What should be the correct legal verdict in the Rittenhouse case?

WuWei · 2021-11-20T00:58:53.928Z

Exceeded only by your own.

Samm · 2021-11-20T01:01:42.326Z

Often. But this time I have the facts clearly on my side.

Your argument is akin to refusing to accept that his AR-15 was not an assault rifle.

tnt · 2021-11-20T03:15:52.009Z

So why did the judge dismiss the gun charges? WI law says no guns in schools zones. He was ina school zone with a gun. No one under 18!can carry. He was under 18.

zantax · 2021-11-20T03:17:54.980Z

tnt:

So why did the judge dismiss the gun charges? WI law says no guns in schools zones. He was ina school zone with a gun. No one under 18!can carry. He was under 18.

Without looking up Wisconsin law I can tell you that the law they charged him under wasn’t applicable. That law said minors can’t carry short barrel rifles, his wasn’t. So if you can prove he did break one, complain to the prosecutor.

Samm · 2021-11-20T04:36:56.253Z

tnt:

So why did the judge dismiss the gun charges? WI law says no guns in schools zones. He was ina school zone with a gun. No one under 18!can carry. He was under 18.

We’re tired of educating you. You can look up and read the Judges dismissal of the gun charge as easily as we can.

But where do you come up with this crap? There was no school anywhere close to where this all occurred. The first shooting took place in an auto service parking lot and the other two in the middle of the main street. In any case, it’s a little late to be making up new ■■■■■ There is no wall left for you to throw it against.

WuWei · 2021-11-20T04:58:42.242Z

zantax:

tnt:

So why did the judge dismiss the gun charges? WI law says no guns in schools zones. He was ina school zone with a gun. No one under 18!can carry. He was under 18.

Without looking up Wisconsin law I can tell you that the law they charged him under wasn’t applicable. That law said minors can’t carry short barrel rifles, his wasn’t. So if you can prove he did break one, complain to the prosecutor.

You might need to explain what a “barrel” is.

zantax · 2021-11-20T05:06:55.197Z

Its amazing woke liberals are so tone deaf, there are a lot of democrats who followed the trial rolling their eyes right about now. Maybe even waking up to what they signed on to.

Zander · 2021-11-20T05:17:49.586Z

Biden is such an idiot for saying he’s angry about the verdict. Such pandering crap. Just say the jury has spoken, tell the country it is time to move on, and be a leader.

zantax · 2021-11-20T05:19:45.709Z

Zander:

Biden is such an idiot for saying he’s angry about the verdict. Such pandering crap. Just say the jury has spoken and be a leader.

Not only that, he also refused to retract his accusation Kyle was a white supremacist. Which is funny in a sad way from the guy who said Obama should be getting his coffee.

Zander · 2021-11-20T05:23:11.262Z

Oh, I never followed that very closely. I just remember some pictures of him
hanging out with dudes and doing the signals and stuff. And maybe saying stuff on camera. I don’t know. Or was that all disproven?

zantax · 2021-11-20T05:28:56.221Z

Zander:

Oh, I never followed that very closely. I just remember some pictures of him
hanging out with dudes and doing the signals and stuff. And maybe saying stuff on camera. I don’t know. Or was that all disproven?

Never heard anything about that, if the press had evidence he was a white supremacist I am pretty sure we would all be aware of it by now. In any case when Biden said it they sure didn’t.

GrandWazoo · 2021-11-20T05:56:38.469Z

zantax:

Without looking up Wisconsin law I can tell you that the law they charged him under wasn’t applicable. That law said minors can’t carry short barrel rifles, his wasn’t. So if you can prove he did break one, complain to the prosecutor.

Chris Cuomo tonight on his CNN show spent some time explaining how Rittenhouse didn’t violate any WI laws and how the judge was within his rights to modify the charges. As Chris said, “You might not like the facts, but those are the laws and they have to be respected”.

