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

[Grizzly Adams]

Nope!

This is YOUR interpretation if you ignore the intention of the lawmakers which leads you to the bizzare conclusion that in WI a 10 year old can legally walk around unsupervised with a long barrel gun as long as he is not hunting!. The more reasnable interpretation is that the exceptions applied in certain cases when people with short barrel gun satisfied 941.28 and people who ue dangerous weapons for hunting satisfied 29.304 and 29.593

The text of the statute doesn't support that interpretation, even if that's what the legislature intended. And the text of the statute makes it the law, not the intent of the legislature. Your interpretation directly contradicts the text. It is not the responsibility of a person to know the intent of the legislature, only to know the law. If there are two reasonable interpretations of the law (and one that adheres to the text is, by definition, reasonable), then the one that favors the defendant must be used. It's called the principle of lenity.

 

[pamak]

The text of the statute doesn't support that interpretation, even if that's what the legislature intended. And the text of the statute makes it the law, not the intent of the legislature. Your interpretation directly contradicts the text. It is not the responsibility of a person to know the intent of the legislature, only to know the law. If there are two reasonable interpretations of the law (and one that adheres to the text is, by definition, reasonable), then the one that favors the defendant must be used. It's called the principle of lenity.

Actually it does support it. Your problem is that you do not understand that through out history even basic words in legal texts (including in the constitution) such as the word "men" have been interpreted in different ways by the courts because context and intentions DO matter! So, at some point "men" did not include black men. Today, it includes black men and women. A text by itself without context is useless. This is why you arrive at irrational conclusions that a 10 year old in WI can walk around with a long barrel gun as long as he is not hunting. My interpretation respects contexts and common sense logic. Your interpretation tries desperately to latch on an imprecise language which makes you arrrive at conclusions that insult logic.

 

[pamak]

Actually it does support it. Your problem is that you do not understand that through out history even basic words in legal texts (including in the constitution) such as the word "men" have been interpreted in different ways by the courts because context and intentions DO matter! So, at some point "men" did not include black men. Today, it includes black men and women. A text by itself without context is useless. This is why you arrive at irrational conclusions that a 10 year old in WI can walk around with a long barrel gun as long as he is not hunting. My interpretation respects contexts and common sense logic. Your interpretation tries desperately to latch on an imprecise language which makes you arrrive at conclusions that insult logic.

And something else, previous court decisions also become precedents regarding the interpretation of the law. It appears that this WI statute has been around for a while and I strongly suspect that there has been a case in the past with a 17 year old teenagerr who was found guilty of a misdemeanor for posessing a dangerous weapon which was not used for hunting.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Actually it does support it. Your problem is that you do not understand that through out history even basic words in legal texts (including in the constitution) such as the word "men" have been interpreted in different ways by the courts because context and intentions DO matter! So, at some point "men" did not include black men. Today, it includes black men and women. A text by itself without context is useless. This is why you arrive at irational conclusion that a 10 year old in WI can walk around with a long barrel gun as long as he is not hunting. My interpretation respects contexts and common sense logic. Your interpretation tries desperately to latch on an imprecise language which makes you arrrive at conclusions that insult logic.

What statutory text supports the idea that Rittenhouse is covered by 948.60 despite the fact that 94.60(3)(c) states the statute covers only two narrow circumstances? There is none. You can cite legislative intent all you want, but legislative intent doesn't make it into the law. Your interpretation requires a person to not just read the text of the statute but instead figure out what the legislature was intending to do when they passed it. Why? It's a gargantuan task that asks far more of the average person than should be necessary, particularly when competing intents may be demonstrated by people who ended up passing the law. If a statute explicitly states it only applies to certain situations, and no other statutory language adds applicability, that should be the end of the inquiry. The alternative requires endless research into the statute as it is now, as it has been in the past, how it's been altered, why it was altered, and what the intention was in every legislator's mind when they cast their vote, and a determination of whose intent controls.

This is more than is reasonable in a just society, and is in fact a sign of tyrannical rule -- what the law prohibits becomes impossible to determine by the layperson.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

And something else, previous court decisions also become precedents regarding the interpretation of the law. It appears that this WI statute has been around for a while and I strongly suspect that there has been a case in the past with a 17 year old teenagerr who was found guilty of a misdemeanor for posessing a dangerous weapon which was not used for hunting.

If so, I would argue the trial court erred and/or counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the applicability of the statute.

 

[pamak]

If so, I would argue the trial court erred and/or counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the applicability of the statute.

