Poll of the Day > Do you agree with the judge in the Rittenhouse trial dropping the gun charge?

(+) Yeah! (+)

do you

---

Could someone actually explain the situation to me?

TrainerNeo_02 posted...

Could someone actually explain the situation to me?

"While only a misdemeanor charge, it appeared to be the most likely count to result in a conviction for Rittenhouse, who was only 17 when he carried an AR-15 style rifle in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, and used it to shoot three men, killing two of them.
Defense attorneys argued Wisconsin state law has an exception that would allow 17-year-olds to openly carry firearms if they are not short-barreled rifles, with a barrel of less than 16 inches and an overall length of less than 26 inches.
Schroeder said the Wisconsin law was poorly written, and that the shorter barrel size of the rifle Rittenhouse carried meant he didnt violate that law. Although prosecutors said they disagreed with the judges interpretation of the law, they conceded Rittenhouses weapon was not a short-barreled rifle, and Schroeder dismissed that count."

rjsilverthorn posted...

"While only a misdemeanor charge, it appeared to be the most likely count to result in a conviction for Rittenhouse, who was only 17 when he carried an AR-15 style rifle in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, and used it to shoot three men, killing two of them.
Defense attorneys argued Wisconsin state law has an exception that would allow 17-year-olds to openly carry firearms if they are not short-barreled rifles, with a barrel of less than 16 inches and an overall length of less than 26 inches.
Schroeder said the Wisconsin law was poorly written, and that the shorter barrel size of the rifle Rittenhouse carried meant he didnt violate that law. Although prosecutors said they disagreed with the judges interpretation of the law, they conceded Rittenhouses weapon was not a short-barreled rifle, and Schroeder dismissed that count."

So lemme make sure Im reading correctly.

He shot 3 and killed 2 people with a Rifle at 17, but it was the gun itself thats preventing him from being charged?

Judge following the law...oh noes! THE MADDNESS!!!!

---

Decoy77 posted...

Judge following the law...oh noes! THE MADDNESS!!!!

so technically by the law the judge was right?

---

TrainerNeo_02 posted...

Could someone actually explain the situation to me?

Long and short of it, no pun intended, is that should the rifle have been a "short barrel" rifle he would have been in illegal possession of it, and could have been found guilty of that charge. But if it was a "long barrel" rifle and the law is unclear in Minnesota about those over 16 and under 18. So because the law is unclear, it was tossed because they just measured it today and it was in the "long barrel" category, not the "short barrel".

---

UT1999 posted...

so technically by the law the judge was right?

Yes he was right to toss the charge.

---

Sulugnaz posted...

Gotta love it when people cheer on a person that defended themselves as 3 different people tried to kill them.

Fixed that for you.

---

Sulugnaz posted...

Gotta love it when people cheer on a murderer.

At least the one dude calling him a hero gets modded every time he does it.

Sulugnaz posted...

Gotta love it when people cheer on a murderer.

He was looking for trouble by going to a riot while armed but at the same time there were thugs there who assaulted him, so who's really in the wrong here?

---

America_Dude posted...

You didn't fix shit. You're deluded and need to pull your head free. You, unfortunately, are not interested in objective reality. You'd rather troll on a message board while hoping to lick the taint of a murderer.

No trolling, when he is found not guilty on 2 murder charges and attempted murder on the other, you will see, as anyone with eyes from the start has seen, that he was defending himself. Only the media and those on the way left have covered their eyes to the facts of this case from the start. So there is no trolling here, just the facts, even though leftists places like FB or youtube or at times even these forums have tried to hide these from everyone.

---

aHappySacka posted...

He was looking for trouble by going to a riot while armed but at the same time there were thugs there who assaulted him, so who's really in the wrong here?

Here was there to protect property and aid those wounded by the thugs that were out damage property and people. He did both of those things until 3 people came at him and threatened to kill him, he took action to defend himself. These are all points brought up in the case, so again, this isn't trolling or just me making stuff up. These are the facts of the case. Just because you don't seem to like it that people can defend themselves when their life is in danger doesn't mean he was wrong in doing what he did.

---

Sulugnaz posted...

I'm not surprised that you don't understand "Not Guilty" is not the same as "Innocent".

I'm not surprised that you don't understand that those found to be defending themselves in self defense are both not guilty of murder(what they could be charged with) and that they are also innocent(not guilty) of murdering someone...thus why they are found NOT GUILTY of the MURDER...see how that works?

---

TrainerNeo_02 posted...

So lemme make sure Im reading correctly.

He shot 3 and killed 2 people with a Rifle at 17, but it was the gun itself thats preventing him from being charged?

It is preventing him from being charged with a misdemeanor specific to the weapon, he is still facing 5 other, more severe, charges.

rjsilverthorn posted...

"While only a misdemeanor charge, it appeared to be the most likely count to result in a conviction for Rittenhouse, who was only 17 when he carried an AR-15 style rifle in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, and used it to shoot three men, killing two of them.
Defense attorneys argued Wisconsin state law has an exception that would allow 17-year-olds to openly carry firearms if they are not short-barreled rifles, with a barrel of less than 16 inches and an overall length of less than 26 inches.
Schroeder said the Wisconsin law was poorly written, and that the shorter barrel size of the rifle Rittenhouse carried meant he didnt violate that law. Although prosecutors said they disagreed with the judges interpretation of the law, they conceded Rittenhouses weapon was not a short-barreled rifle, and Schroeder dismissed that count."

I was curious to where the law in this case with a 17 year old with a gun was, thank you for clarifying

---

yes definitely. This whole thing has been a sham honestly. Hopefully he'll get the not-guilty verdict.

---

rjsilverthorn posted...

"While only a misdemeanor charge, it appeared to be the most likely count to result in a conviction for Rittenhouse, who was only 17 when he carried an AR-15 style rifle in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, and used it to shoot three men, killing two of them.
Defense attorneys argued Wisconsin state law has an exception that would allow 17-year-olds to openly carry firearms if they are not short-barreled rifles, with a barrel of less than 16 inches and an overall length of less than 26 inches.
Schroeder said the Wisconsin law was poorly written, and that the shorter barrel size of the rifle Rittenhouse carried meant he didnt violate that law. Although prosecutors said they disagreed with the judges interpretation of the law, they conceded Rittenhouses weapon was not a short-barreled rifle, and Schroeder dismissed that count."

So it was a moot point?

TrainerNeo_02 posted...

He shot 3 and killed 2 people with a Rifle at 17, but it was the gun itself thats preventing him from being charged?

...3 people literally trying to murder him. And it wasn't the gun that was stopping him from being charged, it had been the only charge likely to stick because the rest was clearly self-defense.

Decoy77 posted...

Here was there to protect property and aid those wounded by the thugs that were out damage property and people. He did both of those things until 3 people came at him and threatened to kill him, he took action to defend himself. These are all points brought up in the case, so again, this isn't trolling or just me making stuff up. These are the facts of the case. Just because you don't seem to like it that people can defend themselves when their life is in danger doesn't mean he was wrong in doing what he did.

They didn't just threaten. The guy with the gun tried to execute him even after Kyle fired and was only stopped when Kyle shot him.

---