Hexenbiest · 2021-11-20T06:10:55.073Z

From what I read which could be of ■■■■ lol it had to do with a particular Wisconsin gun law that didn’t go into detail about barrel lengths and was targeting handguns so in Rittenhouse’s case his gun clearly wasn’t a handgun so it was thrown out. I watched some media heads had some lawyers on talking about it and they said if the law is vague the judge will usually favor the defense.

Scratch · 2021-11-20T12:26:03.602Z

tnt:

Why doesnt the ems guy get to try to defend himself from a dude pointing a rifle at him? Or the guy with the bag? Or the guy with the skateboard?

Exactly…No one has answered that. How were those people supposed to know he wasn’t just an active shooter? Now I wonder how those on the Right would have felt if someone had shot Rittenhouse after he shot the first guy, then claimed they were stopping an active shooter? Would the person who shot him be deserving of a murder charge?

WuWei · 2021-11-20T19:47:14.998Z

They do.

Eagle-Keeper · 2021-11-20T21:19:06.112Z

tnt:

zantax:

Well now you are just making a case to kill anyone who is armed with impunity.

No, not at all. Just pointing out that someone running away from you with a gun can still be a threat.

Cannot anyone with a gun shoot you whether they’re running or not?

Eagle-Keeper · 2021-11-20T21:23:36.624Z

tnt:

Why doesnt the ems guy get to try to defend himself from a dude pointing a rifle at him? Or the guy with the bag? Or the guy with the skateboard?

Grosskuets absolutely shot Rittenhouse if he felt threatened and then it would have been up to a jury to decide whether or not he could claim self-defense. I believe that’s how the system works.

Samm · 2021-11-20T22:04:21.143Z

Hexenbiest:

From what I read which could be of ■■■■ lol it had to do with a particular Wisconsin gun law that didn’t go into detail about barrel lengths and was targeting handguns so in Rittenhouse’s case his gun clearly wasn’t a handgun so it was thrown out. I watched some media heads had some lawyers on talking about it and they said if the law is vague the judge will usually favor the defense.

There was nothing vague about the law. It specifically says (but not in so few words) that anyone between the ages of 16 and 18 may possess a rifle so long as it complies with the barrel length requirement. The only issue with the gun was that Federal Law prohibits persons under 18 may not purchase a gun and that a person over 18 cannot purchase the gun that is intended to be owned by another person. (See question 21a on Form 4473.)

From the Wisconsin statute 948.55:

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(3)
(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.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/55

Samm · 2021-11-20T22:13:11.641Z

Eagle-Keeper:

tnt:

Why doesnt the ems guy get to try to defend himself from a dude pointing a rifle at him? Or the guy with the bag? Or the guy with the skateboard?

Grosskuets absolutely shot Rittenhouse if he felt threatened and then it would have been up to a jury to decide whether or not he could claim self-defense. I believe that’s how the system works.

Grosskreutz could have defended his life on the belief that Rittenhouse was going to shoot him if he did not shoot first, but he could not have claimed self-defense because he was the aggressor. As soon as Rittenhouse fled the scene of the first shooting and ran down the street toward the police, he was, by law, not the aggressor. And also, by law, the men who chased him down and knocked him to the ground and attempted to harm him, were the aggressors. Had Grosskreutz killed Rittenhouse, he would have committed aggravated murder.

DougBH · 2021-11-21T04:14:00.043Z

Scratch:

tnt:

Why doesnt the ems guy get to try to defend himself from a dude pointing a rifle at him? Or the guy with the bag? Or the guy with the skateboard?

Exactly…No one has answered that. How were those people supposed to know he wasn’t just an active shooter? Now I wonder how those on the Right would have felt if someone had shot Rittenhouse after he shot the first guy, then claimed they were stopping an active shooter? Would the person who shot him be deserving of a murder charge?

If he reasonably believed that Kyle was an active shooter and a reasonable person would believe Kyle was going to shoot him, then he might well be on trial for killing Kyle, and he should see if self defense would justify the killing.
However, that was not this case. This case was if Kyle reasonably felt himself at risk and if the killing was justified. The jury decided he did and it was.