Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, charged with murder after two killed during Wisconsin protests

[rahl]

Obviously not as clear as rahl wants it to be.

It’s in black and white plain English.

 

[ASHES]

It’s in black and white plain English.

When 4 people on 2 sides of the same debate all come to 4 different conclusions, how can you even say that with a straight face?

 

[rahl]

When 4 people on 2 sides of the same debate all come to 4 different conclusions, how can you even say that with a straight face?

Because I can read. So can the da, and attorney general. Have they responded to your letter letting them know they don’t understand Wisconsin law?

 

[poweRob]

Kyle's life is basically over. Even if he walks, he'll never walk anywhere again without constantly looking over his shoulder.

Perhaps he can go on a pity tour with George Zimmerman and try to sue his way through life instead of getting a job.

 

[ASHES]

Because I can read. So can the da, and attorney general. Have they responded to your letter letting them know they don’t understand Wisconsin law?

I'm going to let the judge and/or the jury do that for me.

 

[pamak]

Perhaps he can go on a pity tour with George Zimmerman and try to sue his way through life because he doesn't want to get a job.

Zimmerman made money by participating in events where he was signing skittles (Travor Martin went to the store to get skittles) and confederate flags for his pro-gun supporters. And I think he auctioned the gun he used to kill Travor Martin.

 

[poweRob]

Zimmerman made money by participating in events where he was signing skittles and confederate flags for his pro-gun supporters. And I think he auctioned the gun he used to kill Travor Martin.

Sounds like typical right wing class there. Goes right in line with this...

Kyle Rittenhouse's Mother Receives Standing Ovation at Wisconsin GOP Event

On Thursday night, Rittenhouse's mother, Wendy and his lawyer, John Pierce, attended a Waukesha County Republican event, and were applauded by the crowd, after being brought on stage by conservative commentator Michelle Malkin.

www.newsweek.com

Right wing logic. Where the killer is always the victim... as long as the shooter is the white one.

 

[pamak]

Sounds like typical right wing class there. Goes right in line with this...

Kyle Rittenhouse's Mother Receives Standing Ovation at Wisconsin GOP Event

On Thursday night, Rittenhouse's mother, Wendy and his lawyer, John Pierce, attended a Waukesha County Republican event, and were applauded by the crowd, after being brought on stage by conservative commentator Michelle Malkin.

www.newsweek.com

Right wing logic. Where the killer is always the victim... as long as the shooter is white.

Here are some details in case people think tht I make things up...

Did George Zimmerman Sign a Bag of Skittles?

An image showing a bag of Skittles autographed by George Zimmerman came from the documentary "Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story."

www.snopes.com

These pictures come from a six-part television documentary entitled “Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story” that premiered on the Paramount Network in July 2018.

The controversial image can be glimpsed at around the 27 minute mark of the final episode, as Andy Hallinan, the owner of a Florida gun shop that teamed up with Zimmerman to sell Confederate flag paintings after his Florida Gun Supply store was maligned for declaring itself as a “Muslim Free Zone,” recounts a “party trick” Zimmerman used to do for his fans:

‘One of the big party tricks that George would do is that he’d always have a few bags of skittles in his pocket then when somebody mentioned something like “Hey, good job,” George’s response would be to take a bag of skittles, sign it, then hand it out.’

In short, such killings offer plenty of opportunities for making a living if the shooter is not convicted..

 

[SkyFox76]

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But that doesn't have anything to do with anything.

So are you saying it was a smart idea to show up to an already hostel environment armed? The same can be said for Grosskreutz I suppose but he's been lambasted as a felon with a gun who threatened Rittenhouse's life. And as these attoney's have shown, he was not a felon with a gun. And never pointed or fired it at the "active shooter".

A lot of people think they can handle a stressful life-and-death situation with a cool head and not get panicky. No one knows until they are in that situation what they will actually do.


