Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[Schadrach]

The worst part is it's not a technicality.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2018/im_2018_02
The Wisconsin legislature clarified in 2018 precisely what the law was meant to do in this situation.

Then why write "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." into the law? 29.304 and 29.593 only apply to people under 16, and 941.28 deals with a prohibition on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Which is why the length of the barrel matters - it not being short barreled means it's not in violation of 941.28, and he's over 16 which means 29.304 and 29.593 also don't apply.

Why have a specific exception for rifles and shotguns in the hands of 17 year olds if you don't want an exception for rifles and shotguns the hands of 17 year olds?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Then why write "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." into the law? 29.304 and 29.593 only apply to people under 16, and 941.28 deals with a prohibition on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Which is why the length of the barrel matters - it not being short barreled means it's not in violation of 941.28, and he's over 16 which means 29.304 and 29.593 also don't apply.

Why have a specific exception for rifles and shotguns in the hands of 17 year olds if you don't want an exception for rifles and shotguns the hands of 17 year olds?

Because those violations go to different laws. The SBR law for example becomes a federal felony, not a state misdemeanor.

 

[meiam]

A "technicality" like the law in question only applying to certain kinds of firearms, which the prosecution had to admit Rittenhouse's firearm was not one of. That's like saying that a drug possession charge was dismissed on a technicality because the alleged cocaine was actually caffeine powder. Both are still white powder stimulants with names beginning with "C", it should be close enough!

A gun is a gun, it's not like if you get shoot by a gun outside the law you can apply to a judge to reverse your death and you come back to life.

That depends, did the "protester" threaten him, attack him, the "supporter" flee, someone else fire a shot, then the "supporter" turns, sees the "protester" within arm's reach going for his gun and *then* shoots him? Bonus points if said "protester" had been talking about wanting to "jack them" and "steal they guns" prior. Or at least assault him with a blunt object?

Well it's going to be the shooter word against protester.... but since the protester is dead w/e. So the moral is to just make sure you kill people in self defence and not wound them so they can't tell their side of the story.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

A gun is a gun, it's not like if you get shoot by a gun outside the law you can apply to a judge to reverse your death and you come back to life.


Well it's going to be the shooter word against protester.... but since the protester is dead w/e. So the moral is to just make sure you kill people in self defence and not wound them so they can't tell their side of the story.

I know if they tell their side the protestor might lose a $100,000 lawsuit, potentially face attempted murder charges for pointing a gun at a person with expressed intent to fire despite the person not shooting them earlier thus not being shown to be a threat. Instead with the protestors being dead you get to try and charge the shooter and not have to have them admit what they actually did under oath......

 

[meiam]

I know if they tell their side the protestor might lose a $100,000 lawsuit, potentially face attempted murder charges for pointing a gun at a person with expressed intent to fire despite the person not shooting them earlier thus not being shown to be a threat. Instead with the protestors being dead you get to try and charge the shooter and not have to have them admit what they actually did under oath......

The first guy killed was unharmed (he potentially had a chain earlier in the day). Also, are you seriously saying that you can point a gun at someone and so long as you don't shoot them you're not a threat?!

Honestly the entire trial was a farce, the only fact that's up in the air is how to apply the duty to retreat in self defence case. If only the few seconds before the person is killed matters, then absolutely nothing else matters except whether or not the shooter was feeling threaten at the very moment he shoot.

Otherwise, if the entire chain of events matters then he waived his right to self defend the moment he went to the protest since he actively decided to bring a gun with him, showing that he considered the situation dangerous and therefore going against his duty to retreat and waiving his self defence right, and therefore nothing that happened after that matters.

This really doesn't seem like something that should be up to a jury to decide.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I have yet to see a fascist system of law where there is a concept of "due process" worthy of the term.
That was the joke I was going for. The legal system under Nazi Germany made the show trials of the Stalin era look legitimate by comparison.

it'd work better if fascists perceived themselves to be in power right now.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The first guy killed was unharmed (he potentially had a chain earlier in the day). Also, are you seriously saying that you can point a gun at someone and so long as you don't shoot them you're not a threat?!

