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

[SkyFox76]

lol -- the reply you attributed to me was from someone else (dixon). And then throw in some other random comments. You are focusing on the wrong details.

I'll just refer you back to the post you just quoted.

Sorry, yes I mixed you're comments up with Dixon who has not only suggested the 11 minute video is accurate, but also thought a twitter feed saying Rittenhouse put out the fire would magically make it so.

 

[pamak]

Why do I have to answer that question? It's in the next part of 29.304, why didn't you just read it?

29.304
(2) Persons 12 to 14 years of age.
(a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may hunt unless he or she is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:
1. Is accompanied by 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
2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.

Sometimes, I try to cut corners to save time.

Revisiting the text, you are correct that it does show restrictions for different ages bur these restrictionss are for huntng and trapping related activities as the title shows. All sections are part of


SUBCHAPTER IV
HUNTING AND TRAPPING REGULATION

Wisconsin Legislature: 29.304

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

So one who is strictly folowing only what the text shows can argue that for activities not related to hunting and trapping such restrctions on minors do not apply.

 

[ASHES]

Sometimes, I try to cut corners to save time.

Revisiting the text, you are correct that it does show restrictions for different ages bur these restrictionss are for huntng and trapping related activities as the title shows. So one who is strictly folowing only what the text shows can argue that for activities not related to hunting and trapping such restrctions on minors do not apply.

A is a restriction on hunting, B is a restriction on possession or control of a firearm, in what circumstances possession of a rifle or shotgun is OK, for what purpose, supervised or not, etc.

 

[pamak]

A is a restriction on hunting, B is a restriction on possession or control of a firearm, in what circumstances possession of a rifle or shotgun is OK, for what purpose, supervised or not, etc.

All of them are within the


SUBCHAPTER IV
HUNTING AND TRAPPING REGULATION

A is restrction on the hunting activity itself which may be undertaken with or without a rifle.
B is restriction on the firearms used fo such hunting activity

 

[ASHES]

All of them are within the


SUBCHAPTER IV
HUNTING AND TRAPPING REGULATION

A is restrction on the hunting activity itself which may be undertaken with or without a rifle
B is restriction on the firearms used fo such hunting activity

Yes, and that specific section that allows for hunting with specific restrictions only for people under the age of 16.

 

[pamak]

Yes, and that specific section that allows for hunting with specific restrictions only for people under the age of 16.

which means that one can argue that these restrictions do not apply outside of hunting which brings us back to my question of minors using long-barrel guns in non-hunting activities...

 

[ASHES]

which means that one can argue that these restrictions do not apply outside of hunting which brings us back to my question of minors using long-barrel guns in non-hunting activities...

3c makes no mention of hunting or any of that except as exclusions for those under 16. 3c is in the 948.60 statute. So nothing in 3c prevents Kyle from possessing it, hunting or not.

 

[pamak]

3c makes no mention of hunting or any of that except as exclusions for those under 16. 3c is in the 948.60 statute. So nothing in 3c prevents Kyle from possessing it, hunting or not.

We were talking about the 10 year minor....
3c mentions the exceptions of the section you cited. And we both agreed that this section you cited is about hunting and trapping restriction.
So, again based on what youhave brought so far and you interpretation of the whole law, nothing prohibits a 10 year old minor to use a long barrel weapon in non-hunting activities.

 

[ASHES]

3c mentions the exceptions of the subparagraph you cited which are about hunting and trapping...

Which do not apply because he wasn't trapping or hunting or supervised or any of that and didn't have to be because the 3 cited statutes in 3c that could disqualify him from being protected by 3c (possession under 18 of a rifle or shotgun as an exception to 2a) did not apply to him in any case, not the 12" or shorter barrel, he was over 16 and not hunting or bound by any of that, because that disqualifies him from 3c only if he is under 16 and not hunting while supervised or whatever the law says is required for that age range.

 

[pamak]

Which do not apply because he wasn't trapping or hunting or supervised or any of that and didn't have to be because the 3 cited statutes in 3c that could disqualify him from being protected by 3c (possession under 18 of a rifle or shotgun as an exception to 2a) did not apply to him in any case, not the 12" or shorter barrel, he was over 16 and not hunting or bound by any of that, because that disqualifies him from 3c only if he is under 16 and not hunting while supervised or whatever the law says is required for that age range.

Again, you missed my point.

We were not discussing the shooter.

We were discussing the approach of interpreting the law based just on the text which is the position of peope from your side. And I copied the same approach (even though I disagree with it) only to show that it leads to conclusions like that a 10 year old can use a long-barrel gun for non-hunting faciltiies. You tried to argue that this was not the case, but you have not brought any legal text to support that.

 

[ASHES]

Again, yu miss my point.

We were not discussing the shooter.

We were discussing the approach of interpreting the law based just on the text which is the position of peope from your side. And I copied the same approach (even though I disagree with it) only to show that it leads to conclusions like that a 10 year old can use a long-barrel gun for non-hunting faciltiies. You tried to argue that this was not the case, but you have not brought any legal text to support that.

I did bring the text, it is referenced in 3c, and it talks about hunting and supervision and stuff, that only applies to people under 16. If he were 15, or 12, he would have to be hunting, and supervised, and carry it in a case unloaded. However, 3c, which permits those under 18 to possess a rifle or shotgun, and then goes on to add restrictions on that only to those under the age of 16. Nowhere in 3c is hunting or supervision or any of that required for a 16 or 17 year old, whoever they are, to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun that isn't short barreled, anywhere they are not prohibited from possessing them in (gun free zones.)

 

[pamak]

I did bring the text, it is referenced in 3c, and it talks about hunting and supervision and stuff, that only applies to people under 16. If he were 15, or 12, he would have to be hunting, and supervised, and carry it in a case unloaded. However, 3c, which permits those under 18 to possess a rifle or shotgun, and then goes on to add restrictions on that only to those under the age of 16. Nowhere in 3c is hunting or supervision or any of that required for a 16 or 17 year old, whoever they are, to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun that isn't short barreled, anywhere they are not prohibited from possessing them in (gun free zones.)

My take of the last 5-10 exchanges we had is the following:
I made a claim (whle I was talking to another poster who had similar to yours views) that based on his position, , a 10 year old can use a long-barrel gun in non-hunting activities.
At some point, you intervened and tried to show that this was wrong by bringing the text of the 29.304. which, I think we can agree now, that did not refute my point because the 29.304 applies to hunting and trapping.

 

[ASHES]

My take of the last 5-10 exchanges we had is the following:
I made a claim (whle I was talking to another poster who had similar to yours views) that based on his position, , a 10 year old can use a long-barrel gun in non-hunting activities.
At some point, you intervened and tried to show that this was wrong by bringing the text of the 29.304. which, I think we can agree now, that did not refute my point because the 29.304 applies to hunting and trapping.

I'm saying it is relevant because that is the statute cited in 948.60 3c that determines who/when/where/what of rifle and shotgun possession is legal or illegal. Under 16 have a bunch of requirements to not be prohibited. 16 and 17 have no such burdens under 3c.

 

[pamak]

I'm saying it is relevant because that is the statute cited in 948.60 3c that determines who/when/where/what of rifle and shotgun possession is legal or illegal. Under 16 have a bunch of requirements to not be prohibited. 16 and 17 have no such burdens under 3c.

My point was not that 29.304 is not relevant in the law of having dangerous weapons. My point was that it is relevancy applies only to rifles used in hunting related activities. I know that you want to see a larger context, but remember that my point is to show exactly the problem of trying to interpreter a law in a very narrow context.

 

[Excon]

The statute states I plain English he was unlawfully possessing a firearm. It’s in black and white.

Wrong.
By the statute's plain wording, it does not say he was "unlawfully possessing a firearm".
You have already been proven wrong and are just humiliating yourself with your continued insistence.

 

[rahl]

Wrong.
By the statute's plain wording, it does not say he was "unlawfully possessing a firearm".
You have already been proven wrong and are just humiliating yourself with your continued insistence.

lol, I've repeatedly quoted the statute showing he was not permitted by law to possess that rifle. The Kenosha DA, grand jury, and Wisconsin attorney general agree. You are the 3rd person in this thread who thinks he knows more about Wisconsin law than the DA and attorney general. It's hilarious.

 

[ASHES]

lol, I've repeatedly quoted the statute showing he was not permitted by law to possess that rifle. The Kenosha DA, grand jury, and Wisconsin attorney general agree. You are the 3rd person in this thread who thinks he knows more about Wisconsin law than the DA and attorney general. It's hilarious.

You claim such knowledge, but make such a fundamental error as saying there was a grand jury in this case. This case has not been presented to a grand jury, so you're wrong. I wonder what else you're wrong about?

 

[dcsports]

I don't think that helps the prosecution at all. He's already painted a white supremacist. None of that is going to be in the trial, just objective facts and evidence. If he had posted stuff on social media or communicated intent to do harm, then it would be relevant. With all the eye on this case, I don't think his lawyers will be able to siphon more than their worth. They're handling the civil side too and those settlements and lawsuits are where they have the potential for highest payment. The militia patriot rhetoric is just for the choir, because of course that kind of talk will open their wallets.

The defense have said they are filing for a writ of habeas corpus on the extradition, so we may get to see

lol, I've repeatedly quoted the statute showing he was not permitted by law to possess that rifle. The Kenosha DA, grand jury, and Wisconsin attorney general agree. You are the 3rd person in this thread who thinks he knows more about Wisconsin law than the DA and attorney general. It's hilarious.

It's not what "Ashes" thinks that's important. There are a lot of other Wisconsin attorneys that have pointed to this 'gap' in the law, and it was a question before this incident. Of course the DA is going to argue for a conviction, but that doesn't remove the issue with the law, or the reasonable doubt that it creates.

In most cases, it matters little. Especially with a misdemeanor that is not commonly enforced. This one has a special issue, in that most people convicted (or pleading out) will be turning 18 shortly, and it will be a footnote on a juvenile record. Lumping this very minor charge in with the felony charges makes this a case where it's worth the challenge.

 

[rahl]

You claim such knowledge, but make such a fundamental error as saying there was a grand jury in this case. This case has not been presented to a grand jury, so you're wrong. I wonder what else you're wrong about?

Has the DA and attorney general called to thank you for letting them know they don't know Wisconsin law as well as some random guy on the internet? lol

 

[ASHES]

Has the DA and attorney general called to thank you for letting them know they don't know Wisconsin law as well as some random guy on the internet? lol

And lots of other lawyers in WI and around the US and world that also analyzed the events and the laws. Of course two of the people most responsible for charging him think they're right. Prosecutors get it wrong all the time, this charge isn't something I'd hang my hat on.

 

[rahl]

And lots of other lawyers in WI and around the US and world that also analyzed the events and the laws. Of course two of the people most responsible for charging him think they're right. Prosecutors get it wrong all the time, this charge isn't something I'd hang my hat on.

So have they thanked you for letting them know they don't know Wisconsin law as well as you, an anonymous guy on the internet?

 

[ASHES]

So have they thanked you for letting them know they don't know Wisconsin law as well as you, an anonymous guy on the internet?

You're still putting all your eggs in that basket. It's going to look really silly when the DA has to quietly drop that charge, at a minimum, without causing a riot.

 

[rahl]

You're still putting all your eggs in that basket. It's going to look really silly when the DA has to quietly drop that charge, at a minimum, without causing a riot.

The DA isn't going to drop the charges for underage possession, as the statute clearly and unambiguously precludes him from possessing the rifle. The murder charges may very well be dismissed. I believe he acted in self defense, but I have not seen all of the evidence against him.

 

[ASHES]

The DA isn't going to drop the charges for underage possession, as the statute clearly and unambiguously precludes him from possessing the rifle. The murder charges may very well be dismissed. I believe he acted in self defense, but I have not seen all of the evidence against him.

Ok, we're back where we started. I think the homicide charges make sense, let a jury with all the facts determine self-defense or not(I think so based on what we've seen), but that the possession charge was weakest and just added because they wanted to throw the book at him asap. All charges were filed within 24 hours, way too fast for all the charges to have been fully considered. We will find out at the preliminary hearing at the latest.

 

[rahl]

Ok, we're back where we started. I think the homicide charges make sense, let a jury with all the facts determine self-defense or not(I think so based on what we've seen), but that the possession charge was weakest and just added because they wanted to throw the book at him asap. All charges were filed within 24 hours, way too fast for all the charges to have been fully considered. We will find out at the preliminary hearing at the latest.

The possession charge is the only charge that is without question, appropriate as the statute clearly and unambiguously precludes him from possessing the rifle.