Utopia Talk / Politics / WI V Rittenhouse III

Habebe Member	Sat Nov 13 09:22:24 Yup.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 13 09:30:09 Jergul, Rosenbaum AFAIK** only tried to kill and or rape kyle, no one else that night.Thats why he got shot. You just seem angry that people are generally allowed walk around armed. The kids a little douchey , but you contempt for him is both blatant and unbecoming. Should they have shot him? Well, its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. But they also would have been alive if they didn't try to assault the guy. Their mindset is important.But these are hypothetical. In reality all 3 initiated violence.Kyle never did.
Forwyn Member	Sat Nov 13 09:31:57 "Yes, it was actually a crime. Rittenhouse was carrying illegally." And no one not checking IDs would know that. "Rosenbaum, the crazy guy that nobody but Rittenhouse thought needed to be killed? That Rosenbaum?" You retard. You can't tell the difference between posturing in a crowd at a gas station and jumping someone on a dark street. ROFL
jergul large member	Sat Nov 13 09:38:08 Rittenhouse a douche is your words, not mine. Rittenhouse was not an active shooter from the perspective of two people he shot? I think it is fine that people walk around armed if that is the kind of society you want to live in. It does create irregularities. You say you shoot snakes. Are you even legally allowed to do that? Or would you legally be allowed to claim self-defense with a weapon as even arming yourself is a felony? My point is that just because you are habituated to conservatives being armed more than liberals does not mean either play by different rules. An active shooter is an active shooter. No matter the reason he pulled the trigger. An armed response in a crowd situation is to be expected. The self-defense of one does not limit the self-defense of others. The case is stupid. Rittenhouse should have been shot, not confronted without shooting. He had an AR for God's sake.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 13 09:42:28 Forwyn You said it was not a crime to open carry. In this case it was. Getting "jumped in the dark" by a crazy guy who had been running around screaming and raving all evening seems an odd narrative to push. I guess we should check the video of a reporter who noticed the lunatic easily enough. Still, all it did is turn Rittenhouse into an active shooter. Dangerous those active shooters in a crowd context.
Forwyn Member	Sat Nov 13 09:48:52 "You said it was not a crime to open carry." Your premise was that open nature by itself is a threat and should be responded to with immediate shootings. Clearly it is not. That he was three months away from his birthday is largely irrelevant to your premise, and not a valid modifier to a threat status. "Getting "jumped in the dark" by a crazy guy who had been running around screaming and raving all evening seems an odd narrative to push. I guess we should check the video of a reporter who noticed the lunatic easily enough." Not odd at all. Drone video captured Rittenhouse hiding behind the car. Original footage shows the juke after Rittenhouse lunged from the car, because the reporter was filming Rittenhouse running toward the fire. What it did not capture was Ziminski right behind them, except for the pistol shot in the air, which he was arrested for. None of the other fellows were put in that situation, so the comparable is retarded, as usual.
Forwyn Member	Sat Nov 13 09:49:22 Original footage shows the juke after Rosenbaum lunged from the car*
jergul large member	Sat Nov 13 09:56:44 Forwyn Nope, what I said was that open carrying ARs is inherently dangerous because the decision to use the weapon rests entirely on the mindset of the person holding it. How far does your trust go? How far does it go if the person with the AR just shot someone in a crowd context? It actually does matter that people not allowed to open carry dont do it. We all know that inmaturity was a factor in the shooting (he is years away from a fully developed brain and inpulse control development finishes last) All kinds of older guys had guns. None of them shot anyone. But perhaps you would see the point better with a felon who open carries. Still, my point is only that Rittenhouse should have been shot, not confronted. Confronting an active shooter with an AR is stupid. Funny that you have trouble seeing that.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Nov 13 11:02:42 If you defund the police, you must accept Rittenhouse running around with an AR. Jergul does not get this.
Forwyn Member	Sat Nov 13 11:29:44 jergul large member Sat Nov 13 08:53:07 Or what do you think people should do. Let roaming ARs walk around until they put themselves in a situation where they "feel" threatened? "We all know that inmaturity was a factor in the shooting (he is years away from a fully developed brain and inpulse control" And yet, three months is largely irrelevant on a seven year timeline. Again, the legality here is minuscule and arbitrary, and no one there had any reason to assume he was outside of the law. For the majority of the night, he was calm and providing aid and extinguishing fires. Unlike the aggressor. "All kinds of older guys had guns. None of them shot anyone." Different individual tactics set the stage, not impulse control. Clearly Rosenbaum could have used a bit more. I have zero doubt that a forty year would have shot Rosenbaum if he tried to jump him from a hiding spot while his friend drew and fired a gun right behind them. "Funny that you have trouble seeing that." I have said, maybe before you, that Gaige would likely walk if he shot Kyle after the Huber shot.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 13 11:46:00 Sammy To me, "defund the police" is all about threatening to restructure if police unions do not give on legacy collective agreements that provide immunity to charges in cases of police wrongdoing. Shutting down a police force clears the slate. The new force would have to negotiate new agrements with local government. It probably means something else to you, but why not embrace the union bashing inherent to the idea? Forwyn Did he actually provide aid and put out fires? And why for God's sake did he wander off alone if impulse control was not an issue? Doing that was also illegal btw. The trial excluded some evidence that he was not actually in a calm mindset overall. Then what are we arguing about if you think he could have been put down legally?
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 13 19:27:27 I see people arguing the pinch and zoom from the IPad ruling was either unfair or because the defense/judge didn't understand it. These people need to familiarize themselves with US legal proceedings better. For those that claim its unfair because the prosecution used something similar, then why didn't the prosecution object? That's a failing ofnthe prosecution. For the ones who argue they just don't understand the tech, in order to submit it to evidence the prosecution should have an expert to explain it. Their expert blatantly said under oath that he doesn't know how the algorithm would work. This is a fault of the prosecution to not meet basic legal standards. If you tell a judge that your going to alter the footage in an unknown manner you done fucked up. Not to mention that the witnesses for thw prosecution seem to be the most helpful for the defense.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 13 19:28:44 ", "defund the police" is all about threatening to restructure if police unions do not give on legacy collective agreements that provide immunity to charges in cases of police wrongdoing. Shutting down" So we all agree public sector unions are to blame.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 13 19:58:14 Habebe No. There are things in some collective agreements that should not be there. For example measures that directly intefer with criminal investigations. "Defund" is not getting rid of police. It is getting rid of the baggage attached to longstanding police forces. Shut one police force down and start up an new one is the nuclear option. Policeman unions have started to see the light and have rolled back on the most abusive protections of their members.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 13 21:33:30 Its almost as if the unions have conspired against the public in favor of their own self interest.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 13 21:33:31 Its almost as if the unions have conspired against the public in favor of their own self interest.
kargen Member	Sat Nov 13 21:43:15 "Or what do you think people should do. Let roaming ARs walk around until they put themselves in a situation where they "feel" threatened?" That is pretty much the condition of self defense. If you can get away you do. If you can't get away and you fear death or bodily harm you get to defend yourself. The two that died are dead because of their actions. They put the wheels in motion that caused their deaths. Same for the injured person. " Rittenhouse was carrying illegally." Turns out, no he wasn't. At 17 you can carry a shotgun or rifle. "Taking out a threat when you feel threatened is also not a crime." Exactly and that is why it looks like Rittenhouse is likely to be acquitted of all charges. "Like I said, dont fuck around with an AR guy you think shot someone." Here that attitude is what gets you 40 years. What I quoted was all from the other thread. I'm sure jergul has been spouting off nonsense here as well. I'll have to read it later.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 13 21:52:26 Kargen You seem to have huge issues following the argument I made. I am starting to understand your more than passing familiarity with early stages of dementia. How here is an idea. don't snippet out parts of an argument to seem smert. It makes you look demented. Literally.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 13 21:56:26 Kargen "Rittenhouse was not an active shooter from the perspective of two people he shot? I think it is fine that people walk around armed if that is the kind of society you want to live in. It does create irregularities. You say you shoot snakes. Are you even legally allowed to do that? Or would you legally be allowed to claim self-defense with a weapon as even arming yourself is a felony? My point is that just because you are habituated to conservatives being armed more than liberals does not mean either play by different rules. An active shooter is an active shooter. No matter the reason he pulled the trigger. An armed response in a crowd situation is to be expected. The self-defense of one does not limit the self-defense of others. The case is stupid. Rittenhouse should have been shot, not confronted without shooting. He had an AR for God's sake." Since you were struggling with my argument. As to a 17 year old legally carrying the AR. Link please. You are contradicting earlier references to Wisconsin penal code. So what exception have you found?
kargen Member	Sun Nov 14 01:30:51 The law states in Wisconsin a 17 year old can possess/carry a rifle or shotgun. An AR15 is a rifle. Rittenhouse was 17. It was legal for him to have that gun. Might not have been smart but the court is deciding legal or not. How smart it was doesn't apply in a legal decision. You are correct we all play by the same rules. Those rules being if your life is threatened or if you feel your life is threatened you can defend yourself. If you have to chase someone running away from you to confront them your life is not threatened. Yes an active shooter is an active shooter. That statement would be akin to if we were talking about our favorite beer and you said an apple is an apple. An active shooter is an active shooter. Rittenhouse was not an active shooter. That incident ended when the first person went down and Rittenhouse left the scene. Not knowing what happened in that first shooting the other two can't just assume Rittenhouse is on a shooting spree. You are also correct that the self defense of one does not limit the self defense of others. Not pertinent though because Rittenhouse was trying to flee other people not confront them with deadly force. That is why they had to chase him instead of ducking for cover. You don't have to chase someone that isn't trying to get away from you. The Wisconsin law says persons under 18 may not carry a weapon and describes many weapons including guns. But in that paragraph it says with the following exceptions. One exception is 16-17 can carry a shotgun or rifle. Twelve to fifteen can have a weapon when accompanied by an adult. When hunting different rules apply. If a person has passed the Hunters Safety program they get different rules applied. There is a whole list of exemptions. The judge mentioned the exemption that applies in one of his exchanges with the prosecuting attorney. The press has gone out of their way to cite the law but they do not provide the exceptions. Sorry I butthurt you by using your own words from the other thread to point out how stupid your argument is. This time I didn't quote you but your argument is still fucking stupid. Why the emphasis on the "AR"? It was a rifle. The law doesn't differentiate other than auto and semi-auto. It was a gun he could legally carry. People like to throw AR out there because they think that makes it worse. Those people usually know nothing of guns. I was of the impression you knew something about guns.
kargen Member	Sun Nov 14 01:35:37 I couldn't help myself. "You seem to have huge issues following the argument I made." No I followed your argument which is actually quite amazing considering how convoluted and asinine it was. And again sorry I used your own words to make your argument look stupid earlier in the thread.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 14 06:48:03 Kargen You are claiming the hunting exemption to the 18 year old law. It does not apply. He carried the AR illegally. Kargen: "I am butthurt and stupid" I used your own words to make you look stupid. Me smert Dont cherry pick. It is inherently dishonest.
Habebe Member	Sun Nov 14 11:09:04 I was under the impression that the state had to prove that kyles barrel was unlawfully short. But I'm not certain. I feel its normal for 12 year olds and older to regularly use long guns. That's usually the age you can take a hunters safety course/gun safety course. FYI btw, most gun safety courses will say that if someone tries to take your gun , you should eitger flee or shoot.
Habebe Member	Sun Nov 14 11:42:39 http://www...break-law-carrying-assault-st/ Now politifact states that Kyle broke the law. At one point they clean it up and say state law suggests that. However politifact is like left wing breitbart. ----- "The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Friday said he'll instruct the jury that unless the state proved the teen's AR-15-style rifle had an unlawfully short barrel, he can't be convicted of being a minor in possession of a firearm." This is a statement from a local news article. Assuming the judge did say this, it seems pretty open and shut. I'll post a link in a few secs.
Habebe Member	Sun Nov 14 11:43:08 http://amp.jsonline.com/amp/8588970002
Habebe Member	Sun Nov 14 11:50:01 Am I the only one here though that thinks the prosecution has done a terrible job? 1. The image debacle and a terrible expert. 2. Trying to sneak in a proud boys link aftwr the judge denied it. 3. They have had the absolute worst series of witnesses gathered in history. 3a. One testified that they tried to get him to illegally change his testimony. 3B. Gaige admitted that Kyle didn't shoot until he had a loaded pistol pointed at hia head. To which The prosecutor literally did a face slap. Probably a few more fuck ups. Of they were the defense, Id argue he deserves a new trial due to gross negligence.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Nov 14 14:53:46 I have no idea why you guys would keep making threads and discuss what was clear from the first fucking day when we could see the entire chain of events on video. Whatever else that had been going wrong for weeks as people rioted, burning and looting stuff, beating and intimidating ordinary people on the streets - while municiple and state authorities across the USA backed down - forcing the hands of militia groups to bring their own brand of stupidity into the mix, the kid acted in self defence. The end. You don’t have to like him, what he stands for or anything. This is yet another chapter in the culture war narrative. The more conspiratorial side of me would cosider this another chapter in the playbook of the Deep State to keep people bickering and divided over nonsense.
kargen Member	Sun Nov 14 15:00:14 "You are claiming the hunting exemption to the 18 year old law. It does not apply. He carried the AR illegally." The hunting exemption is only one of many.
kargen Member	Sun Nov 14 15:06:23 "I used your own words to make you look stupid. Me smert" Except you didn't you dishonest hack. I quoted you directly. You pulled a few words out your ass and then claimed a quote. You really are a sore loser.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 14 16:10:44 Both words you wrote. Taking things out of context is bad, see? What other exemption are you referring to? The active self-defense criteria thing the defense is trying to argue? I would laugh if that goes through. Yay armed felons with their right to active self-defense.
Forwyn Member	Sun Nov 14 18:05:42 "Yay armed felons with their right to active self-defense." This is true, of course. If a felon defends his home against intruders with a weapon, his self-defense claim can be sustained, with weapons charges to follow.
kargen Member	Sun Nov 14 18:34:10 "Both words you wrote. Taking things out of context is bad, see?" But the quote is not mine. I didn't alter your words nor put other words between. I quoted you exactly as you posted with no filler. You took to random words and constructed a new sentence. That isn't a quote. I shouldn't have to tell you that.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Nov 14 19:10:26 If the laws were enforced and the left-wing stopped coddling criminals and encouraging crime, then all this self defense wouldnt be necessary.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 14 19:22:54 Kargen Its like you are almost starting to see that removing context is bad. Sammy Exactly. Coddling criminals and encouraging crime what I think will lead to even more self defense. Self-defense without confronting active shooters in a crowd context, but rather just putting them down with a round or two.
kargen Member	Sun Nov 14 21:41:57 I see you don't know what a quote is and you are bitter because you were called out for having an asinine opinion.
jergul large member	Sun Nov 14 22:01:17 Kargen Yet you have not called me out on my opinion. Just on snippets taken out of context. I reposted my actual view for your convenience. Expansive self-defense use begets expansive self-defense use. I think you are having trouble coming to terms with liberals owning and using guns on the same premises as conservatives. I eagerly await your comments when a liberal kills an active shooter some time soon.
