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

[GummyVitamins]

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

So your example is a court throwing out a conviction rather than convicting someone of a non-existent law? This isn't helping your case...

 

[weaver2]

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.

The judge said the law was unclear and made his own interpretation. It appears to many that he ignored quite a lot of history and common sense. The objective of 948.60 is to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands people under the age of 18

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(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.

Then come all the exceptions into none of which does Rittenhouse fit neatly. But by using older hunting regulation for minors one can force a fit to say he had a legal right to wander city streets during a riot with an armed weapon held at ready playing policeman. To many this doesn't sound like a very sensible interpretation of a law meant to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people under 18 yo. But everybody has their own opinion.

Here's a thought: If ,in Kenosha, WI, a kid under the age of 18 has a legal right to carry a loaded weapon on the city streets during a riot what does this mean for other riots and other armed kids?

 

[pamak]

So your example is a court throwing out a conviction rather than convicting someone of a non-existent law? This isn't helping your case...

My example is about judges often deviating from the actual text. If your point is that they can only do it when such deviation favors the defendant be clear about it but do not try to argue that there is some generally accepted principle that the judges are only restricted by the text of the law.

And just to be clear, I am not against the principle of favoring the defendant when a law is unclear. My issue is when a judge sees ambiguity by requiring that the lawmakers should include specific language to exclude every possible absurd interpretation that a judge may contemplate after reading the text. In Kyle's case, this ambiguity that the judge and you see, requires the belief that it was plausible that the lawmakers who were interested in restricting access of 17 year old teenagers to dangerous weapons and wrote the 3c exceptions were ONLY interested in prohibiting short-barrel weapons and brass knuckles but not long barrel weapons.And they passed such exception without opposition or debates in the WI legislative body in which pro and anti-gun regulation lawmakers expressed their view about the merits of such controversial exception and without altering the definition of dangerous weapons which the law's text clearly define as any firearm, loaded or unloaded which clearly includes long-barrel guns.

 

[GummyVitamins]

The judge said the law was unclear and made his own interpretation.

No. The prosecution said the law was unclear and invited a debate among academics and attorneys to determine what it meant. The judge humored him (potentially due to the publicity) and allowed this to take place. He was always up front and said he didn't see it and can't convict unless it is clear that Rittenhouse was in violation. The prosecution failed to make their case so the charge was dismissed.

It appears to many that he ignored quite a lot of history and common sense.

Clear to many who either didn't read the law or replaced the law with their political views.*

Then come all the exceptions into none of which does Rittenhouse fit neatly.

This is poor reading comprehension.

 

[GummyVitamins]

My example is about judges often deviating from the actual text. If your point is that they can only do it when such deviation favors the defendant be clear about it but do not try to argue that there is some generally accepted principle that the judges are only restricted by the text of the law.

My point was very clearly about criminal statutes. There are many progressive judges who believe it is their job to revise the laws as time goes on, but on the criminal side this doesn't happen at the detriment of the accused. Judges may dismiss charges or convictions to make interpretations more lenient, but the inverse is not something that is "generally accepted" and if were to happen it would be a miscarriage of justice and an easy win on appeal. Not even liberal judges do that.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Here's a thought: If ,in Kenosha, WI, a kid under the age of 18 has a legal right to carry a loaded weapon on the city streets during a riot what does this mean for other riots and other armed kids?

Things don't suddenly become illegal just because you don't like it. It means that other seventeen year olds in Wisconsin can open carry a rifle in compliance with the law.

 

[pamak]

My point was very clearly about criminal statutes. There are many progressive judges who believe it is their job to revise the laws as time goes on, but on the criminal side this doesn't happen at the detriment of the accused. Judges may dismiss charges or convictions to make interpretations more lenient, but the inverse is not something that is "generally accepted" and if were to happen it would be a miscarriage of justice and an easy win on appeal. Not even liberal judges do that.

So, now this is not about the judges in general. It is about the "liberal judges"

It seems that even you agree that there is not a clear principle and judges are affected by ideology.
Now here is an interpretation in a criminal case AGAINST the defendant. Scalia, of course, disagreed

{{meta.fullTitle}}

www.oyez.org

John Angus Smith offered to trade an automatic weapon, a MAC-10, to an undercover officer for cocaine. Subsequently, he was charged with numerous firearm and drug trafficking offenses. Federal law imposes mandatory sentence enhancement penalties, specifically 30 years for a "machinegun", if a defendant "during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime[,] uses . . . a firearm." A jury convicted Smith on all counts, which triggered the sentence enhancement. On appeal, Smith argued that the federal penalty for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense covers only situations in which the firearm is used as a weapon, not as a medium of exchange

...

Yes. In a 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court ruled that a criminal who trades his or her firearm for drugs "uses" it "during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime," which is within the bounds of the sentence enhancement. Justice O'Connor wrote that Congress intended to make the word "use" as broad as possible when it wrote the law. The law does not require proof that a defendant used the gun as a weapon.

So, even though the federal (in that case) law did not specify if the word "use" is about firing a gun or is broader and intended to include the use of a gun as a medium for buying drugs, the majority in the court did not choose the interpretation that fit best the defendant's interests. And in that case, the rival interpretation by the defense (and the dissenting Scalia) that the word "used " is only about a gun used as a weapon is much more reasonable than the interpretation of the defense in Kyle's case.

Again, I have no problem with ambiguity helping the defense as long as the competing interpretations are reasonable. I do not see any reason to require from lawmakers to create laws with text that specifically addresses the absurd interpretations that people with a particular agenda can always find.


I guess, in the end, , we may agree that if the same case, same text and same ambiguity was taking place in CA, it was quite possible to have another judge see the issue differently.

 

[GummyVitamins]

So, now this is not about the judges in general. It is about the "liberal judges"

I understand you're losing the argument but let's try to stay focused. Liberal judges tend to not be textualists and take liberties with statutes. But, even they have standards to not do this in criminal cases where they would unjustly impact the accused. Judges don't do this. The tie goes to the runner in criminal law, but there was no tie in the Rittenhouse matter. It was clear.

It seems that even you agree that there is not a clear principle and judges are affected by ideology.
Now here is an interpretation AGAINST the defendant. Scalia, of course, disagreed

Again, they interpreted the law as it was literally written. The dissent was about allowing leniency from the text of the law. Criminals argue they didn't break the law all the time. That doesn't make it true. I'm kind of at a loss for words here beyond this basic minimalist explanation. I don't understand where this confusion is coming from. Which part has you so confused?

 

[pamak]

I understand you're losing the argument but let's try to stay focused. Liberal judges tend to not be textualists and take liberties with statutes. But, even they have standards to not do this in criminal cases where they would unjustly impact the accused. Judges don't do this.


Again, they interpreted the law as it was literally written. The dissent was about allowing leniency from the text of the law. Criminals argue they didn't break the law all the time. That doesn't make it true. I'm kind of at a loss for words here beyond this basic minimalist explanation. I don't understand where this confusion is coming from. Which part has you so confused?

I understand you shift positions, so I have to follow your responses. If you think that I lose focus is because you shift your argument. First, it was about the principle that judges are restricted by the text of the law. Then, when I showed a case when the SCOTUS judges went outside the text, you changed your position and asked if judges do it in criminal law. Then, when I showed you criminal cases when judges also went outside the text, you changed the position and argued that there was no problem with this piece of evidence because the judges ruled in favor of the defendant. Now, that I am showing you a case when judges resolved in a criminal case, an ambiguity in the language of the law against the defendant, you dismiss my reply as lackiing focus, LOLOL

Wait, you missed the fact that O'Connor was a "liberal judge" while Scalia was conservative. Apparently, you admit now that ALL judges, liberals and conservatives are not always following the text of the law. So, much for your attempt to blame liberal judges for abusing their power. Bu the way, the language of the WI law is also clear about the definition of dangerous weapons. Those who try to change such definition and argue that it does not include long-barrel weapons make a claim that is not in the language of the law.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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.

Ok that’s not the law. What you say is irrelevant. All that matters is the printed statute. In this case it’s totally irrelevant what the drafters of the law intended as well, all that matters is what they wrote. Intent is only relevant insofar as there is a question about the meaning of the statute, there is no question at all what this statute means.

We can go over this again.

(c) 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.

304 is

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age

Kyle was 17. He cannot NOT be in compliance with this law. He is not subjected to it. He is in compliance because he is not capable of performing any act not in compliance with this law. If he is in compliance with this law he cannot be guilty of the crime. It’s as simple as this. All these diversions about your unfounded opinion, Supreme Court cases about illegal aliens fixing churches, etc are not relevant in any way.

This is plain English. The intent doesn’t matter, your opinion doesn’t matter, this is solely black letter law.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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 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.

No, it’s not.

The law he was charged with violating literally says

(c) 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

The statute right there contains a limiting clause that excludes Kyle from the liability for violating it right there in the statute

 

[pamak]

Ok that’s not the law. What you say is irrelevant. All that matters is the printed statute. In this case it’s totally irrelevant what the drafters of the law intended as well, all that matters is what they wrote. Intent is only relevant insofar as there is a question about the meaning of the statute, there is no question at all what this statute means.

We can go over this again.


304 is

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age

Kyle was 17. He cannot NOT be in compliance with this law. He is not subjected to it. He is in compliance because he is not capable of performing any act not in compliance with this law. If he is in compliance with this law he cannot be guilty of the crime. It’s as simple as this. All these diversions about your unfounded opinion, Supreme Court cases about illegal aliens fixing churches, etc are not relevant in any way.

This is plain English. The intent doesn’t matter, your opinion doesn’t matter, this is solely black letter law.

Correct that Kyle cannot be in compliance with that law because even if he was 16 he was NOT HUNTING!

The law was not written with Kyle in mind. The exclusions were written to protect those minors armed with long and short barrel rifles and shotguns who were 16 years who were using these weapons based on the exclusions of the sections about the short-barrel weapons and the long barrel weapons used for hunting and targeting.
So,. the law protects minors with short and long barrel weapons in the above cases by saying that

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 other words, the legal consequences that come from this statute of minors possessing "dangerous weapons" do not apply to minors who comply with the statutes that provide exclusions for the possession of short-barrel guns or the statutes which provide exclusions for the possesion of long-barrel guns used for hunting/target practice.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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.

1) there is nothing for the jury to consider. Juries are finders of fact and not interpreters of law. There were no facts in dispute between the prosecution and defense over the defendant’s possession of the rifle. All relevant facts were stipulated. Therefore there is only a question of law and in that question it was appropriate for the Judge to dismiss the gun charge because there was zero factual basis to an allegation he broke the law.

2) ok, you may not like the implications of how a law is written, this is (1) irrelevant to the law and (2) not your decision to make.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Correct that Kyle cannot be in compliance with that law because even if he was 16 he was NOT HUNTING!

The law was not written with Kyle in mind. The exclusions were written to protect those minors armed with long and short barrel rifles and shotguns who were 16 years who were using these weapons based on the exclusions of the sections about the short-barrel weapons and the long barrel weapons used for hunting and targeting.
So,. the law protects minors with short and long barrel weapons in the above cases by saying that

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 other words, the legal consequences that come from this law do not apply to minors who comply with the statutes that provide exclusions for the possession of short-barrel guns and long-barrel guns used for hunting/target practice.

The 29.304 has an age cap of 16 written into the statute. Therefore it does not regulate anything done by someone aged 17 and therefore a 17 year old is always in compliance with 304. A 17 year old can literally commit no act that would be contrary to 304. He can literally be worse than Hitler and not violate 29.304. Therefore he cannot be guilty of the minor in possession charge. It’s as simple as that. The rest of your ranting is totally irrelevant

 

[pamak]

1) there is nothing for the jury to consider. Juries are finders of fact and not interpreters of law. There were no facts in dispute between the prosecution and defense over the defendant’s possession of the rifle. All relevant facts were stipulated. Therefore there is only a question of law and in that question it was appropriate for the Judge to dismiss the gun charge because there was zero factual basis to an allegation he broke the law.

2) ok, you may not like the implications of how a law is written, this is (1) irrelevant to the law and (2) not your decision to make.

1.The only reason the jury had nothing to consider was because a single judge dropped the charge.

2.Ohh the implications is very relevant to my point that a judge should try to see the intentions of the lawmakers and make a reasonable interpretation of the statute's language. An interpretation that leads to results that nobody wants is absurd and should not be a reason to claim that there is some type of ambiguity that should favor the defense.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

1.The only reason the jury had nothing to consider was because a single judge dropped the charge.

2.Ohh the implications is very relevant to my point that a judge should try to see the intentions of the lawmakers and make a reasonable interpretation of the statute's language. An interpretation that leads to results that nobody wants is absurd and should not be a reason to claim that there is some type of ambiguity that should favor the defense.

OK, matters of public policy are decided by the legislature. Not the trial court and a jury.

Therefore your argument is a complete waste of time and is irrelevant to this case.

 

[pamak]

The 29.304 has an age cap of 16 written into the statute. Therefore it does not regulate anything done by someone aged 17 and therefore a 17 year old is always in compliance with 304. A 17 year old can literally commit no act that would be contrary to 304. He can literally be worse than Hitler and not violate 29.304. Therefore he cannot be guilty of the minor in possession charge. It’s as simple as that. The rest of your ranting is totally irrelevant

Again, 29.304 is about weapons which are used by minors for hunting and targeting purposes. It does not include weapons used by minors during riots and it makes zero sense to believe that the state is reluctant to let minors carry dangerous weapons for hunting without adhering to certain safety requirements such as supervision or possessing a "certificate of accomplishment" but has no problem with unsupervised minors carrying the same dangerous weapons during riots!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

1.The only reason the jury had nothing to consider was because a single judge dropped the charge.

2.Ohh the implications is very relevant to my point that a judge should try to see the intentions of the lawmakers and make a reasonable interpretation of the statute's language. An interpretation that leads to results that nobody wants is absurd and should not be a reason to claim that there is some type of ambiguity that should favor the defense.

There was nothing for the jury to consider, so it was proper for the judge to drop the charge. If you get arrested for possessing drugs, and the prosecution admits to the judge that you did not have any drugs, and your defense attorney says you did not have any drugs, then there is no factual basis for a dispute. Therefore the charge has to be dismissed.

In this case, the prosecution never a ledge at the rifle was short barrel, and they never a ledge that Kyle Rittenhouse was actually younger than 17. Therefore there is no factual basis to dispute which can lead to a conviction.

 

[pamak]

OK, matters of public policy are decided by the legislature. Not the trial court and a jury.

Therefore your argument is a complete waste of time and is irrelevant to this case.

Correct, and the legislature made such decision if the text is read in good faith, using common sense.

 

[pamak]

There was nothing for the jury to consider, so it was proper for the judge to drop the charge. If you get arrested for possessing drugs, and the prosecution admits to the judge that you did not have any drugs, and your defense attorney says you did not have any drugs, then there is no factual basis for a dispute. Therefore the charge has to be dismissed.

In this case, the prosecution never a ledge at the rifle was short barrel, and they never a ledge that Kyle Rittenhouse was actually younger than 17. Therefore there is no factual basis to dispute which can lead to a conviction.

Have you read that the prosecution charged Kyle for possessing a dangerous weapon as a minor?

The prosecution could not make its case before the jury because the judge decided to drop the charge. So, it makes no sense to blame the prosecution.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Again, 29.304 is about weapons which are used by minors for hunting and targeting purposes. It does not include weapons used by minors during riots and it makes zero sense to believe that the state is reluctant to let minors carry dangerous weapons for hunting without adhering to certain safety requirements such as supervision or possessing a "certificate of accomplishment" but has no problem with unsupervised minors carrying the same dangerous weapons during riots!

Again, this is an a relevant waste of time on your part. It doesn’t matter what you want the light to say, it clearly says what it says. There is an age cab written into that statue and nobody who is above it can be prosecuted for violating it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Correct, and the legislature made such decision if the text is read in good faith, using common sense.

You don’t use good faith and common sense to read a statute. You use the regular rules of grammar of the English language.

 

[pamak]

Again, this is an a relevant waste of time on your part. It doesn’t matter what you want the light to say, it clearly says what it says. There is an age cab written into that statue and nobody who is above it can be prosecuted for violating it.

You act like i debate the age cap while my point is that this age cap is about people engaged in hunting and targeting practices.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Have you read that the prosecution charged Kyle for possessing a dangerous weapon as a minor?

The prosecution could not make its case before the jury because the judge decided to drop the charge. So, it makes no sense to blame the prosecution.

A prosecutor in Wisconsin can charge anybody of any crime by filing information. That doesn’t mean that it is a valid prosecution. In this case the trial court allowed all of the evidence to come out, and all of the evidence did not show that Kyle had violated any portion of that law. The prosecutors could not show any dispute a fact that would support the idea that a jury should decide whether Kyle was guilty. If in an adversarial trial, there is no dispute of material fact between the parties and one party is entitled to a certain result by operation of the law, then the Judge must grant that result.

 

[pamak]

You don’t use good faith and common sense to read a statute. You use the regular rules of grammar of the English language.

The regular rules of grammar do not refute my interpretation. By contrast, your rules of grammar invent claims that do not exist in the actual text and alter a very clear definition of "dangerous weapons" which according to the law includes ANY firearm, loaded or unloaded.