Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[CM156]

Legit question as Ive never been on jury duty - why would you want to get out of it? Its a civic duty and in theory an incredibly important part of our legal system. Its like wanting to get out of voting. Like shouldn't you want to participate?

Some people don't like it because in several states the pay for jurors is horrible and jobs often won't pay for your jury duty time.

 

[SilentPony]

Last time I did it because I couldnt get out of work.

Some people don't like it because in several states the pay for jurors is horrible and jobs often won't pay for your jury duty time.

Wait, you can be fired for being called up to jury duty? How is that even remotely legal? A juror is considered a protected category of employee:
"An employer shall not terminate, discipline, threaten or take adverse actions against any employee due to that employee's receipt of or response to a jury summons."

 

[09philj]

Legit question as Ive never been on jury duty - why would you want to get out of it? Its a civic duty and in theory an incredibly important part of our legal system. Its like wanting to get out of voting. Like shouldn't you want to participate?

Unless you're hearing a juicy case it's really fucking boring (And even then there'll be a lot of time spent doing absolutely nothing), and poorly paid.

 

[CM156]

Wait, you can be fired for being called up to jury duty? How is that even remotely legal? A juror is considered a protected category of employee:
"An employer shall not terminate, discipline, threaten or take adverse actions against any employee due to that employee's receipt of or response to a jury summons."

You can't be fired for showing up for jury duty.
Your boss can, at least in Missouri, refuse to pay you for the time you are off for jury duty.
So if you work 40 hours normally and you need to take two days for jury duty, you're only getting paid for the 24 hours you put in at the job and not the 16 you put in at jury duty.

 

[Schadrach]

Considering this has already been clarified by the legislature, as I posted before, we take that section of the law for it's intention. Hunting. They wanted to negatively define what is definitely not hunting vs trying to positively define what is hunting to avoid cops from taking weapons near forests or whatever. So unless you're saying Kyle was out hunting, in the middle of Kenosha, in the middle of the night, during a riot, he's in violation of the law.

1. This bit specifically?

Disqualification Based on Age
Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon. [ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]

2. Again, if we keep reading: "This memorandum is not a policy statement of the Joint Legislative Council or its staff." So, no, they aren't even attempting to lay out what the law *really* means (as opposed to what was passed) or to propose an alternative law.

3. Even if they were, the entire Joint Legislative Council is 22 legislators and some staff, they cannot pass or amend legislation on their own. Even if in their opinion the "certain exceptions" *should* be limited exclusively to those things, that's not what the law as passed *says*.

4. If you go looking into what the Joint Legislative Council does, they aren't some sort of voice of the legislature on the "correct" interpretation of law - they mostly study policy proposals and submit them to the normal legislative process.

5. Again, the law as written specifically requires a minor carrying a rifle or shotgun to also be violating one of three other sections, and none of those apply to Rittenhouse. If the Joint Legislative Council wants the restrictions for those 16 and under to apply to 17 year olds, then they can propose a bill to do that.

Wait, you can be fired for being called up to jury duty?

No, but while you're not at work for several days for a trial like this, your employer is under no requirement to pay you for that time. It's like you took unpaid leave (and are paid whatever the state pays jurors instead, which is not much) for that time, at least in several states.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

1. This bit specifically?


2. Again, if we keep reading: "This memorandum is not a policy statement of the Joint Legislative Council or its staff." So, no, they aren't even attempting to lay out what the law *really* means (as opposed to what was passed) or to propose an alternative law.

3. Even if they were, the entire Joint Legislative Council is 22 legislators and some staff, they cannot pass or amend legislation on their own. Even if in their opinion the "certain exceptions" *should* be limited exclusively to those things, that's not what the law as passed *says*.

4. If you go looking into what the Joint Legislative Council does, they aren't some sort of voice of the legislature on the "correct" interpretation of law - they mostly study policy proposals and submit them to the normal legislative process.

5. Again, the law as written specifically requires a minor carrying a rifle or shotgun to also be violating one of three other sections, and none of those apply to Rittenhouse. If the Joint Legislative Council wants the restrictions for those 16 and under to apply to 17 year olds, then they can propose a bill to do that.

They don't have to, the law already applies to anyone under 18 unless they're out hunting or a couple other things, none of which applied to Kyle that night.

 

[Asita]

Legit question as Ive never been on jury duty - why would you want to get out of it? Its a civic duty and in theory an incredibly important part of our legal system. Its like wanting to get out of voting. Like shouldn't you want to participate?

A few reasons.

1) Daunting responsibility. If you're called to jury duty, you're in a situation where someone is accused of something rather serious and you're one of a dozen people being tasked with figuring out the right answer. By its very nature if you lot get it wrong you are complicit in if not directly to blame for a miscarriage of justice. Presumably an unintentional one, but even so, not exactly something you want on your conscience.

2) Opportunity cost. If your name comes up for jury duty, your employer is required to accommodate your duty with time off, but (in all but 8 states) they aren't required to give you Paid Time Off for it, and the state gives you fuck all for it. The compensation is paid on a per-day basis, and the most generous states give you a grand total...of $50. So for every day you're on jury duty you lose a day of work for - at best - the equivalent of $6.25 per hour (granted, in 3 states that does supplement your PTO). At best. In 30 of the 50 states, you get $20 per day or less. In 25 of them, it's $15 or less. Per day.

Making matters worse, you're probably downtown and may have to pay for parking out of your own pocket, and for your downtown lunch. My state paid its jurors $12 per day ($1.50 per hour). Those two things ate up more money than I was compensated, never mind if I wanted to get a drink or snack from the overpriced vending machines in the room.

3) More often than not: It's so boring! Let me recap my last jury duty experience for you. I reported in to the appointed location bright and early, we all got shown an introductory video about the importance of jury duty, and then they started pulling a dozen of us at a time to sit in on the panel as the prosecution and defense for two different cases tried to figure out which of us they wanted. The rest of us? We were confined to a waiting room.

Mind you, it wasn't cramped, but there was precious little to do. I remember that they had a television on that was showing Wonder (2017 film), but I can't remember what else they played (I'd brought a novel to occupy my attention). We got a break for lunch, after which they finally called me and another 11 people up. I spent maybe 20 minutes in the courtroom before the defense decided to dismiss me back to the waiting room, and I was told to stand by in case I was called as part of the selection for the other trial. I was not. I spent the whole day sitting in the waiting room. And that's the normal experience. IIRC, only about 23% of people called for jury duty are actually selected.

It's a civic duty, sure. I don't begrudge that fact, and when called I answered honestly and to the best of my ability so that the court could make an informed decision about whether or not I was suitable to serve. But I'm not about to pretend that it's some exciting event that I'd be honored to serve in.

 

[Kwak]

So did this trial fall to this particular prosecuter by default or was he chosen or put forward by someone?

 

[Piscian]

Wait, you can be fired for being called up to jury duty? How is that even remotely legal? A juror is considered a protected category of employee:
"An employer shall not terminate, discipline, threaten or take adverse actions against any employee due to that employee's receipt of or response to a jury summons."

Theres a loophole in the law where if they say you're explicitly NOT being fired for going to jury duty and then wink really hard at you they can fire you for whatever they want in right to work states.

 

[Schadrach]

They don't have to, the law already applies to anyone under 18 unless they're out hunting or a couple other things, none of which applied to Kyle that night.

Again, you're just wrong about this. The law in question says that it only applies to minors armed with a rifle or shotgun if they are also in violation of one of three other sections, as part of that "out hunting or a couple other things". One of those "other things" is carrying a rifle or shotgun that is not short barreled while being 17 years old.

You keep pointing to what is essentially a memo written by some staff of a group of 22 legislators summarizing the law as though it is authoritative above the law itself as written, passed and signed into law. If you don't understand how insane that is, imagine I let 22 GOP Senators write a memo on civil rights law, and then tried to pretend that memo was authoritative over the law as written, would you accept that? No? That's exactly what you are doing here, just at a state level rather than federal.

948.60 has three sections, the first defines a "dangerous weapon", the second makes it a class A misdemeanor for a minor to possess a "dangerous weapon" and a class H or I felony to give them one. The third section lays out the exceptions to this (the ones said memo summarizes as "certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice". Specifically:

(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.

(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.

(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.

OK, so (a) is specifically about target practice (and a charge against Rittenhouse passes this test), (b) is specifically about military service (and a charge against Rittenhouse passes this test), and (c) is where it gets interesting.

He is charged with having a rifle and is under 18, so (c) applies. Which means that he must be in violation with 941.28 or not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593 for 948.60 for 948.60 to apply.

29.304 are restrictions based on age (starting with those under 12, and proceeding finally to the 14-16 range). As Rittenhouse was 17, he is necessarily in compliance with it, because none of it applies to him.

29.593 is about getting approval to hunt. As Rittenhouse wasn't hunting, he doesn't need approval to hunt, and therefore is in compliance.

This brings us to 941.28. 941.28 is a prohibition on short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns. This is why the length of his rifle was a big deal. If it was a short rifle, he would have been in violation, and more or less trivially guilty of 948.60. But since it was over the length, he wasn't in violation of 941.28, and since he had to be in violation of 941.28 for 948.60 to apply, 948.60 doesn't apply. A few staff for 22 legislators summarizing everything I just wrote as "certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice" does not change what the law says.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Again, you're just wrong about this. The law in question says that it only applies to minors armed with a rifle or shotgun if they are also in violation of one of three other sections, as part of that "out hunting or a couple other things". One of those "other things" is carrying a rifle or shotgun that is not short barreled while being 17 years old.

You keep pointing to what is essentially a memo written by some staff of a group of 22 legislators summarizing the law as though it is authoritative above the law itself as written, passed and signed into law. If you don't understand how insane that is, imagine I let 22 GOP Senators write a memo on civil rights law, and then tried to pretend that memo was authoritative over the law as written, would you accept that? No? That's exactly what you are doing here, just at a state level rather than federal.

948.60 has three sections, the first defines a "dangerous weapon", the second makes it a class A misdemeanor for a minor to possess a "dangerous weapon" and a class H or I felony to give them one. The third section lays out the exceptions to this (the ones said memo summarizes as "certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice". Specifically:



OK, so (a) is specifically about target practice (and a charge against Rittenhouse passes this test), (b) is specifically about military service (and a charge against Rittenhouse passes this test), and (c) is where it gets interesting.

He is charged with having a rifle and is under 18, so (c) applies. Which means that he must be in violation with 941.28 or not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593 for 948.60 for 948.60 to apply.

29.304 are restrictions based on age (starting with those under 12, and proceeding finally to the 14-16 range). As Rittenhouse was 17, he is necessarily in compliance with it, because none of it applies to him.

29.593 is about getting approval to hunt. As Rittenhouse wasn't hunting, he doesn't need approval to hunt, and therefore is in compliance.

This brings us to 941.28. 941.28 is a prohibition on short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns. This is why the length of his rifle was a big deal. If it was a short rifle, he would have been in violation, and more or less trivially guilty of 948.60. But since it was over the length, he wasn't in violation of 941.28, and since he had to be in violation of 941.28 for 948.60 to apply, 948.60 doesn't apply. A few staff for 22 legislators summarizing everything I just wrote as "certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice" does not change what the law says.

Yes, the law says someone under 18 can't go armed with a dangerous weapon, unless they're out hunting (having proven so with a hunter's safety course and if they're 16, with a parent or guardian). Like it's really not hard to get how this law is to be interpreted, unless you're a 2A absolutist who blithely ignores it. Like the judge.

 

[Schadrach]

Theres a loophole in the law where if they say you're explicitly NOT being fired for going to jury duty and then wink really hard at you they can fire you for whatever they want in right to work states.

When you can fire anyone at any time for any reason (including no reason at all) except for a specific handful of explicitly forbidden reasons, it's not hard to come up with some alternate excuse. Most don't do this for jury duty though, you just aren't getting paid for the hours you aren't working.

 

[SilentPony]

Theres a loophole in the law where if they say you're explicitly NOT being fired for going to jury duty and then wink really hard at you they can fire you for whatever they want in right to work states.

View attachment 4905

That's such bullshit. Being "fired" for not refusing a mandatory Government summons.

 

[Schadrach]

Yes, the law says someone under 18 can't go armed with a dangerous weapon, unless they're out hunting (having proven so with a hunter's safety course and if they're 16, with a parent or guardian). Like it's really not hard to get how this law is to be interpreted, unless you're a 2A absolutist who blithely ignores it. Like the judge.

Keep reading to the end of the section. You just keep pretending like (3)(c) just isn't there, or pretending what is essentially a loose summary written by a couple staff members of a handful of legislators supersedes the law that was actually passed. You might not want it to be there, but it is. If you think that doesn't apply to Rittenhouse, then explain how in detail.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Keep reading to the end of the section. You just keep pretending like (3)(c) just isn't there, or pretending what is essentially a loose summary written by a couple staff members of a handful of legislators supersedes the law that was actually passed. You might not want it to be there, but it is. If you think that doesn't apply to Rittenhouse, then explain how in detail.

Because he wasn't out hunting, at a target range, or performing military training. Therefore the safety training course he should have taken (I presume he has) would tell him what he was doing was unsafe.

 

[Dreiko]

That's such bullshit. Being "fired" for not refusing a mandatory Government summons.

When I went there they had the option to get out of it by claiming you can't get off work I think, something like that, you could ask to be excused on those grounds. Now I guess it's possible that they refuse to let you get out of it though, by which point you are screwed.


But yeah basically the reason not to wanna go is cause you have a life and things to be doing.

 

[CM156]

When I went there they had the option to get out of it by claiming you can't get off work I think, something like that, you could ask to be excused on those grounds. Now I guess it's possible that they refuse to let you get out of it though, by which point you are screwed.


But yeah basically the reason not to wanna go is cause you have a life and things to be doing.

I've also heard stories from lawyers I work with about cases they've seen where judges have called up said workplaces and threatened nonspecific punishments for the bosses who said they wouldn't excuse the worker.
Funny as these are, I doubt the veracity of such stories until I see one myself.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Rittenhouse Prosecutors caught manipulating evidence, defense demands mistrial with prejudice.


The Prosecutor had drone footage that took nearly 12 mb. They gave the defense a 3 mb version that was blurry and provided the 12 mb only after the case was completed and the jury couldn't see anything on the 12 mb.

I think this Judge desperately wants to let the system work but this is disbarment territory. I don't recall if the Duke Lacrosse prosecutor was just suspended or perma banned from law. Reviewing.

EDIT: Permanent.

Mike Nifong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What he did may have been slightly worse as he withheld evidence that showed the defendant not guilty. I'm not sure if the video evidence would have been what made a difference in the trial but if that is so... why hide this from the defense?

You know there's some real weird shit going on with this case. Like this is a level of incompetence in sending over evidence is pretty puzzling especially apparently as the drone footage was sent via a different method than the rest of the evidence or something......

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So did this trial fall to this particular prosecuter by default or was he chosen or put forward by someone?

No-one is quite sure but it's a strange co-incidence that he happens to live with a Kenosha judge (not the one from this trial) and happens to share the same surname as the Mayor of Kenosha and the DA too.......