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

[BackAgain]

Interview? Hannity says its a film about Kyle's life.

Kyle was aquitted.. He is no longer being "prosecuted".

He is getting interviewed. I believe by Hannity. I wasn’t aware of any film project. And now the big question. So what?

the state made the kid a public figure. Any effort to set the record straight is his choice.

 

[Mac1958]

This is pretty interesting. Former prosecutor says the case probably shouldn't have been brought in the first place.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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.

Chasing someone down to harm them isn’t defending yourself. Facts over leftist feelings. Stop lying to yourself.

 

[BackAgain]

This is pretty interesting. Former prosecutor says the case probably shouldn't have been brought in the first place.

They chose to arrest Kyle and prosecute him before they had even properly cleared the crime scene. It started off as a rush to judgment. It got worse over time.

had they even bothered to secure the video evidence and open minded my review it BEFORE deciding to proceed, they would have been in a position to at least slow down their rush to bad judgment.

 

[JoeMoma]

He is getting interviewed. I believe by Hannity. I wasn’t aware of any film project. And now the big question. So what?

the state made the kid a public figure. Any effort to set the record straight is his choice.

Rittenhouse could turn his new found fame into $$$ if he plays his cards right.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
You clearly are not reading simple English properly.

It does NOT just say " 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".

Besides being able to be in violation of 941.28, is also says the minor is guilty if they fit other criteria, "or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304and 29.593".

What the whole sentence says is that a minor can be legal in possession of a short barreled firearm if they are hunting and have a valid hunting license.
Kyle did not need to have a short barrel to be guilty.
He was already guilty.
The whole main part of the statute is about it being illegal for minors to be in possession of any firearm.
This is just the fine details on little exceptions.
And the exception here is about valid hunting with a license.
Kyle is not eligible for that exception since he was not hunting and had no hunting permit.

Only a total idiot who can not read and understand plain English would ever begin to claim this tiny exception then totally invalidated the entire statute.

 

[Rigby5]

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

The law clearly states Kyle is guilty.
It is illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm, with only a few exceptions, which do not apply.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This is pretty interesting. Former prosecutor says the case probably shouldn't have been brought in the first place.

Uh... just saying... this has been said by numerous folks all along.
This is what happens when prosecutors allow their political beliefs to be a factor in who and what to prosecute.

This trial does show we need to look at out judicial system. But not how the left think. The opposite.

 

[Rigby5]

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.”

You have this totally backwards.
In no way does the statute say the barrel has to be short in order to be in violation.
What it is saying is:
{... "or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593"....}
Which means there is an exception if the person is hunting with a valid permit.
And Kyle is not eligible since he had no hunting permit.
So then the short barrel has nothing to do with it.

 

[Rigby5]

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).

Incorrect.
The main thrust of the law is no minor should be in possession of a firearm.
Then like all statutes, it gets into some little exceptions, like at a range, under adult supervision, if in the military, etc.
The one the defense lawyers brought up, is about those hunting while in possession of a valid permit, so is not relevant.
The short barrel reference is the opposite of what the defense claimed, in that it is an exception to prosecution if the person is hunting with a valid license.
No legal expert would ever take the last lines of a statue, which are the least important exceptions, to then totally negate the entire statute.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who to believe? The Judge or a stupid idiot on the internet.........

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Let's be honest leftists.

You don't expect your kind to be responsible.

You apply victim roles to thugs.

Thugs are martyrs.

You desire a world where your kind can do whatever they like.

So long as it doesn't impact you personally.

While your kind does whatever they like you expect the govt. to take care of them.

You desire chaos and mayhem.

You desire for the inmates to run the prison.

 

[Rigby5]

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...

Businesses need to get burned down if the businesses are going to encourage or allow deliberate attempted murder like the police did to Blake.
There is no excuse for what those police did, and even worse is those police not being prosecuted.
That is above everything else, and totally negates the entire government.
It makes the government and anyone paying taxes to support them, the criminals.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The law clearly states Kyle is guilty.
It is illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm, with only a few exceptions, which do not apply.

No it does not

This is why it was dismissed even the prosecutor agreed.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Not according to Wisconsin law he didn't!

Wisconsin Statute Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
948.60 (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.

That foolish 17 year old kid (born Jan. 3, 2003) should not have had that deadly weapon in his hands that night when he killed two and wounded and permanently disabled a third! But the cops cheered him on and aided him in spite of the law! And why the trial judge dropped that single misdemeanor charge is left up to the Wisconsin powers that be!

According to the judge, defense AND prosecution you are wrong. All three agreed on the record that the law didn’t apply in this case. The possession charge was another blunder by the prosecution. When all three agree on the law you don’t have a leg to stand on.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Businesses need to get burned down if the businesses are going to encourage or allow deliberate attempted murder like the police did to Blake.
There is no excuse for what those police did, and even worse is those police not being prosecuted.
That is above everything else, and totally negates the entire government.
It makes the government and anyone paying taxes to support them, the criminals.

You are repeating a proven lie.

Blake was killed in legal justified self defense and defense of others.

 

[Rigby5]

Who to believe? The Judge or a stupid idiot on the internet.........

Lots of racist judges have lied for eons.
Why do you think we had to hang the judges from the lamp posts in 1776?
It may well be we will have to do it again.

Just read the statute.
It is clear the barrel length is of no consequence, since Kyle had no valid hunting permit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Businesses need to get burned down if the businesses are going to encourage or allow deliberate attempted murder like the police did to Blake.
There is no excuse for what those police did, and even worse is those police not being prosecuted.
That is above everything else, and totally negates the entire government.
It makes the government and anyone paying taxes to support them, the criminals.

Blake PULLED a KNIFE on the cops you stupid FUCK

 

[Rigby5]

According to the judge, defense AND prosecution you are wrong. All three agreed on the record that the law didn’t apply in this case. The possession charge was another blunder by the prosecution. When all three agree on the law you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Read the statute.
Clearly the barrel length is not relevant if Kyle had no valid hunting permit.
No one can read the statute and find Kyle not guilty, without lying.
So that just makes the 3 also guilty.

 

[struth]

You don't even know the definition of vigilante either.

?? say what?