Rittenhouse jury just went to deliberate

[JohnDB]

There likely are other exceptions, like in a self defense emergency, where a juvenile could grab a shotgun over the mantle.
But this had no aspect of self defense because Rittenhouse was going 20 miles out of his way to put himself into this potentially dangerous situation.
Clearly that prevents any self defense claim or any rational that would allow for him to carry a rifle as a minor.

Nope...
Because the header over which a law is written is not the law unless it is written into the law itself. That's why Kyle was legally allowed to possess the rifle.

 

[Correll]

Wrong.
Protests and even rioting is protected political expression when the grievance against the government is sufficient.
And when the government commits murder, than any and all actions by the population are warranted.
It then becomes legal to burn the police stations to the ground and killed every single police officer, if necessary.
You clearly do not understand law.
Law applies against police as well, and when police commit crimes and resist arrest, they must be killed and it is legal.
What you seem to fail to understand, is that when police violate the law by murdering someone, then it is the police who are the illegal rioters.
Then those protesting become the legal vigilantes carrying out justice.
Police are not the law, only our agents when they follow what we say.
When they do not, then they must be arrested or killed.

1. YOu are wrong.

2. Even if you were not wrong, these rioters were not attacking cops, or even groups of armed citizens, but targeting what they though was a lone, weak target.

3. And of course, private property of private citizens.

 

[Rigby5]

Travelling twenty miles, or a thousand, before you are attacked, does not mean you lose the right to self defense.

Yes it does.
When you deliberately go to a place where you know there is danger but have no valid reason for going there, then you are deliberately looking for trouble and lose any self defense plea.
Even worse if openly armed because then you are deliberately trying to intimidate and threaten everyone else.
That normally is never tolerated by police even.
The fact the police did not confiscate the rifle or arrest him, shows the entirely police force needs to be fired.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Riots will not always happen.

Well, I hate to break to you: yes they will. And always have. I don't mean at every protest.

And while blaming those who professional responsibility is to deal with them is called for,

not at the cost of letting the actual rioters off the hook for their actions.

But you insult the police as much as the rioters or their sympathizers. The police will make decisions not to escalate and to sit back while some property damage occurs. So they are just letting them off the hook. And sometimes that IS the correct decision, so that it doesn't escalate to large scale police on citizen (and vice versa) violence.

 

[Rigby5]

Just keeping it real. You side with the rioters, and I side with those that fight them, in defense of my society.

The rioters are against murder by corrupt police, so if you are against the rioters, you are in league with corrupt murderers.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm pretty much a police supporter. But dang did they do some stupid things over the last two years. Kenosha is a prime example. Gassing peaceful protests for blocking streets (then blocking off the streets a week later for any "Pretzel Fest" carney train that comes to town) also comes to mind. Geez guys.

 

[Correll]

Yes it does.
When you deliberately go to a place where you know there is danger but have no valid reason for going there, then you are deliberately looking for trouble and lose any self defense plea.
Even worse if openly armed because then you are deliberately trying to intimidate and threaten everyone else.
That normally is never tolerated by police even.
The fact the police did not confiscate the rifle or arrest him, shows the entirely police force needs to be fired.

Except he did have a valid reason to be there. And more importantly he had the RIGHT to be there.


Bulldog, we got a lib here, who thinks Rittenhouse did not have the right to be in Kenosha on that night. Join me in setting him straight.

 

[Flash]

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.

It is more complicated than just quoting that law because there are referenced exemptions you have to look at.

The Prosecution conceded that the law did not apply to Kyle during the trial when asked to measure the gun and that is why the Judge dropped it.

Here is a better explanation

 

[Rigby5]

1. YOu are wrong.

2. Even if you were not wrong, these rioters were not attacking cops, or even groups of armed citizens, but targeting what they though was a lone, weak target.

3. And of course, private property of private citizens.

The way it works is that the police are controlled by the wealthy elite.
If you want to change how the police conduct themselves, you have to get the wealthy elite to tell then to act differently.
And the only way to do that is to cause monetary damages to the wealthy elite.

It is identical to the Boston Tea Party, if you still do not get it.

 

[DrLove]

Because your way has worked out real well, hasn't it?
I already realized you live in a beautiful, protected area...snob.

I’ll take my snobbery over your idiocy every day and twice on Sunday!

 

[Correll]

The rioters are against murder by corrupt police, so if you are against the rioters, you are in league with corrupt murderers.

The riots are anti-white race riots.

 

[Indeependent]

I’ll take my snobbery over your idiocy every day and twice on Sunday!

O My! How shall I make it through the night!?
Thanks for admitting you hide behind gates as you laugh at the peasants.

 

[Rigby5]

Except he did have a valid reason to be there. And more importantly he had the RIGHT to be there.


Bulldog, we got a lib here, who thinks Rittenhouse did not have the right to be in Kenosha on that night. Join me in setting him straight.

What was that valid reason or right for Rittenhouse to be someone that has no knowledge of the situation or right to say how the police should function for that community?

 

[jc456]

Yep! Riots and protests will always happen. If we can't do better than what happened in Kenosha, that is the fault of the police first, iMO. And ultimately our fault. All of us.

I blame the rioters for rioting. And the firebugs for the dumpster fires. In Kenosha, I blame the police for how it turned out.

I don't even need anyone's head. A simple: "We fucked up. We won't coordinate with the vigilantes and militia next time (but I repeat myself). And don't bring guns. " would mean a lot.

So threatening us, terrorists all of you

 

[eagle1462010]

Fix yourself prior to a vain attempt to fix anyone else.

Your side has a lot of nerve considering what you have done for decades. This isn't new. You are just mad that we have had enough of it.

 

[Correll]

Well, I hate to break to you: yes they will. And always have. I don't mean at every protest.



But you insult the police as much as the rioters or their sympathizers. The police will make decisions not to escalate and to sit back while some property damage occurs. So they are just letting them off the hook. And sometimes that IS the correct decision, so that it doesn't escalate to large scale police on citizen (and vice versa) violence.

The people who's lives are being ruined, by the property destruction might strongly disagree.


What happens when they decide to defend their property, with a pump shotgun? Will the police arrest them for defending their property? Or let the mob and the owners fight it out, trial by combat style?

And the line between riot causing property damage and killing someone is seconds thick. THose cops could be hanging back, while people are dying, and not realize it, till it is too late.

 

[BULLDOG]

Just keeping it real. You side with the rioters, and I side with those that fight them, in defense of my society.

You have made it clear that you side with those who ignore the law and dispense their own version of vigilante justice. How is that different from the rioters? Just so you can't pretend you missed that question, I'll ask again. How is that different from the rioters?

 

[Correll]

The way it works is that the police are controlled by the wealthy elite.
If you want to change how the police conduct themselves, you have to get the wealthy elite to tell then to act differently.
And the only way to do that is to cause monetary damages to the wealthy elite.

It is identical to the Boston Tea Party, if you still do not get it.

The Boston Tea Party was NOT the template for our Revolution. Armed militias more like Rittenhouse and his group, were.

 

[BULLDOG]

Travelling twenty miles, or a thousand, before you are attacked, does not mean you lose the right to self defense.

Causing the confrontation does mean you lose the right to claim self defense.

 

[Correll]

You have made it clear that you side with those who ignore the law and dispense their own version of vigilante justice. How is that different from the rioters? Just so you can't pretend you missed that question, I'll ask again. How is that different from the rioters?

Rittenhouse was standing there, protecting property from violent rioters. That is a legal act. And moral. And hurts no one. Helps people even.


The rioters, wanted to burn down other people's property causing great harm to them. That is an illegal act. ANd immoral. ANd hurts people.


How is it different? It is different in every way.