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

[ASHES]

We discuss things, and I can still disagree with a single person who happened to be the judge of this case.

My point is consistent and our disagreement remains the same after all these years and is about the philosophy behind interpreting laws

I am taking in consideration lawmakers intentions and purpose of the law while you are only interested in textual interpretations

The following link I think summarizes quite well the issue

Fairness in statutory interpretation: Text, purpose or intention?

There is a persistent debate in legal theory concerning the correct way of approaching written statutes. The parties can roughly be divided into textualists, who think that the law-applier should stick to the text of the statute, and purposivists (or intentionalists), who either think that the...

www.degruyter.com

Fairness in statutory interpretation: Text, purpose or intention?​

There is a persistent debate in legal theory concerning the correct way of approaching written statutes. The parties can roughly be divided into textualists, who think that the law-applier should stick to the text of the statute, and purposivists (or intentionalists), who either think that the interpreter should take text-external purposes and intentions into account, or that the law-applier necessarily does that whenever she interprets a statute.

In this case, while I maintained that the text was giving conflicting info regarding Kyle's weapon, I did believe that if one is willing to take in consideration the intentions of the lawmakers, he could arrive at the conclusion that a minor who is not supposed by the law to have unsupervised weapons like a brass knuckle would also be prohibited from having weapons like the ones Kyle had.

Juries are not allowed to interpret law.

 

[pamak]

Juries are not allowed to interpret law.

It was not the jury that interpreted the law. The judge made this decision

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Prosecutors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial may have lost their best chance at convicting the Illinois man of something when the judge threw out a charge that Rittenhouse was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon.

apnews.com

Prosecutors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial may have lost their best chance at convicting the Illinois man of something when the judge threw out a charge that Rittenhouse was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon.

...That jury never got to consider the gun possession charge — one that at one time had seemed a slam-dunk for the prosecution.

 

[ASHES]

It was not the jury that interpreted the law. The judge made this decision

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Prosecutors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial may have lost their best chance at convicting the Illinois man of something when the judge threw out a charge that Rittenhouse was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon.

apnews.com

Prosecutors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial may have lost their best chance at convicting the Illinois man of something when the judge threw out a charge that Rittenhouse was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon.

...That jury never got to consider the gun possession charge — one that at one time had seemed a slam-dunk for the prosecution.

That's his job. There's no precedent for charging a 17 year old with possession of a rifle for him to rely on, because no DA has been so stupid to charge it, because it isn't a crime. It was the prosecutor who creatively interpreted the law.

 

[pamak]

That's his job. There's no precedent for charging a 17 year old with possession of a rifle for him to rely on, because no DA has been so stupid to charge it, because it isn't a crime. It was the prosecutor who creatively interpreted the law.

Yes, it is his job and my position is that I disagree with his decision and philosophy of interpreting the law. This is why I posted the link earlier to show that even legal scholars disagree about how judges should interpreter statutes

Fairness in statutory interpretation: Text, purpose or intention?

There is a persistent debate in legal theory concerning the correct way of approaching written statutes. The parties can roughly be divided into textualists, who think that the law-applier should stick to the text of the statute, and purposivists (or intentionalists), who either think that the...

www.degruyter.com

It seems the judge did not want to make an interpretation that gives the law a reasonable purpose and chose instead to count only on the text that makes the purpose of the law absurd since based on such narrow (textual) interpretation, a minor cannot possess a dangerous weapon like a brass knuckle but it can posses a weapon like the one Kyle had.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Give it up. You were wrong. It isn't illegal for a 17 year old to possess a rifle or shotgun in Wisconsin.

^^This^^

It's over but some continue to argue the case. Why?

 

[justabubba]

Yes, it is his job and my position is that I disagree with his decision and philosophy of interpreting the law. This is why I posted the link earlier to show that even legal scholars disagree about how judges should interpreter statutes

Fairness in statutory interpretation: Text, purpose or intention?

There is a persistent debate in legal theory concerning the correct way of approaching written statutes. The parties can roughly be divided into textualists, who think that the law-applier should stick to the text of the statute, and purposivists (or intentionalists), who either think that the...

www.degruyter.com

It seems the judge did not want to make an interpretation that gives the law a reasonable purpose and chose instead to count only on the text that makes the purpose of the law absurd since based on such narrow (textual) interpretation, a minor cannot possess a dangerous weapon like a brass knuckle but it can posses a weapon like the one Kyle had.

doff my hat to the judge
he did his job
applied the law as it was written
not as the prosecutor would prefer it had been written

 

[pamak]

doff my hat to the judge
he did his job
applied the law as it was written
not as the prosecutor would prefer it had been written

As I said, the judges reflect the culture of their region. I can see how an interpretation of the law in a way that permits teenager to have unsupervised semiautomatic rifles but no brass knuckles can be accepted as being "reasonable" in his state. In fact, I wonder if now people there are really interested (after the trial) to change the law to make sure that the text is clear that minors cannot walk around with such guns during civil unrests. I have not followed the developments there , but I have a feeling that there will be resistance to such change.

 

[weaver2]

It isn't illegal for a 17 year old to possess a long barrel rifle, as Rittenhouse did, so there was no crime. If it had been a handgun, then you'd have an argument.

Right; the law doesn't state that it is illegal for a 17year old to possess a long barrel rifle. However, the law does not say it is legal for a 17 year old to possess a long barrel rifle if they were not under supervised while hunting and target practice.

Does anyone seriously think that Wisconsin law makers wrote the laws the way they did in order to allow an unsupervised 17 year old to walk around during a civil disturbance holding a long barrel rifle in the ready position looking for for rioters?

 

[ASHES]

Right; the law doesn't state that it is illegal for a 17year old to possess a long barrel rifle. However, the law does not say it is legal for a 17 year old to possess a long barrel rifle if they were not under supervised while hunting and target practice.

Does anyone seriously think that Wisconsin law makers wrote the laws the way they did in order to allow an unsupervised 17 year old to walk around during a civil disturbance holding a long barrel rifle in the ready position looking for for rioters?

It doesn't say a 16 or 17 year old shall be hunting and/or supervised in order to possess a rifle or shotgun.

 

[pamak]

Right; the law doesn't state that it is illegal for a 17year old to possess a long barrel rifle. However, the law does not say it is legal for a 17 year old to possess a long barrel rifle if they were not under supervised while hunting and target practice.

Does anyone seriously think that Wisconsin law makers wrote the laws the way they did in order to allow an unsupervised 17 year old to walk around during a civil disturbance holding a long barrel rifle in the ready position looking for for rioters?

Exactly!

The judge chose to hide behind a very narrow textual view of interpreting the law. As long as the text did not explicitly say that it is forbidden to have minors walk around unsupervised holding a long barrel gun during non-hunting activities, he thought that the law was vague enough and the defendant could not be charged. Now for you and me such interpretation is absurd, but this particular judge apparently thinks that it makes sense to have legislation about dangerous weapons that prohibits kids walking around unsupervised during non-hunting activities carrying knives while it gives them an implicit permission to do the same with semiautomatic guns.

 

[GummyVitamins]

I have not participate in this long thread but as I quickly browse this thread I have to ask for those who are not fed up yet with responding here, lol.

How does the above claim add up with the fact that the same weapon was found in Kyle's hands? Was not Kyle, 17 years old when he used the weapon outside of Black's property? Either the gun was given to Kyle or somehow Kyle stole it.

Kyle slept over Black's house the night before and Black was invited to attend the riot with a group of people who were going to protect the Car Source lots. Black drove himself and Kyle with the rifles to the riot that night.

What I found more interesting is that the judge ruled that the state law related to guns did not make it clear that it was unlawful for a teenager to have the type of gun that Kyle possessed. Apparently, the judge could not be sure whether the lawmakers who were concerned with the idea of teenagers possessing weapons like brass knuckles, were also concerned with the idea of teenagers possessing the type of gun Kyle had. To me with encapsulates the absurdity of 'gun culture" in some parts of the US, and of course, state courts and jurors will reflect such culture

The law's text is clear in that it does not say it is a crime for a 17 year old to open carry a rifle. The prosecution argued that it was their opinion that it was the law's intent. You can't imprison someone for not violating the text of a criminal statute. The only way he can be guilty is if the law is clear that he was in violation. The prosecution never even argued that. They claimed it was ambiguous, but it is how they wanted the court to interpret it. That's not how criminal law works. The judge had no real choice except to throw out the charge. If Wisconsin wants prosecutors to prosecute 17 year olds open carrying rifles they need to pass a law that authorizes them to do so. Prosecutors can't just prosecute people for offenses based on what they want laws to say.

 

[pamak]

Kyle slept over Black's house the night before and Black was invited to attend the riot with a group of people who were going to protect the Car Source lots. Black drove himself and Kyle with the rifles to the riot that night.



The law's text is clear in that it does not say it is a crime for a 17 year old to open carry a rifle. The prosecution argued that it was their opinion that it was the law's intent. You can't imprison someone for not violating the text of a criminal statute. The only way he can be guilty is if the law is clear that he was in violation. The prosecution never even argued that. They claimed it was ambiguous, but it is how they wanted the court to interpret it. That's not how criminal law works. The judge had no real choice except to throw out the charge. If Wisconsin wants prosecutors to prosecute 17 year olds open carrying rifles they need to pass a law that authorizes them to do so. Prosecutors can't just prosecute people for offenses based on what they want laws to say.

So, Black gave control of the weapon to Kyle.

My argument is that the law's purpose is clear and has to be taken in consideration.

 

[GummyVitamins]

So, Black gave control of the weapon to Kyle.

Yes.

My argument is that the law's purpose is clear and has to be taken in consideration.

Wisconsin is old farm country with a robust gun legacy. The purpose is not as clear. Additionally, you can't take away someone's freedom when they're following the law. Laws are written by government. The criminal enforcement of those laws are dependent on the reading of the law based on the citizens' perspective. If you write a bad law you fix the law, you don't imprison people for your mistake.

 

[pamak]

Yes.


Wisconsin is old farm country with a robust gun legacy. The purpose is not as clear. Additionally, you can't take away someone's freedom when they're following the law. Laws are written by government. The criminal enforcement of those laws are dependent on the reading of the law based on the citizens' perspective. If you write a bad law you fix the law, you don't imprison people for your mistake.

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.

 

[weaver2]

It doesn't say a 16 or 17 year old shall be hunting and/or supervised in order to possess a rifle or shotgun.

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

The intent of the legislature in constructing that admittedly poorly written law was to allow kids younger than 18 to practice shooting and hunt with adult supervision. That judge, a longtime resident of a state with a longstanding hunting culture had to know the intent of the legislature. To misinterpret the law to mean Rittenhouse had the right to walk around city streets carrying a weapon, in a ready position, during civil upheaval, without official invitation, supervision or authorization is a reach to the point of dishonesty.

 

[weaver2]

Yes.


Wisconsin is old farm country with a robust gun legacy. The purpose is not as clear. Additionally, you can't take away someone's freedom when they're following the law. Laws are written by government. The criminal enforcement of those laws are dependent on the reading of the law based on the citizens' perspective. If you write a bad law you fix the law, you don't imprison people for your mistake.

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. 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.

 

[pamak]

,

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. 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.

Let me add that the law gave a very clear definition of which weapons are considered dangerous

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;

And the consequences for minors who possess such weapons or for adults who "loan" such weapons was clear

Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
948.60(2)(b)(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.


The claim that the lawmakers intended to exclude long-barreled guns by inserting 3c subsection does not make sense.

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.

The most reasonable interpretation of the above exception is that it covers the cases when a minor has either a short-barrel rifle covered by the exceptions of the 941.28 or a long-barrel gun covered by the exceptions of the 29.304 or 29.593. in which case there is not any crime.

 

[TurtleDude]

,


Let me add that the law gave a very clear definition of which weapons are considered dangerous

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;

And the consequences for minors who possess such weapons or for adults who "loan" such weapons was clear

Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
948.60(2)(b)(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.


The claim that the lawmakers intended to exclude long-barreled guns by inserting 3c subsection does not make sense.

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.

The most reasonable interpretation of the above exception is that it covers the cases when a minor has either a short-barrel rifle covered by the exceptions of the 941.28 or a long-barrel gun covered by the exceptions of the 29.304 or 29.593. in which case there is not any crime.

you all lost, freedom won. you all can complain until the second coming that Black should have been drawn and quartered for what he did, but the fact is this-ultimately society benefited.

 

[pamak]

you all lost, freedom won. you all can complain until the second coming that Black should have been drawn and quartered for what he did, but the fact is this-ultimately society benefited.

Common sense lost because apparently, there is a law that gives minors the freedom to carry long-barrel guns during riots but not knuckles because the latter are considered by the lawmakers dangerous weapons while the former are not.

 

[TurtleDude]

Common sense lost because apparently, there is a law that gives minors the freedom to carry long-barrel guns during riots but not knuckles because the latter are considered by the lawmakers dangerous weapons while the former are not.

brass knuckles are generally seen as criminal weapons that have little use other than for thuggery. They are generally best used to initiate a sucker punch attack on someone or to beat a helpless victim.

 

[pamak]

brass knuckles are generally seen as criminal weapons that have little use other than for thuggery. They are generally best used to initiate a sucker punch attack on someone or to beat a helpless victim.

The law is about dangerous weapons


948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

So, apparently, you think that brass knuckles are dangerous weapons which should be off limits to teenagers. I guess your 2A freedom is very selective with the types of arms you want to give to teenagers.

 

[TurtleDude]

The law is about dangerous weapons


948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

So, apparently, you think that brass knuckles are dangerous weapons which should be off limits to teenagers. I guess your 2A freedom is very selective with the types of arms you want to give to teenagers.

I am rather skeptical about most weapons laws-on the other hand, I strongly support severe penalties for those who use weapons to illegally harm innocents.

 

[pamak]

I am rather skeptical about most weapons laws-on the other hand, I strongly support severe penalties for those who use weapons to illegally harm innocents.

I love the fact though that you tried to make a point which is quite antithetical to the mentality (and usual arguments) of the 2A crowd. The usual claim is that there are not "criminal weapons" The weapons are just tools and people are criminals who choose to use certain tools in an illegal way. So, why are you trying now to claim that brass knuckles should be treated as "criminal weapons"?

 

[TurtleDude]

I love the fact though that you tried to make a point which is quite antithetical to the mentality of 2A crowd. The usual claim is that there are not :criminal weapons. The weapos are just tools and people are criminals who choose to use certain tools in an illegal way.

I wouldn't ban BKs, but I don't see much use for them-it's like a garrote, I cannot see a useful self defensive use for one.

 

[justabubba]

Right; the law doesn't state that it is illegal for a 17year old to possess a long barrel rifle. However, the law does not say it is legal for a 17 year old to possess a long barrel rifle if they were not under supervised while hunting and target practice.

Does anyone seriously think that Wisconsin law makers wrote the laws the way they did in order to allow an unsupervised 17 year old to walk around during a civil disturbance holding a long barrel rifle in the ready position looking for for rioters?

i agree they wrote it to provide the loophole that exculpated rittenhouse from having violated it
doesn't matter whether that was by design or unintentional
the law - as it is currently written - does not cause rittenhouse's actions to be other than legal
which is why the judge found him not to have violated any law

your complaint is with the politicians who wrote the language that permitted the loophole to exist
and if they want to close that loophole, those legislators have the authority to do so