Current Events > Rittenhouse for his gun charges dropped.

(+) Yeah! (+)

This could end up being an interesting case of the letter of the law being followed more so than the spirit of the law, and resulting in dire consequences down the road

America's ride to hell just keeps getting crazier but more interesting

---

Gwynevere posted...

This could end up being an interesting case of the letter of the law being followed more so than the spirit of the law, and resulting in dire consequences down the road

??

In what way is the spirit of the law not being followed?

---

I'm as left-wing as they come, but I really don't understand why this case was the one that sparked national outrage. There were so many egregious cases of police brutality caught on video during the protests last year, and yet this fairly open and shut case of self-defense was the national headline. Does anyone remember when those cops shoved an old man to the ground and cracked his skull open? They had their charges dropped, and it didn't even make it to trial.

---

Because hes a kid that made a dumb decision and that makes him an easy target for people to dump their frustrations on. All these people calling for Kyle to get charged with murder should never EVER serve on a jury. They cant put their political bias away.

---

Son Of Spam posted...

I'm as left-wing as they come, but I really don't understand why this case was the one that sparked national outrage. There were so many egregious cases of police brutality caught on video during the protests last year, and yet this fairly open and shut case of self-defense was the national headline. Does anyone remember when those cops shoved an old man to the ground and cracked his skull open? They had their charges dropped, and it didn't even make it to try.

I mean, one of those cases (the Chauvin trial) was one of the most talked about court cases in my lifetime. And it had a shockingly good outcome

Unfortunately, police brutality has become such a common occurrence that it's almost impossible to talk about every case of it. It would pretty much be a full time job to chronicle every case of cops abusing their authority

---

Son Of Spam posted...

I'm as left-wing as they come, but I really don't understand why this case was the one that sparked national outrage. There were so many egregious cases of police brutality caught on video during the protests last year, and yet this fairly open and shut case of self-defense was the national headline. Does anyone remember when those cops shoved an old man to the ground and cracked his skull open? They had their charges dropped, and it didn't even make it to try.

It's probably a matter of "we can't apparently hold cops accountable but this isn't a cop so surely". I was never sold on the murder charges but it is kinda crazy to me that apparently nothing he did was illegal.

I'd imagine the last thing anyone would want in future scenarios is more people attending events like kenosha with guns while being political opponents of each other, but I can't see anything dissuading that now.

---

I don't like how much of the criticism of this trial relies on a pattern of:

1. Present adversarial judge decision without context
2. Assume it must be biased/stupid/evil because it seems counterintuitive at surface level
3. Caption with some comment along the lines of, "Oh my god, I just can't even"

Very irresponsible to be so lazy when you have a powerful viral platform and someone's life is on the line.

---

realnifty1 posted...

So did they say that Rittenhouse has a license to hunt in Wisconsin? Because if not, then he is in not in compliance with https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/viii/593 which means he is still in violation of https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60 even if it is not a short barrelled rifle.

(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

I've placed emphasis on a particular word.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/or


---

Son Of Spam posted...

I'm as left-wing as they come, but I really don't understand why this case was the one that sparked national outrage.

The coverage has been so insanely dishonest that a lot of people still think this guy gunned down black protesters without provocation and is getting away with it.

And since CE is full of people who genuinely believe they have 190 IQs they refuse to accept the fact that they may have fallen for misinformation purposely designed to justify their beliefs.

Siculu posted...

(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

I've placed emphasis on a particular word.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/or

that makes no sense, hes not in violation of 941.28 but hes not in compliance with 29.593.

so underlining or does absolutely nothing here to explain anything.

---

Further proof that our legal system isn't actually about justice. The guy's a murderer and he's gonna walk free.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

You tried, but...

(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.

Post #11 already linked to this. It's almost like the judge knows the law better than the average person on gamefaqs.gamespot.com

Wow, you are really bad at reading comprehension, so I bolded the relevant part for you to go find a grammar book to help you with.

However, digging further in it appears that out of state certification would qualify, so I would guess that he likely has the requisites in Indiana, but it would be nice if the reporting/judgement would be more clear about these things.
(Although Wisconsin law is all kinds of wonky here, because it seems the linked statute is all related to Bow hunting and not Rifle hunting, so there is definitely a gap here)

Son Of Spam posted...

I'm as left-wing as they come, but I really don't understand why this case was the one that sparked national outrage. There were so many egregious cases of police brutality caught on video during the protests last year, and yet this fairly open and shut case of self-defense was the national headline. Does anyone remember when those cops shoved an old man to the ground and cracked his skull open? They had their charges dropped, and it didn't even make it to trial.

The Ahmaud Arbery case is going on right now in parallel, which is actually about a bunch of white vigilantes with guns hunting down and killing a black person, but nobody seems to care.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

that makes no sense, hes not in violation of 941.28 but hes not in compliance with 29.593.

so underlining or does absolutely nothing here to explain anything.

He is in compliance with 29.304 (which you conveniently ignored), so 29.593 doesn't even apply. Do I need to emphasize "and" now?

"Or" is a period. It's a full stop since 29.304 and 29.593 are not applicable. You can stop reading there.

undefined posted...

