Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

Concrete said:
Ok, let me be honest. You posted a load of conspiracy nonsense
Click to expand...

What's the CT that he's pushing? (genuine question as I've not been following the thread)

unrelated articles, opinion pieces and single instance examples from a load biased sources
Click to expand...

That's not really a valid criticism, every media source has a bias, it's whether it's a significant bias or not but more importantly, is if they are rated a factual source or not. And from that list they all seem fairly respected publications for factual reporting. And one of them is even a right leaning publication.

packaging it up to make it look like a coherent version of events, when its not.
Click to expand...

Ok, you've just made a statement of opinion, but I don't see anything backing it up? Which is fairly ironic since you've just asked him to

Admittedly this isn't SC, but common, at least try and make an effort to back up your claims.
Click to expand...

Again, which I find odd, since he has provided a link to every source he listed.....so what is he supposed to do to 'back up his claim' apart from link to the sources of the articles he posted?
 
Freakbro said:
What's the CT that he's pushing? (genuine question as I've not been following the thread)



That's not really a valid criticism, every media source has a bias, it's whether it's a significant bias or not but more importantly, is if they are rated a factual source or not. And from that list they all seem fairly respected publications for factual reporting. And one of them is even a right leaning publication.



Ok, you've just made a statement of opinion, but I don't see anything backing it up? Which is fairly ironic since you've just asked him to



Again, which I find odd, since he has provided a link to every source he listed.....so what is he supposed to do to 'back up his claim' apart from link to the sources of the articles he posted?
Click to expand...


To get straight to the point, the FBI did not state anything listed in the tweet. None of the articles then listed did anything to remotely provide sufficient evidence that they did.

Its drivel being circulated around the same old echo chambers, trying to get people riled up over something that did not happen.
 
I don’t think it’s obvious at all that all charges will fail to stick. Also it seems obvious to say that on one hand he’s acted in self defence and on the other hand he’s been reckless.

The lawyer video needs to be watched with some skepticism too, Fox News is as bad at questioning that narrative as other media etc.. has been at questioning the views of people claiming this kid is some white supremacist or random mass shooter etc...

Firstly re: not arresting the handgun guy it can be true that both the kid had he were both legally covered re: their actions with firearms. Ergo that he’s not been charged is a bit meh... of course prosecutors are political there but I suspect he has a decent legal argument for his actions.

Having said that the cultural criticism from polarised people gets a bit inconsistent, Kyle shouldn’t have been there etc... well yes, it’s nuts, neither should the handgun guy, he’s another lunatic out with a firearm at night and he’s arguably there for rather more antisocial purposes!

I’d leave open that Kyle might go down for manslaughter but realistically I can’t see how they won’t be able to throw in plenty of “reasonable doubt” when it comes to these homicide charges... and given the prominence of the case they’ll have multiple attempts, even if by some chance they can’t convince a jury it will no doubt go to appeal.

The weapons charge seems a bit different - note the lawyer doesn’t give much detail there (and of course in good old polarised US TV News style the host, Tucker, just plays dumb), seems like the main defence could be a bit of a reach - i.e. something about him being 16-18 and with an adult etc... But they have a second approach, lawyer sounds like he’s going to go hard on the 2nd amendment somehow, already painting this as facing armed insurrection, god given right to self defence etc.. Potentially plenty of interest there from gun lobby etc... Bit that also seems like the charge most likely to stick out of the current ones.
 
Zatoichi.uK said:
If the woman walking home from a club at 2am didn't do so she wouldn't have been raped?

It's so much more complex than that though. People don't want to stand by and see their business literally burnt to the ground by an angry mob. This isn't unreasonable and people have rightly taken a stand. I'm not sure how I feel about a 17 year old doing what he did but many things have lead to these kinds of outcomes. When the alternative is to stand by and do nothing, that isn't a choice some are willing to make.
Click to expand...

If the rapist stayed at home then nothing will happen to this girl. Same principle applies.

Yes I agree something wrong with this young boy.
 
