Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[JohnDB]

It wouldn't have been a crime for Rittenhouse to be in possession of a baseball bat. Not sure what your point is?

When you come to the defense of another person or person's property when they ask for help... should that be a crime?

 

[JohnDB]

He wasn't in a militia.

Next...

Militias are highly notorious for being informal. He was seen and photographed with them earlier that day. So now he is a part of them....

 

[SavannahMann]

I'm not misunderstanding whatsoever.

If you are holding onto a baseball bat but see a smaller than you thug trying to beat up a little old lady with his fists for her purse...and you stop him using your baseball bat. Should you go to jail for your actions?

Just because a gun is involved is a side issue...it's the focus of the prosecutor's case but this is not a case of vigilantism. (Which is the prosecutor's case)

Actually. That is exactly what it is. Kyle showed up with delusions of heroic glory. He wanted to be a first responder when he grew up. But that doesn’t excuse his actions.

He was armed in violation of the law. In an area where he wasn’t supposed to be. Claiming non existent abilities and authority. It was always going to end badly.

But returning to your analogy. Your actions being justified depends upon your actions leading up to the point where you smack the guy with the bat. Were you on your way home from baseball practice? Or were you out looking to find someone to smack with the bat? The former is a totally different situation from the latter. In the latter you are a vigilante and will not be protected by the laws.

 

[SavannahMann]

When you come to the defense of another person or person's property when they ask for help... should that be a crime?

Nobody asked Kyle. The owner of the property did not. He was not in the Militia. And even if he was it would give him no authority to do what he did.

 

[Canon Shooter]

But you could if you wanted to...that's the purpose of the permit. And that's the conflict. Kyle was permitted to have the firearm in Wisconsin. Can't permit him and criminalize him at the same time.

In the state of Wisconsin, it was illegal for Rittenhouse to be in possession of that gun.

Why do you think it was legal? The law is pretty clear...

 

[Canon Shooter]

For something that is only a crime as a juvenile. That makes a lot of sense.

Shooting and killing someone is not only a crime when someone's a juvenile. If it was, I'd be killing people on a daily basis...

 

[Faun]

When you come to the defense of another person or person's property when they ask for help... should that be a crime?

That in itself, no. On the circumstances involving Rittenhouse, yes for a couple of reasons. When claiming self-defense, one being you can't use more force than is necessary to stop a threat of death or great bodily harm; which Rittenhouse did when he shot the pedophile in the back. Another when claiming self-defense, you can't be already committing a crime; which Rittenhouse was.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Militias are highly notorious for being informal. He was seen and photographed with them earlier that day. So now he is a part of them....

Unfortunately for that fantasy, he already stated he wasn't.

 

[JohnDB]

You understand that those Good Samaritan laws are limited. If you pull someone out of a burning car and in the process injure their back you are covered. If you try and perform an emergency appendectomy with no medical training you are not covered.

It is intended for lawsuits and offers limited protection from criminal charges.

Also the argument of Self Defense is flawed. We do not allow people to claim self defense while they are committing a crime. Otherwise every armed robber would swear it was self defense when they killed the clerk.

It is undeniable that Kyle was committing crimes before the shooting.

Lastly. He wasn’t a paramedic. He was a kid with a basic first aid course and delusions of heroic glory.

I did refer to those professionals who are trained which ARE required to assist...it's part of that group as well.

 

[Canon Shooter]

But you could if you wanted to...that's the purpose of the permit. And that's the conflict. Kyle was permitted to have the firearm in Wisconsin. Can't permit him and criminalize him at the same time.

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

 

[JohnDB]

Actually. That is exactly what it is. Kyle showed up with delusions of heroic glory. He wanted to be a first responder when he grew up. But that doesn’t excuse his actions.

He was armed in violation of the law. In an area where he wasn’t supposed to be. Claiming non existent abilities and authority. It was always going to end badly.

But returning to your analogy. Your actions being justified depends upon your actions leading up to the point where you smack the guy with the bat. Were you on your way home from baseball practice? Or were you out looking to find someone to smack with the bat? The former is a totally different situation from the latter. In the latter you are a vigilante and will not be protected by the laws.

I'm agreeing with you about his delusions of grandeur. In no way shape, form, or fashion should a 17 year old think that he can stop a whole rioting mob of thugs. (And there wasn't not a felon in the crowd)

But that's not the problem...

The problem is one of conflicting laws concerning gun rights and constitutionality.
On one hand you have state issued permits.
The other is juvenile gang violence.
And on the third hand you have Good Samaritan laws.

No matter what the original verdict... Even if Kyle goes free he still has lost his normal life. If he is found guilty he will go free on appeal. No matter what.

 

[JohnDB]

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

That's only an incomplete section of the law. Not all of it. Don't try to be a lawyer...you ain't good at it.

 

[Faun]

Militias are highly notorious for being informal. He was seen and photographed with them earlier that day. So now he is a part of them....

Nonsense. According to you, armed members of BLM were part of the Kenosha Guard militia if they were photographed with them.

That ridiculous reach aside, even if Rittenhouse was with a militia, it was still illegal for him to be in possession according to Wisconsin law which requires he be at least 18.

 

[Canon Shooter]

That's only an incomplete section of the law. Not all of it. Don't try to be a lawyer...you ain't good at it.

Fine, then show me where it states that a person under 17 is permitted to be in possession of a dangerous weapon.

Yes, the whole section regarding possession of a firearm is much more extensive, but it includes all kinds of things which don't pertain to someone under the age of 18, so it's not pertinent in this discussion.

I challenge you to show how Rittenhouse was legally in possession of the weapon he had the night he killed those two people.

I'll wait...

 

[JohnDB]

Another when claiming self-defense, you can't be already committing a crime; which Rittenhouse was

That's what I've been saying all along is what is really going on trial....that law which is in conflict with other Wisconsin laws and Federal laws. Otherwise the 17 year old hunters and soldiers would be prosecutable in Wisconsin.

 

[Canon Shooter]

That's what I've been saying all along is what is really going on trial....that law which is in conflict with other Wisconsin laws and Federal laws. Otherwise the 17 year old hunters and soldiers would be prosecutable in Wisconsin.

Absolutely untrue. Exemptions are made for those who are under adult supervision while hunting or in a formal course of instruction on gun safety, or those in the military. Rittenhouse fits into none of those three categories.

Don't try to be a lawyer. You suck at it.

Oh, and we're still waiting for you to explain how his possession of the gun was legal...

 

[Correll]

For me, the math is real easy on this.

He thought this out: "Give stimulus money to my friend so he can buy me a gun I know I'm not supposed to have and then inject myself into a riot under the guise of some sort of "protector" from the mobs and, if I kill anyone, I can claim self-defense."?

No, his acts were deliberate and intentional. Try him as an adult...

The "I can claim self defense" does not make much sense. If he was planning to put him self between a violent mob and their target and the mob attacked him, and he defended himself, then that would still be self defense and valid.

BUT, the libs keep harping on the fact that he does not get to use self defense as a claim, not because he was not being attacked by the mob, but because he was committing a crime by having the gun as a "child".


If you are willing to have the court examine the self defense claim, honestly and not disallow it because of the "crime" of having the gun, then You are being vastly more reasonable then the lefties on this issue.

 

[Faun]

That's what I've been saying all along is what is really going on trial....that law which is in conflict with other Wisconsin laws and Federal laws. Otherwise the 17 year old hunters and soldiers would be prosecutable in Wisconsin.

This is a state issue. Federal laws don't apply. State laws and Federal laws may contradict each other. One does not affect the other. For example, in some states, smoking weed is legal even though it's illegal in Federal law. Those states can't convict someone of smoking a blunt just because Federal law forbids it.

 

[Correll]

One has nothing to do with the other. He still broke the law being too young to legally be on possession of a gun he used to commit the adult crime of murder.

If he is adult enough to try as an adult, it is immoral to try him as a child at the same time.

 

[JohnDB]

Fine, then show me where it states that a person under 17 is permitted to be in possession of a dangerous weapon.

Yes, the whole section regarding possession of a firearm is much more extensive, but it includes all kinds of things which don't pertain to someone under the age of 18, so it's not pertinent in this discussion.

I challenge you to show how Rittenhouse was legally in possession of the weapon he had the night he killed those two people.

I'll wait...

I have and did several times.
Just because you fail to accurately comprehend the materials while reading has no bearing. The fact remains that Kyle will ultimately be released and not convicted with a conviction that will last for long. No matter what I or you desire...that's how the legal system will work. If it doesn't then anyone can be convicted for simply breathing.