Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Trausti]

Rep. Jerry Nadler:
Rep. Nadler on Twitter: "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest." / Twitter

I've seen this baseless claim repeated over, and over, and over. Specifically, that Rittenhouse was armed when he crossed state lines. (That he was 'looking for trouble', is, of course, something that could be said of everyone else at the protest, too).

Why do the people who believe Rittenhouse to be guilty repeat this claim? Do they not know any better? Or do they know and just don't care? The 'crossing state lines' really, really seems to be a point of fascination, as if driving 21 miles were somehow a big deal. None of the original charges against Rittenhouse have a 'crossing State lines with a weapon' basis.

Because the media intentionally lies in service of the narrative.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There seems to be a typo in the wording of the statute [on the website]. Figuring out what is going on and why there is an apparent contradiction isn't something covered in news media.

The section of law is about "dangerous weapons" like shotguns, rifles, shirukens. Possession by a 17 year old is declared to be a MISDEMEANOR.

Another subsection of this section is intended to make an exception of EVEN GREATER SEVERITY pointing to another statute where possession by a 17 year old of a shortened barrel is a FELONY.

So the intent is "hey this is a misdemeanor. Unless it's a short barrel, then look at felony statute instead."

Here is part of additional subsection:
"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."

There should be an extra negative in there, maybe something like this:
"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 NOT in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

 

[J842P]

'I threw them out of the room several times': Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney says he didn't approve of Tucker Carlson film crew

"I did not approve of that. I threw them out of the room several times," Mark Richards told CNN's Chris Cuomo.

He added: "I don't think a film crew is appropriate for something like this but the people who were raising the money to pay for the experts and to pay for the attorneys were trying to raise money and that was part of it so I think, I don't want to say an evil but a definite distraction was part of it. I didn't approve of it but I'm not always the boss."

And as to the claim that KR acted in self-defense, where does it end? What will *not* qualify as self-defense?

Many things do not. But in Rittenhouse claim it was clear.

 

[laughing dog]

'I threw them out of the room several times': Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney says he didn't approve of Tucker Carlson film crew

"I did not approve of that. I threw them out of the room several times," Mark Richards told CNN's Chris Cuomo.

He added: "I don't think a film crew is appropriate for something like this but the people who were raising the money to pay for the experts and to pay for the attorneys were trying to raise money and that was part of it so I think, I don't want to say an evil but a definite distraction was part of it. I didn't approve of it but I'm not always the boss."

And as to the claim that KR acted in self-defense, where does it end? What will *not* qualify as self-defense?

Many things do not. But in Rittenhouse claim it was clear.

It took the jury 3 days to see that "clear" claim.

 

[Generation55]

'I threw them out of the room several times': Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney says he didn't approve of Tucker Carlson film crew

"I did not approve of that. I threw them out of the room several times," Mark Richards told CNN's Chris Cuomo.

He added: "I don't think a film crew is appropriate for something like this but the people who were raising the money to pay for the experts and to pay for the attorneys were trying to raise money and that was part of it so I think, I don't want to say an evil but a definite distraction was part of it. I didn't approve of it but I'm not always the boss."

And as to the claim that KR acted in self-defense, where does it end? What will *not* qualify as self-defense?

Many things do not. But in Rittenhouse claim it was clear.

It took the jury 3 days to see that "clear" claim.

It was clear. Look at my post #1,027 that went unrefuted.

 

[Trausti]

I've spent a few weeks with my latest trainee at work. He's a young guy, but very smart. Before he worked for us, he was on track to be a success at Amazon corporate. Nice guy. Wears a hoodie. And yeah...he's black.

If he'd walked into that maelstrom of the protest in Kenosha with an AR-15 in his hands that day? He's probably be dead. If he was leaving the scene, walking towards cops with that rifle in hand after shooting three people? He'd definitely be dead. There might have been a trial, but he'd still be dead.

 

[lpetrich]

The judge was clearly sympathetic to KR. It's something like the trial of Adolf Hitler for the Munich Beer Hall Putsch, where the judges allowed him to rant at length about how he was a simple German patriot who wanted to restore Germany's former greatness, and how the real traitors were the Weimar leaders and those who stabbed their nation in the back by surrendering to the Western allies.

Ilhan Omar tweets support of Amber Ruffin clip slamming 'f----- up' Rittenhouse jury | Fox News

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "In case you needed a reminder…(vid link)" / Twitter
Amber Ruffin on her show:

In the video echoed by Omar, Ruffin said, "It's not okay for a man to grab a rifle, travel across state lines, and shoot three people and then walk free."