Sure, if you ask them nicely. If you start screaming at them while ripping the heads off their favorite stuffed animals and then demanded to know who they should call in an emergency, I think most would just stare at you and cry. The point here, obviously, is the same as it was above -- everyone knows what to do when they have time to think about it. When you just shot someone to death, you might be a little out-of-sorts for a minute or two.

More drama. If you've just shot someone and then someone says--CALL 911!! What's left to think about? Snap into reality call the number.

"Placing a call for help" isn't limited to calling 911, though I'm sure that's how his attorneys want people to envision what he did without them saying something provably false.

And that's exactly my point about misleading info in the video.

 

[dcsports]

When 4 people on 2 sides of the same debate all come to 4 different conclusions, how can you even say that with a straight face?

The important part here is that half the people reading this give a conclusion based on the legislator's intent - they 'meant to say that there were only two exceptions' or 'why would they give this exemption' or 'yes, it says that here, but up there it says something different.

In a criminal trial, that's called 'reasonable doubt'.

 

[dcsports]

Sounds like typical right wing class there. Goes right in line with this...

Kyle Rittenhouse's Mother Receives Standing Ovation at Wisconsin GOP Event

On Thursday night, Rittenhouse's mother, Wendy and his lawyer, John Pierce, attended a Waukesha County Republican event, and were applauded by the crowd, after being brought on stage by conservative commentator Michelle Malkin.

www.newsweek.com

Right wing logic. Where the killer is always the victim... as long as the shooter is the white one.

The 'killer' isn't always the victim, and neither is the person shot always the victim. Race didn't play a role here - unless I'm mistaken, all those involved were 'white'.

You are battling a straw man.

 

[pamak]

The important part here is that half the people reading this give a conclusion based on the legislator's intent - they 'meant to say that there were only two exceptions' or 'why would they give this exemption' or 'yes, it says that here, but up there it says something different.

In a criminal trial, that's called 'reasonable doubt'.

Past decisions related to the same law and transcripts from the legislation can be used to arrive at a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt regarding the intend of the law's language

And some interpretations do not pass the common sense test: Do you find reasonable that the law intended to exclude prohibiting a ten year old walking around unattended with a knife or a chain but not walking around with a long-barrel gun?

 

[poweRob]

The 'killer' isn't always the victim, and neither is the person shot always the victim. Race didn't play a role here - unless I'm mistaken, all those involved were 'white'.

You are battling a straw man.

BLM protest and supporters getting gunned down by a conservative. Spin away.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

And my point is similar!

Yes, they are "similar" in the way that a housecat is "similar" to a a lion.

Strict reliance to 3c text is insufficient.

Correct. The rest of the statute is relevant.

One has to see the whole text and take in consderation the background information, including the intention of the lawmakers.

No. No. No. NO. You have yet to answer the question: how does a layperson know the law under your "intent of the Legislature" scheme? And that's before considering whose intent you're supposed to take as gospel, since many different legislators voted to make the law and at least sometimes there may have been differing intents and understandings.

It makes zero sense to believe that the lawmakers who crafted, debated and passed the dangerous weapons law were more worried that a teenager under 18 years old age would be armed with a chain or a knife but were not worried that the same teenager would be armed with a long barrel rifle. And as I said, we have ways to see both the interpretation of the law and intend of the lawmakers by other sources, such as previous cases in court with teenagers and dangerous weapons and I can even add that we have additional evidence from the trasncripts from the legislation related to tha passage of the law

Again, your method makes the law unknowable to the layperson. Your scheme does not allow for a straightforward reading of the statute and an application of it based on its text.

The pathetic reasoning is when people like you interpreter a law in a way that permits a 10 year old walkig around armed with a long barrel rifle. And this IS my problem because such interpretations puts everybody around me in danger !

First of all, the reference contained within 3c actually does prohibit a 10-year old from possessing such a weapon. I hadn't paid it much mind since I first read it weeks ago because it bears no relevance to Rittenhouse's situation. But even if it didn't, the plain fact of the matter is that if you don't like what the state of Wisconsin doesn't prohibit by statute, your recourse is to convince them to add it to the Wisconsin code! It's not carved in stone! Your insistence on applying the unknown-to-the-public intent of the legislature is not justice. Your interest is in screwing people who do things you don't like, not in applying the law.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

So are you saying it was a smart idea to show up to an already hostel environment armed?

I refuse to answer this question on the grounds that it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Whether attendance was intelligent or not has no bearing on whether or not he is entitled to a self defense claim.

More drama. If you've just shot someone and then someone says--CALL 911!! What's left to think about? Snap into reality call the number.

Maybe, if you even hear it and it registers in your mind.

And that's exactly my point about misleading info in the video.

Haven't watched the "11 minutes" video.

 

[pamak]

Yes, they are "similar" in the way that a housecat is "similar" to a a lion.


Correct. The rest of the statute is relevant.


No. No. No. NO. You have yet to answer the question: how does a layperson know the law under your "intent of the Legislature" scheme? And that's before considering whose intent you're supposed to take as gospel, since many different legislators voted to make the law and at least sometimes there may have been differing intents and understandings.


Again, your method makes the law unknowable to the layperson. Your scheme does not allow for a straightforward reading of the statute and an application of it based on its text.


First of all, the reference contained within 3c actually does prohibit a 10-year old from possessing such a weapon. I hadn't paid it much mind since I first read it weeks ago because it bears no relevance to Rittenhouse's situation. But even if it didn't, the plain fact of the matter is that if you don't like what the state of Wisconsin doesn't prohibit by statute, your recourse is to convince them to add it to the Wisconsin code! It's not carved in stone! Your insistence on applying the unknown-to-the-public intent of the legislature is not justice. Your interest is in screwing people who do things you don't like, not in applying the law.

I answered yor question but you did not pay attention

The layperson talks to a lawyer. All these people who can afford to pay for night vision devices, lasers,and for all the other "cool" toys can and should consult the lawyers and legal experts. Same with taxes...you pay an accountant to help you with the vastly more complex tax code. I am not proposing here some innovative concept!

Your method makes the layperson an irresponsible gun owner, and by this conversation, it is also obvious that the laypersons will not reach some common understanding of the legal text.

You made some bold claims wthout really understanding the things that you read, and your flip floping now reflects bad on how seriously you take the interpretation of the gun control laws you discuss. You need to go back and revisit the post with the logic you used to support your position and present a new logic. Notice that I used YOUR logic to claim that your interpretation permits a ten year old person walk around with a long-barrel gun playing cowboys vs Indians (so not engaged in a hunting activity).

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I answered yor question but you did not pay attention

The layperson talks to a lawyer. All these people who can afford to pay for night vision devices, lasers,and for all the other "cool" toys can and should consult the lawyers and legal experts.

Except you're talking about legislative intent, which underlies every single law ever written. From those evil black rifles that you so obviously hate to something to actually do hold dear, you're expecting people to consult with lawyers about literally everything. So no, your legislative intent garbage is unreasonable, unworkable, and unjust.

Your method makes the layperson an irresponsible gun owner,

A responsible person reads the law. That's all that's required because the law is what is accessible and written down in one place.

So, you make comments wthout really understanding the things that you read. You just flip flop now (and reflects bad on how seriously you take the interpetation of the gun laws you discuss)..so you need to go back and revisit the post with the logic you used to support your position and present a new logic. Notice that I used YOUR logic to claim that your interpretation permits a ten year old person walk around with a long-barrel gun playing cowboys vs Indians (so not engaged in a hunting activity).

Mea culpa. I spoke prematurely about a law that has utterly no bearing on the topic we're actually discussing and is therefore inconsequential to the subject at hand. But you go ahead and disregard the entire argument based on that trivial irrelevancy. You do you. I reread the irrelevant law and realized how it applies to someone who isn't Rittenhouse's age, and corrected myself. I've seen no indication that you're prepared to reverse course, however. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, head right for that iceberg no matter what.

