Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[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.

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."

No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2

 

[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.

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."

No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2

It is unreasonable to make an assumption that all the charges were defended due to the typo in the other subsection of the statute as I have already explained. Again, if defense attorneys used that argument, then the statute would have been "fixed" long ago. Since the statute was not fixed long ago, no such defense existed. I will add that you are failing to deal with the issue of the logical consequences here. How will you try to argue that Rittenhouse gets special treatment and all the teens convicted of this (INCLUDING THE KID IN THE ARTICLE I POSTED WHO PLED GUILTY TO IT) should all be able to sue the state?

 

[Trausti]

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."

No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2

It is unreasonable to make an assumption that all the charges were defended due to the typo in the other subsection of the statute as I have already explained. Again, if defense attorneys used that argument, then the statute would have been "fixed" long ago. Since the statute was not fixed long ago, no such defense existed. I will add that you are failing to deal with the issue of the logical consequences here. How will you try to argue that Rittenhouse gets special treatment and all the teens convicted of this (INCLUDING THE KID IN THE ARTICLE I POSTED WHO PLED GUILTY TO IT) should all be able to sue the state?

The article cited by thebeave explains the issue fine. Essentially, the WI legislature did not foresee/consider the AR-15 when it made changes to the law through 2011 to allow minors to use hunting rifles. That will probably change.

 

[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.

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."

No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2

It is unreasonable to make an assumption that all the charges were defended due to the typo in the other subsection of the statute as I have already explained. Again, if defense attorneys used that argument, then the statute would have been "fixed" long ago. Since the statute was not fixed long ago, no such defense existed. I will add that you are failing to deal with the issue of the logical consequences here. How will you try to argue that Rittenhouse gets special treatment and all the teens convicted of this (INCLUDING THE KID IN THE ARTICLE I POSTED WHO PLED GUILTY TO IT) should all be able to sue the state?

The article cited by thebeave explains the issue fine. Essentially, the WI legislature did not foresee/consider the AR-15 when it made changes to the law through 2011 to allow minors to use hunting rifles. That will probably change.

I have already explained that the hunting reference is a red herring and apologetics. The hunting statutes are a different statute than the felony exception. The felony exception is the one that the defense is pointing to, even if there are references later on in the subsection to these other statutes involving hunting. Mentioning hunting is a way to obfuscate the issue. So, again, the exception is a felony exception, like it's a misdemeanor for possession unless the weapon is even worse, then it's a felony.

 

[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."

No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2

Then wipe your ass with your claims before we flush them.

 

[Trausti]

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."

No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2

It is unreasonable to make an assumption that all the charges were defended due to the typo in the other subsection of the statute as I have already explained. Again, if defense attorneys used that argument, then the statute would have been "fixed" long ago. Since the statute was not fixed long ago, no such defense existed. I will add that you are failing to deal with the issue of the logical consequences here. How will you try to argue that Rittenhouse gets special treatment and all the teens convicted of this (INCLUDING THE KID IN THE ARTICLE I POSTED WHO PLED GUILTY TO IT) should all be able to sue the state?

The article cited by thebeave explains the issue fine. Essentially, the WI legislature did not foresee/consider the AR-15 when it made changes to the law through 2011 to allow minors to use hunting rifles. That will probably change.

I have already explained that the hunting reference is a red herring and apologetics. The hunting statutes are a different statute than the felony exception. The felony exception is the one that the defense is pointing to, even if there are references later on in the subsection to these other statutes involving hunting. Mentioning hunting is a way to obfuscate the issue. So, again, the exception is a felony exception, like it's a misdemeanor for possession unless the weapon is even worse, then it's a felony.

??? The misdemeanor statute for minors states that it only applies for rifles if this other statute is violated. That other statute excluded long rifles. It’s not a hard analysis.

 

[bleubird]

I have to ask: Is this the society that you want to live in? Violence solves all problems.Gun are needed for everyday life,Free speech trumps common sence. Rights have limits for a good reason. I have guns.I like them as machines.But,I have never needed one to defend myself.I have a 357 under my desk. Point is this the country you want to live in or do you wish for something better.

 

[Gospel]

I have to ask: Is this the society that you want to live in? Violence solves all problems.Gun are needed for everyday life,Free speech trumps common sence. Rights have limits for a good reason. I have guns.I like them as machines.But,I have never needed one to defend myself.I have a 357 under my desk. Point is this the country you want to live in or do you wish for something better.

I only ask that hunting laws apply to actual hunting.

 

[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.

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."

No thank you. I'll leave that up to Don2

It is unreasonable to make an assumption that all the charges were defended due to the typo in the other subsection of the statute as I have already explained. Again, if defense attorneys used that argument, then the statute would have been "fixed" long ago. Since the statute was not fixed long ago, no such defense existed. I will add that you are failing to deal with the issue of the logical consequences here. How will you try to argue that Rittenhouse gets special treatment and all the teens convicted of this (INCLUDING THE KID IN THE ARTICLE I POSTED WHO PLED GUILTY TO IT) should all be able to sue the state?

The article cited by thebeave explains the issue fine. Essentially, the WI legislature did not foresee/consider the AR-15 when it made changes to the law through 2011 to allow minors to use hunting rifles. That will probably change.

I have already explained that the hunting reference is a red herring and apologetics. The hunting statutes are a different statute than the felony exception. The felony exception is the one that the defense is pointing to, even if there are references later on in the subsection to these other statutes involving hunting. Mentioning hunting is a way to obfuscate the issue. So, again, the exception is a felony exception, like it's a misdemeanor for possession unless the weapon is even worse, then it's a felony.

??? The misdemeanor statute for minors states that it only applies for rifles if this other statute is violated.

That is a contradictory interpretation of the intent because a violation of the referenced statute is a felony. A violation of the referencing statute is only a misdemeanor. Your interpretation of the intent is saying essentially: "this misdemeanor only applies if it is also a felony."

 

[lpetrich]

Fox's Tucker Carlson gets exclusive access to Kyle Rittenhouse and his defense team during trial - CNN

Fox's biggest star, Tucker Carlson, secured exclusive access to Rittenhouse and members of his defense team during the trial. The arrangement was not revealed until after the not-guilty verdict was handed down on Friday.

Carlson shared a promo video on Friday night that showed his crew filming with Rittenhouse during the trial, featuring the 18-year-old in a wholly sympathetic light.

...
Fox announced that Carlson "will conduct an exclusive interview" with Rittenhouse, with a portion airing on Monday night, "followed by a Tucker Carlson Originals documentary on Fox Nation in December."

So the behind-the-scenes footage is for the documentary, and this entire tragedy is being used to drive subscriptions for Fox's streaming service.

...
Fox's coverage on Friday afternoon was one long performance of pro-gun ballads and anti-media broadsides. "MEDIA CONTINUES TO SMEAR RITTENHOUSE AFTER VERDICT," said a banner on "The Five." Co-host Jesse Watters claimed "that the media hates trials because they can't control trials. The media can control pretty much whatever they want in this country, but a trial is insulated."

...
Later in the day, Laura Ingraham talked with Donald Trump on the phone about the verdict. Trump had already issued a statement celebrating the result. "This is a young man that should not have been prosecuted," Trump told Ingraham while lambasting the prosecutors. "I thought the judge could have ended the case early, frankly," Trump added.

Will Fox News offer KR an internship? Tucker Carlson? Laura Ingraham? Sean Hannity?

 

[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.

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

So what? It was still clear regardless of how long the jury took.

 

[J842P]

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."

No, this is pure, unmitigated bullshit. The judge showed no bias. And comparing it to Hitler is just deranged. What is wrong with you?

 

[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.

So what? It was still clear regardless of how long the jury took.

Obviously it was not clear to the jury if it took 3 days. Duh.

 

[Gospel]

USA 2021: 1+1 = 3 days before figuring out it's 2.

 

[TomC]

Obviously it was not clear to the jury if it took 3 days. Duh.

Given the murkiness of the events and motivation and evidence and laws, 3 days seems rather quick.

Had the jury reached a verdict in an afternoon, I'd assume that they had already decided before deliberations started. Not good.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

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.

So, BLM protesters would kill black people at their protest?

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.

I'm curious. Given the differential in treatment you are asserting between the way the public and/or police treat armed white men versus armed black men, what do you think the correct equality is? I assume you mean police acted completely correctly by not shooting Rittenhouse dead, and that they should have the same reaction to any black suspect.

 

[Gospel]

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.

So, BLM protesters would kill black people at their protest?

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.

I'm curious. Given the differential in treatment you are asserting between the way the public and/or police treat armed white men versus armed black men, what do you think the correct equality is? I assume you mean police acted completely correctly by not shooting Rittenhouse dead, and that they should have the same reaction to any black suspect.

Considering hunting regulations in all gun possession charges would be nice.

 

[Patooka]

Fox's Tucker Carlson gets exclusive access to Kyle Rittenhouse and his defense team during trial - CNN

Fox's biggest star, Tucker Carlson, secured exclusive access to Rittenhouse and members of his defense team during the trial. The arrangement was not revealed until after the not-guilty verdict was handed down on Friday.

Carlson shared a promo video on Friday night that showed his crew filming with Rittenhouse during the trial, featuring the 18-year-old in a wholly sympathetic light.

...
Fox announced that Carlson "will conduct an exclusive interview" with Rittenhouse, with a portion airing on Monday night, "followed by a Tucker Carlson Originals documentary on Fox Nation in December."

So the behind-the-scenes footage is for the documentary, and this entire tragedy is being used to drive subscriptions for Fox's streaming service.

...
Fox's coverage on Friday afternoon was one long performance of pro-gun ballads and anti-media broadsides. "MEDIA CONTINUES TO SMEAR RITTENHOUSE AFTER VERDICT," said a banner on "The Five." Co-host Jesse Watters claimed "that the media hates trials because they can't control trials. The media can control pretty much whatever they want in this country, but a trial is insulated."

...
Later in the day, Laura Ingraham talked with Donald Trump on the phone about the verdict. Trump had already issued a statement celebrating the result. "This is a young man that should not have been prosecuted," Trump told Ingraham while lambasting the prosecutors. "I thought the judge could have ended the case early, frankly," Trump added.

Will Fox News offer KR an internship? Tucker Carlson? Laura Ingraham? Sean Hannity?

Of all the things that I find distasteful about this incident, this I think will leave the worst repercussions. Legal defenses now having private, undisclosed corporate sponsorship. Simply to provide top tier murder porn entertainment.

 

[Derec]

We have a new mental disease: Rittenhouse Derangement Syndrome.

Yes, Jerry Nadler and Pete Buttigieg are definitely suffering from it, but poor Cori Bush seems to have gotten it the worst.
Rep. Cori Bush calls for expulsion of House Republicans who offered Kyle Rittenhouse an internship, says her job feels 'more and more dangerous' every day

Hey Cori, if you think your job with all the security and Capitol police etc. is "dangerous" you can always resign or at least not seek reelection.

Before the verdict, she tweeted this gem.


Even if this is not pure fiction and somebody fired a shot, how does she know who they were if they were hiding?
And of course, Michael Brown wasn't "murdered" either.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We have a new mental disease: Rittenhouse Derangement Syndrome.

Get help.