Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Ugh, yeah. While this is the verdict I believe is correct, I'm not looking forward to the agrandesement of Rittenhouse either, not the crowing of victory.
You're doing that thing where you're ignoring what the law actually says in favor of the public policy goal it's supposed to work towards or a summary of the law from staff working for a handful of legislators. Those things do not supersede what the law actually says - this is literally why I brought up the Nebraska "safe haven" law, to point out that no matter what the broader goal is, the law says what it says and those words are what is to be interpreted.
"This section only applies if" means that that section only applies when those conditions are met, regardless of what broader policy goal it might be theoretically meant to forward. The exceptions to not being allowed to be armed while under 18 are if you are training in the military under adult supervision, doing target practice under adult supervision, or if you are possessing or armed with a rifle or shotgun and also in compliance with three other laws (one of which involves gun handling for minors 16 and under [Kyle was 17], one of which involves the requirements to get approval to hunt [he wasn't hunting, and you don't need a permit to not hunt], and the third of which says you can't have a short barreled rifle or short barreled shotgun [which is the only reason why the length of his rifle was relevant in the first place - this is the only way the prosecution could have even theoretically met the requirements for the section to apply]). It doesn't matter that the broader policy goal is to set regulations around children being allowed to hunt, the law says what it says and what it says it what you have to work from.
It's a specific length or longer, if they are over 16 and the gun is also a rifle or shotgun. Because short-barreled rifles and shotgun are broadly illegal. Think a sawed-off or a P90 (as opposed to it's civilian version the PS90 which is something like an inch longer to be over the short-barreled limit).
This is the law i question I've been arguing with them over all this time. (1) defines a "dangerous weapon", (2) states that a minor is not allowed to have such a weapon and it's a misdemeanor for the minor and a felony for whoever gave it to them, and (3) lists the exceptions to that. (3)(c) specifically says "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if" and then names three other laws they have to be following - one of them is gun restrictions on kids 16 and under hunting, one is getting approval to hunt, and the third one deals with short-barreled rifles/shotguns.
The whole thing is them ignoring what (3)(c) says entirely and treating it as something like "there's an exception if you are hunting" because a couple of staff for a handful of legislators (the Joint Legislative Council) summarized the exceptions as being for military training, target practice and hunting in a piece that itself even explicitly states that it is not a policy statement.
Prepare for riots, I guess. I was kinda hoping for a guilty on the 2nd shooting, because at least one guilty might have been enough to stave off further violence and that seemed like the one with the best odds.
But then you'd have to charge basically all the witnesses and anyone else present who could be identified with reckless endangerment, and that wasn't going to fly for political reasons. They don't want to start more riots by charging people with rioting...
And all you have to do is inspire your political enemies to attack you first!
Between being held to a much lower standard of evidence (preponderance is basically "ever so slightly more likely than not") and the suit being over something like "wrongful death" rather than 1st degree intentional homicide he might be found liable for something and end up having to pay damages. The second shooting seems like the best bet of the three.
And I pointed out this wasn't a problem until this very specific case where the judge very clearly ruled in an extremely underhanded manner. Clearly the precedent was in place until now, the judge is out of line.
Didn't he already get offered a job by Matt Gaetz as a political internship?
Well Kyle started out on private property (the lot)
Also the argument being put forward was the dead were either in the right or justified to attack Kyle because (and this was the prosecutions main claim in the end which IMO they didn't even prove happened) that Kyle pointed his gun at Rosenbaum first as that totally made Rosenbaum's actions justified from that point on as Kyle totally incited him to action and not because Rosenbaum was a nutter with a history of violence who wanted to hurt people and so apparently the 17 year old is to blame for the 30 something year old Rosenbaum's actions.
Hell based on Wisconsin law and Castle Doctrine if it's a trespasser who you believe poses a threat you can shoot them on the spot pretty much if it's on your property.
Violence would have happened with or without Kyle, precedent shows that and the whole "He shouldn't have been there". The best response I can think of to that is "He shouldn't have needed to be there or felt the need to be there and wouldn't have done if people weren't losing their shit and actually managed to hold an actual protest and not have it deteriorate into a riot. Other protests have been shown to actually be good and when radical elements joined in to try and attack the police, the protestors tackled the people and passed them to police lines to be arrested because they realise it was better for their protest to not have such tools trying to start stuff.
I saw an interview from some relative saying he's going to study nursing in college. Maybe he really was a medic. Whoda thunk it.
The issue is they're not allowed to try and be influenced by outside factors in the case. So no looking and news coverage of claims online only what they saw in court because if you believe the internet Kyle was a KKK member who went on a Rampage and murdered 5 unarmed black guys who were just standing about doing nothing at all.Was that before jury or not? I couldn't live with myself letting a murderer go away in this kind of situation...
Jury finds Rittenhouse not guilty in Kenosha shootings
Kyle Rittenhouse has been acquitted of all charges after testifying he acted in self-defense in the deadly Kenosha, Wisconsin, shootings that became a flashpoint in the nation’s debate over guns, vigilantism and racial injustice.apnews.com
"After the jury departed, Rittenhouse attorney Mark Richards told the judge he feared such a move would lead to jurors looking things up in the dictionary or doing their own research at home."
So apparently both sides lawyer aren't exactly the brightest bulb. Can't possibly have the jury think over their decision and get informed on the law involved in the case they're asked to decide.
This works both ways BTW because the Jury were specifically kept in the dark about the criminal histories of the people Kyle shot which BTW would include the fact one was a violent wife beater and Rosenbaum had 5+ write ups in prison for starting brawls with other inmates with little to no provocation. Which yeh could totally sway some-one to go "Rosenbaum has a history of being a violent nut job so in all likelihood did start the situation and was trying to attack Kyle because Rosenbaum has a history of doing just that with other people".
Wasn't he in prison cause he was a child rapist too? Never mind the prison brawls, that they even hid this is huge.
Yet all over Twitter (which isn't all that surprising) people are calling this a victory for racism and talking about how broken the system is. I think it was the right choice as well, based on every piece of evidence presented and the self-defense laws in play here.
A system didn't decide this. A jury did. The jury could have just as easily convicted him despite all the evidence proving his innocence, but they didn't because people don't work that way.
Killing in self defense is not manslaughter. Manslaughter requires non-protective intent to kill.
And the intent must be demonstrated.
Based on the lady reading the thing it didn't sound like he was even up for that, only murder.
He wasn't. only murder and reckless possession of a deadly weapon. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loc...se-and-what-will-the-jury-deliberate/2686011/
He said this in responce to the jury asking for written instruction from the judge. This wasn't outside factor, that was literally just the instruction (which were 36 pages when typed).
And the victim record are irrelevant because Kyle didn't know them when he shoot.
Sad but true. Hoping no one else ends up dying, but who am I kidding? Hoping for the best at least, and wishing safety for the jurors in particular.