What statutory text supports the idea that Rittenhouse is covered by 948.60 despite the fact that 94.60(3)(c) states the statute covers only two narrow circumstances? There is none. You can cite legislative intent all you want, but legislative intent doesn't make it into the law. Your interpretation requires a person to not just read the text of the statute but instead figure out what the legislature was intending to do when they passed it. Why? It's a gargantuan task that asks far more of the average person than should be necessary, particularly when competing intents may be demonstrated by people who ended up passing the law. If a statute explicitly states it only applies to certain situations, and no other statutory language adds applicability, that should be the end of the inquiry. The alternative requires endless research into the statute as it is now, as it has been in the past, how it's been altered, why it was altered, and what the intention was in every legislator's mind when they cast their vote, and a determination of whose intent controls.

This is more than is reasonable in a just society, and is in fact a sign of tyrannical rule -- what the law prohibits becomes impossible to determine by the layperson.

Again, you refuse to address my point that every statutory text is read within a certain context. It makes no sense to believe that a legislation which defines in the beginning a dangerous weapon as anything from rifles, to metallic knuckles , and star-like objects or chains that eventually chooses to exclude all of the above dangerous weapons and focus only on short barrel guns. And yes, intentions are taken in consideration. They are so important that Supreme Court Judges are even willing to examine scripts of debates from the Constitutional Convention to figure out what the founding fathers intended to do when they said certain things in the constitution.

The most tyranical society is that where common sense does not prevail and your conclusion that the statutory text gives a ten year old the right to have a long barrel gun unsupervised to play with his friends is a sign of imposing the irratonality of pro-gun supporters to the rest of the society.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Again, you refuse to address my point that every statutory text is read within a certain context. It makes no sense to believe that a legislation which defines in the beginning a dangerous weapon as anything from rifles, to metallic knuckles , and star-like objects or chains that eventually chooses to exclude all of the above dangerous weapons and focus only on short barrel guns.

Actually, 3c doesn't appear to exclude those weapons at all. Instead, 3c states the section only applies to persons under 18 who are in possession of a rifle or shotgun if it is short-barreled or they are under 17 and hunting unsupervised and without a safety course. If they are armed with a dangerous weapon other than a rifle or shotgun, the statute appears to carry its full weight.

And yes, intentions are taken in consideration. They are so important that Supreme Court Judges are even willing to examine scripts of debates from the Constitutional Convention to figure out what the founding fathers intended to do when they said certain things in the constitution.

There is a massive problem with this: no average person can even find this information, let alone compile, understand, and apply it to statutory text. Your preference toward applying legislative intent above and beyond the clear text of the statute is unworkable. How is a person supposed to know the law under this regime of yours?

The most tyranical society is that where common sense does not prevail and your conclusion that the statutory text gives a ten year old the right to have a long barrel gun unsupervised to play with his friends is a sign of imposing the irratonality of pro-gun supporters to the rest of the society.

Disagree. It is more tyrannical to hold people accountable for violating a law whose plain text exempts them from its applicability. It is even more tyrannical to hold people responsible for violating laws that aren't actually written down anywhere definite but instead compiled from legislative records, and the meaning of those records decided after the person has been charged.

 

[HK.227]

Disagree. It is more tyrannical to hold people accountable for violating a law whose plain text exempts them from its applicability. It is even more tyrannical to hold people responsible for violating laws that aren't actually written down anywhere definite but instead compiled from legislative records, and the meaning of those records decided after the person has been charged.

Completely off-topic, but that is why Hammurabi was considered one of the great law-givers.
For making the law accessible to the ordinary people, rather than keeping it a set of secret rules that only the high and mighty were allowed to know.

 

[dcsports]

Actually, 3c doesn't appear to exclude those weapons at all. Instead, 3c states the section only applies to persons under 18 who are in possession of a rifle or shotgun if it is short-barreled or they are under 17 and hunting unsupervised and without a safety course. If they are armed with a dangerous weapon other than a rifle or shotgun, the statute appears to carry its full weight.


There is a massive problem with this: no average person can even find this information, let alone compile, understand, and apply it to statutory text. Your preference toward applying legislative intent above and beyond the clear text of the statute is unworkable. How is a person supposed to know the law under this regime of yours?


Disagree. It is more tyrannical to hold people accountable for violating a law whose plain text exempts them from its applicability. It is even more tyrannical to hold people responsible for violating laws that aren't actually written down anywhere definite but instead compiled from legislative records, and the meaning of those records decided after the person has been charged.

Adding to the confusion, he chatted with police officers earlier in the evening, even giving them water. Not one carded the group, or even said anything along the lines of 'I hope no one here is under the age of 18'. They apparently weren't concerned. This law wouldn't have been enforced but for the shooting.

 

[rahl]

You're wrong that you've proven it.

I'm demonstrably correct that I've proven it. I've given you the statute, showing he is precluded from possessing a rifle.

But, given your continued denials and intransigence, it would seem you are correct that it's never going to change.

Again, for the benefit of incoming readers, you've never explained why 3c (which states the section -- 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 -- applies ONLY to persons under 18 who are in possession of a short-barreled rifle, or to persons under 17 who are hunting AND have not passed a safety course) should be ignored. Nowhere does it require that the minor be hunting in order to apply. This is not stated in 3c, and nowhere else in 948.60 does it state that 3c doesn't apply if the minor is not hunting.

This is irrefutable. If it were refutable, you would have done so. You have not. You simply repeat your insistence that you have, and toss in that the charges alone prove his culpability. It should be monumentally trivial for you to prove your claim with regard to the statutory text: cite the part of the statute that states 3c doesn't apply unless the minor is hunting. You haven't because you can't because it isn't there. I'm sure you'll say you already have proven it, but no such proof has been actually offered.

Until you actually provide a substantive argument that supports your claim that 3c doesn't apply (and no, repeating the lie that you've already done so doesn't count, and no, citing the fact that the DA has charged the crime doesn't count, either), I'm done toying with you. Respond to this or don't, but if your response doesn't have a statutory citation stating explicitly that 3c doesn't apply, I just wouldn't even waste my time if I were you, because I'm done trying to have an evidence-based discussion with you. You're clearly not interested in it.

Buh-bye.

already done this. The ONLY exceptions to possessing a rifle under 18, is being in the armed forces, hunting (over 16), target practicing or under direct adult supervision. this is clearly spelled out in crystal clear, unambiguous plain English. The DA, and attorney general both agree. I'm sorry.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Adding to the confusion, he chatted with police officers earlier in the evening, even giving them water. Not one carded the group, or even said anything along the lines of 'I hope no one here is under the age of 18'. They apparently weren't concerned. This law wouldn't have been enforced but for the shooting.

Ehhhhh, I wouldn't put too much weight on that. Unless they had reason to believe he was underage they had no reason to card him. That they didn't bother attempting to enforce that law isn't a sign that it was inapplicable or isn't worthy of being enforced, it just means it wasn't a road they decided to travel that night for some reason.

 

[Luce]

Leaving aside the one misdemeanor charge, the kid is hosed.

His lawyers have gone full Palin.

 

[ASHES]

Leaving aside the one misdemeanor charge, the kid is hosed.

His lawyers have gone full Palin.

Like people oft repeat about the prosecution, maybe the defense knows something we don't.

 

[Luce]

Like people oft repeat about the prosecution, maybe the defense knows something we don't.

Doesn't matter what they know. They have drifted off of their affirmative defense and are now playing to the defense donors, not the court or the jury.

 

[dcsports]

Doesn't matter what they know. They have drifted off of their affirmative defense and are now playing to the defense donors, not the court or the jury.

That makes no sense. There is no jury, and the court doesn't care. Yes, his lawyers are doing some PR and fundraising work right now, but funding plays a role in providing a defense.

Trial is going to be a different process.

 

[dcsports]

Leaving aside the one misdemeanor charge, the kid is hosed.

His lawyers have gone full Palin.

We'll see. Given the circumstances, the weapons charge may be the strongest the prosecution has. It won't be hard to show that a reasonable person would be in fear of imminent bodily harm or death given the video. Even the criminal complaint seems to support this.

 

[pamak]

Actually, 3c doesn't appear to exclude those weapons at all. Instead, 3c states the section only applies to persons under 18 who are in possession of a rifle or shotgun if it is short-barreled or they are under 17 and hunting unsupervised and without a safety course. If they are armed with a dangerous weapon other than a rifle or shotgun, the statute appears to carry its full weight.

Sorry buddy, but I play YOUR game (meaning that of an aggressive defense lawyer who discounts an obvious and simple interpretation and bases his arguments only on what the 3c text says. You see, there is nothing in the 3c text which says "If they are armed with a dangerous weapon other than a rifle or shotgun, the statute appears to carry its full weight." This is YOUR interpretation! And again, I'm not saying that this interpretation is unreasonable. What I am showing here is that strict reliance on the 3c text is not sufficient.

Here is again the text:

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

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.

In the same way, one can see the context and previous sections of the law which clearly talk about committing a misdemeanor when people under the age 18 are armed with dangerous weapons (which includes long-barrel guns) and realize that section 3c applies only to cases the the person has a shotgun or a gun that he uses for hunting purposes.