Regarding the lawyers "militia" claim - The 6th Charge is - possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 - which the charge sheet says violates "948.60(2)(a) and 939.51(3)(a) Wis Stats" and it becomes a "State vs Federal" law issue, where the Federal law under Amendment 2A for militias may have been over-ridden by state laws (which isn't allowed to happen), and that is the issue that needs resolving - Do these specific state laws over-ride Federal laws?

For clarity, the state laws that the shooter has been charged with violating are these -

Law said:
  • 948.60(2)(a) - This states "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
  • 939.51(3)(a) - This states the level of punishment allowed to be given for the above violation.
Click to expand...

However 948.60(2)(a) has 3 caveats which may have an impact on the case -

Law said:
"This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."
Click to expand...

and these are -

Law said:
  • "941.28 - Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle" - The shooter was not in possession of a "Short Barrelled rifle or Shotgun" so this is invalid in this case.
  • "29.304 - Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age" - The shooter was 17 so this is invalid in this case.
  • "29.593 - Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval" - This however appears valid, despite claims to the contrary that "even though allowing rifles for under 18's is meant for hunting it isn't specifically mentioned".
Click to expand...

There are a group of 4 caveats within statute 29.593 which allow someone under 18 to not require a "hunting License" but I believe that none of these will apply to the shooter -

Law said:
  • "29.593(2) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an approval authorizing hunting." - Not valid in this case.
  • "29.593(2m) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a bow hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an archer hunting license or crossbow hunting license." - Not valid in this case.
  • "29.593(3) A person who successfully completes basic training in the U.S. armed forces, reserves or national guard may obtain an approval authorizing hunting." - Not valid in this case.
  • "29.592 - Hunting mentorship program." - Not valid in this case.
Click to expand...

Based on my reading of 29.593 I would say that, despite the shooters lawyer claiming the he was part of a "militia" that will not be able to be proven conclusively the shooter will be found guilty of violating 29.593, which gives a maximum of a 9 month sentence.

These statutes can all be found here - https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/ - for those who want to read them themselves.
 
ianh said:
despite the shooters lawyer claiming the he was part of a "militia" that will not be able to be proven conclusively
Click to expand...

Depends what the proof required is - whether it needs actual "membership" of a militia - there is police cam footage of him with other citizens as a group acting as a militia - which would be all that is required to satisfy the spirit of federal law.
 
ianh said:
Regarding the lawyers "militia" claim - The 6th Charge is - possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 - which the charge sheet says violates "948.60(2)(a) and 939.51(3)(a) Wis Stats" and it becomes a "State vs Federal" law issue, where the Federal law under Amendment 2A for militias may have been over-ridden by state laws (which isn't allowed to happen), and that is the issue that needs resolving - Do these specific state laws over-ride Federal laws?

For clarity, the state laws that the shooter has been charged with violating are these -



However 948.60(2)(a) has 3 caveats which may have an impact on the case -



and these are -



There are a group of 4 caveats within statute 29.593 which allow someone under 18 to not require a "hunting License" but I believe that none of these will apply to the shooter -



Based on my reading of 29.593 I would say that, despite the shooters lawyer claiming the he was part of a "militia" that will not be able to be proven conclusively the shooter will be found guilty of violating 29.593, which gives a maximum of a 9 month sentence.

These statutes can all be found here - https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/ - for those who want to read them themselves.
Click to expand...


They won't even bother with all that as it's a misdemeanor.
Not worth taking to court.

And if they did he will get time served...so again...no point.
 
The Running Man said:
But what if the rapist did go out but the woman shot him before he could rape her?

Thats more akin to this story, are you saying the woman shouldn't shoot an attacker?
Click to expand...

It's not about whether to shoot or not. It's about the young boy who should be staying at home. Let the police do their jobs.
 
I love threads like these, more people to add to the ignore list :D

I mean maybe next time there is going to be a Charlottesville march by Nazi's and the KKK I will go there, get close to them, get pushed and shoved and perhaps in return I will throw a few grenades in their direction to protect myself.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I love threads like these, more people to add to the ignore list :D

I mean maybe next time there is going to be a Charlottesville march by Nazi's and the KKK I will go there, get close to them, get pushed and shoved and perhaps in return I will throw a few grenades in their direction to protect myself.
Click to expand...

If those grenades kill a wife beater and a rapist I'm not sure anyone would complain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom