifact "famously got it completely wrong" , which is patently false.
What concept - are you just throwing in some vague replies now or would you like to elaborate on this? (I presume you're going to avoid/deflect given your intentional vagueness)
It's not though. They clearly were wrong, it is true that it was perfectly legal for him to carry a rifle openly, they got that wrong, they dismissed the strong argument in support and stuck their meter all the way to the left and declared it false.
They have that meter to show when they believe something is partially true or unclear etc.. But beyond that we now know it was true, it was perfectly legal for him to carry a rifle and the defence were right about that all along.
That defence claim was true when they made the fact check (just because they didn't realise it or properly acknowledge the argument doens't make it not true) they simply got it wrong.
They incorrectly accepted the prosecution claim as true, put all the weight on it and didn't properly acknowledge the defence claim, dismissed the argument against it as some weak hunting related argument.
A. The claim was that the assertion it was "perfectly legal" was false. It obviously wasn't deemed to be perfectly legal, due to the amount of dispute over it and the fact that the literal wording undermines the intention of the statute (creating a logical problem), which even the judge acknowledged was unclear.
B. It hasn't been proven to be not true. The judge chucking the charge =/= it being perfectly legal.
Until its actually settled (by those that actually can), it won't be perfectly legal. It will remain a legal grey area.
False, it was perfectly legal, you're basing an argument now on the judge taking his time to carefully make a decision. which doens't negate that it is true that it was legal for Kyle to open carry a long rifle.
You're ignoring why the judge chucked the charge... because the law allows a 17-year-old to open carry a long barrelled rifle, this was literally acknowledged in court.
And what a surprise here:
Sure enough, you assert "you don't understand X" then when questioned you can't elaborate.
Yes, but Jono is deciding to argue that point for [reasons], just as he was clinging onto the most tenuous of things said in court by the prosecution earlier on.
He'll call "bingo" for this but I think it's just a coping mechanism or something.
Nope. You still are conflating the charge being dropped, with making it perfectly legal.
That is not the case.
Nope, that the law allows it makes it perfectly legal.
Because you were wrong with your claim about politifact and you should be called out on it.
I'm not though! It clearly is legal, Politifact has been rightfully panned for their stance here.
Nope. Its still unclear what the law on this matter actually is.
LOL, no!
This isn't constructive though so I'm happy to agree to disagree lest you just carry on smashing the reply button all day.
As has been.pointed out. It clearly isn't. You are relying on a purely literal interpretation of the law. That is not the only interpretation possible to the bench. The judge in this case did give the benefit of the doubt in this case and ruled on a literal interpretation.However that does not settle the matter on whether the action itself is "perfectly legal".
I would be inclined to wait until it has been properly sorted out before making claims that politifact were completely wrong.
I'm sure it will likely be looked at in due course due to the publicity it has gotten.
Jono, I don't think anyone cares at this point, you've made your point over and over again and I disagree for the reasons I've posted over and over again... you're just replying for the sake of replying now and it's getting a bit silly so I'd suggest just stopping for the sake of the thread:
Fine.
Associate
The exception is clear.
Soldato
Anyone see him on Tucker saying he supports BLM? Kid's on a speedrun to have the enture US hate him at this point! 