Rittenhouse jury just went to deliberate

[BULLDOG]

I don't know the politics of any of these "vigilantes".

So you believe vigilantism is fine for political purposes. That's disgusting, but not surprising.

 

[Correll]

Not when it is vigilantism. Sorry. Maybe that's how they do things in your shithole country. But not in the USA.

Peaceful my ass.

 

[JohnDB]

Maybe they will. Unfortunately for them, they put themselves in a precarious position by going too far with brutality at peaceful protests.

Water cannons can break bones...huge bruises and etc. Even kill in the right circumstances.

But bringing prison tactics to brutally beat people just trying to save private property has caused this... especially when the DA currently charging Kyle with crimes is exactly the person who caused most of the criminal's discontent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Call it what you want.

Or what the law calls it. In my country.

 

[Correll]

So you believe vigilantism is fine for political purposes. That's disgusting, but not surprising.

Oh, I think I see what you are doing. You realize that you have lost the debate, so you are trying to get control of the language aspect, by making the discussion about semantics.


Here is what you support.

Here is what I support.

 

[Correll]

Or what the law calls it. In my country.

Funny. I don't recall that on the list of charges against Rittenhouse. Or Zimmerman. So, you are wrong.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

I suppose some of them could be criminals. How many of the people there that night killed someone?

As far as I know only the one being maliciously attacked. By vigilantes who decided to take the law into their own hands. Which you appear to be against.

 

[Turtlesoup]

I have a couple of problems with Rittenhouse's case:

First, if it was legal for him to own that gun, why didn't he purchase it himself?

He admitted to shooting an unarmed man.

He gave away his body armor, claiming he wouldn't need it, because he would be performing first aid.

He retained his weapon instead of giving it to someone who could've used it while he was performing first aid.

He provided first aid to no one.

He may well walk. But if he's found guilty of any of the primary or lesser charges, I can certainly see a strong argument for that.

Usually, when a verdict comes back quickly, it's because guilt or innocence is obvious. If a verdict doesn't come relatively short order, I think that could bode poorly for the the young Mr. Rittenhouse...

He can it, he just can't buy it. Like underage car buying---a kid can own a car, but can't get registered and insured.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But bringing prison tactics to brutally beat people just trying to save private property has caused this..

No idea what you are babbling about. Sorry.

What brought this on was a derelict police department and Militia LARPers who endorsed a gun toting child to patrol the streets. And couple that with being emboldened by carrying a rifle, and Kyle was in situations he would not otherwise have been in and should not have been in. When the crazy person charged him,he would have just run to someone to help, had he not been armed. I blame the cops and the militia pussies more than I do the child.

 

[Correll]

No idea what you are babbling about. Sorry.

What brought this on was a derelict police department and Militia LARPers who endorsed a gun toting child to patrol the streets. And couple that with being emboldened by carrying a rifle, and Kyle was in situations he would not otherwise have been in and should not have been in. When the crazy person charged him,he would have just run to someone to help, had he not been armed. I blame the cops and the militia pussies more than I do the child.

No mention of the actual rioters.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Funny. I don't recall that on the list of charges against Rittenhouse.

But that's not what we were talking g about. You want armed vigilantes to patrol the streets. Which is transparent, childish behavior on your part, as all you actually want is to see your perceived political enemies-- that you have dehumanized-- get hurt. So you spend something timeon these time wasting red herring rants,without actually fooling anyone.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No mention of the actual rioters.

Correct. Rioters bring on cops. Not vigilantes and fat ***** in Combat vests with little weenies. That's the law really, and it should be enforced.

 

[DrLove]

I’m far more conservative than you. You bring discredit upon conservatives. You have no idea how to make your case substantively.

You finally know the degree of kookery in this forum. These are NOT normal conservatives. Good on ya

 

[BULLDOG]

Oh, I think I see what you are doing. You realize that you have lost the debate, so you are trying to get control of the language aspect, by making the discussion about semantics.


Here is what you support.


View attachment 565478

Here is what I support.


View attachment 565479

Control of the language aspect? WTH is that supposed to mean? Quit trying to blame me because I point out the stupid shit, you say, dumb ass. Your claim that I support burning is absurd, but I know your arsenal is almost empty, and all you had left was either that or a 'BUT HILLARY" claim.

 

[Opie]

With the jury still out, is that better for the prosecution or the defense?

The defense has the upper hand in this trial in about 3 different ways. They are not holding out because they don’t know they are holding out because someone won’t budge that’s GREAT for Kyle

 

[Rigby5]

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial raises some interesting observations. Rittenhouse was seventeen when he decided to intervene in a riot that was burning the small town where his father lived less than 20 miles from where he and his mother made their home. As a seventeen-year-old, it was a poor decision, and it probably would have better if he had just avoided the mayhem and stayed home. There were calls on social media for people to protect the homes and businesses under attack and Rittenhouse responded.

Unfortunately, Rittenhouse answered the call with a Smith & Wesson M&P 15, an AR-15-like rifle he legally owned despite false press reports echoing the prosecution saying the gun was illegally in his possession. For some reason no one in media bothered to check Wisconsin laws on firearms that made Rittenhouse’s gun legal for a seventeen-year-old instead just taking the word of the prosecution that was lying.

The judge threw out the charge of illegal possession of a firearm early on in what turned out to be a slew of criticism aimed at prosecutorial sloppiness and outright incompetence. It became evident as soon as video evidence was shown that the prosecution’s case was built on a house of cards, and it started falling apart almost immediately. The video clearly showed that Rittenhouse was being pursued by a mob and that he acted in self-defense.

At this writing the jury is still out likely because lynch mob influence is seen by the jury as a threat to them and their families. Incredibly, national press coverage was so poor that up until the trial started most African Americans thought Rittenhouse had used his rifle to shoot three blacks especially after Joe Biden had publicly accused the teenager of being a white supremacist. The lone black member of the jury is no doubt under tremendous pressure to vote guilty and ignore the obvious evidence that Rittenhouse discharged the rifle to save his life from imminent attacks of rioters that were out of control and out for blood.

Rittenhouse stuck his neck out when the rest of us just stood back and hoped Washington would come to its senses and put a stop to the destruction of communities under the banner of a concocted Black Lives Matter movement when no one in the country was saying black lives do not matter. Maybe Rittenhouse's actions were dumb or maybe they were what was needed.

It appears to me that the judge was wrong to throw out the illegal weapons possession charge.?

{...

2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations
948. Crimes against children.
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.​

Universal Citation: WI Stat § 948.60 (2015)
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

948.60(1)(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

948.60(2) (2)

948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

948.60(2)(b) (b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

948.60(2)(c) (c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

948.60(2)(d) (d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.

948.60(3) (3)

948.60(3)(a)(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

948.60(3)(b) (b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

948.60(3)(c) (c) 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.

History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.

Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
...}

2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations :: 948. Crimes against children. :: 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

law.justia.com

What I read says the judge said the charge only applied with short barreled weapons, and that is false.
I see nothing in this statute about barrel length at all.
And it appears to clearly state that Rittenhouse was illegally in possession, since he was not at a range or fit any of the exceptions.

 

[eagle1462010]

You finally know the degree of kookery in this forum. These are NOT normal conservatives. Good on ya

Tell your party to stop provoking violence in this country and then you can stop whining about it when someone tells you to go to hell.

Don't like it. DON'T PROVOKE IT.

 

[Correll]

But that's not what we were talking g about. You want armed vigilantes to patrol the streets. Which is transparent, childish behavior on your part, as all you actually want is to see your perceived political enemies-- that you have dehumanized-- get hurt. So you spend something timeon these time wasting red herring rants,without actually fooling anyone.

Actually, what I want is for the ******* police to be ordered to clear the ******* streets.

BUT, baring that, I would be fine with armed citizens protecting themselves and their property and communities.


I would PREFER, if the presence of armed Citizens, would deter the barbarian mobs, into submission.

Also, i have not dehumanized my enemies. Your own actions and behavior has done that.


You know, like when you reflexively side with the insane child rapist trying to kill the teenager, instead of the young man being attacked by the violent mob.


When, you do shit like that, that is when YOU dehumanize yourself.

 

[Correll]

Correct. Rioters bring on cops. Not vigilantes and fat ***** in Combat vests with little weenies. That's the law really, and it should be enforced.

You were talking about who is responsible. THe rioters are teh ones that decided to initiate violence. They are the ones most directly responsible for what happened.


Yet, you make no mention of them.


You know, one of the three guys shot, was talking shit about Rittenhouse, like you are right now.


He was proven, very, very wrong.

 

[JohnDB]

It appears to me that the judge was wrong to throw out the illegal weapons possession charge.?

{...

2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations​

948. Crimes against children.​

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.​

Universal Citation: WI Stat § 948.60 (2015)
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

948.60(1)(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

948.60(2) (2)

948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

948.60(2)(b) (b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

948.60(2)(c) (c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

948.60(2)(d) (d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.

948.60(3) (3)

948.60(3)(a)(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

948.60(3)(b) (b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

948.60(3)(c) (c) 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.

History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.

Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
...}

2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations :: 948. Crimes against children. :: 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

law.justia.com

What I read says the judge said the charge only applied with short barreled weapons, and that is false.
I see nothing in this statute about barrel length at all.
And it appears to clearly state that Rittenhouse was illegally in possession, since he was not at a range or fit any of the exceptions.

You didn't include the infamous hunting laws which also apply and have more laws.