Honestly the entire trial was a farce, the only fact that's up in the air is how to apply the duty to retreat in self defence case. If only the few seconds before the person is killed matters, then absolutely nothing else matters except whether or not the shooter was feeling threaten at the very moment he shoot.

Otherwise, if the entire chain of events matters then he waived his right to self defend the moment he went to the protest since he actively decided to bring a gun with him, showing that he considered the situation dangerous and therefore going against his duty to retreat and waiving his self defence right, and therefore nothing that happened after that matters.

This really doesn't seem like something that should be up to a jury to decide.

So because you have the ability to defend yourself you're not allowed to?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

In my personal opinion, no. He should not be doing that. He's violating three of the four rules of gun safety in this picture alone.


Seems like something the prosecution should have caught before today. Or the defense. Or anyone, really.

Wait wait, hold up... That's not photoshopped?! WTF is wrong with this guy?!

 

[Agema]

Wait wait, hold up... That's not photoshopped?! WTF is wrong with this guy?!

I think you may not be the crowd he's playing to.

 

[Schadrach]

Because those violations go to different laws. The SBR law for example becomes a federal felony, not a state misdemeanor.

It's also a state Class H felony in Wisconsin.

But again, look at 948.60, specifically 948.60(3)(c), it says it doesn't apply to someone under 18 with a shotgun or rifle (as opposed to say a handgun) unless it's also a violation of one of three other laws. Two of those laws only apply to people 16 or under ( 29.304 and 29.593 ) and the third only applies to short barreled rifles and shotguns ( 941.28 ). He wasn't violating 29.304 or 29.593 because he's 17 and he wasn't violating 941.28 because it wasn't a short barreled rifle, and therefore 948.60(3)(c) says 948.60 doesn't apply to him.

A gun is a gun

A key point of the prosecution's case is the opposite of that, specifically that by using FMJ ammo (rather than something like hollow point) he's guilty of endangering people behind his target who were not an immediate threat to him.

Should he be doing that? And if that’s evidence - I’m assuming Rittenhouse’ weapon - why isn’t it in a bag or tagged?

I missed when he did that because work, but when the defense did that it was removed from the bag then verified empty by an officer of the court. At least when the defense did it, he made a point of not raising it all the way up i.e. not pointing it at anyone in the court.

Otherwise, if the entire chain of events matters then he waived his right to self defend the moment he went to the protest since he actively decided to bring a gun with him, showing that he considered the situation dangerous and therefore going against his duty to retreat and waiving his self defence right, and therefore nothing that happened after that matters.

So legally carrying a gun should waive your right to self defense? If so, should that apply to lesser weapons, such as knives and blunt instruments of various kinds? Should someone who has had martial arts training never be allowed to defend themselves, just in case?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I think you may not be the crowd he's playing to.

I think the only crowd he could be playing to is morons.

"It's provocation and you can do what you wish if a person points a gun in your direction and should be grounds to find a person guilty"
Points the gun in the direction of the jury meaning by his own logic they should be free to do whatever they want to him and he can't defend himself and is by his own logic guilty of provoking the jury.

Not to mention the fact his photo doesn't even show Kyle doing that. It's a photo so pixelated apparently the prosecution pointed to the wrong person in the photo multiple times lol.

A key point of the prosecution's case is the opposite of that, specifically that by using FMJ ammo (rather than something like hollow point) he's guilty of endangering people behind his target who were not an immediate threat to him.

Question from a non gun person. I get solid shells can pass through a target but aren't hollow points meant to be more lethal so had Kyle taken them it could and would with this prosecutor have been framed as going out to cause injury or death due to their lethality and propensity to break splinter in the body?

 

[Gordon_4]

I think the only crowd he could be playing to is morons.

"It's provocation and you can do what you wish if a person points a gun in your direction and should be grounds to find a person guilty"
Points the gun in the direction of the jury meaning by his own logic they should be free to do whatever they want to him and he can't defend himself and is by his own logic guilty of provoking the jury.

Not to mention the fact his photo doesn't even show Kyle doing that. It's a photo so pixelated apparently the prosecution pointed to the wrong person in the photo multiple times lol.


Question from a non gun person. I get solid shells can pass through a target but aren't hollow points meant to be more lethal so had Kyle taken them it could and would with this prosecutor have been framed as going out to cause injury or death due to their lethality and propensity to break splinter in the body?

Hollow point rounds tend to flatten and fragment in a target so while they do more potential damage to an individual, the round fragmenting means there is less chance of over penetration compared to a full metal jacket round that will basically keep going until it looses enough velocity to stop.

At least I think that’s correct. @CM156, @Eacaraxe or @Schadrach could give you a more accurate answer since I’m positive they’ve fired both types regularly compared to me just listening to lots of Gun Jesus.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

So because you have the ability to defend yourself you're not allowed to?

Exercising lethal force should be your absolute only remaining option- i.e. you can't run, you can't hide, and any other action will result in death or serious harm to you.

Unfortunately Republicans have redefined "self-defense" as "that person made me scared so I killed them".

 

[CM156]

Exercising lethal force should be your absolute only remaining option- i.e. you can't run, you can't hide, and any other action will result in death or serious harm to you.

What you are describing is a legal doctrine known as "the duty to retreat." While it exists at common law it has been superseded in most states in at least some instances. For example, in your home. Doesn't apply in this case but it's worth knowing.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It's also a state Class H felony in Wisconsin.

But again, look at 948.60, specifically 948.60(3)(c), it says it doesn't apply to someone under 18 with a shotgun or rifle (as opposed to say a handgun) unless it's also a violation of one of three other laws. Two of those laws only apply to people 16 or under ( 29.304 and 29.593 ) and the third only applies to short barreled rifles and shotguns ( 941.28 ). He wasn't violating 29.304 or 29.593 because he's 17 and he wasn't violating 941.28 because it wasn't a short barreled rifle, and therefore 948.60(3)(c) says 948.60 doesn't apply to him.

That's clearly not how the law is to be interpreted according to the people who wrote the law, additionally it's pretty unambiguous in the start.

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

It takes junk reading to disregard it.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

Its not rigged per se, at least not in the way it seems.
The uncomfortable truth is DA are horrible at actually prosecuting cases. The overwhelming majority of criminal cases, like 99.9% of them, are done on plea deals. They never see more than a session or two in court. Despite was Law and Order says, actual case trials in front of a jury are not only incredibly rare, they're incredibly hard to prove. Reasonable doubt is often interpreted by juries as "the prosecution never proved an evil clone didn't do the crime, so therefore..." because prosecutors are not the best lawyers around, merely the elected ones.
Now this is a double edged sword. When its horseshit charges, the DA sucks. When its legit charges, like the Rittenhouse case, the DA sucks.
The problem is the justice system isn't really built for trial cases, it's built for settlements and judges often act as merely signatories to the deal.

 

[CM156]

Reasonable doubt is often interpreted by juries as "the prosecution never proved an evil clone didn't do the crime, so therefore..." because prosecutors are not the best lawyers around, merely the elected ones.

"Jurors are smart, but juries are stupid"
Also:
I think you might be slightly underselling how much court experience your average ADA has.

 

[SilentPony]

"Jurors are smart, but juries are stupid"
Also:
I think you might be slightly underselling how much court experience your average ADA has.

Jurors aren't smart. They're average. And that's something the defense and prosecution preys on.

And no...no really. Im from St. Louis. We don't exactly hold the Circuit Attorney in high esteem.

 

[Trunkage]

Jurors aren't smart. They're average. And that's something the defense and prosecution preys on.

And no...no really. Im from St. Louis. We don't exactly hold the Circuit Attorney in high esteem.

Well, I'd think both are true. Most things are settled out of court. Most attorneys spend their time writing letters. But any court experience is better than the average juror