Ruffin accused the U.S. judicial system of being "blatantly and obviously stacked against people of color" and said it is "not okay for there to be an entirely different set of rules for White people."

"I don't care about Kyle Rittenhouse, I don't care about that racist judge. And I don't care how f----- up that jury must be," Ruffin added. "White people have been getting away with murder since time began."

Addressing people of color, Ruffin said: "You matter so much, that the second you start to get a sense that you do, a man will grab a gun he shouldn't have in the first place and travel all the way to another state just to quiet you."

 

[Generation55]

The judge was clearly sympathetic to KR. It's something like the trial of Adolf Hitler for the Munich Beer Hall Putsch, where the judges allowed him to rant at length about how he was a simple German patriot who wanted to restore Germany's former greatness, and how the real traitors were the Weimar leaders and those who stabbed their nation in the back by surrendering to the Western allies.

Ilhan Omar tweets support of Amber Ruffin clip slamming 'f----- up' Rittenhouse jury | Fox News

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "In case you needed a reminder…(vid link)" / Twitter
Amber Ruffin on her show:

In the video echoed by Omar, Ruffin said, "It's not okay for a man to grab a rifle, travel across state lines, and shoot three people and then walk free."

Ruffin accused the U.S. judicial system of being "blatantly and obviously stacked against people of color" and said it is "not okay for there to be an entirely different set of rules for White people."

"I don't care about Kyle Rittenhouse, I don't care about that racist judge. And I don't care how f----- up that jury must be," Ruffin added. "White people have been getting away with murder since time began."

Addressing people of color, Ruffin said: "You matter so much, that the second you start to get a sense that you do, a man will grab a gun he shouldn't have in the first place and travel all the way to another state just to quiet you."

But it's been established that he did NOT cross state lines and that he killed in self-defense. Even if it was proven that he did cross state lines, that's already been refuted by the fact that a lot of you claim that borders shouldn't be protected in the first place with your stance on the southern border. You can't claim to want to do nothing at the border and build no wall and let everyone in and then clutch your pearls at someone who crosses into another state of a country he's already a citizen of. That doesn't work against the big boys with big intellect.

I don't like all the flip-flopping that goes on.

The line of "he shouldn't of been there" is refuted by the fact that the rioters should've never been there, either. The people he shot in self-defense actually traveled farther to come to Kenosha than Kyle did. Kyle willingly ran into a warzone screaming, "MEDICAL?!?!" and started putting out fires and then got chased and attacked by people who started the fires and he killed them in self-defense and people are saying that he's a bad guy and a coward. If that's a coward, I don't want to know what you consider to be brave.

And then to top it all off, Kyle was crying on the stand a bunch of people were making fun of him for crying and calling him a baby despite the fact that many of those same people claim that we shouldn't shame men for crying, yet they were the first ones shaming him for crying. It really is pure madness!

We need to seriously start teaching critical thinking skills in schools. A lot of people seem to run on pure emotion.

 

[southernhybrid]

I found another good article that explains the problem that we have in the US regarding guns and how easy it has become to use self defense as an a reason to justify killing. It should be available to anyone to read for the next two weeks. It makes some interesting points and compares how people from both sides interpret the Rittenhouse verdict.


https://wapo.st/3cAvuso

On the streets through the night after the verdict, the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse played out as one more battle in a long-running war for the nation’s identity: With marches, signs and chants, one side shouted against racists and the gun-obsessed, while the other yelled back that the teenager who shot three people — two of them to death — on a hairy night in Kenosha, Wis., was a hero who had stood up for gun rights and law and order.

On TV, politicians, celebrity lawyers and pundits bickered over the impulsive acts of a young man: Could this country afford to define itself as a place where any earnest, naive or troubled soul in any public place gets to decide in an instant to deploy fatal force against another — possibly without consequences?
But in America’s courts, law schools and state legislatures, a quieter yet still fitful struggle has waged over the past couple of decades, focused on the central dilemma raised anew by the Rittenhouse verdict: What does a right to self-defense really mean? When can Americans choose to use deadly force? Who gets to decide?

There is a lot more in the article to think about, regardless of how one interprets the verdict in the Rittenhouse trial. One of my concerns is that some of the right are trying to make this messed up young man a hero. Will that inspire other immature men to take similar actions?

 

[marc]

I found another good article that explains the problem that we have in the US regarding guns and how easy it has become to use self defense as an a reason to justify killing.

This old clip made a good summary of the problem with Stand Your Ground/Self defense claimse

Spoiler: youtube

From the first season of South Park

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Think about all the minors who have been convicted of weapons possession over the years in Wisconsin. All the case law as well. Do their convictions get overturned? Lawsuits by thousands? For some reason, the statute even with a typo in a different subsection was always understood and used as intended prior to this court case.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think one other way of looking at this case is that Wisconsin Law is laughably useless. 17 year old person white boy can barely drive a car, but can walk in an active riot while open carrying a semi-automatic weapon... legally.

Then add to that, both parties involved in the subsequent shootings apparently have legitimate self-defense claims, the shot/dead trying to subdue an active shooter... and the active shooter trying to protect himself from people actively attacking him.

How fucking useless can legal code be to provide such ridiculous laws?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 03 Jan 2003. Page 76.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Manitowoc Herald-Times. 06 Oct 1999. Page 5.

 

[ZiprHead]

There is a lot more in the article to think about, regardless of how one interprets the verdict in the Rittenhouse trial. One of my concerns is that some of the right are trying to make this messed up young man a hero. Will that inspire other immature men to take similar actions?

I'm sure there will be now that the justice system made it clear that minors can walk around carrying AR-15s and vigilantism is A-OK.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.

 

[thebeave]

View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.

Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.

 

[Jarhyn]

View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.

Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.

If you wish to make this claim, I am sure you will be more than willing to look up the convictions they got, and see if there are any correlations between which charges were dropped and what the defendants looked like. I'll bet it'll "look about white."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

View attachment 36162
Kenosha News. 25 Nov 1999. Page 24.

Dude, you might want to read this article I posted earlier. It might provide the answer you are looking for regarding why charges were levied on minors for gun possession on cases from 20+ years ago, but not for the KR case in 2021. The other point is several of the articles you cited merely showed that charges were applied, or may be applied. It doesn't say whether the charges stuck or not. Perhaps they were dismissed, like the KR case.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?

Basically, the law has been updated multiple times in the last few years, for one thing. Another factor is the type of weapon and its barrel length can be the difference between legal and not.

It sounds like the law is somewhat obscure and a bit of a clusterfuck, and apparently its not often used. Perhaps the defense attorneys in the articles you cited were not aware of it. The attorneys in the KR case apparently discovered it and used it to the benefit of their client. Its their job. Its what they are hired for. I would hope that if you were a defense attorney, you would do the same for your client. Are these gun laws for minors appropriate? Arguably not, in which case perhaps an amendment to the law is appropriate. But until then, KR is a free man under the law.

My points are in response to your and others' articles and "explanations." In a previous post, I show what the typo is in a different subsection of the statute. Did you even read that? Your explanations do not make much sense since the law is known and used. Kyle Rittenhouse knew it was illegal for him to have a gun which is why he had his friend buy it instead. These charges have been made many, many times by law enforcement against minors with dangerous weapons. I used a sparse digitized newspaper database to find some charges but particularly for rifles and shotguns with normal sized barrels. Minors often get privacy and so following court cases is not always an option in a sparse, digitized newspaper database. It is a silly argument to claim that absolutely no one knew about this loophole for decades because the intent of the law has been clear. It is further silly to argue that maybe other defense attorneys in other cases used this argument in court because if they did, then the statute typo would have been fixed decades ago. Conservatives are also arguing that this subsection isn't a typo at all but is there for hunting purposes by 17 year olds, but that is a made-up fantasy as you can see from charges but also because the other statute isn't for hunting but for FELONY charges. As explained earlier, the statute is for misdemeanor possession, but makes an exception for short-barreled rifles/shotguns in a different statute because that is a felony. The felony exception isn't reasonably used to make the misdemeanor subsection disappear. Furthermore, conservatives are now claiming this judge's decision can't be used as a legal precedent. How the heck could that make any sense at all? Either it's a statutory problem that suddenly came into being after hundreds of teens arrested, some pleading guilty, some convicted, or it isn't a statutory problem.

I realize this will be complicated for you. Let's put it this way. I can be open-minded to civil rights issues--including ambiguous statutes because civilians deserve to have their laws recorded properly. While I think it is unreasonable to believe that Rittenhouse thought it was legal for him to have a gun, in the interest of civil rights procedures, I am willing to say okay, fine charge dropped, but then YOU have to deal with the logical consequences of that. That's what this is about. The logical consequences are that all these other people get to sue the state of Wisconsin for wrongful conviction and get their convictions overturned. How are you going to deal with these logical consequences?