Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

Fast Eddie B said:
Not sure, I'm kind of on the fence.

"The past is prologue", to be sure. But once Rittenhouse was on the ground and had been struck, and is asserting self defense, is every action leading up to that predicament really relevant to the specific defense? For instance, the prosecution bringing up the fact that he drove without a valid license? And I believe the judge did let in certain online postings by Rittenhouse in order to show his state of mind.
Click to expand...
I'm not so much giving an opinion on the details as much as saying that the prosecutor asking the questions wasn't as far out as line as the judge's reaction would have us believe.
And while Emily Cat's analogy wasn't great, I do get her point. What someone did or didn't do to put themselves in a predicament is only sometimes relevant and admissible in court. The judge here does not seem far off base excluding certain testimony/evidence that does not directly bear on the actual charges being brought or the defense put forth.
Click to expand...

It's a terrible analogy in more ways than I can count.

However, this stuff was almost certainly correctly kept out of the case-in-chief, but whether or not by testifying the defendant made some of this an issue is something else.

Say the kid gets on the stand and says straight out that he's never broken a law including any traffic offenses. That opens the door in the sense that the law will protect the defendant from the state bringing certain stuff up, but the defendant can't then use shield as a sword. So they could ask questions about not having a license.

This usually gets a bit more gray but if he testifies about why he was there and that he's a nice guy then now his motivations become more of an issue, and how far the state can then go is largely up to the judge, or at least an appeals court won't second guess it unless the judge is laughably wrong. That isn't the technical standard, but that's more or less what it is in substance.

So when the prosecutor probes this by asking questions it isn't automatically his blatantly rushing into forbidden territory. Just that this judge wanted him to I guess ask for permission first, which sounds more like a rule that judge has then some hard and fast law.
 
Suddenly said:
I'm not so much giving an opinion on the details as much as saying that the prosecutor asking the questions wasn't as far out as line as the judge's reaction would have us believe.
Click to expand...

The problem for the prosecutor isn't so much how out of line the questions were in and of themselves. The real problem is that the judge had already prohibited them. As a prosecutor, you really, really cannot do that during trial, EVEN IF the judge was wrong to exclude them. That was a major **** up, and the judge was completely justified in smacking him down for that, and hard.

So when the prosecutor probes this by asking questions it isn't automatically his blatantly rushing into forbidden territory. Just that this judge wanted him to I guess ask for permission first, which sounds more like a rule that judge has then some hard and fast law.
Click to expand...

The part that pretty much IS hard and fast law is that if the judge has excluded it, you cannot bring it up. The proper course of action is to ask the judge to allow it, because the judge, NOT the prosecutor, has the discretion to change his mind. He can decide that the door has been opened to certain testimony, and then allow what he previously excluded. But the prosecutor has no leeway to make that decision on his own.

And BTW, that's basically what the defense did regarding Rosenbaum's mental illness. The prosecution asked his girlfriend about what he had in his bag, and she said medication. So the defense asked the judge to allow questioning her about what that medication was for. The judge had previously disallowed bringing up his mental health history, but this opened the door to some of that, and it was allowed. But the defense had to ask the judge first, because it was previously excluded.
 
stanfr said:
So where's your evidence that Grosskreutz or Huber were there destroying property or rioting? The only survivor testified that he was there to offer support to the demonstrations, and nothing the defense brought out impeached that. So you are flat out mischaracterizing it. And I don't take the second position, so it is irrelevant. Your link is worthless cause I see a mix of races in the pics, which again have nothing to do with my original point.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to any specific individuals, but to the situation as a whole. I thought that was clear?
 
How exactly does it work that the prosecution can add multiple lesser charges at this point? It seems like you would prepare your defense for the known charges. It seems like, "well, we are probably not going to be able to make the original charges stick, so how about these new ones?"
 
National Guard being put on alert in preparation for the verdict. I'm sure this will generate more incidents of a serious nature.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Not sure, I'm kind of on the fence.

"The past is prologue", to be sure. But once Rittenhouse was on the ground and had been struck, and is asserting self defense, is every action leading up to that predicament really relevant to the specific defense? For instance, the prosecution bringing up the fact that he drove without a valid license? And I believe the judge did let in certain online postings by Rittenhouse in order to show his state of mind.

Were this a civil trial - and there may yet be civil trials - a jury could hold Rittnehouse 80% responsible for the deaths, with the deceased at least partially responsible. But this is criminal court, so the standard is more black and white - either guilty or not guilty on each of the charges.

And while Emily Cat's analogy wasn't great, I do get her point. What someone did or didn't do to put themselves in a predicament is only sometimes relevant and admissible in court. The judge here does not seem far off base excluding certain testimony/evidence that does not directly bear on the actual charges being brought or the defense put forth.
Click to expand...


The illegality of the actions can come into play. If I hold up a convenience store and the store owner tells me to get out and chases me I can't kill him and a couple of bystanders that tried to stop me getting away as self defence.
 
stanfr said:
So where's your evidence that Grosskreutz or Huber were there destroying property or rioting? The only survivor testified that he was there to offer support to the demonstrations, and nothing the defense brought out impeached that. So you are flat out mischaracterizing it. And I don't take the second position, so it is irrelevant. Your link is worthless cause I see a mix of races in the pics, which again have nothing to do with my original point.
Click to expand...

Grosskreutz clearly seems to be one of those "Antifa Lite" types. He's still entirely on board with their viewpoints, and supports their actions. He probably, under the right circumstances, would throw a Molotov or something himself, and I have no doubt he has busted windows and such before. But, he's not QUITE as total of a PoS as some of them, and is a little more comfortable with being in the "medic / support" type role rather than being one of the shock troop / front line / super destructive ones. He likes to wash the eyeballs of those ones, and put band-aids on them.

I think he absolutely knew that the most likely reason Kyle would've shot someone from his side, was in self defense. I think when he saw Kyle take out ANOTHER of his comrades, he was ready and willing to execute Kyle to stop him, even though he could plainly see Kyle was acting defensively and being swarmed / attacked.

He wasn't as awful of a person as Rosenbaum, and would probably have never done that sort of initial burst of aggression out of the blue like Rosenbaum did, but once he felt his team / fellow Antifa were being picked off (whether defensively or not) by Kyle, he was prepared to kill Kyle to stop him.

That's my read on him, anyway.

EDIT: And by the way, in case anyone is inclined to treat Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse as equivalent (armed medics for the two sides) they are NOT equivalent. When you're a medic for the arsonist / looter / unprovoked attacker side, you're offering material support to evil. When you're the medic for the "stop the destruction and protect the city" side, you're a good guy.

Rittenhouse's only mistake was offering any sort of aid to the rioters, but I think he was mostly doing this as a performative way of dissuading them from attacking him. Much like his "friendly, friendly, friendly!" he said as Rosenbaum charged him.

He was hoping to be able to maneuver around putting out fires without getting attacked, by offering medical attention. He was hoping to be perceived as some sort of 17 year old moving Switzerland out there, and he underestimated how evil and violent Antifa are.

Warp12 said:
How exactly does it work that the prosecution can add multiple lesser charges at this point? It seems like you would prepare your defense for the known charges. It seems like, "well, we are probably not going to be able to make the original charges stick, so how about these new ones?"
Click to expand...

It's absurd. They have no right to have brought this prosecution AT ALL. It is not in accordance with the laws and evidence. They're doing it for other, far shadier reasons.

They shouldn't be able to conduct a prosecution where charges were brought before much of the evidence was even looked at, and where apparently their lynchpin evidence is based on "well maybe it kinda looks like this if you zoom in on it..." notions about a video they OBTAINED DURING TRIAL.

They clearly have no solid foundation for these charges, unless you count political cowardice.

The last thing they should be allowed to do is last minute edits of "well, okay... yeah, we didn't prove him guilty of any of this. Can we get some consolation prize charges tacked on?"

They are clearly trying to offer the jury cowardice parachutes.

The judge clearly has his head on straight and knows this is all BS. He honestly should jump on the grenade here and declare a mistrial with prejudice. He's old and at the end of his career, and Kyle is 18 with his whole life ahead of him.

He should not be allowing any scenario where the jury might compromise convict, or cowardice convict, because they want to avoid more Gaige Grosskreutz n' Pals Burn Down Your City moments.
 
Last edited:
alfaniner said:
National Guard being put on alert in preparation for the verdict. I'm sure this will generate more incidents of a serious nature.
Click to expand...

The Magascum Gravy SEALS will provide all the necessary violence to intimidate the Georgia jury. BLM need not engage in violence, the enemy will do that for us.

That said, the We're Not ******* Around group should parade through the neighborhood, where Aubry was murdered, with their weapons, just to drive the point home.
 
In today's legal wrangling, the Judge decided that he would provide instructions for the jury to acquit on the charge of minor carrying a weapon, unless the Prosecution can prove the weapon was a short-barrel gun (which as we know, it was not).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-opens-path-jury-clear-003306793.html

In other words, Judge Schroeder has basically ruled that Kyle Rittenhouse carried a weapon legally in Kenosha on the night of August 25th.

And that is that.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
After watching the trial, I now believe there's a pretty solid chance that Rosenbaum and Ziminski collaborated on a plan to try to lure one of the right wing types out on their own, or take advantage of it if they lucked into finding one on their own.

I believe Rosenbaum and Ziminski may have planned to have Ziminski fire the gunshot he did, and intended it to be a distraction for Rittenhouse right as Rosenbaum closed the distance on him and attacked.

Rosenbaum and Ziminski may have seen Rittenhouse alone, coming with the fire extinguisher and Rosenbaum may have quickly said "I'm going to sneak up on him and jump him. You fire a shot into the air to distract him when I get in close"
Click to expand...

In today's legal asides, while discussing what Instructions would be offered to the Jury by the presiding Judge, I noticed that the Defense got into a slight argument regarding the Ziminski's role in all of this.
Ultimately, it was Attorney Richards who blurted out "Joshua Ziminski is a flat out liar"
and I realized that is why he wasn't called to testify.
 
webfusion said:
In today's legal wrangling, the Judge decided that he would provide instructions for the jury to acquit on the charge of minor carrying a weapon, unless the Prosecution can prove the weapon was a short-barrel gun (which as we know, it was not).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-opens-path-jury-clear-003306793.html

In other words, Judge Schroeder has basically ruled that Kyle Rittenhouse carried a weapon legally in Kenosha on the night of August 25th.

And that is that.
Click to expand...

Seems odd. I had to look up Wisconsin law, and it’s kinda weird.

This part seems clear (bolded mine):

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; …

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor…

But then there’s this caveat:

(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.

941.28 is the statute on short-barreled rifles. The others refer to hunting.

So, strange as it seems, Rittenhouse may not have been breaking Wisconsin law carrying that rifle.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Seems odd. I had to look up Wisconsin law, and it’s kinda weird.

This part seems clear (bolded mine):

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; …

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor…

But then there’s this caveat:

(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.

941.28 is the statute on short-barreled rifles. The others refer to hunting.

So, strange as it seems, Rittenhouse may not have been breaking Wisconsin law carrying that rifle.
Click to expand...


Yep. Your 8th grader is now free and legal to patrol the streets outside his middle school armed with an AR-15.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Yep. Your 8th grader is now free and legal to patrol the streets outside his middle school armed with an AR-15.
Click to expand...

§29.304 applies to people under 16. An 8th grader would be younger than 16, and would not be in compliance with §29.304 under your scenario. Kyle was 17, and so was not in violation of §29.304.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Seems odd. I had to look up Wisconsin law, and it’s kinda weird.

This part seems clear (bolded mine):

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; …

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor…

But then there’s this caveat:

(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.

941.28 is the statute on short-barreled rifles. The others refer to hunting.

So, strange as it seems, Rittenhouse may not have been breaking Wisconsin law carrying that rifle.
Click to expand...

What's the problem?

This section (restriction of minor to carry a firearm) applies to:

1. short barells (irrelevant here), or...
2. minors not in compliance with hunting provisions.

Rittenhouse was not in compliance with hunting provisions. So the restriction against carrying applies to him. Done and done.
 
Thermal said:
What's the problem?

This section (restriction of minor to carry a firearm) applies to:

1. short barells (irrelevant here), or...
2. minors not in compliance with hunting provisions.

Rittenhouse was not in compliance with hunting provisions. So the restriction against carrying applies to him. Done and done.
Click to expand...

This is wrong. 29.304 doesn't refer to minors, but to people under 16.

Kyle was not under 16. Therefore he was not out of compliance with 29.304.
 
Ziggurat said:
This is wrong. 29.304 doesn't refer to minors, but to people under 16.

Kyle was not under 16. Therefore he was not out of compliance with 29.304.
Click to expand...

29.304 is worded oddly, dealing primarily with 12 to 16 year olds. But irrelevant.

Why do you ignore the more relevant 29.593, which requires attaining the Certificate of Accomplishment? That's what we are talking about.

Kyle did not have this Certificate. He was therefore not in compliance with both the statutes necessary. Therefore, he was subject to restriction.
 
Thermal said:
29.304 is worded oddly, dealing primarily with 12 to 16 year olds. But irrelevant.

Why do you ignore the more relevant 29.593, which requires attaining the Certificate of Accomplishment? That's what we are talking about.

Kyle did not have this Certificate. He was therefore not in compliance with both the statutes necessary. Therefore, he was subject to restriction.
Click to expand...

29.304 is relevant because of how 948.60 is worded. Part (3)(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.​

It matters that the hilighted word is "and", not "or". So you're only in trouble if you're not in compliance with BOTH 29.304 AND 29.593.

But Kyle wasn't "not in compliance" with 29.304, because he wasn't under 16. 29.304 only imposes a burden on those under 16.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
§29.304 applies to people under 16. An 8th grader would be younger than 16, and would not be in compliance with §29.304 under your scenario. Kyle was 17, and so was not in violation of §29.304.
Click to expand...

Reassuring that common sense rules American gun culture.
 
Ziggurat said:
29.304 is relevant because of how 948.60 is worded. Part (3)(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.​

It matters that the hilighted word is "and", not "or". So you're only in trouble if you're not in compliance with BOTH 29.304 AND 29.593.

But Kyle wasn't "not in compliance" with 29.304, because he wasn't under 16. 29.304 only imposes a burden on those under 16.
Click to expand...

Being over 16, he was in compliance with 29.304, as he was not subject to any of the restrictions contained there. The exemption requires him to be in compliance with both. He is only in compliance with one of the two. Is the judge saying he is in compliance with the Certificate of Accomplishment because...since he wasn't hunting it didn't apply to him?

I haven't found anything on the reasoning the judge used. The spirit of 29.593 seems to be the standard minor provision for carrying firearms while hunting. Perhaps he is relying on a precedent?

I mean, the restriction for under 18 carrying a firearm is crystal clear. It makes no sense to negate it with the exemptions. If the intent was for 17 yr olds to be legally allowed to open carry, why plainly write the statute that under 18 is prohibited from doing so?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I wonder how much Judge Schroeder is getting in kickbacks from the NRA/White Supremacist groups?
Click to expand...

Could this comment be more idiotic? "Kickbacks" from White Supremacist groups? There is a CT section here for that sort of thing, you know. :rolleyes:
 
Warp12 said:
Could this comment be more idiotic? "Kickbacks" from White Supremacist groups? There is a CT section here for that sort of thing, you know. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Agreed. Plus, as I suggested (sarcastically) earlier, the prosecution could not possibly more incompetent. They must be in on it….
 
I’m watching this trial far too much to be healthy, and currently on the additional charges.

The judge referred to the rubric of a statute. One of the prosecution said “rubric?”. The judge said “title” without exasperation, which he would have been entitled to express.

specifically : the title of a statute
Click to expand...

Did these guys even go to law school? Not a terribly good one I guess.
 
lionking said:
I’m watching this trial far too much to be healthy, and currently on the additional charges.

The judge referred to the rubric of a statute. One of the prosecution said “rubric?”. The judge said “title” without exasperation, which he would have been entitled to express.



Did these guys even go to law school? Not a terribly good one I guess.
Click to expand...

Well I didn't go to Law School, but even I know that the prosecutor used "rubric" in the correct, legal sense of the word. The judge was being nitpicky (and actually, he was technically, but trivially wrong) in "correcting" him for it.
 
smartcooky said:
Well I didn't go to Law School, but even I know that the prosecutor used "rubric" in the correct, legal sense of the word. The judge was being nitpicky (and actually, he was technically, but trivially wrong) in "correcting" him for it.
Click to expand...

You didn’t watch the video, did you? The prosecutor did not use the word “rubric”. The judge did.

Do your work before commenting.
 
Americans have bought more guns since the NRA started crying "they are coming for our guns!" than all the nations of the world combined.
If anyone claims that gun rights are under threat, they are trying to sell you something.
 
Ziggurat said:
29.304 is relevant because of how 948.60 is worded. Part (3)(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.​

It matters that the hilighted word is "and", not "or". So you're only in trouble if you're not in compliance with BOTH 29.304 AND 29.593.
Click to expand...

Thermal said:
Being over 16, he was in compliance with 29.304, as he was not subject to any of the restrictions contained there. The exemption requires him to be in compliance with both. He is only in compliance with one of the two.
Click to expand...
Laws are seldom stated with the logical precision we might desire. Letting "29.304" abbreviate "is in compliance with ss.29.304" and "29.593" abbreviate "is in compliance with 29.593", the "not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593" part of the statute is saying
¬ 29.304 ∧ 29.593​
No one is interpreting that to mean
(¬ 29.304) ∧ 29.593​
which is how it would be interpreted by applying the usual precedence rules of formal logic. (That interpretation would be silly in the context of the statute we're discussing, which is why no one is interpreting it that way.)

Thermal is interpreting it to mean
¬ (29.304 ∧ 29.593)​
which is how (given its context) it would most likely be interpreted by people trained in formal logic.

Ziggurat is interpreting it to mean
(¬ 29.304) ∧ (¬ 29.593)​
which means Ziggurat is distributing the negation across the conjunction, which would seem bizarre to me except for the fact that we're trying to guess the intent of lawyers who wrote the statute, whose understanding of formal logic might be on par with Ziggurat's.

I suspect the judge is interpreting the statute however he wants, relying on the ambiguity of English to support whatever interpretation he favors.
 
Last edited:
I found it interesting to hear the argument thrown out there by Attorney James Kraus in an effort to change the Judge's mind regarding Minor-in-Possesion of the rifle.
Mr. Kraus was essentially saying that the Defense never actually physically measured the AR15 barrel in font of the Jury, so how could they know it wasn't short of the legal requirement (18").
This elicited a guffaw from Attorney Mark Richards, who thought Kraus was grasping at straws. The Defense had a bit of luck in all this, however, because at some point, the Kenosha Police detective had testified the gun was a "legal" firearm (meaning, it wasn't a sawed-off barrel, which would make it less than 18" and thus, illegal).
Anyway, the gun itself had been literally handled a number of times in front of the Jury, and they saw it had a long barrel with their own eyes, even without a measuring tape being applied.

Because of this ruling, Kyle Rittenhouse no longer faces the claim (that has been repeated here ad-nauseum) that his carrying the gun was "illegal" in addition to him being a "curfew violator" (charge has been dismissed), and that means, as I'm reading it, he was not a lawbreaker while out in the streets of Kenosha.
Not sure if that makes any difference overall to the deliberations of the Jury, but it certainly leaves some posters here in the Forum with egg on their faces for repeatedly using the underlying "illegality" of his presence with the AR15 as a way to say "He Shouldn't Have Been There..."
As it happens, with these two decisions, he had every right to be there.
 
webfusion said:
I found it interesting to hear the argument thrown out there by Attorney James Kraus in an effort to change the Judge's mind regarding Minor-in-Possesion of the rifle.
Mr. Kraus was essentially saying that the Defense never actually physically measured the AR15 barrel in font of the Jury, so how could they know it wasn't short of the legal requirement (18").
This elicited a guffaw from Attorney Mark Richards, who thought Kraus was grasping at straws. The Defense had a bit of luck in all this, however, because at some point, the Kenosha Police detective had testified the gun was a "legal" firearm (meaning, it wasn't a sawed-off barrel, which would make it less than 18" and thus, illegal).
Anyway, the gun itself had been literally handled a number of times in front of the Jury, and they saw it had a long barrel with their own eyes, even without a measuring tape being applied.

Because of this ruling, Kyle Rittenhouse no longer faces the claim (that has been repeated here ad-nauseum) that his carrying the gun was "illegal" in addition to him being a "curfew violator" (charge has been dismissed), and that means, as I'm reading it, he was not a lawbreaker while out in the streets of Kenosha.
Not sure if that makes any difference overall to the deliberations of the Jury, but it certainly leaves some posters here in the Forum with egg on their faces for repeatedly using the underlying "illegality" of his presence with the AR15 as a way to say "He Shouldn't Have Been There..."
As it happens, with these two decisions, he had every right to be there.
Click to expand...

