Reactions to Kyle verdict define different views of the meaning of “justice.”

[BackAgain]

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.

Clearly he was not:

“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. 29.304and 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 notice ragby.5 pays no attention to section 941.28.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Nonsense.
Everyone knows it really is illegal in WI for a minor to even be in possession of a rifle without adult supervision.
The case only revealed corruption to the point it questions all police, courts, judges, etc.
If they are going to lie like that, maybe we need to make an end of all of them, like we did in 1776?

You’re welcome to try. And what everyone knows and what the law actually says are two different things.

 

[BackAgain]

Clearly he was not:

“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. 29.304and 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 notice ragby.5 pays no attention to section 941.28.

So, let’s consider that section:

“
941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1)  In this section:
(a) “Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.
(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.”

 

[BackAgain]

So, let’s consider that section:

“
941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1)  In this section:
(a) “Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.
(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.”

See? Unlike raggy.5, Kyle’s lawyers understood the law and correctly brought it to the attention of the judge. And unlike the simple-minded inept prosecution and raggy.5, the judge also understood the law and applied it correctly (especially after one prosecutor had the presence of mind to admit the length of the rifle barrel).

 

[Lakhota]

 

[BackAgain]

Oh nosies!

 

[Turtlesoup]

Sure, you run with that. LOL. Sheesh.
View attachment 566117

You think a teen with gun trying to stop criminals from burning down businesses is the threat and not the criminals burning and looting? Hun, you need some help...

 

[OKTexas]

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.

2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations :: 948. Crimes against children. :: 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

law.justia.com

Anyone claiming this absolved Kyle of the crime of illegally being in possession of a firearm, simply does not know how to read.

Last chance for you to cure your ignorance.

State Law: Why the Jury MUST Aquit Kyle Rittenhouse of Gun Charge - Minnesota Right Now

Kyle Rittenhouse was carrying the rifle LEGALLY on the night of the Kenosha shootings, despite the fact he was 17. That's because of the complicated language

minnesotarightnow.com

.

 

[Snouter]

Lakhota, by posting Tucker's documentary, (and that he was in cahoots with the prosecution) you are implying that every sane, intelligent person did not know Kyle was innocent from day one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong.
The riot/demonstration was about the police shooting Blake, a Black person, half a dozens times, at close range, for no reason.
So Rittenhouse was a bout preserving slavery, and doing it by intimidating people with a rifle.
That is identical to the intimidation of a lynch mob or cross burners.

But what is worst about this insane verdict, is that now it will be impossible to prevent gun control.
My argument against gun control was always that they guns are not the problem, and instead we simply have to incarcerate those who would abuse firearms.
But now I can not use that argument any more,
The case against Kyle was about as air tight as any case can be, any yet racism made it fail, so then the argument against gun control then fails as well.
If a 17 year old kid who could not even legally possess a rifle on his own, can beat these murders and shootings, then there is no argument left to defend gun possession at all.
The reaction is going to be assured gun control now, and there is nothing we now can do to stop it.

What a load of lies. the cops shot the guy cause he was armed with a knife. and Kyle shot 3 attackers in self defense.

 

[OKTexas]

And??????????

.

 

[BackAgain]

And??????????

.

Not clear. But it may be that Chief Shitting Bull is expressing some inchoate objection to a political commentator speaking to a kid charged with a crime because ….

Wait. Because …. There is no reason. Lakota is just a plodding would-be thread derailer.

 

[2aguy]

But one cannot claim self defense if they instigate the confrontation. I think that is what those who don't like the verdict were thinking. No one would have threated Rittenhouse if he had not taken his rifle and driven to a sister state to protest protestors.

Frankly, I didn't pay much attention to the trial. I'm not really surprised at the verdict though. A little surprised that the shooting of the one surviving "victim" didn't get a conviction, but I didn't pay much attention. But if you shoot and kill someone who was obviously acting violently .. odds are in you're favor for acquittal. Who is gonna say they weren't threatening you. Better to stay home though, imo.

Back before no retreat laws, the thinking was if you shoot someone drag their body into an open window before the cops come. LOL

Wrong......the blmantifa monsters have beaten and killed unarmed people in their riots.....saying his having the rifle provoked them is dumb. He was trying to put out a fire and they caught him alone. if he didnt have that rifle he would be in the hospital or dead....ask Andy Gno or any of the other innocent victims injured or killed by blmantifa monsters

 

[2aguy]

So everyone is entitled to their opinion, unless it differs from yours.

What this says is, if I see a guy walking down the street with an AR15 and I feel threatened by his presence, I can shoot him in the head and call it "self defense", because he had a weapon and I was afraid. All you have to say is "I was scared" and you can kill anyone.

Wow, that was dumb. Kyle didnt shoot anyone until he was violently attacked. So your example is just stupid.

Rittenhousw didnt shoot anyone because he was scared.....he shot the child rapist because the child rapist tried ro grab his rifle after stating that if he found kyle or any of his friends alone, he was going to kill them.....after the child rapist had shown violent and erratic behavior while he was burning and looting Kenosha.....sell your silly examples to biden voters

 

[struth]

Wrong.
You can't go to a riot out of state, with a rifle, and claim "self defense".
It is not like he had property there to defend, or that the rioters had rifles.

sure you can…if the rioters attack you…and i believe they had concealed pistols and putting their gun at him first

 

[struth]

He wasn’t a convicted felon, but his CCW permit had expired so carrying the gun like he did was illegal and I believe a felony in Wisconsin.

jusr more evidence this was poltical

the illegal gun toting demafascist brownshirt that attack Kyle skates on the charge.

 

[surada]

Yahoo means barbarian · philistine · vulgarian · savage · brute · beast · boor · oaf · ruffian · thug · lout · hoodlum · hooligan · vandal · rowdy · bully boy · brawler.

 

[struth]

Yahoo means barbarian · philistine · vulgarian · savage · brute · beast · boor · oaf · ruffian · thug · lout · hoodlum · hooligan · vandal · rowdy · bully boy · brawler.

another adjective is demafascist, cult boy, or dem voter

 

[Leo123]

You could not be more wrong. This verdict says that any yahoo can go out with a deadly weapon and intimidate others, and if those people try to defend themselves against such an attacker, he can claim "self defense" when in fact, he put himself and others in danger.

This is the George Zimmerman case all over again. Kyle pursued trouble until he created the danger himself and then killed those seeking to defend themselves against HIM.

This isn't justice, and I seriously doubt that Rittenhouse will end up any better place than Zimmerman.

Kyle Rittenhouse never threatened anyone. If you watched the trial and saw all the live videos you wouldn't say such a stupid thing. Either that or you saw all that and refused to apply critical thinking and instead used hysterical emotional thinking.

This has nothing to do with George Zimmarman but nice try at obfuscation.

Kyle helped remove graffiti, was trying to give first aid to folks and was not threatening anyone. A convicted child molester and crazy person (Rosenbaum) did not like the way Rittenhouse looked (Just like you just said, because he had a gun) and threatened to kill him. Later Rosenbaum was seen chasing Rittenhouse who was actively trying to get away from him. As it happened, Rittenhouse ran into a wall of people and Rosenbaum caught up with him and tried to grab Rittenhouse's gun at which point Rittenhouse, fearing for his life, shot Rosenbaum. Clearly self defense.

The other two perps (one who threatened him with a gun and one who attacked him with a skateboad) attacked Rittenhouse who was again running away from them. Rittenhouse defended himself, clearly self defense.

There was no evidence presented that he was a white supremacist, that he shot and killed any black person, or that he went there to stir up trouble.

Now, stop spreading your stupid lies because you are either ignorant or just wanting to stir up violence. If you had any shame you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[2aguy]

Kyle Rittenhouse never threatened anyone. If you watched the trial and saw all the live videos you wouldn't say such a stupid thing. Either that or you saw all that and refused to apply critical thinking and instead used hysterical emotional thinking. This has nothing to do with George Zimmarman but nice try. Kyle helped remove graffiti, was trying to give first aid to folks and was not threatening anyone. A convicted child molester and crazy person (Rosenbaum) did not like the way Rittenhouse looked (much like you) and threatened to kill him. Later Rosenbaum was seen chasing Rittenhouse who was actively trying to get away from him. As it happened, Rittenhouse ran into a wall of people and Rosenbaum caught up with him and tried to grab Rittenhouse's gun at which point Rittenhouse, fearing for his life, shot Rosenbaum. Clearly self defense. The other two perps (one with a gun and one with a skateboar) attacked Rittenhouse who was again running away from them. Now, stop spreading your stupid lies because you are ignorant and stupid obviously.

The idiot saw the AR-15 and that was that....dragonlady's brain stopped as soon as she/he heard about the rifle.......

Also, being a deranged leftist, dragon lady suffers from what I have termed "reality dyslexia..." For dragon lady, Right is wrong, truth is false, good is bad.........