Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[dowie]

I see what you are getting at. However then we are discussing what constitutes an update to a previous fact check from years ago.

That claim was still false when made in August 2020, and making that claim at that time still remains false as it was unproven and up for debate (as Politifact pointed out) at that time. A correction would surely only apply if it were found to have been wrong to call it false at that time and before it was proven to be "perfectly legal" (which I would contend it still isnt. Not "perfectly" at any rate- he got given the benefit of the doubt with a literal interpretation by the judge , who himself said it was unclear).

Just to clarify, I came into this by disputing the assertion by a poster that politifact " got it completely wrong", which just simply isn't true.

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.

 

[dowie]

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.

 

[dowie]

But the claim was that it was "perfectly legal" , which was false.

It's not, it's true! If it's false then why hasn't the 16 year old pictured above been arrested?

They even clarified at the end saying that at best it is unproven, which would still make asserting something was perfectly so, false.

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

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?

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.

That statement, at that time, was false, which politifact correctly pointed out. There is nothing for them to "correct".

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

 

[dowie]

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.

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.

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?

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 agree, and I also think that applies to Rittenhouse.

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.

 

[dowie]

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.

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.

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).

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.

 

[dowie]

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?

 

[dowie]

It will only be true when it's ruled upon or changed by those that have the power to change it.

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.

And even when/if that weapons, politifact will still have been correct to assert that Aug 2020 post as being false.

No, they were wrong, they just didn't know it. They should have expressed uncertainty and they should have later updated it.

 

[dowie]

A judge making an interpretation ruling on the charge on a statute he himself found unclear =/= making what Rittenhouse did perfectly legal.

Wrong. see here:

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.

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.

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.

 

[dowie]

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)

 

[dowie]

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.

 

[dowie]

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.

 

[dowie]

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.

 

[dowie]

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.

 

[dowie]

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.

 

[dowie]

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.

 

[dowie]

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.

 

[dowie]

Anyone see him on Tucker saying he supports BLM? Kid's on a speedrun to have the enture US hate him at this point!

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:




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:

 

[dowie]

Well the kid I was talking about was Nicholas Sandmann, you're talking about Kyle Rittenhouse doing an "Ok" sign which has absolutely nothing to do with white supremacy and was started by 4Chan to troll the media, which apparently worked because you're now repeating it without even looking into it.

It's incredible how that has been reported and then just repeated by various NPC types on social media as fact, the kid made the OK symbol in a photo, it's quite a leap to then conclude he's a white supremacist and rather misleading and inaccurate for people and outlets to spread the vague claim that he made a white supremacist gesture instead of reporting that he's made the OK sign and there has been some shaky claims that that must mean he's a white supremacist.

As an illustration of how dumb the claim is, look at all these other people making the "white supremacist" hand signal:

 

[dowie]

At what point does it move from being a meme started on 4chan to being an actual thing? When enough far right groups and racists use it then it really isn't just a meme any longer is it?

We can agree Brenton Tarrant is a far right racist? Or is he just trolling us? I don't think he was trolling those people in New Zealand.

I'm sure this neo nazi is lovely to his mum

And its used extensively on the Daily Stormer website which I won't link here. No one is going to try and argue that isn't an out and out right wing extremist racist website are they? Or are are they trolling us? I'm sure those images of Jews and people of colour they publish that we will just call "unflattering" is just trolling as well.

It’s kind of backwards though, they’re obvious white supremacists flashing the OK sign. They’re not people we now know are white supremacists because they used the OK sign. A sign which is so ubiquitous that, as already demonstrated, you can find photos of famous people and politicians using it.

It's not even like the swastica and it also being a Hindu symbol - in that case, it was widely associated with the Nazis across Europe. In this case, white supremacists are a tiny minority of people, if they choose to use something as a result of a prank it doesn't, therefore, follow that others using it are white supremacists...

 

[dowie]

You can argue this all you like dowie. Trying to claim it isn't a symbol now used by white supremacists and far right groups is simply wrong. They have adopted it. No it doesn't mean every person that uses it is using it in that context, where have I claimed that? In fact I stated the opposite of that. It isn't a binary thing, why are you attempting to make it one? People in this thread said it isn't used by white supremacists and that was a hoax. That is clearly wrong which is why I posted.

What are you talking about here? Why not address arguments I've actually made?

Where have I claimed they've not used it? You seem to have barely read my post, there is no denial there that they've used it do you want to read it properly and try again.