Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,666
I haven't suggested that it does.

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.

That's why I said "wording and intention", as in they don't logically work together.

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 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"

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)
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,525
Location
Surrey
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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,666
You also don't seem to understand the concept behind rulings on unclear statutes.

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)

You claimed that politifact were "completely wrong" , which is patently false.

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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,525
Location
Surrey
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.

You realise they have that meter right 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 was true therefore 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.

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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,666
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.

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.

B. It hasn't been proven to be not true. The judge chucking the charge =/= it being perfectly legal.

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:

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).

Sure enough, you assert "you don't understand X" then when questioned you can't elaborate.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2021
Posts
1,541
Location
Krypton
You 2 argue over the most inane ****! As to the claim, it would appear that as the charge was thrown out then yes it's perfectly legal to open carry a long barrel rifle regardless of the nuances of the law no?
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,666
You 2 argue over the most inane ****! As to the claim, it would appear that as the charge was thrown out then yes it's perfectly legal to open carry a long barrel rifle regardless of the nuances of the law no?

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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,525
Location
Surrey
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.

Nope. You still are conflating the charge being dropped, with making it perfectly legal.

That is not the case.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,525
Location
Surrey
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.

Because you were wrong with your claim about politifact and you should be called out on it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,525
Location
Surrey
I'm not though! It clearly is legal

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".
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,525
Location
Surrey
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.

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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,666
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".

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:

This isn't constructive though so I'm happy to agree to disagree lest you just carry on smashing the reply button all day.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
36,525
Location
Surrey
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
Joined
20 Aug 2019
Posts
2,114
Location
SW Florida
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.

The exception is clear.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,666
Anyone see him on Tucker saying he supports BLM? Kid's on a speedrun to have the enture US hate him at this point! :D

He's got a new buddy too, remember this guy who was smeared by the media then went on to win a bunch of lawsuits:


L5M4FME.jpg


Well he's reached out to Kyle, I suspect Kyle will be pursuing some civil suits against various media organisations and public figures soon enough:


NJpMy2J.png
 
Top Bottom