• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:423]Ritterhouse just got a bump by a good judge

US&THEM said:
Here is the 2nd one denied.
www.jsonline.com

Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers are still trying to get the gun possession charge dropped before the trial

Just days before the trial, Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers have again asked the judge to dismiss a charge that he was too young to legally carry a rifle.
www.jsonline.com
Click to expand...

There is a familiar saying: "when you're in a hole, stop digging."

As I stated, whether or not Rittenhouse had to be 18 years old is highly debatable and it is extremely unclear in the relevant statute. That alone should make it unenforceable as too vague.

Vagueness doctrine - Wikipedia​

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand, and a constitutionally-protected interest cannot tolerate permissible activity to be chilled within the range of the vagueness (either because the statute is a penal statute with criminal or quasi-criminal civil penalties, or because the interest invaded by the vague law is a strict scrutiny constitutional right).

The actual trial judge, not a court administrative commissioner, recognizes this and has not closed the door on reconsidering the motion. In the October 5 arguments on this issue of the gun charge under § 948.60, Judge Schroeder stated:

I’m going to deny the motion for now, but that’s no guarantee I won’t re-examine this. I just don’t, I don’t feel comfortable. It’s a penal statute, and to hold people accountable for laws that, well, the basic rule, and there’s plenty of interpretation on it, but the basic concept of the rule is that it has to be clear to ordinary people. And if you’ve got, you know, judges spending hours here, and hours more at an appellate level, trying to figure out exactly what the statute says, I mean, how does that serve the people? So I’m going to deny the [defense] motion [to dismiss the misdemeanor gun charge under § 948.60] subject to reconsideration without motion [without requiring the defense to object again to the charge]. I want to give more study this. And believe me it’s not because I haven’t looked at it extensively at this point.
Click to expand...

As I said your crowing over the motions are premature. We shall see.
 
maxparrish said:
There is a familiar saying: "when you're in a hole, stop digging."

As I stated, whether or not Rittenhouse had to be 18 years old is highly debatable and it is extremely unclear in the relevant statute. That alone should make it unenforceable as too vague.

Vagueness doctrine - Wikipedia​

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand, and a constitutionally-protected interest cannot tolerate permissible activity to be chilled within the range of the vagueness (either because the statute is a penal statute with criminal or quasi-criminal civil penalties, or because the interest invaded by the vague law is a strict scrutiny constitutional right).

The actual trial judge, not a court administrative commissioner, recognizes this and has not closed the door on reconsidering the motion. In the October 5 arguments on this issue of the gun charge under § 948.60, Judge Schroeder stated:



As I said your crowing over the motions are premature. We shall see.
Click to expand...
As the first line stated the Judge denied the motion. DENIED, is that vague?
 
US&THEM said:
As the first line stated the Judge denied the motion. DENIED, is that vague?
Click to expand...

Now read the other 90 percent of the post, is that vague? O.r do you just choose to cherry pick to continue your premature and disingenuous crowing?
 
maxparrish said:
Now read the other 90 percent of the post, is that vague? O.r do you just choose to cherry pick to continue your premature and disingenuous crowing?
Click to expand...
The Judge denied and said ok maybe I will rehear it, the Judge will have his clerks research it and then say yes 18 years of age is what law stated. That is real life stuff there buddy

This is similar to all of you pretending the car dealership requested these morons to be security.
 
US&THEM said:
The Judge denied and said ok maybe I will rehear it, the Judge will have his clerks research it and then say yes 18 years of age is what law stated. That is real life stuff there buddy

This is similar to all of you pretending the car dealership requested these morons to be security.
Click to expand...

Thanks for telling us what will happen, in spite of the judges doubts.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
I know you folks think it is parsing words but you continue to operate under a flawed approach when viewing our constitution and it distorts everything from there.

The constitution was a grant of limited authority/power from the people to the government. Not the other way around. And many of the drafters opposed the idea of a bill of rights because they feared many would read it to mean "these are the only rights of the people, and any not spelled out don't exist." And they were absolutely correct in that concern. Because folks like you continue to make that argument. And it is wrong.

You have a right to bear arms protected by the constitution but the constitution does not grant you the right to bear arms. Again, you may think that is a distinction without a difference. I assure you it is not.
Click to expand...

Ok, I get what your saying. In a nit picking way I agree, however, It doesn't nessicarily discount what I've said in relation to Heller vs D.C.
 
maxparrish said:
Thanks for telling us what will happen, in spite of the judges doubts.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Judge that denied the motion. There is nothing vague about the law. You have to be 18, Rittenhouse was not hunting etc. Black has already admitted he straw purchased the rifle using money from Rittenhouse. All facts.
 
US&THEM said:
Yes, the Judge that denied the motion. There is nothing vague about the law. You have to be 18, Rittenhouse was not hunting etc. Black has already admitted he straw purchased the rifle using money from Rittenhouse. All facts.
Click to expand...

Blacks alleged straw purchase is irrelevant to the gun charge made against Rittenhouse.
 
US&THEM said:
Absolutely relevant, shows Rittenhouse over snd over again was unsafe and lied.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant because the story isn't accurate by it's the discription which was misleading. The discription of the news story says they drew their guns because Kyle touched his gun. But the real truth was the officer didn't notice until watching the video after the incident happened. Meaning him touching the gun wasn't the issue. The many reasons why people mistrust the media.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Irrelevant because the story isn't accurate by it's the discription which was misleading. The discription of the news story says they drew their guns because Kyle touched his gun. But the real truth was the officer didn't notice until watching the video after the incident happened. Meaning him touching the gun wasn't the issue. The many reasons why people mistrust the media.
Click to expand...
I read the officer’s testimony, Rittenhouse never stopped walking, like the officer stated when someone turns themselves in they lay down etc. Rittenhouse is so full of shit and we are supposed believe anything he has stated.
 
US&THEM said:
Because you say so? Rittenhouse has lied over snd over.
Click to expand...

I don't care if he said he was Amelia Earhart in male drag, there is nothing in the gun charge that makes it a crime for him to lie.

Your attempt to muddy his character is irrelevant...as much as you wish it weren't.
 
jnug said:
When you have to do more to prove worthy of a license to drive a car than you do to walk out the door in possession of a weapon with the inherent lethality of a firearm the comparison of the two are quite relevant. No confuse on my end.
Click to expand...
you, like many gun restrictionists, apparently cannot differentiate between possessing a firearm vs driving a car on the public right of way.
 
jnug said:
A right that has no basis in 21st or even 20th century reality. The entire premise of that right has been expanded by the SC just because and even the original premise for that that right has been utterly obliterated by 20th and 21st century reality.

The result:
- whack jobs walking around state houses with AR15's strapped.....pure intimidation and threat
- whack jobs walking the streets playing out their fantasies of para-military dude
- other whack jobs convinced they know what the flying f__k they are doing chasing down a guy guilty of the crime of "jogging while black" gunning him down and then claiming that they were the ones defending themselves (as for seeing him walking through a construction site, I have walked through single home construction sites myself and never looked at twice. Only Dif...I AM WHITE).
- thousands upon thousands of firearms being purchased "legally" based on the lax standards we have working their way into the inner cities where they are used in countless murders

Sorry....I would like to think we simply do not need this crap in our lives in the 21st Century. Quite willing to accept citizen ownership of firearms for all sorts of legitimate reasons. No longer willing to accept this 2A horse crap as justification for allowing people to buy guns as if they were Snickers bars.
Click to expand...
The reality of left-wingers who hate gun ownership because gun owners tend to vote against leftwing politicians (who try to coddle criminals while pretending gun laws that harass honest people is actual crime control) is not one that has much connection with facts or our constitution. As I have noted, the hatred of KR is based on him being a surrogate for all that the anti gun left hates
 
maxparrish said:
I don't care if he said he was Amelia Earhart in male drag, there is nothing in the gun charge that makes it a crime for him to lie.

Your attempt to muddy his character is irrelevant...as much as you wish it weren't.
Click to expand...
You understand what Rittenhouse’s defense is, right? It is based on his BELIEF he was in danger, he has shown poor judgement and straight up lied all through that night. The jury has to believe him, understand?
He lied about why he was at Car Sense, he lied and stated he was a EMT.
 
jnug said:
Before I forget it, the reason this country is awash in guns, with more guns than people is because it is so easy to buy them "legally". Virtually all of the guns used and owned illegally were initially purchased "legally" under the loose as a goose standards that exist in this country.

2A only discusses the right to own a gun. There is nothing, zero....zippo.....nada in the Constitution about conditions for "buying" a gun. That should be fair game.
Click to expand...
You obviously are ignorant of constitutional law and court holdings. There is nothing in the constitution that actually properly empowers the federal government to regulate such things
 
US&THEM said:
You understand what Rittenhouse’s defense is, right? It is based on his BELIEF he was in danger, he has shown poor judgement and straight up lied all through that night. The jury has to believe him, understand?
He lied about why he was at Car Sense, he lied and stated he was a EMT.
Click to expand...
Car Source. You continue to get basic facts of the case wrong.
 
ASHES said:
Car Source. You continue to get basic facts of the case wrong.
Click to expand...
Yea the owners who testified Rittenhouse was not there on their behalf.
 
US&THEM said:
I read the officer’s testimony, Rittenhouse never stopped walking, like the officer stated when someone turns themselves in they lay down etc. Rittenhouse is so full of shit and we are supposed believe anything he has stated.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, why should anyone know to lay down or get on their knees when turning themselves in?!? I didn't know that. Why would Kyle know that, likely he was never arrested before. Likely only someone who was arrested before or major felon would know or do something like that. Its irrelevant for the police officers statement as they were not arresting him, detaining him. They just wanted him to go away, the reason they used teargas on him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom