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

[Rigby5]

Cite the Wisconsin law that supports your claim.

Sure.
The last section of 948.60, exception 3c is the part the defense is claiming is relevant when it is not.

{...
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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) 
(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.
(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.
(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.
...}

Then you need 29.304 and 29.593.

{...
29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
(1)  Persons under 12 years of age.
(a) Prohibition on hunting. No person under 12 years of age may hunt with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person under 12 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and he or she is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class under the supervision of his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.
(c) Restrictions on obtaining hunting approval. Except as provided under par. (d), no person under 12 years of age may obtain any approval authorizing hunting.
(d) Restrictions on validity of certificate of accomplishment. A person under 12 years of age may obtain a certificate of accomplishment if he or she complies with the requirements of s. 29.591 (4) but that certificate is not valid for the hunting of small game until that person becomes 12 years of age.
(2)  Persons 12 to 14 years of age.
(a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may hunt unless he or she is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:
1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; or
2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.
(3)  Persons 14 to 16 years of age.
(a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may hunt unless he or she:
1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; or
2. Is issued a certificate of accomplishment that states that he or she successfully completed the course of instruction under the hunter education program or has a similar certificate, license, or other evidence satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:
1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian;
2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor; or
3. Is issued a certificate of accomplishment that states that he or she successfully completed the course of instruction under the hunter education program or has a similar certificate, license, or other evidence satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department.
(4)  Parental obligation. No parent or guardian of a child under 16 years of age may authorize or knowingly permit the child to violate this section.
(4m)  Hunting mentorship program. The prohibition specified in sub. (1) (a) and the restrictions specified in subs. (1) (b) to (d), (2), and (3) do not apply to a person who is hunting with a mentor and who complies with the requirements specified under s. 29.592.
(5)  Exception.
(a) Notwithstanding subs. (1) to (3), a person 12 years of age or older may possess or control a firearm and may hunt with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow on land under the ownership of the person or the person's family if no license is required and if the firing of firearms is permitted on that land.
(b)
1. In this paragraph, “ target practice" includes trap shooting or a similar sport shooting activity regardless of whether the activity involves shooting at a fixed or a moving target.
2. The restrictions on the possession and control of a firearm under sub. (1) do not apply to a person using a firearm in target practice if he or she is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.
...}

{...
29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1) 
(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
(b) A certificate of accomplishment issued to a person for successfully completing the course under the bow hunter education program only authorizes the person to obtain a resident archer hunting license, a nonresident archer hunting license, a resident crossbow hunting license, or a nonresident crossbow hunting license.
(2) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(2m) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a bow hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an archer hunting license or crossbow hunting license.
(3) A person who successfully completes basic training in the U.S. armed forces, reserves or national guard may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(4) A person who is subject to sub. (1) may prove compliance with sub. (1) when submitting an application for an approval authorizing hunting by presenting any of the following:
(a) His or her certificate of accomplishment issued under s. 29.591.
(b) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter within 365 days before submitting the application.
(c) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter for a hunting season that ended within 365 days before submitting the application.
...}

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Wrong. I posted several quotes of the relevant Wisconsin statutes to refute your ignorant claim. Take a cold hard look at the actual legal definition of “short-barrel rifle” as it pertains to the NON applicability of the gun law to minors.

I assume you can look that up to. Hint: the statutory reference is contained in their gun law in the section exempting minors from applicablity in a few instances.

If you are capable of citing parts of a Wisconsin statute then cite the bloody thing with your own take on it. All you've written is a biased opinion so far just as Judge Schroder did before the jury was let into the courtroom the first day of the trial! You are a damn fool to think I'll follow your instructions! Formulate your own arguments and back them up yourself IF you are able and possess the wit!

 

[struth]

Sure.
The basic statue 948.60 says it is illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.
{... 948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
...}
Then there are a few minor exceptions where it is allowed.
{...
(3) 
(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.
(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.
(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.
...}

The one the defense and judge used to let Kyle off on the illegal possession charge was the last one, (c).
But clearly they are wrong
A short barrel is not required for guilt.
The minor is also guilty if they do not have a valid hunting permit and are hunting.
{... or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. ...}

Here is 29.304.
{... 29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. ...}

Here is 29.593.
{... 29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval. ...}

Since Kyle was not hunting or in possession of a valid hunting license, he was not in compliance with these subsections, so has to access to their exemptions.

it says they can have a rifle in section C. He had a rifle.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Your remain stubborn and wrong. You don’t seem to understand how to go about statutory construction. The alleged dangerous weapon was the rifle. But the law also excluded minors from the application of the law provided that the rifle was not a short-barrel rifle. It wasn’t.

it may be that you will never understand any of this. I can’t make you understand things. I have already showed you the law. Your lack of comprehension remains on you.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

ILMAO...............Rittenhouse can sue Xiden

Rittenhouse could have potential defamation case against Biden over White supremacist tweet, expert says

Kyle Rittenhouse could potentially have a defamation case against President Biden over a tweet suggesting Rittenhouse was a White supremacist, a lawyer who represented former Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann told Fox News.

www.yahoo.com

 

[BackAgain]

If you are capable of citing parts of a Wisconsin statute then cite the bloody thing with your own take on it. All you've written is a biased opinion so far just as Judge Schroder did before the jury was let into the courtroom the first day of the trial! You are a damn fool to think I'll follow your instructions! Formulate your own arguments and back them up yourself IF you are able and possess the wit!

I have repeatedly cited the law and the applicable sections as well as quoting them here. Maybe try reading. Your lack of comprehension is your problem.

 

[Rigby5]

it says they can have a rifle in section C. He had a rifle.

ONLY if one of the exceptions was true, such as being in the military, at a range, under adult supervision, hunting with a valid license, etc.
It definitely IS illegal for Kyle to be in possession of the rifle, since he was not in the military, not at a range, not under adult supervision, not hunting with a license, etc.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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.

That isn't what it says, at all. It says: if you're engaging in lawful activity, in a place you have a right to be and someone tries to harm, you can protect yourself with deadly force.

It should make the so-called "justice protestors" think twice before rioting and destroying private property, because, that sure he'll isn't "justice".

 

[Rigby5]

Your remain stubborn and wrong. You don’t seem to understand how to go about statutory construction. The alleged dangerous weapon was the rifle. But the law also excluded minors from the application of the law provided that the rifle was not a short-barrel rifle. It wasn’t.

it may be that you will never understand any of this. I can’t make you understand things. I have already showed you the law. Your lack of comprehension remains on you.

Wrong.
Minors are specifically excluded from legally being able to possess any firearm, short or long barreled rifle, except in a few listed circumstances.
The subsection exception you are refering to is:
{...
(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.
...}
And it clearly says, "or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593".
So a short barrel is NOT required to be in violation.
He is still guilty if in violation of 29.304 and 29.593.
And those are hunting exemptions, requiring a valid hunting license.
He definitely was not on compliance with 29.304 or 29.593, so then was guilty.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Not just "weird", but clearly not what the statute says.
It is absolutely illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm, with only a few exceptions that did not apply.
And that clearly was an illegal attempt by both the defense and the judge to make it sound legal and reasonable for Kyle to bring the rifle to the demo/riot, when clearly it was not.
It was both illegal and incredibly provocative.

It was not provocative and they are more knowledgable than you proving you wrong

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong.
Minors are specifically excluded from legally being able to possess any firearm, short or long barreled rifle, except in a few listed circumstances.
The subsection exception you are refering to is:
{...
(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.
...}
And it clearly says, "or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593".
So a short barrel is NOT required to be in violation.
He is still guilty if in violation of 29.304 and 29.593.
And those are hunting exemptions, requiring a valid hunting license.
He definitely was not on compliance with 29.304 or 29.593, so then was guilty.

As I correctly noted, your problem is your inability to engage in accurate statutory construction. I cannot help you if your remain unwilling to learn. I know you believe that the judge got it wrong. But he didn’t. You have.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
It is an illegal provocation, intimidation, and deadly threat to being a rifle to a demostration/riot.
If any of the demonstrators/rioters had done that, the police would have immediately and legally shot them.
Same goes for the demonstrators/rioters having the right to end the deadly threat Kyle created, by killing him as well.

This is a very dangerous and illegal escalation.
Now by letting Kyle off for his irresponsible and illegal act, all demonstrators will now have to be armed as well.
And since the demonstrators are in the right. are the majority, and have the right of defense, now there is no way to prevent them from all being armed.
This travesty of injustice has escalated the level of violence to the point society could easily break down now.
And it will be the failure of the legal system that was at fault.
Kyle acted illegally and irresponsibly by ANY measure.

You are a liar and proven to be full of shit,

It was not a demonstration it was a riot.

It was not and is not intimidation or a provocation to go armed.

He was not let off for an illegal act he was acquited because your claims are lies as were the charges

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The minor in possession was dropped. cite the law that supports your claim merely being there with a rifle was illegal.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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!

The three attackers shouldn't have been trying to kill him.

 

[Rigby5]

That isn't what it says, at all. It says: if you're engaging in lawful activity, in a place you have a right to be and someone tries to harm, you can protect yourself with deadly force.

It should make the so-called "justice protestors" think twice before rioting and destroying private property, because, that sure he'll isn't "justice".

Wrong.
The police shooting Blake was wrong and illegal, so then the protests were right and legal.
Kyle was deliberately attempting to intimidate the legal protestor with an illegal display of deadly force.
That is the equivalent of sitting in front of a polling station with a rifle, to intimidate voters.

Rioting and destroying private property most certainly iS justice, and is the time honored tradition of the Boston Tea Party.
It is those defending the illegal attempted murder of Blake who are the criminals.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Wrong.
It is an illegal provocation, intimidation, and deadly threat to being a rifle to a demostration/riot.
If any of the demonstrators/rioters had done that, the police would have immediately and legally shot them.
Same goes for the demonstrators/rioters having the right to end the deadly threat Kyle created, by killing him as well.

This is a very dangerous and illegal escalation.
Now by letting Kyle off for his irresponsible and illegal act, all demonstrators will now have to be armed as well.
And since the demonstrators are in the right. are the majority, and have the right of defense, now there is no way to prevent them from all being armed.
This travesty of injustice has escalated the level of violence to the point society could easily break down now.
And it will be the failure of the legal system that was at fault.
Kyle acted illegally and irresponsibly by ANY measure.

The rioters were destroying private property. They justified bringing a weapon to the riot.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Wrong.
The police shooting Blake was wrong and illegal, so then the protests were right and legal.
Kyle was deliberately attempting to intimidate the legal protestor with an illegal display of deadly force.
That is the equivalent of sitting in front of a polling station with a rifle, to intimidate voters.

Rioting and destroying private property most certainly iS justice, and is the time honored tradition of the Boston Tea Party.
It is those defending the illegal attempted murder of Blake who are the criminals.

Destroying private property isn't legal, under any circumstances.

Since you defend those animals, don't get pissy when they start getting smoked on a more regular basis.

 

[Rigby5]

The minor in possession was dropped. cite the law that supports your claim merely being there with a rifle was illegal.

I already cited 948.60 and the other relevant WI statutes.
And yes, bringing a rifle to any political event is always illegal.
It is an attempt to deliberately intimidate with a threat of deadly force.

No one else had a rifle and no one else was attacked.
It was the deadly threat of the rifle that required Kyle to be attacked.
I would have attacked him as well, as any sane and responsible person would, to anyone crazy enough to bring a rifle to a political event.

 

[Rigby5]

The three attackers shouldn't have been trying to kill him.

No, they just should have succeeded in killing him.
He deserved to die for is illegal deadly threat to everyone.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I already cited 948.60 and the other relevant WI statutes.
And yes, bringing a rifle to any political event is always illegal.
It is an attempt to deliberately intimidate with a threat of deadly force.

No one else had a rifle and no one else was attacked.
It was the deadly threat of the rifle that required Kyle to be attacked.
I would have attacked him as well, as any sane and responsible person would, to anyone crazy enough to bring a rifle to a political event.

Burning private property at a political event is illegal, too.