IMHO, The Wisconsin Attorney General Should Render An Opinion On The Legal Exception That Allowed Kyle Rittenhouse To Avoid a Gun Charge

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

From what I know about state AG opinions, they can only be requested from someone with "standing" such as a Wisconsin state legislature or someone else within state government. I don't believe I can make the request of any of the Legislature since I'm not a Wisconsin resident but I think it would be a good thing, either way, because what I've read thus far indicates that the exception that Kyle's defense used to get the judge to dismiss the gun charge in actuality originated as an "exception" to the hunting exception. If that is true, then it should not have been applicable to the charge that was dismissed.

Even if the WI AG determines it is not solely applicable to the hunting exception, at least there would be more clarity than we have now. I read just today that students where Kyle is enrolled online want him banned from campus and his enrollment revoked.

There are anti-gun people who sincerely would have preferred that instead of defending his life with the firearm in his possession that he had ended up on the losing end. Then there are other pro second amendment people who will support certain people's right to to use lethal force to defend not just their own lives, but the lives of others and in some cases, property among other tangible/non-tangible things.

I fall in the middle and prefer clarity, consistency and fairness in the rendering of "justice" and admit that Kyle having lied about being a EMT and that he was there is Wisconsin to volunteer his services as an EMT demonstrates to me an appalling character flaw and disconnect from reality regarding the type of person he truly is that everyone just seemed to look the other way on.

Research Guides: Historical Resources for U.S. and State Law: Attorney General Opinions

 

[MaryL]

Well, ok. sour grapes make for sorry losers. Rittenhouse was attacked and was defending himself. Be all, end all.

 

[daveman]

From what I know about state AG opinions, they can only be requested from someone with "standing" such as a Wisconsin state legislature or someone else within state government. I don't believe I can make the request of any of the Legislature since I'm not a Wisconsin resident but I think it would be a good thing, either way, because what I've read thus far indicates that the exception that Kyle's defense used to get the judge to dismiss the gun charge in actuality originated as an "exception" to the hunting exception. If that is true, then it should not have been applicable to the charge that was dismissed.

Even if the WI AG determines it is not solely applicable to the hunting exception, at least there would be more clarity than we have now. I read just today that students where Kyle is enrolled online want him banned from campus and his enrollment revoked.

There are anti-gun people who sincerely would have preferred that instead of defending his life with the firearm in his possession that he had ended up on the losing end. Then there are other pro second amendment people who will support certain people's right to to use lethal force to defend not just their own lives, but the lives of others and in some cases, property among other tangible/non-tangible things.

I fall in the middle and prefer clarity, consistency and fairness in the rendering of "justice" and admit that Kyle having lied about being a EMT and that he was there is Wisconsin to volunteer his services as an EMT demonstrates to me an appalling character flaw and disconnect from reality regarding the type of person he truly is that everyone just seemed to look the other way on.

Research Guides: Historical Resources for U.S. and State Law: Attorney General Opinions

You just make sure you don't criticize the rioters in general and the pieces of shit who attacked the boy in specific. You'll burst into flames.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You just make sure you don't criticize the rioters in general and the pieces of shit who attacked the boy in specific. You'll burst into flames.

Workman?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If I didn't know any better I'd start to think that maybe you all don't want the law clarified?

 

[daveman]

Workman?

If you don't know anything about the case, you probably shouldn't start threads about it, either.

 

[daveman]

If I didn't know any better I'd start to think that maybe you all don't want the law clarified?

There's nothing wrong with the law. You just want to make it illegal for people to defend themselves from leftist attackers.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If you don't know anything about the case, you probably shouldn't start threads about it, either.

Who said I didn't know anything about the case? Other than you and everyone else celebrating the verdict?

 

[Crepitus]

From what I know about state AG opinions, they can only be requested from someone with "standing" such as a Wisconsin state legislature or someone else within state government. I don't believe I can make the request of any of the Legislature since I'm not a Wisconsin resident but I think it would be a good thing, either way, because what I've read thus far indicates that the exception that Kyle's defense used to get the judge to dismiss the gun charge in actuality originated as an "exception" to the hunting exception. If that is true, then it should not have been applicable to the charge that was dismissed.

Even if the WI AG determines it is not solely applicable to the hunting exception, at least there would be more clarity than we have now. I read just today that students where Kyle is enrolled online want him banned from campus and his enrollment revoked.

There are anti-gun people who sincerely would have preferred that instead of defending his life with the firearm in his possession that he had ended up on the losing end. Then there are other pro second amendment people who will support certain people's right to to use lethal force to defend not just their own lives, but the lives of others and in some cases, property among other tangible/non-tangible things.

I fall in the middle and prefer clarity, consistency and fairness in the rendering of "justice" and admit that Kyle having lied about being a EMT and that he was there is Wisconsin to volunteer his services as an EMT demonstrates to me an appalling character flaw and disconnect from reality regarding the type of person he truly is that everyone just seemed to look the other way on.

Research Guides: Historical Resources for U.S. and State Law: Attorney General Opinions

There was a whole lot more wrong with that "trial" than just that ruling.

 

[Coyote]

Folks, this thread has a topic and it is pretty specific, please discuss it.

 

[daveman]

Who said I didn't know anything about the case? Other than you and everyone else celebrating the verdict?

So far as I know, there was no one named Workman involved. If I'm wrong, please let me know and I'll apologize.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

There's nothing wrong with the law. You just want to make it illegal for people to defend themselves from leftist attackers.

Well if there is nothing wrong with the law then a clarification isn't going to hurt anything or anyone will it? Rittenhouse will still have his acquittal.

And just so you'll know where I'm coming from, this is an WA State AG opinion on the restoration of gun rights. More understanding is always better than less as far as I am concerned. I used and referenced this Opinion in some of my work:

When convicted persons are entitled to restoration of firearm possession rights

AGO 2002 No. 4 - Jul 9 2002​

​
Attorney General Christine Gregoire

FIREARMS – CRIMES – When convicted persons are entitled to restoration of firearm possession rights.
1. RCW 9.41.040 defines the circumstances under which a person convicted of a misdemeanor might lose the right to possess a firearm and the circumstances in which such a right might be restored.
2. If a person is convicted of a crime for which RCW 9.41.040 prescribes no procedure for the restoration of firearm possession rights, the only available statutory remedy is a pardon by the governor with a finding either of innocence or of rehabilitation.

*******************************
July 9, 2002​

The Honorable Arthur D. Curtis Clark County Prosecuting Attorney P. O. Box 5000 Vancouver, WA 98666-5000

Cite As: AGO 2002 No. 4

Dear Prosecutor Curtis:
continued
When convicted persons are entitled to restoration of firearm possession rights | Washington State

 

[Indeependent]

From what I know about state AG opinions, they can only be requested from someone with "standing" such as a Wisconsin state legislature or someone else within state government. I don't believe I can make the request of any of the Legislature since I'm not a Wisconsin resident but I think it would be a good thing, either way, because what I've read thus far indicates that the exception that Kyle's defense used to get the judge to dismiss the gun charge in actuality originated as an "exception" to the hunting exception. If that is true, then it should not have been applicable to the charge that was dismissed.

Even if the WI AG determines it is not solely applicable to the hunting exception, at least there would be more clarity than we have now. I read just today that students where Kyle is enrolled online want him banned from campus and his enrollment revoked.

There are anti-gun people who sincerely would have preferred that instead of defending his life with the firearm in his possession that he had ended up on the losing end. Then there are other pro second amendment people who will support certain people's right to to use lethal force to defend not just their own lives, but the lives of others and in some cases, property among other tangible/non-tangible things.

I fall in the middle and prefer clarity, consistency and fairness in the rendering of "justice" and admit that Kyle having lied about being a EMT and that he was there is Wisconsin to volunteer his services as an EMT demonstrates to me an appalling character flaw and disconnect from reality regarding the type of person he truly is that everyone just seemed to look the other way on.

Research Guides: Historical Resources for U.S. and State Law: Attorney General Opinions

From what I know about state AG opinions

Which is nothing...

 

[daveman]

Well if there is nothing wrong with the law then a clarification isn't going to hurt anything or anyone will it? Rittenhouse will still have his acquittal.

And just so you'll know where I'm coming from, this is an WA State AG opinion on the restoration of gun rights. More understanding is always better than less as far as I am concerned. I used and referenced this Opinion in some of my work:

I have no reason to trust your motives.

 

[Esdraelon]

If I didn't know any better I'd start to think that maybe you all don't want the law clarified?

The young man was attacked by three separate individuals. He defended himself. Clarify the law as you like. The bottom line is you can't stand that he wasn't convicted for SOMETHING, ANYTHING. To make your frustration worse, he's apt to win multiple millions from media whores who defamed him with intentional, actual malice. Eventually, these scummy media 5th columnists will learn to back up and stop lying to foment race hate.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I have no reason to trust your motives.

Whether or not you trust me or my motives is irrelevant to the topic. It's because I've relied on this particular WA AG Opinion in the past is why I know that they can be provided but that the request cannot generally come from a constituent.

I'm guessing you think I'm anti-2nd amendment but you couldn't be more wrong. I don't like liars though. I have found that people who lie about little things or for no apparent reason will often lie about bigger things if they think it will keep them out of trouble or get them something they want. The whole "I'm an EMT" when he clearly is not and didn't seem to get what the big deal was about with him having done so, is one of those type of things that makes me think that someone who will lie about something like that may also lie about feeling that their life was being threatened, when it was not, just like we saw with Travis McMichael in the Ahmaud Arbery case, yet both defendants pursued a self-defense claim.

The prosecutor in the McMichaels case got Travis McMichael to admit Arbery posed no threat to him BEFORE he pointed his shotgun at him so as has been speculated, it's quite possible that Arbery went on the offense in RESPONSE to Travis pointing his shotgun at him. That is not self-defense.

I don't want to see anything like this happen again if possible, and if it does and steps could have been taken to mitigate any future damage yet they weren't, then things change a bit and not in a good way.

It just would be nice if the legal eagles in the WI State legislature would ask the AG what the legislators originally wanted and meant when they wrote that exception for the barrel length of the firearm instead of making people guess.

 

[toobfreak]

IMHO, The Wisconsin Attorney General Should Render An Opinion On The Legal Exception That Allowed Kyle Rittenhouse To Avoid a Gun Charge​

You must mean the 2A which gives every American the right to carry a gun and act in his self-defense!

But by all means get busy with that criminal charge against Alec Baldwin for shooting and killing a woman with a loaded gun because the fuck is too careless and stupid to check it first and not point it at people's bodies while squeezing the trigger!

 

[BackAgain]

From what I know about state AG opinions, they can only be requested from someone with "standing" such as a Wisconsin state legislature or someone else within state government. I don't believe I can make the request of any of the Legislature since I'm not a Wisconsin resident but I think it would be a good thing, either way, because what I've read thus far indicates that the exception that Kyle's defense used to get the judge to dismiss the gun charge in actuality originated as an "exception" to the hunting exception. If that is true, then it should not have been applicable to the charge that was dismissed.

Even if the WI AG determines it is not solely applicable to the hunting exception, at least there would be more clarity than we have now. I read just today that students where Kyle is enrolled online want him banned from campus and his enrollment revoked.

There are anti-gun people who sincerely would have preferred that instead of defending his life with the firearm in his possession that he had ended up on the losing end. Then there are other pro second amendment people who will support certain people's right to to use lethal force to defend not just their own lives, but the lives of others and in some cases, property among other tangible/non-tangible things.

I fall in the middle and prefer clarity, consistency and fairness in the rendering of "justice" and admit that Kyle having lied about being a EMT and that he was there is Wisconsin to volunteer his services as an EMT demonstrates to me an appalling character flaw and disconnect from reality regarding the type of person he truly is that everyone just seemed to look the other way on.

Research Guides: Historical Resources for U.S. and State Law: Attorney General Opinions

You want an AG in Wisconsin to offer an opinion because that would accomplish …. not a fucking thing? Why?

 

[daveman]

Whether or not you trust me or my motives is irrelevant to the topic. It's because I've relied on this particular WA AG Opinion in the past is why I know that they can be provided but that the request cannot generally come from a constituent.

I'm guessing you think I'm anti-2nd amendment but you couldn't be more wrong. I don't like liars though. I have found that people who lie about little things or for no apparent reason will often lie about bigger things if they think it will keep them out of trouble or get them something they want. The whole "I'm an EMT" when he clearly is not and didn't seem to get what the big deal was about with him having done so, is one of those type of things that makes me think that someone who will lie about something like that may also lie about feeling that their life was being threatened, when it was not, just like we saw with Travis McMichael in the Ahmaud Arbery case, yet both defendants pursued a self-defense claim.

The prosecutor in the McMichaels case got Travis McMichael to admit Arbery posed no threat to him BEFORE he pointed his shotgun at him so as has been speculated, it's quite possible that Arbery went on the offense in RESPONSE to Travis pointing his shotgun at him. That is not self-defense.

I don't want to see anything like this happen again if possible, and if it does and steps could have been taken to mitigate any future damage yet they weren't, then things change a bit and not in a good way.

It just would be nice if the legal eagles in the WI State legislature would ask the AG what the legislators originally wanted and meant when they wrote that exception for the barrel length of the firearm instead of making people guess.

You don't like people lying about being EMTs? Then make a law about that. Stop trying to fix something that isn't broken.

By the way, the video evidence proves Rittenhouse's life was in danger. No amount of petulant foot-stamping is ever going to change that fact.

On edit: The prosecutor in the case didn't know shit about WI gun laws. Yet he tried to prosecute the boy for breaking one.

That's something you can call to fix: Prosecutors must know the law they're trying to uphold. Because this incompetent moron sure as hell didn't.

 

[BackAgain]

You don't like people lying about being EMTs? Then make a law about that. Stop trying to fix something that isn't broken.

By the way, the video evidence proves Rittenhouse's life was in danger. No amount of petulant foot-stamping is ever going to change that fact.

On edit: The prosecutor in the case didn't know shit about WI gun laws. Yet he tried to prosecute the boy for breaking one.

That's something you can call to fix: Prosecutors must know the law they're trying to uphold. Because this incompetent moron sure as hell didn't.

The prosecutor wasn’t conversant even with some basic mandatory constitutional commands properly imposed on the prosecution.