Wow, you are really bad at reading comprehension, so I bolded the relevant part for you to go find a grammar book to help you with.

However, digging further in it appears that out of state certification would qualify, so I would guess that he likely has the requisites in Indiana, but it would be nice if the reporting/judgement would be more clear about these things.
(Although Wisconsin law is all kinds of wonky here, because it seems the linked statute is all related to Bow hunting and not Rifle hunting, so there is definitely a gap here)

29.304 refers to 14-16 year olds. Not applicable. 29.593 is reliant on 29.304 and is not applicable.

---

When this monster gets off Scott free, there will be more riots and you guys will deserve it for this failure of the justice system. You guys dont learn

realnifty1 posted...

Wow, you are really bad at reading comprehension, so I bolded the relevant part for you to go find a grammar book to help you with.

Are you implying that he's not in compliance with a hunting regulation while he's not hunting? Because that's irrelevant. I posted this flow chart somewhere for emphasis a little while ago, but I'll post it here since you need to see it:



---

Son Of Spam posted...

I'm as left-wing as they come

You're not

---

Siculu posted...

29.304

is about people under 16.

you dont even know the statue youre posting. Maybe look it up first then post?

---

Siculu posted...

He is in compliance with 29.304 (which you conveniently ignored), so 29.593 doesn't even apply. Do I need to emphasize "and" now?

"Or" is a period. It's a full stop since 29.304 and 29.593 are not applicable. You can stop reading there.

To note, he is also in compliance with 29.593 as he is not currently hunting. He would only be out of compliance if he were to carry the firearm if he was hunting without licensed supervision from a "mentor" or a license to hunt.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

is about people under 16.

you dont even know the statue youre posting. Maybe look it up first then post?

Dude. You're arguing about hunting regulations.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

is about people under 16.

you dont even know the statue youre posting. Maybe look it up first then post?

What part of the statute is he not under compliance with?

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Dude. You're arguing about hunting regulations.

no, were not. Were arguing having the requisite certificate to posses the weapon.

Try and stay honest with your discussion.


---

Zeeak4444 posted...

no, were not. Were arguing having the requisite certificate to posses the weapon.

Try and stay honest with your discussion.

... lol, bro, you're wrong

---

When will we hear the verdict

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

To note, he is also in compliance with 29.593 as he is not currently hunting. He would only be out of compliance if he were to carry the firearm if he was hunting without licensed supervision from a "mentor" or a license to hunt.

so to be clear, you can posses a firearm not licensed to yourself as long as you arent hunting or under 16.

correct?

Fair if so but god damn what a shit loophole. Might as well not regulate firearms period at that point tbh.


---

fan357 posted...

Because hes a kid that made a dumb decision and that makes him an easy target for people to dump their frustrations on. All these people calling for Kyle to get charged with murder should never EVER serve on a jury. They cant put their political bias away.

And this is what scares me. Personal judgment has no place in the court. People here don't seem to understand that.

Link to the trial?

Lyrica posted...

And this is what scares me. Personal judgment has no place in the court. People here don't seem to understand that.

Yes it does. If a law is unjust I am not holding someone guilty for violating it.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

so to be clear, you can posses a firearm not licensed to yourself as long as you arent hunting or under 16.

correct?

Fair if so but god damn what a shit loophole. Might as well not regulate firearms period at that point tbh.

Yes, agreed. The law is not well-written and it is pretty certainly a loophole.

---

Its amazing how bad the state attorneys have been in this case. Stop blaming the justice system. The justice system is doing its job well. Its the people making decisions that have been so bad here.

---

Siculu posted...

Read the law yourselves:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

(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.

It was not a short-barreled rifle (941.28). This charge should never have been filed. The prosecution knew it was not illegally possessed all along and still wanted the jury to decide on it. Shame on them.

Case closed

---

whitelytning posted...

Its amazing how bad the state attorneys have been in this case. Stop blaming the justice system. The justice system is doing its job well. Its the people making decisions that have been so bad here.

If the people are making bad decisions its still a failure of the justice system that they are allowed to make decisions

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Are you implying that he's not in compliance with a hunting regulation while he's not hunting? Because that's irrelevant. I posted this flow chart somewhere for emphasis a little while ago, but I'll post it here since you need to see it:

Where do you get the idea that he has to be hunting? At no place in the law does it mention anything to do with the intent on possession, only that a person 17 years of age must possess appropriate certification to possess any rifle.

The judge should be barred. He may as well show up in a Klan robe.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

If the people are making bad decisions its still a failure of the justice system that they are allowed to make decisions

No. That is the exact beauty of it.

It relies on people and places a burden on the state with a presumption of innocence because they want to avoid the unjust imprisonment or harms to innocent people. The state has fucked so much of this case up and the defense has done the absolute minimum. In this instance it may be someone you dont like that is benefiting from the safeguards but the safeguards are there for a reason and it shows the justice system does work.

The state shouldnt get a free pass because you have prejudged someone.

---

Trial link?

whitelytning posted...

No. That is the exact beauty of it.