Habebe Member	Sun Nov 14 23:12:43 Jergul/Kargen, In the matter of illegal possession of the forearm by Kyle Rittenhouse. Are you arguing that 1. You beleive the charge will stick/drop. 2. That the charge in your opinion SHOULD stay or drop? It's a big difference.I would argue that it seems all bit certain it will be a dropped and he will be innocent.I also think that is the just ans fair decision. The judge has said he will insctruct the jury that for him to be found guilty the barrel must be shown to be illegally short. Now I personally would also argue that I think that is the just decision fore a few reasons, for starters all other crimes he has been charged as an adult, except one it charges him as a minor. He was either acting in the capacity of a minor or an adult, he isn't Schroedingers Kyle. Now as a legal argument the judge had said he spent hours going over it and he had a law education.He noted he was unsure how an average person could tell*****that is super telling. If the law appears ambiguous , then it should be bent in favor of the defendant.Thats not a moral argument but a legal one dating back far before the USA ever existed. The law of lenity is a well known English common law principle.Basically it says of the law is ambiguous that it bends in favor of the defendant.
kargen Member	Mon Nov 15 03:16:36 "Expansive self-defense use begets expansive self-defense use." I understand what you are trying to say. What you are trying to say doesn't apply here. Even if Rittenhouse didn't shoot the first person in self defense the two others can't claim self defense in chasing him down and trying to do bodily harm. It doesn't work that way. "Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant. (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense." You can't chase a person down and then claim self defense.
kargen Member	Mon Nov 15 03:20:11 "Now as a legal argument the judge had said he spent hours going over it and he had a law education.He noted he was unsure how an average person could tell*****that is super telling. If the law appears ambiguous , then it should be bent in favor of the defendant.Thats not a moral argument but a legal one dating back far before the USA ever existed." That is a big part of why I am saying he was not illegally carrying a firearm. I was unaware there may be a question about length. If the barrel was long enough he had every right to carry that weapon as the law is written.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 15 06:05:55 habebe I am saying neither 1 or 2. Its such a small charge compared to the others. I am saying that "kyle did nothing illegal" is incorrect. It may matter for the civic trials, but not the criminal one. Kargen Kyle did not have a legal right to carry a firearm. He was 17 and only allowed to do so under circumstances that did not apply. The law is not ambigious. And neither is the judge. Surely you realize he has a strong bias towards the defendant? There is no duty to retreat versus an active shooter in a crowd context.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Nov 15 07:04:22 Thread 2: http://uto...hread=88846&time=1636968011411 .. [Nimatzo]: "I have no idea why you guys would keep making threads and discuss what was clear from the first fucking day" Pretty much entirely because of the propagandists and their hold on the public consciousness. I said it before, but this would have been a total non-issue if charges had been dropped against Rittenhouse in the days after the riots, but they weren't. DNC propaganda wanted to spin the story for political points, and the result was that people like jergul and Seb *still* spread misinformation which was debunked more than a year ago. .. [nhill]: "Rittenfag is not admirable because he was doing it to virtue-signal and look for trouble." Not supported by the case facts. [nhill]: "your dumbass Q commentary overlaying them." More misrepresentation and trolling. That works well on Twitter and Reddit, I'm sure. Just call everyone "GQP"/"Q" and the tribalism probably distracts well enough, with the dog-piling mob taking over to do the flaming for you. It must be frustrating for you that I'm using the direct and unmediated video of the trial — how "Q" of me to use facts. [nhill]: "Even people on his own side were pulling him back and trying to get him to stop being an idiot." Not supported by the case facts. The best possible/close example of your claim is from Dominick Black's testimony, where the prosecution tried to paint the situation as people "[knowing without saying that it was unsafe to leave the roof]", but the defense clearly provided that Black had not actually told Rittenhouse not to go out alone — Black just *thought* it was a bad idea and in his autistic processes believed that it was thus known to all. Black portrayed himself as unable to communicate this supposed caution with others and too scared to leave the roof. Rittenhouse testified that Black even called him from the roof and sent him on an errand to put out a fire, undermining Black's statements, which were made to soften Black's own impending charges. Rittenhouse and Ryan Balch, an Army Veteran, also communicate that moments before the shooting they became separated. Rittenhouse tried to return to Black, but police had closed the access street. [nhill]: "The other defenders weren't crying for attention and antagonizing the rioters." Neither was Rittenhouse. The "antagonizing" narrative is not supported by the case facts and has not been used by the prosecution. It is not considered antagonism to put out an arsonist's fire, even if the rioters and delusional slave morality pundits believe that should be a thing. In reality, starting dumpster fires is illegal, and putting out dumpster fires and moving a dumpster from a roadway is not illegal/antagonizing. [nhill]: "You know what the mark of intelligence is, CC? Concision" I'm sure they tell you that on Twitter, where idiots prevail specifically because of the character limit. The character limit shields them from the reality that their brain depletes itself of neural fuel within a few minutes. All that a "concise" Twitter hot-take does for the intellect is convince it that it is right or on the right side, despite having done no mental lifting to have earned such a victory. This is a very appealing prospect for people with intellectual limitations and mental health issues, since they get a victory despite their own terminal mediocrity. [nhill]: "Nice idol worshipping." It wasn't idol-worshiping, and I explained how I temper my response to Rittenhouse's virtues and faults. Now you've degraded yourself with a willful, disingenuous, and Sebbish inability to understand, reverting to misrepresentation and trolling. You seem to have met your mental limit, demolishing your last bit of good faith in the process. That being the case, you will receive no further responses from me in this thread series/topic. .. [Rugian]: "I find it unbelievable that you think the problem was Rittenhouse, as opposed to the problem he was trying to address, the ENTIRE SEASON OF NATIONAL RIOTING." Yup! This is where slave morality self-delusion arrives yet again: people forget that rioting is illegal. Just because people got away with rioting, does not mean that it was "okay". The people showing up to maintain some sense of order might be "[party poopers]", but that 'party' is illegal. People have done some incredible work at ignoring the massive lawlessness such that with Rittenhouse the criminal circus has arrived to judge the lawful. .. [tw]: "he lied that he was a certified EMT... so he’s a criminal" [Habebe]: "^Did he? Was that even a charge?" Rittenhouse has not been charged under that statute, and the defense was able to establish that Rittenhouse never explicitly said that he was a certified EMT and never performed any medical task outside of his actual qualified skills. The prosecution spoke with Rittenhouse on the subject of his qualifications, and Rittenhouse was able to produce a pretty substantive background as a volunteer-firefighter cadet, a certified lifeguard (which includes American Red Cross certification), and an EMT-in-training ("substantive" compared to the claim of him simply lying outright, anyways). Rittenhouse explained that he was in the process of being certified and that he had completed every step in that pursuit except for those not available to him due to age. .. [jergul]: "The oddity of this case is that regardless of outcome, anyone killing after the first victim can claim self-defense." [jergul]: "Once shot, it turned Rittenhouse into an active shooter." False and not supported by U.S. law or the case facts. The prosecution has not even made this argument as it would deviate from U.S. and Wisconsin law. The "active shooter" argument is a hindsight invention specifically for Twitter and the media — not the courts. .. [Seb]: "But attending with a gun demonstrates he envisaged violence and the possibility of him doing violence to others." [jergul]: "An AR is inherently threatening." False and not supported by U.S. law. The carrying of a firearm does not itself establish intent, and a firearm is not "inherently threatening". Simply attending an event with a firearm does not mean that a person intends to do harm. The prosecution has not made that argument because it is counter to U.S. law. .. [jergul]: "Or rather, anyone claiming self-defense at a trial will be absolutely certain they were confronting an active shooter." Future persons may well make that claim, but they would not be supported by the guidance regarding active shooters, and no one has attempted that defense in this trial. Grosskreutz himself (who was shot by Rittenhouse while pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse's face) made no such claim that he was confronting an active shooter or that he was exercising self-defense. Grosskreutz' claim, hilarious as it is, was that he learned that Rittenhouse may have been involved in a shooting, he knew that Rittenhouse was running to police, so Grosskreutz drew his pistol, and Grosskreutz chased directly after Rittenhouse because.. Grosskreutz wanted to render first aid to people (but not Rittenhouse). Yeah. That was his actual statement on the stand. Grosskreutz had to make this claim in court because, while in the hospital, he made false statements to police about getting shot while helping people and omitted his illegal firearm possession (as demonstrated by the defense), and when video contradicted his statements in the days after the shooting, Grosskreutz was trapped in an absurd narrative. He had to stick to the narrative of helping people despite having drawn his pistol and chasing after Rittenhouse because he could be charged with lying to police in the course of their investigation if he admitted otherwise. The prosecution tried to offer that Rittenhouse re-racked his rifle, but Grosskreutz was not able to say that that hypothetical gave him cause for self-defense, and the prosecution was not able to ask if that's what he thought because it would not fit state law on self-defense and would have perjured Grosskreutz — they were just floating that possibility for the jury. Grosskreutz never said that he was responding to an active shooter. Grosskreutz never said that he was defending himself — even when questioned by the prosecution. .. [jergul]: "Yah, just shoot him. Never approach a guy with an AR. He is way too much of a threat." [jergul]: "and one killing already is way more context than you need." (Not actual legal advice from jergul; taking this advice will likely result in consecutive life sentences) [jergul]: "Getting "jumped in the dark" by a crazy guy who had been running around screaming and raving all evening seems an odd narrative to push." Yikes — "narrative". Jergul just admitted to not having seen the video of Rosenbaum hiding between cars for an ambush or Rosenbaum trying to provoke a response from armed defenders at the gas station. In August 2020, I posted this link of Rosenbaum trying to provoke people: http://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1298474730966659072 [Jergul]: "Did he actually provide aid and put out fires?" Yes. There is video footage of Rittenhouse attending to injured persons, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=530&v=LojfGWZwHg0&feature=emb_logo And there is video and image of him running with a fire extinguisher to a fire that he put out. [jergul]: ""Defund" is not getting rid of police. It is getting rid of the baggage attached to longstanding police forces." This is the moderate's definition of "Defund", not the activist's definition as it was used on-the-ground in 2020. John Oliver and Trevor Noah in particular were responsible for this misinformation regarding a "moderate" version of defunding, but their narrative runs counter to the stated goals of the defund movement, which was total abolishment of the police, with the funding going totally into community services.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Nov 15 07:04:31 [Habebe]: "Now politifact states that Kyle broke the law." That particular article is long-standing misinformation that I have called out in the past. I wrote this in June, 2021: "It is interesting that PolitiFact gave a shitty take on these statutes, not mentioning the conditions of the statute in their write-up. It will be particularly interesting if their “false” rating is reversed when/if the narrative falls out from under them" .. [Seb]: "illegally carrying a firearm" [jergul]: "Yes, it was actually a crime. Rittenhouse was carrying illegally" [jergul]: "And why for God's sake did he wander off alone if impulse control was not an issue? Doing that was also illegal btw." [jergul]: "You are claiming the hunting exemption to the 18 year old law. It does not apply. He carried the AR illegally. " False. Rittenhouse was legally allowed to carry a long gun unattended as a 17-year-old per the statute under which he was charged (i.e., he was mis-charged). This has nothing to do with a hunting exemption — that sub-section does not apply. The defense has repeatedly tried to have the charge dropped, and on Friday the prosecution agreed that the statute does not make sense. The defense submitted final paperwork Friday, so it is likely that the judge will review the charge and drop it this morning (Monday).. unless the prosecution can cut a few inches off of the rifle to make it illegal (Judge: "You need to prove he was under 18, and that’s not in dispute, AND that the barrel length was less than allowed by law"). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIGXx0XlZZs If you're actually interested in the legal reasoning, here you go. I posted this explanation in UP a year ago and have updated it for comments on other sites: There is a dead space in the statutes between the ages of 16 and 18 where one can legally open-carry a long rifle even without adult supervision. The Wisconsin prosecutor's initial charge sheet cited these statutes: Kyle, "being a person under 18 years of age, did go armed with a dangerous weapon, contrary to sec. 948.60(2)(a), 939.51(3)(a) Wis. Stats." The second statute listed (939.51(3)(a)) deals with the punishments for being in violation of the first statute. It is contingent on the first statute. The first statute states: 948.60: "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18." (2)(a): "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." (See docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60/ ) Q: Rittenhouse was 17, so, open and shut case, right? A: Nope! The statute has exemptions. 948.60 (3)(b): "This section [i.e., all of section 948.60] 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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593." Q: Was Rittenhouse in violation of s. 941.28 ("Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.")? A: No. Wisconsin defines "Short-barreled rifle" as "a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches." Rittenhouse was carrying a Smith & Wesson MP-15 which had a 16-inch barrel-length and overall length of 36.9 inches — i.e., not in violation of s. 941.28. Q: Was Rittenhouse *in* compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593? A: Yes; these statutes do not apply to Rittenhouse. 29.304 is "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age", and Rittenhouse is 17 and was not hunting. 29.593 is "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval" — also not applicable. TLDR: That statute (948.60(2)(a): "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18") does not apply to Rittenhouse carrying a long rifle. As written, he should not have been charged with this statute and was legally allowed to carry the rifle. Defense has made this argument, saying that charges rely on a "misreading of the plain language" of the statute. This morning, the only question is whether or not Rittenhouse modified the rifle to be shorter, which seems very unlikely. The rifle was likely allowed for sale at all in Wisconsin specifically because it does not qualify as a short-barreled rifle.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 15 07:57:30 CC We are talking about the legality of a 17 year old being armed for urban combat. Not what he may or may not be charged with. The statutes are pretty clear that a 17 year old can only carry a gun for hunting. So, yah, illegal. A AR is a dangerous weapon. But thanks for your comments.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Nov 15 08:18:29 [jergul]: "We are talking about the legality of a 17 year old being armed for urban combat. Not what he may or may not be charged with." Then your argument is fallacious at its core. It does not matter with what random thing Rittenhouse *might* have been charged with in fantasy land — this court case is exclusively about charges which Rittenhouse *does* face. Rittenhouse is legally allowed to carry a long rifle at 17 (per the statute), and the state did not charge Rittenhouse with any other statute contradicting the legal allowances of that statute. Further, it is highly unlikely that the state would pursue possession charges not already covered by this trial and by this statute since it would be considered predatory under double jeopardy. But, it is also unlikely that they will find some hidden law saying that it was illegal, and if, somehow, there were a separate statute undermining this statute, then the law would default in favor of the citizen until contradictions in the law could be revised. If *you* have found such a contradictory statute, then put up or shut up. But if your only argument is "he wasn't 18", then read the statute again. .. [jergul]: "The statutes are pretty clear that a 17 year old can only carry a gun for hunting. So, yah, illegal." False. The statutes do NOT say that a 17-year-old can only carry a gun for hunting. It literally DOES NOT SAY THAT. If you cannot read that from the statute — which I posted for ultimate convenience — then you are illiterate. However, I concede that your illiteracy has never been in dispute.