There is a massive problem with this: no average person can even find this information, let alone compile, understand, and apply it to statutory text. Your preference toward applying legislative intent above and beyond the clear text of the statute is unworkable. How is a person supposed to know the law under this regime of yours?

Again, as I said, I am pretty sure that this law has been applied before to other teenagers under 18 who were found to have dangerous weapons, including long barrel guns, that were not used in hunting activities, so there must be precedents which gun enthusiasts will know. And if somebody is not sure about the legality of a certain action he consults a lawyer.

Disagree. It is more tyrannical to hold people accountable for violating a law whose plain text exempts them from its applicability. It is even more tyrannical to hold people responsible for violating laws that aren't actually written down anywhere definite but instead compiled from legislative records, and the meaning of those records decided after the person has been charged.

I disagree. I prefer to hold irresponsible or unreasonable people accountable when they interpreter the law in a way that lets even 10 year old children walk around with long barrel guns and put in danger my children. If somebody does not want to have common sense or consult a lawyer for such thing, it is not my problem. Gun enthusiasts have a lot of money to spend to get their new toy. They should find some money for legal advise in how to reasonably use those toys when they are in public spaces. And there are even organizations which offer free legal advise.

 

[SkyFox76]

That makes no sense. There is no jury, and the court doesn't care. Yes, his lawyers are doing some PR and fundraising work right now, but funding plays a role in providing a defense.

Trial is going to be a different process.

They've turned this into a dog and pony show. The most recent being the 11 minute video that contains misinformation and trying to portray the shootings as "the shot heard around the world". And let's not ignore his mother (who people say hasn't defended her son out of fear) showing up all smiles at a women's GOP event with Pierce. I'll just bet she could have waited for that standing ovation to die down and spoke on her son's behalf. And yet nothing. It's sad she doesn't seem to realize her and her son are being used to rescue two men's careers who couldn't even manage to address the laptop situation in the past month and then hadn't even prepared any paperwork to hand to the courts when they did.

I read on a website that in the early days had people donating daily. Now most people have been holding off because they are leary of whether their money is helping Rittenhouse, or lining the pockets of Wood and Pierce. So their presence in this is actually hurting donations, not helping.

 

[Luce]

They've turned this into a dog and pony show. The most recent being the 11 minute video that contains misinformation and trying to portray the shootings as "the shot heard around the world". And let's not ignore his mother (who people say hasn't defended her son out of fear) showing up all smiles at a women's GOP event with Pierce. I'll just bet she could have waited for that standing ovation to die down and spoke on her son's behalf. And yet nothing. It's sad she doesn't seem to realize her and her son are being used to rescue two men's careers who couldn't even manage to address the laptop situation in the past month and then hadn't even prepared any paperwork to hand to the courts when they did.

I read on a website that in the early days had people donating daily. Now most people have been holding off because they are leary of whether their money is helping Rittenhouse, or lining the pockets of Wood and Pierce. So their presence in this is actually hurting donations, not helping.

Yep. In an effort to drive fundraising, they're hollering about what a PATRIOT he is, not that he was scared for his life and acted in self defense.

Going to be hard to walk that back in front of a jury.

 

[dcsports]

Yep. In an effort to drive fundraising, they're hollering about what a PATRIOT he is, not that he was scared for his life and acted in self defense.

Going to be hard to walk that back in front of a jury.

Not sure what needs to be 'walked back' - but anyone who's been following closely will be likely disqualified. Again, we aren't to the jury. He hasn't even made it to the state. Self defense is going to be easy to show at trial.

 

[dcsports]

They've turned this into a dog and pony show. The most recent being the 11 minute video that contains misinformation and trying to portray the shootings as "the shot heard around the world". And let's not ignore his mother (who people say hasn't defended her son out of fear) showing up all smiles at a women's GOP event with Pierce. I'll just bet she could have waited for that standing ovation to die down and spoke on her son's behalf. And yet nothing. It's sad she doesn't seem to realize her and her son are being used to rescue two men's careers who couldn't even manage to address the laptop situation in the past month and then hadn't even prepared any paperwork to hand to the courts when they did.

I read on a website that in the early days had people donating daily. Now most people have been holding off because they are leary of whether their money is helping Rittenhouse, or lining the pockets of Wood and Pierce. So their presence in this is actually hurting donations, not helping.

I can't speak to fundraising, but you are overstating things. I haven't seen the video you are referring to - perhaps post it here?

The fact his mom was caught in a picture smiling during an event is being used as some kind of 'gotcha!' moment is pretty sad.

 

[SkyFox76]

I can't speak to fundraising, but you are overstating things. I haven't seen the video you are referring to - perhaps post it here?

