Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Reactions to Kyle verdict define different views of the meaning of “justice.”
- Thread starter BackAgain
- Start date
Wrong.
If Rittenhouse was not deliberately trying to frighten and intimidate people, then he would not have brought the rifle.
Notice no one else had a rifle or felt a need for one.
That too is a lie.
.
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
- Thread starter
- #263
Yep. If rigby.5 is capable of reading, even ABC News managed to explain it.You dumb ass, the prosecutor agreed that it didn't apply before the judge dismissed it. Under WI law it is legal for a 17 year old to have a long gun.
.
Understanding it requires reading the law, the exceptions and the related statutes. But it boils down to an exception to the misdemeanor charge for minors where the weapon is not a short barreled weapon. The prosecution had to concede that the length of the rifle’s barrel was over 16 inches. The facts are soooo pesky.
The dismissal of that count was completely proper. It should never have been allowed to be a part of the trial, in fact, in the first place.
EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?
On the surface, it looked like prosecutors would convict Kyle Rittenhouse on at least one charge in his murder trial — being a minor in possession of a firearm
abcnews.go.com
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 17,567
- 5,051
- 265
The judge knows more about the law than you or IThat is silly.
Are you REALLY going to try to agree with the judge and claim it is legal in WI for a minor to be in possession of a rifle without adult supervision?
Everyone knows that is not legal.
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 17,567
- 5,051
- 265
The kn ife was recovered from the floor of the car so of course it was not on the video but yes he did reach for it.Wrong.
With the Blake shooting, the police claimed there was a knife, but clearly in the video we can see there could not have been a knife, nor did he ever even turn around.
He was shot in the back, over half a dozen times.
That is not remotely legal in any way, by anyone.
It was legal and justified as he posed a threat to the officers and others especially the children who were in the car.
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
- Thread starter
- #266
Unlike you, you scumbag bitch hack, I did read the law and unlike you, I understood it.Well then you are either a liar or idiot.
Read the statute.
It clearly is illegal for Kyle to possess a rifle.
There are a number of exceptions where it can be allowed, like at a range, under adult supervision, if in the military, etc., but none apply in the Kenosha riot situation.
Your disdain for facts and truth is on display.
EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?
On the surface, it looked like prosecutors would convict Kyle Rittenhouse on at least one charge in his murder trial — being a minor in possession of a firearm
abcnews.go.com
That is silly.
Take the charge of a minor in possession of a rifle.
Everyone knows that is illegal.
The judge has ZERO legal basis for throwing that out.
That makes the judge a guilty co-conspirator.
Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.
Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.
EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?
On the surface, it looked like prosecutors would convict Kyle Rittenhouse on at least one charge in his murder trial — being a minor in possession of a firearm
abcnews.go.com
.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
You dumb ass, the prosecutor agreed that it didn't apply before the judge dismissed it. Under WI law it is legal for a 17 year old to have a long gun.
.
Totally and completely wrong.
It is only legal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm in a range, under adult supervision, while hunting with a valid hunting permit, or if in the military.
Read the statute yourself.
It only provides a few exceptions as to when it might be legal for a minor to possess a firearm.
And none of them applied to Rittenhouse.
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 17,567
- 5,051
- 265
The PROSECUTOR and JUDGDe are smarter than you or I and BOTH of them prove you wrongTotally and completely wrong.
It is only legal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm in a range, under adult supervision, while hunting with a valid hunting permit, or if in the military.
Read the statute yourself.
It only provides a few exceptions as to when it might be legal for a minor to possess a firearm.
And none of them applied to Rittenhouse.
Justice and the rule of law says the police who shot Blake should be on trial for attempted murder.
A grand jury disagreed, Blake admitted he had a weapon.
.
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
- Thread starter
- #271
Ragby.5 shuts his eyes really really tightly as he plugs his ears with his fingers and screeches “la la la I can’t heaaar yeeew.”Totally and completely wrong.
It is only legal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm in a range, under adult supervision, while hunting with a valid hunting permit, or if in the military.
Read the statute yourself.
It only provides a few exceptions as to when it might be legal for a minor to possess a firearm.
And none of them applied to Rittenhouse.
Totally and completely wrong.
It is only legal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm in a range, under adult supervision, while hunting with a valid hunting permit, or if in the military.
Read the statute yourself.
It only provides a few exceptions as to when it might be legal for a minor to possess a firearm.
And none of them applied to Rittenhouse.
Keep digging dumb ass, soon you'll be out of that hole. LMAO
.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Unlike you, you scumbag bitch hack, I did read the law and unlike you, I understood it.
Your disdain for facts and truth is on display.
EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?
On the surface, it looked like prosecutors would convict Kyle Rittenhouse on at least one charge in his murder trial — being a minor in possession of a firearm
Are you really stupid?
The article claimed, " Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled."
And that is totally and completely FALSE!
The statute most definitely does NOT claim it only applies to short barreled firearms.
It says a different and more serious statute applies if the offense or a minor in possession of a firearm is also with an illegally short barrel.
Read it yourself
The judge is either an idiot or was lying to illegal protect Kyle.
It definitely is and always has been illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm, outside of a range, adult supervision, not in the military, etc.
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 17,567
- 5,051
- 265
Sorry wrong and proven wrong.Are you really stupid?
The article claimed, " Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled."
And that is totally and completely FALSE!
The statute most definitely does NOT claim it only applies to short barreled firearms.
It says a different and more serious statute applies if the offense or a minor in possession of a firearm is also with an illegally short barrel.
Read it yourself
The judge is either an idiot or was lying to illegal protect Kyle.
It definitely is and always has been illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm, outside of a range, adult supervision, not in the military, etc.
You are no legal expert boy and the legal experts trump your clumsy and ignorant efforts
Issa
Gold Member
- Mar 30, 2017
- 8,726
- 1,365
- 275
There is an old saw: are you rooting for one particular verdict or are you rooting for justice. I was rooting for justice and therefore was hoping for the acquittal.
Since the evidence was quite clear that Kyle was engaged in self defense, the people who were rooting for a conviction necessarily didn’t give a damn about “justice.”
Our society is very lucky that so many juries take their duties seriously and don’t cave in to mob pressure.
The minute I saw the video it was clear that the protesters or rioters threatened his life and also went after him, so to me even though I'm anti gun and anti racists which most of those that were armed are clearly far right nutjobs. I think he had every right to defend himself, that been said he should've been prosecuted for owning a gun at 17 and also defying a curfew.
I also agree that there should be racial justice and the racists should be shunned and prosecuted, but also those that burn loot and destroy properties should also prosecuted.
But here is something that most of you won't understand and will probably never enjoy, is the beauty of living in a gun free country...many of us the rest of the world did and guess what? We also had demonstrations, clashes and riots but hardly any end up with killings because simply we didn't have deadly weapons available to use, so few bruises and cuts here and there and everyone gets to go home. But I know to deaf ears, love your guns but count your bodies !!!
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.
Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.
EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?
On the surface, it looked like prosecutors would convict Kyle Rittenhouse on at least one charge in his murder trial — being a minor in possession of a firearm
.
WRONG!
Read the statute.
There is no way it says it is legal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.
It list a number of exceptions, such as at a range, under adult supervision, hunting with a permit, in the military, etc.
There a reference to short barrels, but only in that then the other exceptions are no longer accessible.
It does not in any way means that minors like Kyle can be in possession of a firearm.
Read it yourself.
Anyone claiming this absolved Kyle of the crime of illegally being in possession of a firearm, simply does not know how to read.
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
- Thread starter
- #277
No. The idiot is you. Thanks for asking.Are you really stupid?
The article claimed, " Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled."
And that is totally and completely FALSE!
The statute most definitely does NOT claim it only applies to short barreled firearms.
It says a different and more serious statute applies if the offense or a minor in possession of a firearm is also with an illegally short barrel.
Read it yourself
The judge is either an idiot or was lying to illegal protect Kyle.
It definitely is and always has been illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm, outside of a range, adult supervision, not in the military, etc.
try to grasp what the ABC news explainer piece I’ve cited says:
Excerpt: The current wording of the overarching law seems clear: “Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” A lead-in paragraph defines dangerous weapon as several things, including “any firearm, loaded or unloaded.”
The subsection that defense attorneys relied upon to seek dismissal reads: “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 ...” That section of law isn’t specific to minors, but rather forbids any person from having a short-barreled shotgun or rifle.
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 17,567
- 5,051
- 265
Wrong and proven wrong.WRONG!
Read the statute.
There is no way it says it is legal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.
It list a number of exceptions, such as at a range, under adult supervision, hunting with a permit, in the military, etc.
There a reference to short barrels, but only in that then the other exceptions are no longer accessible.
It does not in any way means that minors like Kyle can be in possession of a firearm.
Read it yourself.
Anyone claiming this absolved Kyle of the crime of illegally being in possession of a firearm, simply does not know how to read.
You are a failure and no legal expert all the legal experts trump your claiom which is based on willful ignorance.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Sorry wrong and proven wrong.
You are no legal expert boy and the legal experts trump your clumsy and ignorant efforts
Wrong.
Read it yourself.
{...
2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations
948. Crimes against children.
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
Universal Citation: WI Stat § 948.60 (2015)948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
948.60(1)(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.
948.60(2) (2)
948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
948.60(2)(b) (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.
948.60(2)(c) (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.
948.60(2)(d) (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.
948.60(3) (3)
948.60(3)(a)(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.
948.60(3)(b) (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.
948.60(3)(c) (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.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
...}
Clearly Kyle was guilty.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
The minute I saw the video it was clear that the protesters or rioters threatened his life and also went after him, so to me even though I'm anti gun and anti racists which most of those that were armed are clearly far right nutjobs. I think he had every right to defend himself, that been said he should've been prosecuted for owning a gun at 17 and also defying a curfew.
I also agree that there should be racial justice and the racists should be shunned and prosecuted, but also those that burn loot and destroy properties should also prosecuted.
But here is something that most of you won't understand and will probably never enjoy, is the beauty of living in a gun free country...many of us the rest of the world did and guess what? We also had demonstrations, clashes and riots but hardly any end up with killings because simply we didn't have deadly weapons available to use, so few bruises and cuts here and there and everyone gets to go home. But I know to deaf ears, love your guns but count your bodies !!!
Wrong.
They rightly went after him because he was carrying a RIFLE.
They had a right to and should have gone after him for carrying a RIFLE.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 48
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 132
- Views
- 17K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 147
- Views
- 682
- Replies
- 150
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 16
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8535
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-