Soldato
Lol. Lawyer complaining about the law being applied correctly
I clearly watched too much Firefly as I freaked out when I saw the blue hands…
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
I clearly watched too much Firefly as I freaked out when I saw the blue hands…
Law seems pretty clear. The total length of the gun was over (whatever the length as specified in the law is) as measured by the lawyers. Therefore there was no crime.
Explain whats grey in that.
Associate
I agree, the argument is the exemption is around hunting and it is understood this is the intent, but the law only hints at this and doesn’t explicitly say it.
Looks like the jury has asked to review the instructions re: self-defence... wonder if there are one or two Jono types on the jury, that could make things a bit difficult for them.
The defence made clear that they weren't arguing their point based on any hunting exemptions, they managed to avoid that -I thought they were attempting that ergo assumed it was going to be a slam dunk for the prosecution but the law is so badly drafter that 17 years old + 16+inch barrel on the rifle = legal too even if they intended for people to be 18 or over. Rittenhouse knew this and was arguing it on the stand also stating that it would have been illegal for him to have a pistol which he agreed would have been more practical as a "medic".
The defence made clear that they weren't arguing their point based on any hunting exemptions, they managed to avoid that -I thought they were attempting that ergo assumed it was going to be a slam dunk for the prosecution but the law is so badly drafter that 17 years old + 16+inch barrel on the rifle = legal too even if they intended for people to be 18 or over. Rittenhouse knew this and was arguing it on the stand also stating that it would have been illegal for him to have a pistol which he agreed would have been more practical as a "medic".
It was you that didn't understand the concept remember.
Man of Honour
What didn't I understand exactly? Please do go ahead and be specific...
All I've asked you for is where you're going with one argument and what your argument is to back up assertions you made. That's got nothing to do with lack of understanding of anything else, you just repeatedly deflect/evade/avoid those sorts of challenges.
Trying to remind them it's the letter of the law that matters and not the trial by social media cranks.
Regardless of intent, the law was applied correctly as per the letter of the law, no grey area in that, if they need to update it now after the fact, then they should, but they cant change the letter of the law just to ensure a conviction.
Associate
without digging up the statute, as I’m on my phone. This rule about length was part of an exemption.
to put it simply it was a “and, or, or,or” situation where the order of application results in a confusing outcome.
the length of firearm was the last bit.
i.e it’s 18 and over, except in these situations where it’s now 16… as long as the firearm is not short.
Last edited:
Associate
this was exactly my point. You can’t be asked to Answer an ambiguous law.
Ah I miss-understood your post then.
Soldato
Is that meant to be neutral? I just watched 15 minutes of it and they've already mentioned that right wing lawyers are better because they think, that left wing lawyers are inferior. They aren't even pretending to be neutral. its just an attack the left channel
Man of Honour
They did admit to being "far right" when I tuned in to the stream, so yeah there is an element of bias, but I'm glossing past that side of things and only focusing on the factual parts of their discussion, which is the parts that I find interesting 
Regardless of far right or left, both sides have logical discussions!
I should add that whilst Pakman might not be as informed as these lawyers, Pakman is more objective and will go against what is generally questionable/wrong where applicable whether right or left. Highlight issues from either side and present a logical opinion.
One of the reasons I tune into Pakman, Bryan Tyler Cohen and TYT to some extent too. They're not afraid to point fingers at bad actors and call them out from either field. We need a UK version of these three because what we currently have in terms of political commentary isn't as effective but maybe our British nature just doesn't gel to this type of commentary as it does in the USA?
Regardless of far right or left, both sides have logical discussions!
I should add that whilst Pakman might not be as informed as these lawyers, Pakman is more objective and will go against what is generally questionable/wrong where applicable whether right or left. Highlight issues from either side and present a logical opinion.
One of the reasons I tune into Pakman, Bryan Tyler Cohen and TYT to some extent too. They're not afraid to point fingers at bad actors and call them out from either field. We need a UK version of these three because what we currently have in terms of political commentary isn't as effective but maybe our British nature just doesn't gel to this type of commentary as it does in the USA?
Last edited:
Is that meant to be neutral? I just watched 15 minutes of it and they've already mentioned that right wing lawyers are better because they think, that left wing lawyers are inferior. They aren't even pretending to be neutral. its just an attack the left channel
just look at the channel's other videos
Soldato
They did admit to being "far right" when I tuned in to the stream, so yeah there is an element of bias, but I'm glossing past that side of things and only focusing on the factual parts of their discussion, which is the parts that I find interesting
Regardless of far right or left, both sides have logical discussions!
If there was left and right on there than you have a discussion. That was just them ranting about the left in their own little echo chamber. Sorry but when people wear their politics on their sleeve like that I find it hard to believe they are actually being impartial. They clearly have an agenda.