 

[pamak]

Except you're talking about legislative intent, which underlies every single law ever written. From those evil black rifles that you so obviously hate to something to actually do hold dear, you're expecting people to consult with lawyers about literally everything. So no, your legislative intent garbage is unreasonable, unworkable, and unjust.


A responsible person reads the law. That's all that's required because the law is what is accessible and written down in one place.


Mea culpa. I spoke prematurely about a law that has utterly no bearing on the topic we're actually discussing and is therefore inconsequential to the subject at hand. But you go ahead and disregard the entire argument based on that trivial irrelevancy. You do you. I reread the irrelevant law and realized how it applies to someone who isn't Rittenhouse's age, and corrected myself. I've seen no indication that you're prepared to reverse course, however. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, head right for that iceberg no matter what.

I even gave you examples of how legal scholars study such intent, including in the Supreme Court when they study documents unrelated to the Constitution in order to figure out the intent of the Founding Fathers when the courts interpreter the Constitution's text. I do not know what the "black rifles" are. I said before that I am not a US citizen and I do admit a bias against the American gun culture since I come from Europe. However, I also said that I have served in my country's army handling an FN FAL (you know, the "real" military gun with burst and auto selection) and I do have family connections (from my father's side) to a place where gun possession IS part of the local culture.

The Gun Culture of Crete and World War II Memories | GreekReporter.com

Crete and guns go together. It is the only area in Greece where gun possession is permitted as a tradition.

greece.greekreporter.com

.

So, although I am not a pro-gun supporter, I am also not among those who are hostile to anything that has to do with guns.

A responsible person both reads the law but also understands his limitations and consults the experts who spent years and effort honing their skills to interpreter the law.

It is not inconsequential because I used your logic for the claim with which you initially agreed (that the law permits a 10 year old playing around with a long barrel gun). So, you still need to show why this is not the case. And if you cannot show this, then there is a problem. If the law does permit such a loophole, then some politicians who pushed for such loopholes must be held accountable!

 

[Oborosen]

Sounds like typical right wing class there. Goes right in line with this...

Kyle Rittenhouse's Mother Receives Standing Ovation at Wisconsin GOP Event

On Thursday night, Rittenhouse's mother, Wendy and his lawyer, John Pierce, attended a Waukesha County Republican event, and were applauded by the crowd, after being brought on stage by conservative commentator Michelle Malkin.

www.newsweek.com

Right wing logic. Where the killer is always the victim... as long as the shooter is the white one.

^^^Idiotic logic, everything is based on race and if you disagree. Then that means you're just a racist.

 

[ASHES]

I even gave you examples of how legal scholars study such intent, including in the Supreme Court when they study documents unrelated to the Constitution in order to figure out the intent of the Founding Fathers when the courts interpreter the Constitution's text. I do not know what the "black rifles" are. I said before that I am not a US citizen and I do admit a bias against the American gun culture since I come from Europe. However, I also said that I have served in my country's army handling an FN FAL (you know, the "real" military gun with burst and auto selection) and I do have family connections (from my father's side) to a place where gun possession IS part of the local culture.

The Gun Culture of Crete and World War II Memories | GreekReporter.com

Crete and guns go together. It is the only area in Greece where gun possession is permitted as a tradition.

greece.greekreporter.com

.

So, although I am not a pro-gun supporter, I am also not among those who are hostile to anything that has to do with guns.

A responsible person both reads the law but also understands his limitations and consults the experts who spent years and effort honing their skills to interpreter the law.

It is not inconsequential because I used your logic for the claim with which you initially agreed (that the law permits a 10 year old playing around with a long barrel gun). So, you still need to show why this is not the case. And if you cannot show this, then there is a problem. If the law does permit such a loophole, then some politicians who pushed for such loopholes must be held accountable!

This
29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
...
1b: Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person under 12 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and he or she is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class under the supervision of his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.
...

Wisconsin Legislature: 29.304

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

that is the relevant statute in 3c that disqualifies your 10 year old from possessing the rifle, but not Rittenhouse.

 

[dcsports]

Past decisions related to the same law and transcripts from the legislation can be used to arrive at a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt regarding the intend of the law's language

And some interpretations do not pass the common sense test: Do you find reasonable that the law intended to exclude prohibiting a ten year old walking around unattended with a knife or a chain but not walking around with a long-barrel gun?
[/QUOTE}

Again, 'do you think the law intended'? Reasonable doubt. And again, we are talking about a 17 year old carrying a rifle. The law specifically addresses 16 year olds hunting with supervision - you could make a case that they intended 17 year olds to be somewhere in between. This is a state that embraces hunting, and for people to carry rifles to the supermarket.

 

[dcsports]

BLM protest and supporters getting gunned down by a conservative. Spin away.

It's hardly spin. You were attacking a straw man.

 

[pamak]

This
29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
...
1b: Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person under 12 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and he or she is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class under the supervision of his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.
...

Wisconsin Legislature: 29.304

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

that is the relevant statute in 3c that disqualifies your 10 year old from possessing the rifle, but not Rittenhouse.

I am not sure what you want to say on behalf of Grizzly Adams. I suggest, you first communicate with him to form a common understandng and argument before you address me because I simply do not have the time (or desire) to run simulatneously two conversations with two people . I will ask you just two simple questions to think over when you talk with him about presenting a common position:

The first question is "can somebody claim that the 29.304 restrictions aplply only to guns used for hunting purposes? " Notice the headline "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms" which is not clear. . One may say that this section is only about the restrictions and the proper use on guns used for hunting purposes. And with such interpretation, a gun used for purposes other than hunting is not subjected to therestrictions of this section.

And if the answer to the first question is negative and you establish the point that 29.304 applies to all guns unrelated to whether they are used for hunting purposes or not, does the above section permit a 12 and over year old to play around with a long-barrel gun? Because f it does, the problem still exists.

 

[dixon01767]

First misinformation, where the first shot came from. The man they claim fired that shot cannot be in two locations at once. He was either walking on the sidewalk at the car lot (which video shows) or he was across the street (which no video shows). Why the need to move his location? Second, there was no group forming a barricade with bats and other weapons to "pin Rittenhouse between cars". The drone footage shows were people hanging at that corner before the chase even began. Pretty high odds they were aware Rittenhouse was heading towards them or even why. Third, Rittenhouse never "placed a call for help". It's right in the criminal complaint that the call he made was to his friend Dominic Black.

I never heard he called anyone other than his friends and all the rest above is irrelevant to his defense. Witness testimony establishes that Kyle was being chased and that he lunged at Kyle and grabbed the barrel of his gun.

 

[ASHES]

I am not sure what you want to say on behalf of Grizzly Adams. I suggest, you first communicate with him to form a common understandng and argument before you address me because I simply do not have the time (or desire) to run simulatneously two conversations with two people . I will ask you just two simple questions to think over when you talk with him about presenting a common position:

The first question is "can somebody claim that the 29.304 restrictions aplply only to guns used for hunting purposes? " Notice the headline "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms" which is not clear. . One may say that this section is only about the restrictions and the proper use on guns used for hunting purposes. And with such interpretation, a gun used for purposes other than hunting is not subjected to therestrictions of this section.

And if the answer to the first question is negative and you establish the point that 29.304 applies to all guns unrelated to whether they are used for hunting purposes or not, does the above section permit a 12 and over year old to play around with a long-barrel gun? Because f it does, the problem still exists.

GA can speak for himself. I simply answered the hypothetical you keep bringing up.

29.304 is, like 948.60 3c, quite clear in it's language. "No person under 12 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm" yada yada supervision training etc. If it was the intent of the legislature to prohibit a 17 year old from simply possessing a rifle or shotgun, 940.60 3c wouldn't provide them an exception, like it does when it later goes on to clarify who is restricted from possessing one in what circumstances in 29.304, which only applies to those under 16.