It relies on people and places a burden on the state with a presumption of innocence because they want to avoid the unjust imprisonment or harms to innocent people. The state has fucked so much of this case up and the defense has done the absolute minimum. In this instance it may be someone you dont like that is benefiting from the safeguards but the safeguards are there for a reason and it shows the justice system does work.

The state shouldnt get a free pass because you have prejudged someone.

Safeguards are one part of the system. The safeguards might be working but the system is not.

The "case" made by the prosecution is irrelevant, the evidence of the crime speaks for itself well beyond a reasonable doubt. The greatest prosecutors in the world would struggle with this case on the facts alone (Short of maybe fabricating evidence). Sometimes a shitty person is just innocent because they didn't actually break the law.

---

realnifty1 posted...

Where do you get the idea that he has to be hunting? At no place in the law does it mention anything to do with the intent on possession, only that a person 17 years of age must possess appropriate certification to possess any rifle.

Where in the statute does it say that one needs "appropriate certification to possess any rifle?"

29.593 is entirely related to hunting authorizations. Read the words. You can't be out of compliance with a statute pertaining to hunting authorizations if you're not even hunting.

Hell, the title of 29.593 is "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval." It's about hunting authorizations. You're in compliance with 29.593 unless you're hunting without authorization.

---

AssultTank posted...

Frankly, this case is the system working. It should work like this in EVERY case. The prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime they are accused of. The fact that the prosecution didn't means that if Rittenhouse is convicted anyway, THAT will be the system not working.

why Are you so invested


---

AssultTank posted...

Frankly, this case is the system working. It should work like this in EVERY case. The prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime they are accused of. The fact that the prosecution didn't means that if Rittenhouse is convicted anyway, THAT will be the system not working.

They want him to be convicted, that way when minorities (which Kyle Rittenhouse has been documented as) are jailed for the same reasons they can pretend they aren't hypocrites

---

Anyone wanna link to the trial?

fan357 posted...

Because hes a kid that made a dumb decision and that makes him an easy target for people to dump their frustrations on.

Breh...he killed 2 people...

The_Dan_Haren posted...

Breh...he killed 2 people...

...in self defense.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Where in the statute does it say that one needs "appropriate certification to possess any rifle?"

29.593 is entirely related to hunting authorizations. Read the words. You can't be out of compliance with a statute pertaining to hunting authorizations if you're not even hunting.

Hell, the title of 29.593 is "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval." It's about hunting authorizations. You're in compliance with 29.593 unless you're hunting without authorization.

If I need to break down sentence structure I guess I must.

(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.

First, let's drop the part about transferring a firearm, because that isn't relevant.
(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.

Rittenhouse is 17 and I think we all agree he was in possession of a firearm, so lets clean that up
(c) This section applies to Rittenhouse if Rittenhouse is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

Let's further clarify the first part of that
(c) Rittenhouse is in illegal possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 if Rittenhouse is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

Ok, now let's break down the component structure so we can talk about the conditions one at a time.
(c) Rittenhouse is in illegal possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 if Rittenhouse [is in violation of s. 941.28 [or is not in compliance with [ss. 29.304 and 29.593]]].

So we have nested conditional logic here
if (A || !(B && C))

A = Are you in violation of 941.28
B= Are you in compliance with 29.304
C = Are you in compliance with 29.593

Is Rittenhouse in violation of 941.28? Does not appear so, this is false.
Is Rittenhouse in compliance with 29.304? It appears to only apply to those 16 and younger, so he appears good.
Is Rittenhouse in compliance with 29.593? I don't know.

if (A || !(B && C))
if (false || !(true && ??) reduces to if (!(??)) or if (!(C)), therefore if Rittenhouse is not in compliance with29.593, then he is in violation of illegally possess a firearm.
At no point does it have anything to do with him wanting to hunt, simply that as a person 17 years of age he must have the appropriate certifications in order to posses a rifle without it being illegal.

But it is likely moot anyway, because they accept out of state certifications, but it would be nice if they covered that.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Yes, agreed. The law is not well-written and it is pretty certainly a loophole.

Thats fair then but crazy.

---

AssultTank posted...

Why are you?

I find the case interesting and the amount of misinformation being bandied around a good case study in the tribalism that has infected our nation with regards to politics.

lets talk about this.
you saw my posts, got mad and super vindictive and now I have a bunch of moderations and you said yourself I will be banned.

no tribalism there? I can guarantee you that if Kyle had been some trans Muslim BLM abortion doctor and he had shot a white conservative dude because he hated his politics and the judge in the trial were to my personal appreciation some work activist calling the prosecution a cis scum shitlord and his ringtone were destroy the patriarchy I would have reacted the same way I have reacted to this case.

so you hate me and my posts because you thought I was some woke activist, thats on you.


---

realnifty1 posted...

Is Rittenhouse in compliance with 29.593? I don't know.

Yes, he is, because he's not hunting without authorization.

realnifty1 posted... as a person 17 years of age he must have the appropriate certifications in order to posses a rifle without it being illegal.

That's not what 29.593 says, though. Did you read 29.593? Maybe start there, lol

---