[W:2221][W: 821] [W:15] Rittenhouse Verdict

[rahl]

Ok, no you’re wrong.

I’m not.

I noticed you’re not posting the statute here and the reason you’re not doing that is because you know you’re wrong.

It’s already been posted.

 

[pamak]

That is not reasonable at all, because 29.593 specifically has an age limit in the statute. So you have to be of an age covered in 593

Here is the title of 29.593

Wisconsin Legislature: 29.593

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

It is about hunting and not about playing the cop or security guy protecting foreign property!

 

[justabubba]

It was his evaluation of the text. One can read the same text and make different interpretations. The interpretation that the law applies only to short-barrel guns dfoes not make sense because it contradicts the previous language. What makes sense is to see the language of the exceptions in 3c as an attempt to exclude minors who have short-barrel rifles based on 941.28 or long-barrel guns under the exceptions of 29.304 or 29.593 sections.

the party which writes the document has a greater responsibility than those who are subject to it
the presumption is the author of the agreement had a specific intent in crafting the language of the document and any ambiguity moves against the writing party
because that lack of clarity is the fault of the author
in this case the state

i find it significant that this language has not be subjected to revision by the state legislature given the time since the incident and infamy of the weakly constructed law
if the intent was other than as written, would a reasonable person not expect to see that language to have been amended to better reflect a different intent if a different intent was actually present?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Here is the title of 29.593

Wisconsin Legislature: 29.593

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

It is about hunting and not about playing the cop or security guy protecting foreign property!

So then it is the other section. It doesn’t matter though, because the other section is the one with the age limit and I just flipped them in my mind. Because section 304 has the age limit, and you have to violate both that one and 593 at the same time, the effect is the same. Kyle is not guilty.

The rest of this rambling, it’s just the standard left-wing BS that people like you throw out because you don’t wanna directly say you sympathize with a child rapist.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

the party which writes the document has a greater responsibility than those who are subject to it
the presumption is the author of the agreement had a specific intent in crafting the language of the document and any ambiguity moves against the writing party
because that lack of clarity is the fault of the author
in this case the state

i find it significant that this language has not be subjected to revision by the state legislature given the time since the incident and infamy of the weakly constructed law
if the intent was other than as written, would a reasonable person not expect to see that language to have been amended to better reflect a different intent if a different intent was actually present?

It’s not weakly constructed. It has a plain meaning to anyone who reads it. The problem is that the left wants to put people on show trial for defending themselves against their fascist black shirts.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yes, he was.

I’ve read it and cited it in about a dozen threads over the past year.

I don’t care where you claim to cite it. I have not seen you sign it, and you’re not signing it now and the reason you’re not signing it now is because you are being dishonest as to what it says.

You want to sound like you know the law while not truthfully stating the provisions. Because there’s only one rational way to read it and that’s against the case you’re making.

 

[pamak]

the party which writes the document has a greater responsibility than those who are subject to it
the presumption is the author of the agreement had a specific intent in crafting the language of the document and any ambiguity moves against the writing party
because that lack of clarity is the fault of the author
in this case the state

i find it significant that this language has not be subjected to revision by the state legislature given the time since the incident and infamy of the weakly constructed law
if the intent was other than as written, would a reasonable person not expect to see that language to have been amended to better reflect a different intent if a different intent was actually present?

Judges have also a responsibility to make a fair attempt to interpreter a statute. More often than not laws are complicated and if a judge is just ready to adopt even the most absurd interpretation of an ambiguous language then we would rarely have a decision.

I just gave you a real life historical example from the Supreme Court which shows how judges can go beyond language

On the face of it, this seems to be a clear case: the statute forbids the assisted importation into United States of any alien to do labor or service of any kind, so the church should be held liable for the punishment that the statute provides. This is how the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York decided the case. [3] The judge of this court was clearly a textualist who thought that statutes should be interpreted according to their literal meanings.

However, the final judgment in the case was that the church did not act unlawfully.


The Supreme Court admitted that

the act of the [church] is within the letter of this section [of the statute], for the relation of rector to its church is one of service, and implies labor on the one side with compensation on the other.
[Yet] we cannot think Congress intended to denounce with penalties a transaction like that in the present case.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Judges have also a responsibility to make a fair attempt to interpreter a statute. More often than not laws are complicated and if a judge is just ready to adopt even the most absurd interpretation of an ambiguous language then we would rarely have a decision.

I just gave you a real life historical example from the Supreme Court which shows how judges can go beyond language

On the face of it, this seems to be a clear case: the statute forbids the assisted importation into United States of any alien to do labor or service of any kind, so the church should be held liable for the punishment that the statute provides. This is how the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York decided the case. [3] The judge of this court was clearly a textualist who thought that statutes should be interpreted according to their literal meanings.

However, the final judgment in the case was that the church did not act unlawfully.


The Supreme Court admitted that

This is wholly irrelevant to the Rittenhouse case, you are just grasping at straws, I’m not going down a rabbit hole on a labor regulation case, we’re talking a criminal case under Wisconsin law, and evidently your argument is an unambiguous criminal statute should be twisted 180 degrees for a conviction.

 

[pamak]

So then it is the other section. It doesn’t matter though, because the other section is the one with the age limit and I just flipped them in my mind. Because section 304 has the age limit, and you have to violate both that one and 593 at the same time, the effect is the same. Kyle is not guilty.

The rest of this rambling, it’s just the standard left-wing BS that people like you throw out because you don’t wanna directly say you sympathize with a child rapist.

Ohh, iit does matter because you did not refute my reasonable interpretation of the 3c

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Ohh, iit does matter because you did not refute my reasonable interpretation of the 3c

Your wrong interpretation of 3c. There is a level of objective truth, and your interpretation is not it. You are simply wrong as wrong as arguing 2+2 = 5.

Your “interpretation” is twisted to show a specific defendant guilty, and uses elements not found in the law

 

[pamak]

Your wrong interpretation of 3c. There is a level of objective truth, and your interpretation is not it. You are simply wrong as wrong as arguing 2+2 = 5.

Okay.

but your attempt to show the numbers did not check out.

EMNofSeattle said:
That is not reasonable at all, because 29.593 specifically has an age limit in the statute. So you have to be of an age covered in 593

Now feel free to show the other sections. If you show me the one about the long-barrel weapons used for hunting, my point remains the same (it is again only about hunting)
And if you show me the section about the short barrel guns, it does not apply to Kyle.

So, as I say, the exclusions mentioned in 3c were meant to protect people who were covered by the exemptions for short-barrel weapons and long-barrel ones used for hunting.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Okay.

but your attempt to show the numbers did not check out.

This is midwittery. You cannot show any interpretation of guilt using the law as it exists and so your only argument is to try to correct clerical and grammatical errors without showing your case. Because your case is wrong, which is a why a judge dismissed this charge

 

[pamak]

This is midwittery. You cannot show any interpretation of guilt using the law as it exists and so your only argument is to try to correct clerical and grammatical errors without showing your case. Because your case is wrong, which is a why a judge dismissed this charge

The interpretation we are talking about the law. The decision about guilt rests with the jury. Now we are not talking about decisions related to Kyle's guilt of possessing a dangerous weapon as a teenager. We are talking about the judge's decision which did not let the jury to even consider the charge.

And the interpretation we are talking about goes beyond Kyle's case . It seems right now that the next time we have a civil disturbance in WI, it will be legally permissible to have 17 year old teenagers borrowing long-barrel rifles from their friends to play the cop or security personnel in the street.

 

[GummyVitamins]

The claim that Kyle followed the law makes sense only if you believe that the intention of the WI lawmakers was to prevent minors from carrying dangerous weapons such as knuckles but were not interested in preventing them from carrying a much more powerful and deadly semiautomatic gun. I do not find such interpretation logical. That was my position 2 years ago when I briefly talked about the issue, and I continue to have the same position today, after the judge's rule.

Again, it's not up to the judge or a prosecutor to guess what an intention of a criminal statute is. If a law is poorly written you fix the law. Additionally, rifles have a legitimate purpose for sporting purposes. Allowing the possession of a rifle makes more sense from that standpoint. Brass knuckles, handguns, etc are items more likely to be used for illegal purposes from someone in that age bracket.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Right. If the law is poorly constructed you correct the law not incarcerate the citizen. But if the person is on trial the judge is required to interpret the law.

Which he did. The law doesn't say it is illegal for a 17 year old to open carry a rifle.

And the Wisconsin law was clearly meant to address under age hunting and target practice not marching around city streets carrying a weapon at ready, looking for rioters to shoot.

In your opinion that is the case, but even if true it doesn't matter. If the law says it is legal for you to do something you can't be put in jail for doing that legal behavior. If the legislature messed up the law back when it was passed then they can fix the law.

 

[GummyVitamins]

It also doesn't say an unsupervised 17 year old may obtain a weapon and use it to emulate police action against rioters.

Criminal statutes tell you what you can't do. Anything else is legal. This is America, freedom, due process and all that. We don't imprison people for behaviors that are not restricted by the law.

 

[pamak]

Again, it's not up to the judge or a prosecutor to guess what an intention of a criminal statute is. If a law is poorly written you fix the law. Additionally, rifles have a legitimate purpose for sporting purposes. Allowing the possession of a rifle makes more sense from that standpoint. Brass knuckles, handguns, etc are items more likely to be used for illegal purposes from someone in that age bracket.

We are not talking about a wild guess. We are talking about common sense interpretation instead of demanding 100% clarity in language when one deals with statutes which are usually quite complicated. And I even gave you a historical example when the SCOTUS judges made legal decisions based on the perceived (by them) intentions of the lawmakers.

It makes no sense to argue that the lawmakers intended to make a law about dangerous weapons that excluded long-barrel guns. If there was such intention, there would have been record of endless debates between legislators about the merits of such exclusion and the language of the law would not define as dangerous weapons all firearms, loaded or unloaded.

 

[GummyVitamins]

We are not talking about a wild guess. We are talking about common sense interpretation instead of demanding 100% clarity in language when one deals with statutes which are usually quite complicated.

A common sense interpretation would be reading the law and applying it as written. What you want is for a judge to ignore their oath of office and put someone in prison based on what you wish the law had said rather than what it actually said.

And I even gave you a historical example when the SCOTUS judges made decisions based on the perceived (by them) intentions of the lawmakers.

I must have missed that. Do you have an example of this applied to a criminal statute?

 

[GummyVitamins]

After he became provocative. The false sense of security coupled with his immaturity started the chain of events.

Rittenhouse did not provoke any of his attackers. This is without any merit.

 

[GummyVitamins]

It’s in crystal clear English. There are only 3 exceptions to underage possession of a firearm.

A lot of people on this board made this mistake and I'm confused as to whether they heard this from somewhere in the media who got it wrong or if they are unable to comprehend the language of the statute. Did you come to this conclusion on your own or did you read this somewhere? And if you read it elsewhere I'd appreciate a link so I can read the article and laugh at the author.

 

[GummyVitamins]

one that a 17 year old should not be expected to interpret in a manner other than the way it is written
one which exculpates him from violating the law

This is the best summation yet. You broke the concept down into a very short and concise explanation. Kudos.

 

[GummyVitamins]

It was his evaluation of the text. One can read the same text and make different interpretations.

Perhaps someone with less reading comprehension could come to an "interpretation" that is different, but that doesn't make it correct or acceptable. There's no participation trophy here. It is black and white.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Judges have also a responsibility to make a fair attempt to interpreter a statute. More often than not laws are complicated and if a judge is just ready to adopt even the most absurd interpretation of an ambiguous language then we would rarely have a decision.

There is nothing complicated about this law beyond people wish it said something it doesn't say. It's actually pretty basic.

 

[justabubba]

Judges have also a responsibility to make a fair attempt to interpreter a statute. More often than not laws are complicated and if a judge is just ready to adopt even the most absurd interpretation of an ambiguous language then we would rarely have a decision.

I just gave you a real life historical example from the Supreme Court which shows how judges can go beyond language

On the face of it, this seems to be a clear case: the statute forbids the assisted importation into United States of any alien to do labor or service of any kind, so the church should be held liable for the punishment that the statute provides. This is how the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York decided the case. [3] The judge of this court was clearly a textualist who thought that statutes should be interpreted according to their literal meanings.

However, the final judgment in the case was that the church did not act unlawfully.


The Supreme Court admitted that

the judge cannot interpret language which says rittenhouse did nothing illegal into language that says he committed an illegal act
it is stunning that this is something you cannot comprehend

 

[pamak]

A common sense interpretation would be reading the law and applying it as written. What you want is for a judge to ignore their oath of office and put someone in prison based on what you wish the law had said rather than what it actually said.

I must have missed that. Do you have an example of this applied to a criminal statute?

The problem is that the law specifically defined as dangerous weapons all firearms while it did not specifically defined the terms in paragraph 3c with the exceptions.

Here is one in criminal statute and more recent after a quick search

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/Kleinfeld_Textual%20Rules%20in%20Criminal%20Statutes_88UCLR1791.pdf

Carol Bond and John Yates eventually won their cases in the Supreme Court—but only because a majority of the Court did not accept the textualist approach advocated by those on the other side.32 And it was a close call: a number of the Justices took issue with the Court’s nontextualist approach (the cases provoked a flurry of concurrences and dissents),

the judge cannot interpret language which says rittenhouse did nothing illegal into language that says he committed an illegal act
it is stunning that this is something you cannot comprehend

The language that Kyle did something illegal is there

I quoted it.

The defense tried to battle it by claiming that there is an exception, but this belief is not based on clear language and requires an absurd belief about the intentions of the lawmakers. Again, if there was such intention,there would have been a legislative record of debating the merits of such exception of long-barrel weapons.