The fact his mom was caught in a picture smiling during an event is being used as some kind of 'gotcha!' moment is pretty sad.

So then I guess the PR stunt is failing? That's odd considering it was in the news repeatedly since released. Hit up the fundraising site.

There is no gotcha moment. When I questioned why his mother (or really ANY family) hasn't made a public statement as to what a good son she has and he was just trying to defend the property in Kenosha, I was met with how she's not going to draw any attention to herself for fear of retaliation. So do you really think showing up at a women's GOP event, posing for the camera and the event organizer thanking Rittenhouse for his courage is somehow safer than her even making a statement over the phone that she loves and supports her son? It was a poor PR attempt by the ring leaders Wood and Pierce.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Sorry buddy, but I play YOUR game (meaning that of an aggressive defense lawyer who discounts an obvious and simple interpretation and bases his arguments only on what the 3c text says. You see, there is nothing in the 3c text which says "If they are armed with a dangerous weapon other than a rifle or shotgun, the statute appears to carry its full weight." This is YOUR interpretation! And again, I'm not saying that this interpretation is unreasonable. What I am showing here is that strict reliance on the 3c text is not sufficient.

No, strict reliance on only the text of 3c is insufficient. You have to read and apply the entire section. The section first applies a blanket prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons, then specifies exceptions to the prohibition. The third exception is a minor in possession of a rifle or shotgun (but not any other dangerous weapon) in certain specific instances. The prohibition still exists, and 3c doesn't change that, insofar as dangerous weapons other than rifles or shotguns are concerned.

If your point is that you have to read the statute in situ and apply it in the context of its surrounding clauses, then yes you are correct. Reading 948.60 as defining all sorts of dangerous weapons, banning their possession by minors, then allowing their possession when supervised, then allowing their possession by minors in the armed forces, then stating the section only applies to minors in possession of a rifle or shotgun in two narrow circumstances is silly. It makes meaningless the definitions, prohibition on possession, and the first two exceptions. When you read the section as a whole, 3c appears to grant an exception to the possession of dangerous weapons by minors only when they are armed with rifles or shotguns, but not when they are armed with other dangerous weapons. You'll note that nowhere did I assert that the only text that carries weight is 3c. What I am asserting is that your notion of applying legislative intent in contradiction to the black-letter wording of the statute is a travesty of justice because it is unknowable to the layperson.

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.

Exactly. This section (948.60) applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or shotgun (but not some other dangerous weapons) if the person is in violation... blah blah blah.

See, 3c is an exception to the prohibition on possession of those two types of dangerous weapons by minors, but it is mute as to excepting other types of dangerous weapons. Therefore, since it doesn't exempt possession of other dangerous weapons by minors, such possession remains prohibited by the terms of part 2. Because you read the entire section as a whole in a way that is not internally nonsensical.

In the same way, one can see the context and previous sections of the law which clearly talk about committing a misdemeanor when people under the age 18 are armed with dangerous weapons (which includes long-barrel guns) and realize that section 3c applies only to cases the the person has a shotgun or a gun that he uses for hunting purposes.

I don't see any basis for this conclusion in the statute whatsoever.

I disagree. I prefer to hold irresponsible or unreasonable people accountable when they interpreter the law in a way that lets even 10 year old children walk around with long barrel guns and put in danger my children. If somebody does not want to have common sense or consult a lawyer for such thing, it is not my problem. Gun enthusiasts have a lot of money to spend to get their new toy. They should find some money for legal advise in how to reasonably use those toys when they are in public spaces. And there are even organizations which offer free legal advise.

This is a pathetic line of reasoning. And you're right, it's not your problem. Until it is because someone is prosecuting you for violating a law that doesn't cover what you actually did, but the legislative intent is allegedly clear. It's pretty apparent by your final paragraph that your interpretation of this law is biased by your prejudice against gun owners. Grow up and figure out the fact that justice doesn't depend on whether or not you like the people charged or what they did, but instead on the law as written and passed.

 

[dixon01767]

They've turned this into a dog and pony show. The most recent being the 11 minute video that contains misinformation and trying to portray the shootings as "the shot heard around the world"..

What misinformation would that be?

 

[dcsports]

And something else, previous court decisions also become precedents regarding the interpretation of the law. It appears that this WI statute has been around for a while and I strongly suspect that there has been a case in the past with a 17 year old teenagerr who was found guilty of a misdemeanor for posessing a dangerous weapon which was not used for hunting.

It's a misdemeanor that's rarely enforced. Such laws are rarely challenged... it's just not worth it. It's cheaper to just pay the fine, knowing that it will drop to a juvenile record in less than a year.