(W#4255)The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse for the intentional first degree homicide of 2, injuring of 1

[Lutherf]

It renders the rest of the statute moot because it plainly states that it doesn’t apply unless the conditions itemized in 3c are met and they aren’t in this case.

To be clear, it doesn't apply with regard to rifles and shotguns unless one of the other cited statutes is being violated. It still applies to handguns and THAT was the point of the exclusions.

 

[maxparrish]

My reading comprehension is 100%. It plainly states:

“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.”

You can't teach anyone anything that is immune to reason and unable to grasp the meaning and syntax of English; apparently the poster believes that Rittenhouse was required to obtain a hunting license because shooting a human in self defense is hunting.

 

[Napoleon]

and as he was in direct violation of 29.593, he was in unlawful possession of a firearm. There are 3, and only 3 exceptions to the underage possession statute. Hunting, military and direct adult supervision. You are certainly free to choose to continue being wrong, but your opinion is meaningless. It's why the charge has not and will not be dropped.

He is not in violation of a statute about hunting certificates.

 

[US&THEM]

It renders the rest of the statute moot because it plainly states that it doesn’t apply unless the conditions itemized in 3c are met and they aren’t in this case.

Hes in violation of
29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1) 
(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.

 

[US&THEM]

He is not in violation of a statute about hunting certificates.

That is the exception to not be charged.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.55

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

As you can see, as it's written in plain english, there are only 3 exceptions to the prohibition of possessing a firearm under 18. Hunting, military, or under direct adult supervision. There has been no evidence presented to date, that showed kyle has committed any felony. He is without question, guilty of possessing a firearm in direct violation of the above statute, which is a very minor misdemeanor. He will be acquitted of all felony charges, and convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm.

As you can see, as it's written in plain english, there are only 3 exceptions to the prohibition of possessing a firearm under 18. Hunting, military, or under direct adult supervision. There has been no evidence presented to date, that showed kyle has committed any felony. He is without question, guilty of possessing a firearm in direct violation of the above statute, which is a very minor misdemeanor. He will be acquitted of all felony charges, and convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm.
Let me help you out. Here is what you cited:



948.60 ONLY applies to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or shotgun IF the person is in violation of s.941.28 OR is not in compliance with ss 29.304 AND 29.593.

When you're evaluating a law you have to look at every word that is used in the law and take into consideration what each word means. The language of laws are generally carefully crafted.

Rittenhouse was under 18 years of age so let's follow the litmus test to see if this law applies to him.

1. Was he in violation of 941.28? 941.28 has to do with possession of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles. The AR-15 style rifle Rittenhouse was carrying was neither and thus he fails this litmus test. Thus, so far this law does not pertain to him.

2. Was he in violation of ss 29.304 AND 29.593? 29.304 has to do ONLY with individuals under 16 years of age. Rittenhouse was 17 so it is impossible for him to be in violation of both 29.304 AND 29.593, but let's keep reading for good measure. 29.593 pertains only to what is required to obtain a hunting certificate. Rittenhouse was not hunting and therefore was not required to have a hunting certification and was also not in violation of 29.593.

In other words, in no way does 948.60 pertain to Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

[US&THEM]

As you can see, as it's written in plain english, there are only 3 exceptions to the prohibition of possessing a firearm under 18. Hunting, military, or under direct adult supervision. There has been no evidence presented to date, that showed kyle has committed any felony. He is without question, guilty of possessing a firearm in direct violation of the above statute, which is a very minor misdemeanor. He will be acquitted of all felony charges, and convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm.
Let me help you out.

View attachment 67360616

948.60 ONLY applies to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or shotgun IF the person is in violation of s.941.28 OR is not in compliance with ss 29.304 AND 29.593.

When you're evaluating a law you have to look at every words that is use in the law and take into consideration what each word means. The language of laws are generally carefully crafted.

Rittenhouse was under 18 years of age so let's follow the litmus test to see if this law applies to him.

1. Was he in violation of 941.28? 941.28 has to do with possession of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles. The AR-15 style rifle Rittenhouse was carrying was neither and thus he fails this litmus test. Thus, so far this law does not pertain to him.

2. Was he in violation of ss 29.304 AND 29.593? 29.304 has to do ONLY with individuals under 16 years of age. Rittenhouse was 17 so it is impossible for him to be in violation of both 29.304 AND 29.593, but let's keep reading for good measure. 29.593 pertains only to what is required to obtain a hunting certificate. Rittenhouse was not hunting and therefore he was also not in violation of 29.304.

In other words, in no way does 948.60 pertain to Kyle Rittenhouse.

He is not in compliance therefore he is charged. It is not hard to understand.

 

[SkyFox76]

My reading comprehension is 100%. It plainly states:

“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.”

So maybe you can explain this mystery. I keep seeing people saying stuff like it's in plain english, simple to read. Yet the judge who's been doing his job since 1983 has refused to drop the charge, saying he'd look it over and might get back to it. He says it's vague. So why do you think this judge refuses to rule on it if it's as simple as 2+2? And keep in mind this is statement is from John Monroe the guy that opened this whole door.

"But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply."

"Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant."

So you've got two attorneys who specialize in gun cases that say maaaaaybe it could or might apply. Not even they state it's 100% easy to comprehend.

Do you think the judge and 2 gun lawyers have reading comprehension problems?

 

[SkyFox76]

You can't teach anyone anything that is immune to reason and unable to grasp the meaning and syntax of English; apparently the poster believes that Rittenhouse was required to obtain a hunting license because shooting a human in self defense is hunting.

So you think the judge is just being a big ol' meanie pants by not dismissing the charge? Or doesn't he comprehend English?

 

[Napoleon]

So maybe you can explain this mystery. I keep seeing people saying stuff like it's in plain english, simple to read. Yet the judge who's been doing his job since 1983 has refused to drop the charge, saying he'd look it over and might get back to it. He says it's vague. So why do you think this judge refuses to rule on it if it's as simple as 2+2? And keep in mind this is statement is from John Monroe the guy that opened this whole door.

"But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply."

"Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant."

So you've got two attorneys who specialize in gun cases that say maaaaaybe it could or might apply. Not even they state it's 100% easy to comprehend.

Do you think the judge and 2 gun lawyers have reading comprehension problems?

Having watched the trial I don’t think the judge is the sharpest tool in the shed and this is a weird statute.

 

[SkyFox76]

Having watched the trial I don’t think the judge is the sharpest tool in the shed and this is a weird statute.

Ahh so the judge is incompetent. So, what about the two gun law/rights attorneys. Why didn't they just clearly show the exception/loophole instead of saying it "might" kick in the exception?

 

[SkyFox76]

Personally, I don't know why this issue is such a big deal. Whether he is found guilty of possessing the rifle or not, it isn't going to have any effect on the issue of self defense.

Even if he is found guilty of that, my guess is he will be given a fine and/or community service and time served.

The only way I see it as being of any importance is if it changes Rittenhouse's status as far as self defense. I believe the argument is something like he couldn't go looking looking for trouble while carrying an illegal weapon and then use that illegal weapon to shoot people. That would make it the meat and potatoes imo, but I'm not seeing any points of that being the case.

 

[seymourflops]

The judge dismissed the curfew violation charge because the prosecution couldn't show there was a curfew?

Why would he have been charged with violating a non-existent law in the first place?

 

[Grim17]

The only way I see it as being of any importance is if it changes Rittenhouse's status as far as self defense. I believe the argument is something like he couldn't go looking looking for trouble while carrying an illegal weapon and then use that illegal weapon to shoot people. That would make it the meat and potatoes imo, but I'm not seeing any points of that being the case.

From everything I've read and heard from various lawyers, it's not going to have any bearing on the issue of self defense. If it does, then God help us all.

 

[Napoleon]

The judge dismissed the curfew violation charge because the prosecution couldn't show there was a curfew?

Why would he have been charged with violating a non-existent law in the first place?

The prosecutes rested their case without presenting any evidence or witness testimony to support the underlying facts of the charge. So it was dismissed. Crazy the prosecutors forgot to prosecute the easiest charge to prove.

 

[seymourflops]

The prosecutes rested their case without presenting any evidence or witness testimony to support the underlying facts of the charge. So it was dismissed. Crazy the prosecutors forgot to prosecute the easiest charge to prove.

I get that. My question is why they included the charge in the first place?

My guess is hoping that it would be the one charge the Jury would have to acquit on, so they tell themselves they are being fair if they convict him.

One of my least favorite prosecutorial tricks.

 

[Napoleon]

Ahh so the judge is incompetent. So, what about the two gun law/rights attorneys. Why didn't they just clearly show the exception/loophole instead of saying it "might" kick in the exception?

In allowing the scope and scale of prosecutorial misconduct we’ve seen in this case without so much as a censure this judge is either incompetent or he’s letting the prosecuting attorneys dig their own grave and lay out the most fertile grounds for appeal of a guilty verdict I’ve ever seen.


The statute begins by saying that people under 18 can’t be in possession of a firearm and ends by saying that isn’t applicable unless the person is hunting animals without the proper State certification. It’s as simple as that. It only gets complicated if you ignore the plain text and try to superimpose a complicated interpretation of legal theory in place of the plain text. No doubt that it’s a weird statute in that it makes an absolute unqualified rule at the very beginning and then appends qualifiers to its applicability at the end. But the plain text is not complicated.

 

[US&THEM]

In allowing the scope and scale of prosecutorial misconduct we’ve seen in this case without so much as a censure this judge is either incompetent or he’s letting the prosecuting attorneys dig their own grave and lay out the most fertile grounds for appeal of a guilty verdict I’ve ever seen.


The statute begins by saying that people under 18 can’t be in possession of a firearm and ends by saying that isn’t applicable unless the person is hunting animals without the proper State certification. It’s as simple as that. It only gets complicated if you ignore the plain text and try to superimpose a complicated interpretation of legal theory in place of the plain text. No doubt that it’s a weird statute in that it makes an absolute unqualified rule at the very beginning and then appends qualifiers to its applicability at the end. But the plain text is not complicated.

I haven’t had a chance to watch yesterday or today, but for you to believe there was prosecutor misconduct? I read a lot and nowhere has misconduct been mentioned

 

[Napoleon]

I haven’t had a chance to watch yesterday or today, but for you to believe there was prosecutor misconduct? I read a lot and nowhere has misconduct been mentioned

The problem you consistently have in this thread is that you haven’t watched the trial. Do that.

 

[US&THEM]

The problem you consistently have in this thread is that you haven’t watched the trial. Do that.

I watched all last week.

 

[SkyFox76]

From everything I've read and heard from various lawyers, it's not going to have any bearing on the issue of self defense. If it does, then God help us all.

Because?

 

[SkyFox76]

In allowing the scope and scale of prosecutorial misconduct we’ve seen in this case without so much as a censure this judge is either incompetent or he’s letting the prosecuting attorneys dig their own grave and lay out the most fertile grounds for appeal of a guilty verdict I’ve ever seen.


The statute begins by saying that people under 18 can’t be in possession of a firearm and ends by saying that isn’t applicable unless the person is hunting animals without the proper State certification. It’s as simple as that. It only gets complicated if you ignore the plain text and try to superimpose a complicated interpretation of legal theory in place of the plain text. No doubt that it’s a weird statute in that it makes an absolute unqualified rule at the very beginning and then appends qualifiers to its applicability at the end. But the plain text is not complicated.

The statute has been beat to death. What you and a few others are suggesting is; it's simple, plain english to anyone who can comprehend the English language. Yet the very man who said heyyy not sooo fast everybody, never said THIS will be the loophole that get's the weapons charge dismissed. He suggest it "might" and the lawyer responding said it "could" but he go with a totally different route for defense. Rittenhouse's lawyers have not even been able to argue the point where the judge say ohhhhh okay!! You're right, I'll drop that charge.

I get the distinct feeling if the charge sticks, that some of you won't concede the law didn't state what you thought it did, but instead you'll suggest it was some other rogue complication.

 

[US&THEM]

No one thinks the drone footage is not helpful for Rittenhouse? He was not cornered and aggressively turned and fired 4 shots.

 

[GummyVitamins]

He is not in compliance therefore he is charged. It is not hard to understand.

That's not how charges work. Additionally, there's talk of this charge being thrown out by the judge or for jury instructions that will dictate to the jury that he was not in violation.

 

[Metric Mouse]

If absolutely nothing else, Rittenhouse is guilty of having the decision making ability of a 17 year old.