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Nov 15 09:40:10 Prosecution just admitted that it is not a short-barrel rifle or shotgun, so the judge just dismissed the misdemeanor weapons charge; i.e., Rittenhouse was *not* illegally carrying the rifle. End of story on that count.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 15 09:44:11 Jergul, I dont think the Judge is bias towards Kyle. I think many of the discrepancies are rooted in our different legal systems.As well as a poor showing by the prosecution. Couple that with bad reporting. The judge had to specifically call out CNN's analyst and explained himself and the statute. Regarding the terms victims and rioters. The term victim being in dispute by this trial. The term rioter could be used because it was known by kyle that they had set fires in front of him. Arson being considered acting as rioter.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 15 09:44:42 Cherub, Beat me to it.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Nov 15 09:54:06 "The statutes are pretty clear that a 17 year old can only carry a gun for hunting. So, yah, illegal. " Its funny that the judge said the exact opposite of this. Pwnt.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 15 10:11:28 To clarify, the statute , when read in its entirety specifically says. "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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28." "if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 " This says he has to be in violation of both 29.304 AND 29.593. Not and or. So here the statute specifically states he isn't guilty. Which is something more like Europe's communist law system compared to English common law. The rule of lenity or strict construction is where ECL gives preference to the defendant. I think the reverse version of our different systems played out in Amanda Knox trial. While US viewers seen clearly the African did it.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 15 10:12:13 http://doc...20a%20Class%20A%20misdemeanor.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 15 11:57:38 CC Rittenhouse carried the weapon illegally. That the judge dismissed the charge just goes with all the other crap the judge has done. Creatively defining an AR as something other than a dangerous weapon is ludicrous. Sammy Trouble recognizing crazy judges? You are usually so good at seeing figures of authority being crazy. But sure. An AR is not a dangerous weapon. Lulz.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 15 12:04:39 I think you should stand up and applaud when you say you see no judge bias Habebe. The actual correct ruling would be based on case law. Is it so that no one under 18 has ever been found guilty without violating both clauses? So a crazy old 75 year old stared at a text instead. I don't actually care as it is a chickenfeed charge anyway. I already said that.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 15 12:09:42 KENOSHA, Wis. (CBS 58) -- New details were released into a deadly and "chaotic" shooting that happened in Kenosha early Sunday Nov. 7. Police said around 1:49 a.m., officers heard the sound of gunfire coming from the area of 6th Avenue and 57th Street, where a large event was being held at a local business. One person was killed, three others were hurt. Authorities identified the victim as 28-year-old Marquis Wallace of Kenosha. Kenosha police say officers were at the scene within one minute and could see muzzle flashes from multiple locations. More than 70 rounds of fired ammunition was found at the scene. Due to the size of the crowd and "chaotic scene," police had to call in help from several law enforcement agencies to maintain control. Police say this is a very complex investigation and will take time to piece together. Anyone having any information regarding this incident is urged to contact Kenosha police investigators at 262-605-5203. If you wish to remain anonymous you may call Kenosha Crime Stoppers at 262-656-7333. ================ 70 shots fired from several locations. Look at people learning to take active self-defense seriously. Lulz.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 15 12:33:09 "The actual correct ruling would be based on case law. Is it so that no one under 18 has ever been found guilty without violating both clauses?" Which leads us to the ambiguity.In such cases it should preference the defendant. There is an old English law where a man had stolen a horse and the statute said it was illegal to steal horses. He was found innocent because horses is plural, stealing one horse was not a crime due to lenity. If also again argue was Kyle acting as an adult or a child? It seems odd to say he was both. And again what are really arguing that because of a few months he couldn't defend his life. ------ What has the judge done in your mind to show bias? The prosecution has done a shit job at best and actively broke the law according to testimony of their own witness who said they tried to get him to change his testimony.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 15 13:06:43 Precedent does not establish ambiguity, it removes it. Hmmm, how to read statute is decided by earlier rulings. That old english law example sounds like classic BS. Getting the court and jury to stand up and applaud a defense witness before he gave testimony is pretty blatant.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Nov 15 13:24:23 a good closing argument by prosecutor, including frame by frame analysis of One-arm showing he was -not- aiming at Kyle
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 15 13:26:46 But you agree the law as itnis written actually says he is not guilty. Has the prosecution cited case law that has this rule applied? You may think its BS. But then wouldn't you refer back to the statute and precedent? Yes, he participated in standard observances of Veterans day.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 15 13:28:29 TW, Did Gaige commit perjury?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Nov 15 13:51:22 it was a leading question by defense prosecutor showed the video video > memory (& answering leading questions) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYjG4uequWQ&t=136s (~2:20-2:24, can watch in 1/4 speed in settings) he's not doing anything to try to shoot Kyle, as prosecutor pointed out, he's trying to block/push/grab (he never gets to it) Kyle's gun barrel w/ other hand when shot, not trying to shoot w/ gun hand prosecutor did a good job beyond all that too
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Nov 15 13:53:49 ...but yes, he had a couple dumb points too... (before cherry-picking begins :p)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Nov 15 13:54:38 and his closing still continuing now for that matter
Pillz Member	Mon Nov 15 16:21:27 Jergul might be he dumbest poster we've ever had.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 15 16:30:24 Like I always say. What is it with conservatards and projection?
kargen Member	Mon Nov 15 18:54:26 jergul I'm going to quote you again. "Creatively defining an AR as something other than a dangerous weapon is ludicrous." I am going to agree with you though. An AR is a dangerous weapon. That is why it is so popular. It is also legal in Wisconsin for a 17 year old to carry so long as it doesn't have a short barrel. I don't think people are arguing the gun isn't dangerous. They are arguing it is legal. "Getting the court and jury to stand up and applaud a defense witness before he gave testimony is pretty blatant." That was something that completely backfired. The judge obviously expected there to be more vets in the room. His intention was to have vets recognized on Veterans Day not to have the jury applaud a witness. You watching MSNBC? "a good closing argument by prosecutor, including frame by frame analysis" I actually thought he made a good point for defense but defense didn't jump on it. Prosecution said Rittenhouse had his gun pointed at Grosskreutz. He then says Grosskreutz steps to his right to get out of line of sight of gun and is shot in the right arm. There is only one way he could move to the right and get shot in the right arm. That is if the gun was pointed to the right of him before he took his step. If the gun were pointed at him it would have hit his left arm or mid mass. Pillz that title still goes to Adelaide.
jergul large member	Mon Nov 15 20:18:21 Kargen That is fine. A quote that was not misframed for lack of context. I am not going to go through Wisconsin case law to see if indeed it is legal for a minor to carry an AR. An appeal would be nice for clarification, but its such a small charge anyway. He could have stopped when no one said they were veterans. He then specifically asked what branch the witness served in (without seeing combat duty for veteran status), then asked everyone to applaud that. So, yah, it backfired. Twice.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 15 21:31:16 Jergul, Or you could just take note that soon to be case law says it's kosher.
kargen Member	Mon Nov 15 21:50:28 "I am not going to go through Wisconsin case law to see if indeed it is legal for a minor to carry an AR." You don't have to. Cherub Cow provided the section of the pertinent portion of the law for you in this thread. One person did say they were a veteran. At that point would have been odd to say well since there is only one never mind we won't honor veterans here today.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Nov 16 00:15:08 [jergul]: "Rittenhouse carried the weapon illegally. That the judge dismissed the charge just goes with all the other crap the judge has done." Do you think it's just a strange coincidence that many legal experts have argued that this statute was improperly filed from day one, that legal experts have expected the charge to be dropped for more than a year, that the defense made the exact arguments that people expected that they would make, that the prosecution themselves struggled to say how the statute was relevant (since they clearly only read the opening title, ignored the exceptions, and filed for expedience rather than accuracy), and that the judge ruled based on the plain language of the statute? That's pretty disconnected from reality. The statute clearly grants an exception for a 17-year-old with a long gun, and the judge simply ruled in reflection of this basic legal fact. [jergul]: "I don't actually care as it is a chickenfeed charge anyway. I already said that." Jergul is already distancing himself from his mistake. He gets to pretend that it's not a big deal even after he repeatedly spammed the Rittenhouse threads with "[he had the rifle illegally!!!]", and he simultaneously gets to pretend that it's still illegal even though anyone paying attention — including the judge — just ruled that it was a legal possession. That is a fascinating aversion to facts. .. [jergul]: "Creatively defining an AR as something other than a dangerous weapon is ludicrous." Kargen beat me to it, but.. You've changed the argument. This was your previous argument: [jergul]: "An AR is inherently threatening." There is a difference between saying that a weapon is "dangerous" (true, with restrictions, e.g., an understanding of risk management and safety) and saying that it is "inherently threatening" (false). A rifle is only "inherently threatening" to children and cultural weaklings. A society that knows the value and dangers of a firearm is better mentally equipped to deal with its realities. People who know correct firearms handling know what it looks like for a person to wield a firearm in a "threatening" manner, whereas cultural weaklings cannot read these simple signs. .. [Habebe]: "If also again argue was Kyle acting as an adult or a child? It seems odd to say he was both." I've heard that same argument for the drinking age in the military, but charging someone as an adult is different from charging them for a statute which puts a specific age restriction upon their actions (putting aside the mis-charge in this case). In Wisconsin, the age of criminal responsibility is 17, meaning that only persons 16-years-old or less would be eligible for the juvenile courts. And while it would be nice to have a flat age for all citizen rights (e.g., voting, weapons possession, alcohol), courts typically recognize differences in context, maturity, and responsibility. For instance, holding a long gun as a sober 17-year-old requires a different maturity level than consuming alcohol alone, since the latter impairs judgment and the former can be trained and can provide a standing militia/army (since 17-year-olds can enlist). I suppose Wisconsin figured that 17 was a good age for a citizen to be responsible enough for most criminal complaints, likely because criminal complaints deal specifically with things that the individual did (a small realm of personal responsibility). That said, people in that border realm of 17 to 25 still have shifting responsibilities under the law, giving courts some leeway to argue maturity based on the individual and their context. .. [tw]: "a good closing argument by prosecutor, including frame by frame analysis of One-arm showing he was -not- aiming at Kyle" The prosecution did some desperate mud-slinging in that closing argument. They even contradicted their own positions just to get something to stick. The most hilarious thing will be whether or not the jury believes the prosecution's narrative of Rittenhouse initiating the conflict — a narrative that contradicts testimony and which they based on a handful of pixels. [tw]: "it was a leading question by defense" Was it *also* a leading question by the prosecution when they *also* got Grosskreutz to admit that Grosskreutz aimed the pistol at Rittenhouse? When questioning Grosskreutz in redirect after the defense's "leading question", the prosecution's only clarification was that the pistol was not aimed *directly* at Rittenhouse's face but was instead merely in the general area of Rittenhouse's face and that Grosskreutz didn't *intentionally* point the pistol at Rittenhouse. The prosecution gets to lie to the jury a little more in closing arguments (typically, it's so long as they stick to general topics that were brought up at least once and do not mis-state the law itself), but Grosskreutz' testimony stands, the video is plain-as-day, and a reasonable person would still likely find that one does not need to wait for a pistol to be right in one's face for a full second before responding to it. The prosecution also *really* stretched when they pretended that Grosskreutz was simultaneously retreating *and* had lunged forward within only 5 frames of video. The defense did not need to make such ridiculous assumptions in their closing arguments, which means that the jury sees less of a difference between the videos and what the defense says happened — that usually makes it easier for people to choose. (Not that I totally trust a jury to be reasonable.)
kargen Member	Tue Nov 16 00:50:45 Was kind of funny my brother had the coverage on while I was eating lunch and I got caught up in the closing arguments. When the prosecutors gave their rebuttal to the defenses closing statement he said there is no such thing as a left hand or right hand gun. Only a gun. My brother and I both at the same time said bullshit because we both have had left handed guns. I don't know why that statement was made because I watched very little of the trial but that seems something they could have checked. I am almost expecting a hung jury. Not because the prosecution did anything to convince a juror but because they have not been sequestered and they had to have seen the preparations to deal with riots after the verdict. I am thinking at least one will say guilty so there will be a hung jury because they don't want the riots to happen on a decision they made. I hope I am wrong and they ignore all the outside stuff and do as the judge instructed.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 16 06:28:34 Kargen Do I really have to explain the role of precedent in forming case law. Already distancing myself? I have been saying its a chickenfeed charge compared to the others anyway many, many times. The judge made a whole scene about that proceqution should have appealed his ruling before remarking it was his bad for not actually making a ruling before jury instruction. Habebe Throwing out does not make case law. It invites appeals. Which I dont think should be done since its a chickenshit charge. CC Well, the judge should have thrown out the charge immediately if it was so clear cut in order for an appeal process to take place before jury instruction. I am pretty sure you have a case law setting precedent on the statute from 1991. Btw. We dont do appeal to authority here.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 16 08:48:39 KENOSHA, WI—Arguing that the prosecution had demonstrated flagrant bias throughout the proceedings, critics questioned Thursday why Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger had repeatedly singled out Kyle Rittenhouse over the course of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. “Not a day has gone by during this murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse that the ADA hasn’t mentioned Kyle Rittenhouse by name and accused him of murder,” said trial observer Jim Webbins, 49, adding that he watched with rising fury as Rittenhouse took the witness stand and then became the exclusive target of Binger during his cross-examination of Rittenhouse. “The prosecution is treating Kyle like some kind of killer just because he brought an illegal gun to a riot, escalated tensions, and then killed people. Tell me something: Why aren’t any of the rioters being prosecuted for the murder of those people Kyle shot? Huh? Answer me that.” Webbins went on to state that the media was clearly “along for the ride,” demonstrating its bias by continually referring to Rittenhouse as the defendant. The Onion. I read it first and thought "wow, this almost seems like satire".
Pillz Member	Tue Nov 16 14:51:04 now you know how we feel when we read your posts
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 16 14:53:48 Pillz, 10/10.Probably the funniest Pillz line ever.
kargen Member	Tue Nov 16 15:11:41 "Do I really have to explain the role of precedent in forming case law." Not to me. I full grasp of the concept. In fact mentioned it a time or three when we were discussing the Kavanaugh hearing. Compared precedent to settled law in one of those threads. The judge threw out the minor in possession of an illegal weapon when it was entered into evidence or discovered (one of those I believe is the correct term) that the gun did not have a short barrel. As that was the only consideration the charge was dropped. Defense could have brought up earlier that the AR did not have a short barrel and got the charge tossed. Prosecution didn't mention it because a lot of their eventual spin was based on the gun being there illegally.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 16 15:24:16 In the judge's defense. It truly was a minor charge, so I get why he did not put a lot of thought into it. An appeal would be interesting only from a precedent perspective.
kargen Member	Tue Nov 16 15:37:28 The judge doesn't make a ruling until the evidence is presented. The defense brought that charge into question Monday morning and the judge made his ruling Monday. You should be asking why did the defense put so much of their efforts into that charge when they had to know the gun wasn't illegal. The memo people talk about that sets precedent for it to be illegal for a 17 year old to possess a rifle no matter barrel length uses a federal guideline not the state guideline. With gun issues state law trumps federal law most of the time. In Wisconsin there are two exemptions that can apply to a 17 year old with a rifle. The person only has to have one of those exemptions not both. Many are assuming both must apply and that is why they mention the bit about hunting.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 16 15:51:22 "In the judge's defense. It truly was a minor charge, so I get why he did not put a lot of thought into it." Jergul logic...
jergul large member	Tue Nov 16 15:58:13 Habebe It was clear the judge put little thought into it. He mumbled on that his ruling should have been appealed before remembering he had not actually made a ruling, so said that was on him, but the State could appeal anyway after the verdict if it wanted to.
kargen Member	Tue Nov 16 16:27:38 On what grounds would they appeal? That the judge didn't reach the correct decision in the right way? He ruled the way the law is written.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 16 16:39:16 What would the state appeal? Is it legal in Wisconsin for the prosecution to appeal? Generally in criminal cases only the defendant can appeal if they lose. But pergaps Jergul knows something I don't about Wisconsin law.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 16 17:02:26 Kargen The judge was quite unsure on his ruling himself. He is the one that first said they should have appealed earlier, then said they still can appeal. Again, what does precedent establish? Is it such that a minor has only been found guilty if the weapon is under a certain barrel length? The State may not appeal, but it probably should just as a point of law. From what I see: He is not in compliance with 29.304 as it is not applicable. Rittehouse was not under 16. Nor would 29.593 apply either as it is also limited to under 16. As a 17 year old, he could not comply with the law as written. He is too old.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 16 17:03:06 To 16. Not under 16*
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 16 17:45:49 Pretty sure thats double jeopardy, very illegal.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 16 17:54:15 Its not double jeopardy.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 16 18:02:18 You want the state to try to criminally convict rittenhouse on the same charges. How is that not double jeopardy?
jergul large member	Tue Nov 16 18:22:09 He was not tried on the same charge. The charge was dismissed. An appeal court can decide that he should be tried on that count.
kargen Member	Tue Nov 16 18:27:51 Technically if the charge were dismissed before the jury had a chance to consider I don't think double jeopardy would apply. I don't know that though just a guess. It could only be for that one dropped charge. Who was the judge talking to when he said there could still be an appeal? I've spent some time searching and I can't find a single article about a 17 year old in Wisconsin being found guilty of possessing a rifle. If there were a case I think it would have been trotted out by several outlets. Maybe I didn't use the right key words in my search?
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 16 18:32:50 Dismissed after the trial started. If it was dismissed at arraignment, you may have a case. He went on trial for it.As I understand DJ.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 16 18:55:18 KENOSHA, WI—Moments before reading the verdict, the twelve jurors in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse asked if the defendant would please step outside and defend the courthouse. “We, the jury will perform our constitutional duty and declare the verdict in this case,” said one sweating juror, “But we, the jury also don’t want to die.” “Objection, your honor, Rittenhouse does not possess an AR-15 to defend the courthouse; I have the AR-15,” said the prosecutor, swinging the weapon wildly about as onlookers nervously ducked behind benches. “Besides, protestors are heroes, people of upstanding character, and victims.” Judge Schroeder ruled the prosecutor a doofus and allowed Rittenhouse to disarm the blubbering liar, load his weapon, and position himself defensively on the steps of the courthouse while the verdict was read. Witnesses claim even the prosecution team was relieved to know Kyle Rittenhouse was out there protecting them. Ghostbusters Catch Ghosts That Ruin Progressive Narrative
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Nov 17 04:45:08 Just realized I didn't give a functional link to thread 2. Thread 2: http://uto...hread=88836&time=1636815899274 .. [jergul]: "Already distancing myself? I have been saying its a chickenfeed charge compared to the others anyway many, many times." Yes, distancing yourself. And "many, many times"? I found one instance: [jergul]: "I am saying neither 1 or 2. Its such a small charge compared to the others." Meanwhile, you did repeatedly insist that carrying was illegal, "many, many times": [jergul]: "Yes, it was actually a crime. Rittenhouse was carrying illegally." [jergul]: "You said it was not a crime to open carry. In this case it was." [jergul]: "It actually does matter that people not allowed to open carry dont do it." [jergul]: "And why for God's sake did he wander off alone if impulse control was not an issue? Doing that was also illegal btw." [jergul]: "As to a 17 year old legally carrying the AR. Link please." [jergul]: "You are claiming the hunting exemption to the 18 year old law. It does not apply. He carried the AR illegally." [jergul]: "The statutes are pretty clear that a 17 year old can only carry a gun for hunting. So, yah, illegal." [jergul]: "Rittenhouse carried the weapon illegally. That the judge dismissed the charge just goes with all the other crap the judge has done." Incidentally, the one example of you claiming that it was a "small charge" occurred after you had emphasized it being illegal *six* times. And it became "chickenfeed" only after the charge was definitively dismissed by the judge and you began distancing yourself from its importance (maybe if you keep mentioning "chickenfeed" *now*, it'll seem like it's *always* been your position?), though the ruling did not stop you from stating that it was illegal two more times. .. [jergul]: "Well, the judge should have thrown out the charge immediately if it was so clear cut" Agreed. Sadly, it seems that the judge did not *close*-read the entire statute until Friday arguments, when he finally realized that it could be thrown out outright unless the prosecution could demonstrate that the rifle had a short-barrel. [jergul]: "in order for an appeal process to take place before jury instruction." Wrong again. The prosecution had many chances to appeal the reasoning. This statute has been brought up repeatedly throughout the trial and before the trial. The prosecution's near-final arguments occurred Friday (November 12th), where they attempted to reason that the exceptions should not apply because of the title of the statute (which is absurd on its face and antithetical to how exceptions function in a legal document; this was basically the prosecution admitting that they had not read the exceptions when they initially filed last year). Prosecutors were given about 30 minutes debating just this one statute, and after their arguments were heard and countered, the judge let them know what the terms of the argument would mean on Monday (November 15th): per the language of the statute, prove that the rifle had a short-barrel or the charge would be dropped. On Monday, the prosecution tried another weak argument, then admitted that the rifle was not short-barreled, so the judge dropped the charge. .. [jergul]: "Btw. We dont do appeal to authority here." Clearly, since you can be so sure of being correct despite having no authority whatsoever and after having been proven wrong so many times. But I was hoping to show you that this was not just the judge acting alone as an "activist". Many outside UP and we here have been pointing out that this statute would be dropped since the week that the charges were filed (last year), but you still never even read the statute. All of your arguments were based in fancy, with you only now starting to read the statute itself. And you're clinging to this poor notion that prosecutors would need to go into case law to find a precedent. The prosecution had more than a year to find such a magical precedent, they were given the weekend as a final warning, and they found nothing and no argument. [jergul]: "An appeal would be interesting only from a precedent perspective." There will likely be no appeal on that charge. The best case scenario would be that legislators will attempt to clear up the language of the statute for future lazy prosecutors. Even then, there really is no helping a prosecutor who reads the title of a statute without checking the exceptions list. .. [kargen]: "Defense could have brought up earlier that the AR did not have a short barrel and got the charge tossed." Exactly. Defense asked one of the officers about the barrel length, had it noted that it was not a short-barrel, but forgot to ask for the exact measurement. If they had done that, this charge would have been dropped in the first week (day 3) of the trial or at least on Friday when the statute faced its near-final review. The prosecution could also have released this evidence to the defense, but they were hoping that the defense wouldn't have the request on the record (whereas, the defense *did*). So, on Monday, the prosecution was compelled by the judge to admit that it was not a short-barreled rifle. It was pretty funny to see the prosecution admit that on Monday; it was like a kid bullshitting an essay in front of the class and finally being asked, "Did you read the book?" ... "No..." The prosecution knew that they didn't satisfy the exceptions, and they were hoping that concealing the barrel length (i.e., concealing evidence) would work out for them if no one noticed their filing mistake or if the the defense had not raised the issue before closing. .. [jergul]: "He mumbled on that his ruling should have been appealed before remembering he had not actually made a ruling" You may be confusing rulings. The judge did not say that the possession charge could be appealed. On day 7, when the judge was chastising the prosecution for attempting to introduce rejected evidence during the Rittenhouse examination, the judge mis-remembered a motion to reconsider before remembering his correct wording, but that wasn't about the misdemeanor possession charge. And when he spoke about appeals on Friday (day 9), he was talking specifically about a hypothetical situation related to the 1st and 2nd degree homicide charge. He said that *if* the jury ruled on 2nd degree reckless homicide with the wording given by the prosecutors for the jury statements at that time, then the defense would have grounds to appeal. But, he said that he did not rule in that way, and the wording changed, so there would be no grounds for appeal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIGXx0XlZZs (at about 9:50 minutes) No such arguments were made for the possession charge. .. [jergul]: "The judge was quite unsure on his ruling himself." That is not true of the possession charge. After they debated on Friday, the judge produced the firm conclusion that the only question was the barrel length and that the prosecution would have to prove that Rittenhouse was not in compliance. When he ruled on Monday, he was totally firm on that being the final criteria needed for the charge. .. [jergul]: "He is not in compliance with 29.304 as it is not applicable. Rittehouse was not under 16. Nor would 29.593 apply either as it is also limited to under 16. As a 17 year old, he could not comply with the law as written. He is too old." Yikes. Jergul finally trying to read the statute, and now we see his reading comprehension on display D: They discussed that at about 50 minutes ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIGXx0XlZZs ). Section 29.304 applies to people under the age of 16. Rittenhouse, being 17, cannot have that section apply to him, as you say. Similarly, you are correct that 29.593 does not apply. But that does *not* mean that he is "not in compliance", per your assessment (i.e., yours is a reversal of the meaning). If a section cannot apply to a person, compliance with that section cannot be demanded by the law. If that were the case, then, per that section, there would be 50-year-olds still required to have parental supervision while carrying bows. I can't believe I have to point this out. .. Fun update. That PolitiFact article updated on November 16th: http://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/ ..but they're still not conceding that they were wrong, trying to play word games by pretending that the law wasn't "perfectly legal", so the claim that a 17-year-old can legally possess a long rifle are "false" — lol... fucking amazing. They even repeat the same disingenuous attempt as the prosecution, trying to ignore the exceptions of the statute just because of the title. They also clearly didn't read it, since they still believe that it only applies to hunting. I hope PolitiFact authors don't get paid much, since their quality level clearly doesn't exceed about $20/h.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 17 05:25:31 The laws' scope is for 16 and under. Read it and see. It would also not include 50 year olds in addition to 17 year olds. Like the judge said. It is murky. It probably should be tested in a court of appeals as a matter of clarifying law.
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 17 05:39:43 Jergul, They should probably just re write the law for clarity. However, you do realize that the no state can recharge him after he has been charged and the trial started. The feds could, in theory.But never wisconsin.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 17 06:01:05 An appeal goes to the legality of dropping the charge. It appeals the judges decision to do that. They prolly should just get an appeal ruling on it. Separation of power. Courts do not write laws, they inteprete them.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 17 06:31:24 Not following this hugely, but if charges are dropped then I think you *can* still be re-tried for those charges if they are subsequently brought. Charges being dropped is not the same as being acquitted on those charges.
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 17 06:42:10 Seb, As I understand it*,thats only pre trial. The logic being if you were not on trial you were not in jeopardy.The charges were not dissmissed until after. Even still most reasonable people admit it could be a murky wording. By a super direct reading of the charge he can not be guilty.So I think its reasonable to say its at least ambiguous. In which case we give preference to a defendant. You probably are better than versed than most on the basics of common law practises.
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 17 06:50:26 Jergul, You may be right, http://www...op-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge Now I'm not sure if that could change his outcome post acquittal.
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 17 06:53:24 and wound Gaige Grosskreutz. But Rittenhouse's attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that they argued limited it to short-barreled shotguns or rifles. Rittenhouse's AR-15-style rifle was not short-barreled. They asked Schroeder to dismiss the possession count on those grounds at a pretrial hearing in October. The judge acknowledged the intersection of the statutes was murky but ultimately refused to toss the charge. He said he might revisit the defense request, however. As Schroeder and attorneys from both sides debated the wording of jury instructions on Monday the defense renewed its request to dismiss the possession charge. Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that reading the statute to allow minors to carry any weapon except a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun basically negates the prohibition on minors carrying weapons. "I believe that this . . . essentially swallows the entire statute," Kraus said. But this time Schroeder dismissed the charge after Kraus acknowledged that Rittenhouse's rifle wasn't a short-barreled. The judge noted that prosecutors filed a "very nice brief" laying out their arguments but that it should have been clear he had a "big problem" with the prohibition statute. He said prosecutors could have asked a state appeals court to rule on whether the charge was valid "all along." Then he caught himself, noting that he never issued a ruling against the prosecution that might have triggered such a request until just then with closing arguments minutes away. "I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute," Schroeder said. "I made no bones about that from the beginning. And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that's not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me." Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini, who is not involved in the case, said legal doctrine demands that when statutes aren't clear they must be read in favor of the defense. "This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws," Cicchini wrote in an article discussing the doctrine. Prosecutors can ask a state appeals court for clarifications and rulings in the middle of a case; they don't have to wait until a verdict comes down. But usually prosecutors don't make such a move unless a judge hands down an adverse decision, Cicchini said. In Rittenhouse's case, Schroeder didn't rule against Kraus until minutes before closing arguments began. Turner, the former federal prosecutor, said prosecutors should have realized the issue wasn't settled and headed Schroeder off by asking an appellate court for a ruling or filing more briefs. "I'm hesitant to jump to the conclusion that the judge is doing something unfair to (prosecutors)," Turner said. "When the judge expressed skepticism early, they should have done something to make sure it's clear. In a case of this magnitude, if I'm the prosecutor and the judge has expressed some skepticism or doubt about this, I'm going to do everything I can to sustain that count. When you heard early on there was some doubt, you've got to get on this." Prosecutors could immediately ask the court of appeals to stop the proceedings pending a ruling on the charge's validity, but there was no indication Monday that they planned to do so. Former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher downplayed the dismissal of the charge. He argued that it might even clarify the case for jurors. "You're talking about this extremely minor charge," Bucher said. "(Prosecutors) are missing the boat. This is a homicide case. We had two individuals killed and one almost killed and they're focusing on possession of a firearm. If the government thought this was the only count they could succeed on, yikes
murder Member	Wed Nov 17 08:01:03 Clearly Europeans have too much faith in the US justice system. This kid crossed state lines and roamed the streets looking for people to confront with his rifle. Every other single soul made it back home without shooting anyone ... and this guy shot 3 people killing 2. In any rational system, they would lock him up. But we won't. Or should I say Wisconsin won't. Claiming that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense is as nonsensical as saying that the people he was defending himself from were acting in self defense. Some people went out looking for trouble. A few found trouble. One of them was willing to fire his weapon repeatedly at people. He's going to get off.
murder Member	Wed Nov 17 08:04:40 btw I feel compelled to point out that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include a right to fire them at people.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 17 09:27:18 Just come out as jergul jr and say open carry should be punishable by imprisonment or death, and people should be able to ambush open carriers from hiding spots while their friends pop shots off in the air.
	show deleted posts