It's not a shotgun so the barrel length requirement is 16" or 26" minimum total gun length.
 
webfusion said:
I found it interesting to hear the argument thrown out there by Attorney James Kraus in an effort to change the Judge's mind regarding Minor-in-Possesion of the rifle.
Mr. Kraus was essentially saying that the Defense never actually physically measured the AR15 barrel in font of the Jury, so how could they know it wasn't short of the legal requirement (18").
This elicited a guffaw from Attorney Mark Richards, who thought Kraus was grasping at straws. The Defense had a bit of luck in all this, however, because at some point, the Kenosha Police detective had testified the gun was a "legal" firearm (meaning, it wasn't a sawed-off barrel, which would make it less than 18" and thus, illegal).
Anyway, the gun itself had been literally handled a number of times in front of the Jury, and they saw it had a long barrel with their own eyes, even without a measuring tape being applied.

Because of this ruling, Kyle Rittenhouse no longer faces the claim (that has been repeated here ad-nauseum) that his carrying the gun was "illegal" in addition to him being a "curfew violator" (charge has been dismissed), and that means, as I'm reading it, he was not a lawbreaker while out in the streets of Kenosha.
Not sure if that makes any difference overall to the deliberations of the Jury, but it certainly leaves some posters here in the Forum with egg on their faces for repeatedly using the underlying "illegality" of his presence with the AR15 as a way to say "He Shouldn't Have Been There..."
As it happens, with these two decisions, he had every right to be there.
Click to expand...

The weird thing is, the judge basically ruled that Wisconsin law didn't apply because they were written with slobbering illiteracy. The judge does not seem to explain why the hunting exemption overrides the statute, which says in plain language that under 18 can't carry. Period. This kind of interpretation could, in theory, apply to any and all charges. Just negate the statute because the authors were dumb. Which is odd, when you think about it.

And if Kyle was not violating the police curfew order, then..what? The curfew didn't exist, or had no legal force? Again, weird. I assume everyone charged with curfew violations past and present can also have them summarily dismissed?

I'm picturing the judge ripping a bong and mulling "what does homicide reeeeeeeeeally mean, dude?" and dismissing all charges.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Laws are seldom stated with the logical precision we might desire. Letting "29.304" abbreviate "is in compliance with ss.29.304" and "29.593" abbreviate "is in compliance with 29.593", the "not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593" part of the statute is saying
¬ 29.304 ∧ 29.593​
Click to expand...

Is this similar somehow to Justice Scalia (I think) interpreting that the prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” be interpreted to mean that said punishment must be both cruel and unusual to fit? That either cruel or unusual are OK, just not both?
 
*takes massive toke*

"Cruel is a weird word, too, when you think about it. Cruuuuuuueeeeel...."

Eta: the whole reason we have different words and meanings for "and" and "or" is so we don't have to have these ******* interpretatons of nuance.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Being over 16, he was in compliance with 29.304, as he was not subject to any of the restrictions contained there. The exemption requires him to be in compliance with both. He is only in compliance with one of the two. Is the judge saying he is in compliance with the Certificate of Accomplishment because...since he wasn't hunting it didn't apply to him?
Click to expand...

It's the other way around, the exemption applies unless you're in violation of both of those statutes. So being in compliance with 29.304 means that the exemption would apply even if you were in violation of 29.593.

I mean, the restriction for under 18 carrying a firearm is crystal clear. It makes no sense to negate it with the exemptions. If the intent was for 17 yr olds to be legally allowed to open carry, why plainly write the statute that under 18 is prohibited from doing so?
Click to expand...

One of the lawyer Youtube channels I watch has suggested that it came about to stop minors from carrying more concealable weapons such as pistols while allowing them to continue using rifles and long-barrelled shotguns for hunting as normal.

I've tried looking this up, but the best I've found is this analysis which talks about Wisconsin preventing pistol ownership for minors as far back as 1955, and then when the current statute first came about in 1987 it included the exception as part of 948.60 (1) where a "dangerous weapon" was defined as "...any firearm having a barrel less than 12 inches long...". This part is moved to 948.60 (3)(c) in 1991 and is then changed again in what I'm assuming is 2005 where it's removed to stop a bunch of contradictory issues with 941.28.

In doing so it's created this rather baffling position we're seeing now, because under the definition in 948.60 (1) he should be guilty of breaching this statute, but then there's this exception in (3)(c) that says that he shouldn't be in violation of the statute.

I feel like the Wisconsin legislature needs to take another look at this statute because it needs to be rewritten.

lionking said:
For goodness sake, the prosecution case is pathetic. Does anyone seriously dispute this?
Click to expand...

People who haven't paid attention to the case, or have only read headlines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom