ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Kyle Rittenhouse , murder cases

Reply
Old 5th October 2020, 07:29 PM   #241
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
The idea that he was part of a militia is only offered because he WAS engaged in a practical application of providing an armed presence "being necessary to the security of a free state."
I am not trying to drag 2A into the Rittenhouse court case.
It's only part of this conversation because some have noted "He shouldn't have been there... armed at 17" and I feel he had a 2A right/obligation to be there. Not as a legal defense, but as a matter of "OK, so here we are... he WAS armed and ultimately he needed to prevent his rifle being turned around AT him."

THAT is the case, as I see it.
Yeah, criminals tend to have all kinds of justifications for crimes, tho.

"I have a moral duty to provide for my family, and this bourgeoisie liquor store owner owes me that free money"

Kyle was one of many criminals out that night, many believing they were in the moral right to be breaking the laws of their choice. It doesn't matter, and Ky-Ky doesn't get to play victim who just happened to need to spontaneously protect himself when he was one of the criminals willingly saying that the law doesn't apply to him.

You get that, right? You don't get to swagger around saying "I'm a bad ass vigilante who is making my own law and hunting bad guys", then "oh my goodness, BAD GUYS! I am a poor victim who must fire blindly to protect my modesty"

That fish don't fly.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 5th October 2020 at 07:31 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2020, 07:59 PM   #242
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,431
Other than curfew violation, what criminality are you saying he engaged in?

There was NO LAW out on 63rd Street on Aug.25th --- the law was whatever the people in the streets wanted it to be. There was no 911.

When there is no 911, then yes, I do get the opportunity to decide how best to deal with mobs, with criminals, with anarchists & seditionists whose purpose is to DISRUPT and DISABLE society's protections and rules.

Those fish don't fry.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2020, 08:30 PM   #243
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
Other than curfew violation, what criminality are you saying he engaged in?
I think this has all been covered repeatedly ITT. Under 18 cannot open carry, statute provided upthread (there is a hunting exemption, but I sure hope you are not calling this 'hunting'). Claims of self defense are not extended to those who provoke (importantly, legally or illegally) confrontation, as a kid with a rifle would in a lawless riot obviously would be (he was not the Law, just another lawbreaker). Reckless endangerment (firing blindly into the streets with a weapon that has thousands of yards of range). Disproportionate self defense response, if we were to entertain a self defense claim. Use of deadly force while committing a crime (negating a self defense claim again). Vigilantism, of course. The list goes on quite a ways, for a jury to consider in due course.

Quote:
There was NO LAW out on 63rd Street on Aug.25th --- the law was whatever the people in the streets wanted it to be. There was no 911.

When there is no 911, then yes, I do get the opportunity to decide how best to deal with mobs, with criminals, with anarchists & seditionists whose purpose is to DISRUPT and DISABLE society's protections and rules.

Those fish don't fry.
Gonna need to pick a side here. Were laws in effect or not? If not, you endorse pure mayhem, and Ky-Ky has no right to clam any legal defense. If law was still in place, Ky-Ky was on the bad side of it, and another criminal on the hoof.

Lack of 911 in no way negates Law, as you claim. Murder is still a crime, even if cops can't respond in time. It's not The ******* Purge because police are overwhelmed. And absolutely NO, you do not get to declare yourself the Law and/or the Grim Reaper in that case. You can leave the scene of lawlessness till it cools off. You can stand your ground against a home invasion if you live in the rioting area, sure.

What you absolutely cannot do is travel to a neighboring State for a fun evening's entertainment in Rioter Hunting. That's not ok, man.

Oh, and the AR-15 that was coincidentally identical to the one kyle was pictured with at home in Illinois? You know, the identical one that mysteriously appeared, loaded, in his hands in Wisconsin? there are a host of firearms violtions there, no matter if a twin magically appeared there or he transported his own to the riot.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2020, 09:15 PM   #244
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,431
What you absolutely cannot do is travel to a neighboring State for a fun evening's entertainment in Rioting.

There, FTFY.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2020, 09:21 PM   #245
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
What you absolutely cannot do is travel to a neighboring State for a fun evening's entertainment in Rioting.

There, FTFY.
Agreed! In both cases, participants are breaking the law.

One does property damage, which has a nominal monetary value.

The other plays god and kills mother *******.

What an ethical dilemma this is to determine who commits the dramatically more serious crime.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2020, 09:23 PM   #246
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
Also, you are skipping a lot of the important aspects of the discussion to focus on trivialities.

Was law in effect or not?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2020, 09:38 PM   #247
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,431
"Lack of 911 in no way negates Law, as you claim."

It does. It leaves me to my own means. There no longer is anything between myself and a maniac who wants my weapon, for his own nefarious schemes. It was mayhem, at that level.
And not for 'protecting property' did anyone get shot. Only to prevent his gun from being taken as shots were fired his way. Kyle Rittenhouse took a stand. And it infuriated his opposition, the mob of 'em.

I have no issue with his being freed on all counts, with a habeus corpus motion being granted, the extradition warrant quashed, no grounds exist for crimes of murder 1.
Gaige shouldn't have been trying so frikkin' hard to guerilla-execute Kyle.
It got him 'disarmed' with one shot. Kyle missed, actually. He probably was seeking center mass and got lucky with the way the shot ended up immobilizing the attacker.
No crime for endangerment (fragments grazing mcGinnis) and fugeddaboudit on the entire age-17-carrying-his-rifle (his or anyone elses') misdemeanor. Toss that bs.

Last edited by webfusion; 5th October 2020 at 09:53 PM. Reason: Misspelled name of on-the-ground eyewitness
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2020, 09:48 PM   #248
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,431
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Agreed! In both cases, participants are breaking the law.

One does property damage, which has a nominal monetary value.

The other plays god and kills mother *******.

What an ethical dilemma this is to determine who commits the dramatically more serious crime.
I asked what law was being initially broken by Kyle? The curfew? That's it?
You declared that there is a law "Under 18 cannot open carry, [statute provided upthread]"

There is no such law.
The statute says what it says.
Reference HERE, so nobody has to delve deeper upthread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=35

His ethics screamed -- "Not another night of such lawlessness." And he knew what was required, Constitutionally. We often don't get to think in those terms. So long ago, you know, Jefferson, parchment papers, age-old thoughts of We the People...
Murder, you say? Oh yes, that IS serious.
Kyle is innocent of that, by default here.

As for the claim of "nominal property value", I take exception.
https://wkow.com/2020/09/02/owner-of...-5m-in-damages

Last edited by webfusion; 5th October 2020 at 10:13 PM.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2020, 10:13 PM   #249
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
"Lack of 911 in no way negates Law, as you claim."

It does. It leaves me to my own means. There no longer is anything between myself and a maniac who wants my weapon, for his own nefarious schemes. It was mayhem, at that level.
Does not neither. Law remains codified regardless of public officials' ability to provide emergency services on demand. You murder, you still go down. In proof of which: Ky-Ky was charged. Because the Law was still in full effect, convenient services or not. Did you know laws had full effect before 911 services even existed?

Quote:
And not for 'protecting property' did anyone get shot. Only to prevent his gun from being taken as shots were fired his way. Kyle Rittenhouse took a stand. And it infuriated his opposition, the mob of 'em.
Hey, you just said it was cowboy town. Those guys were disarming the criminal Kyle. Heroes, they were. No laws, so those guys were clear, right? Or are you saying only Ky-Ky had rights?

Oh, and no shots were fired his way. One numbnut fired into the air. If Rittenhouse was reacting to that, he goes down hard.

Quote:
I have no issue with his being freed on all counts, with a habeus corpus motion being granted, the extradition warrant quashed, no grounds exist for crimes of murder 1.
Gaige shouldn't have been trying so frikkin' hard to guerilla-execute Kyle.
It got him 'disarmed' with one shot. Kyle missed, actually. He probably was seeking center mass and got lucky with the way the shot ended up immobilizing the attacker.
No crime for endangerment (fragments grazing mcGinnis) and fugeddaboudit on the entire age-17-carrying-his-rifle (his or anyone elses') misdemeanor. Toss that bs.
Endangerment was opening fire with a rifle on a public street at all. that kid did not know what he was doing and was pulling the trigger. Might as well have been a chimpanzee on meth with a shotgun.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2020, 10:31 PM   #250
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
I asked what law was being initially broken by Kyle? The curfew? That's it?
You declared that there is a law "Under 18 cannot open carry, [statute provided upthread]"

There is no such law.
The statute says what it says.
Reference HERE, so nobody has to delve deeper upthread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=35
Sigh.

Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." That's $10,000/ 9 months in jail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Wisconsin

eta: we can also play around with this groovy legal concept called 'scope of intent'. What did Kyle intend to do by carrying a rifle illegally into a riot?

Quote:
His ethics screamed -- "Not another night of such lawlessness." And he knew what was required, Constitutionally. We often don't get to think in those terms. So long ago, you know, Jefferson, parchment papers, age-old thoughts of We the People...
Murder, you say? Oh yes, that IS serious.
Kyle is innocent of that, by default here.
What his ethics screamed does not pardon him from crime, or grant him law enforcement powers. Oh, or executionary privileges, either. And Constitutionally, he did not remotely meet the definition of a militia.

Quote:
As for the claim of "nominal property value", I take exception.
https://wkow.com/2020/09/02/owner-of...-5m-in-damages
'Car dealer says'. Mm-hmm. Oh, and his insurance company, I'll bet, offered terrorism coverage. Mine sure does. He may have waived it to save a few bucks.

In any event, nothing to do with Kyle or his killings.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 5th October 2020 at 11:19 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 02:00 AM   #251
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Sigh.

Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." That's $10,000/ 9 months in jail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Wisconsin
What about the exclusions in that law:

Quote:
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. 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.
941.28 looks like it excludes the kind of long rifle Rittenhouse was carrying. 29.304 is about under 16 year olds. 29.593 is about obtaining a hunting license.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 04:23 AM   #252
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,693
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
As things stand today, he has not yet been arraigned in front of a judge on any specific charges.
Just an open arrest warrant from Wisconsin, but Kyle is not in Wisconsin.
In Illinois, he is only charged with being a fugitive from justice.
And then, there's the writ of habeus corpus.
The best he can hope for is stalling extradition. He's got active felony arrest warrants from a US state and he is currently in custody in another state. He's going to be extradited, it's simply a matter of when.

What point do you think you're making here?
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 04:34 AM   #253
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,693
Interesting legal theories coming from webfusion, first about militias, now about special periods of lawlessness in which vigilantes are given carte blanche to enforce order as they see fit.

Kyle may have perceived an atmosphere of lawlessness, but the law still very much existed, as he is finding out. He is finding out that the courts still very much have power to review his actions that night and assess criminal liability in the very ordinary way. The law that existed that night is currently responsible for him being held in custody for multiple serious felonies. If he fails to convince a jury why his actions were in compliance with the law that night, he will spend the majority of his life in prison. Kyle's case proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the law was very real that night, because his choices to ignore that law are causing him tremendous harm.

Again, I'm not even sure what is being discussed here. Webfusion, are you actually advocating a legal argument, or just more of this ethical/moral irrelevance. You don't honestly believe that Kyle's defense is going to assert that the rule of law was suspended during the period of time that Kyle shot multiple people?

As a matter of fact, the police indeed have a strong presence on the streets that night. Law enforcement used discretion when it came to property damage, because they wisely perceived that enforcing every letter of the law might cause the situation to spiral into a riot or free fire zone with multiple casualties. Riot cops and National Guard were present, making arrests, and assessing the situation using their lawful authority and exercising discretion.

Law enforcement types are often granted wide (too wide imo) latitude when it comes to use of force because they are in difficult situations where the rule of law and maintaining the peace sometimes come into conflict. Sometimes that conflict means not enforcing every letter of the law, such as not arresting every brick thrower in order to prevent a turning a small riot into a large firefight.

Kyle was not an agent of the state, and is granted no such latitude to use his discretion to end lives. Scream milita or lawlessness until you are blue in the face, but the normal course of the criminal justice system is going to take place, and Kyle's best bet for a favorable verdict will be ordinary defenses.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 6th October 2020 at 04:37 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 04:40 AM   #254
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,693
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think this has all been covered repeatedly ITT. Under 18 cannot open carry, statute provided upthread (there is a hunting exemption, but I sure hope you are not calling this 'hunting'). Claims of self defense are not extended to those who provoke (importantly, legally or illegally) confrontation, as a kid with a rifle would in a lawless riot obviously would be (he was not the Law, just another lawbreaker). Reckless endangerment (firing blindly into the streets with a weapon that has thousands of yards of range). Disproportionate self defense response, if we were to entertain a self defense claim. Use of deadly force while committing a crime (negating a self defense claim again). Vigilantism, of course. The list goes on quite a ways, for a jury to consider in due course.
Setting aside moonshot legal theories, there was some real discussion about whether there was some ambiguity written into that law that may allow Rittenhouse to wriggle out of this particular misdemeanor law.

Ambiguities in the letter of the law, even when the spirit of the law is quite clear, usually break in favor of the accused.

I can't recall the exact legal argument, something to do with minors being allowed to possess long rifles in one section, but being banned from carrying dangerous weapons in another. I didn't find it very convincing at the time, but who knows?

Such parsing is really the only hope Kyle has here, as there's really not much doubt about the facts.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 09:53 AM   #255
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
What about the exclusions in that law:


941.28 looks like it excludes the kind of long rifle Rittenhouse was carrying. 29.304 is about under 16 year olds. 29.593 is about obtaining a hunting license.
Agreed, it does seem to exclude Rittenhouse's weapon. But that interpretation renders the statute meaningless, making no literal or logical sense. That's why I linked WP, because it includes the exemptions that actually make sense.

The statute seems obsessed with Japanese martial Arts weapons. Say for instance a kid had a pair of chucks. Under your interpretation, he is exempt because it says that the section only applies to sawed-offs, which are banned under NFA anyway.

To make literal sense, the exemption you site is missing a phrase or two. The exceptions described in Wikipedia list them far more clearly, and lucidly.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 09:56 AM   #256
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Interesting legal theories coming from webfusion....
Interesting for Cocoa Puffs, you mean?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 10:01 AM   #257
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,849
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Interesting for Cocoa Puffs, you mean?
No it is quite reasonable to exempt the members of any paramilitary organization from any and all legal oversite, that is clearly what the constitution says. Pity Tim McVeigh didn't know that he could have totally walked.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 10:10 AM   #258
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,693
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
No it is quite reasonable to exempt the members of any paramilitary organization from any and all legal oversite, that is clearly what the constitution says. Pity Tim McVeigh didn't know that he could have totally walked.
Someone should tell NFAC, who currently has a member facing charges for a negligent discharge (the 2nd such occasion for their group, how embarrassing). I imagine they might get a better deal from a NFAC court martial than the Louisiana criminal court system.

Call yourself a militia all day long, but when a member commits a crime, they will still be facing the same old criminal justice system that applies to everyone.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 10:10 AM   #259
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Agreed, it does seem to exclude Rittenhouse's weapon. But that interpretation renders the statute meaningless, making no literal or logical sense. That's why I linked WP, because it includes the exemptions that actually make sense.
I'm not sure about relying on Wikipedia over the actual statute. The WP article you linked to said this as a defence to the statute you quoted:

Quote:
The minor was 16 years of age or older, not in violation of laws on short-barreled rifles or shotguns, and was in compliance with regulations on hunting, if hunting
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
The statute seems obsessed with Japanese martial Arts weapons. Say for instance a kid had a pair of chucks. Under your interpretation, he is exempt because it says that the section only applies to sawed-offs, which are banned under NFA anyway.
I'm not sure that that is what it says:
"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..."
That isn't talking talking about people under 18 armed with swords. It says that people who are under 18 and in possession of rifles and shotguns are excluded if the rifle or shotgun doesn't breach the rule they then go on to mention about the barrel length.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
To make literal sense, the exemption you site is missing a phrase or two. The exceptions described in Wikipedia list them far more clearly, and lucidly.
WP basically says the same thing:
Quote:
The minor was 16 years of age or older, not in violation of laws on short-barreled rifles or shotguns, and was in compliance with regulations on hunting, if hunting
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 10:21 AM   #260
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I'm not sure about relying on Wikipedia over the actual statute. The WP article you linked to said this as a defence to the statute you quoted:
Wikipedia cites and links to the actual Wisconsin statutes, making it at least equivalent. By linking all relevant statutes, a more comprehensive understanding is presented, rather than a cherry pick.

Quote:
I'm not sure that that is what it says:
"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..."
That isn't talking talking about people under 18 armed with swords. It says that people who are under 18 and in possession of rifles and shotguns are excluded if the rifle or shotgun doesn't breach the rule they then go on to mention about the barrel length.


WP basically says the same thing:
That. That right there. That's exactly what the statute does not include to support your interpretation. It just says sawed offs, not 'in the case of minors carrying firearms, this section only applies to sawed offs
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 10:32 AM   #261
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Originally Posted by shuttlt
I'm not sure that that is what it says:
"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..."
That isn't talking talking about people under 18 armed with swords. It says that people who are under 18 and in possession of rifles and shotguns are excluded if the rifle or shotgun doesn't breach the rule they then go on to mention about the barrel length.


WP basically says the same thing:
That. That right there. That's exactly what the statute does not include to support your interpretation. It just says sawed offs, not 'in the case of minors carrying firearms, this section only applies to sawed offs
The statute says:
Quote:
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. 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.
Quote:
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.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon 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 fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.
(4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968.
(5) Any firearm seized under this section is subject to s. 968.20 (3) and is presumed to be contraband.
the WP summary says that a defence against this statute is:
Quote:
The minor was 16 years of age or older, not in violation of laws on short-barreled rifles or shotguns, and was in compliance with regulations on hunting, if hunting
These are two ways of saying the same thing. The statute doesn't apply to over 16s carrying long rifles.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 10:49 AM   #262
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The statute says:



the WP summary says that a defence against this statute is:


These are two ways of saying the same thing. The statute doesn't apply to over 16s carrying long rifles.
Nice long quote almost exclusively restricted in scope to sawed offs. The statute I initially cited was the prohibition of minors carrying deadly weapons, not focused on one particular variety.

I get your interpretation. I really do. But without the missing phrases, it makes no sense.

Under your interpretation of this statute, a minor could carry a handgun. He'll, an I yr old could. He would simply point to it, as you have, and say the statute doesn't apply to him because the exemption in 3(c) states that it only applies to minors carrying short barreled long guns.

3(c) needs the qualifier to be interpreted your way: it must read 'minors carrying long guns which are not short barrels are exempt.'
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 11:27 AM   #263
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,693
Kyle is charged under 948.60

Quote:
(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.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tatutes/948/60

The supposed loophole states that for firearms:

Quote:
This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possessesor 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.
That "or" statement is key. Kyle was in compliance with 941.28, because it was not a short barreled rifle or short barreled shotgun. But he was not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593, which is about hunting.

I don't think the short barrel is the problem here, it's that Kyle was obviously not engaged in hunting when carrying this dangerous weapon, and thus in violation of the second part of that or statement, making his carrying of any firearm a violation of the law as written. I don't think a jury is going to see much problem coming to a guilty verdict here for that particular charge.

Even if the defense were going to try to make a loophole out of this, does Kyle have a hunting certificate per section 29.593? If not, he's in violation.

This strikes me as a very long shot that the jury isn't going to buy. Is the defense honestly going to argue that hunting regulations carve out an exemption for a 17 year old to carry a rifle during a riot?
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 6th October 2020 at 11:34 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 12:09 PM   #264
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Nice long quote almost exclusively restricted in scope to sawed offs. The statute I initially cited was the prohibition of minors carrying deadly weapons, not focused on one particular variety.
Yes. The statute you cited is 948.60(2)(a). The full statute goes as follows:
Quote:
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.
(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.
I've highlighted the exclusion we are discussing. In there it references 941.28. That explains what the rifle or gun would have to be in breach of for it to be illegal for someone under 18. That's why it's all about shotguns and rifles.

That then says:
Quote:
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.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon 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 fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.
(4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968.
(5) Any firearm seized under this section is subject to s. 968.20 (3) and is presumed to be contraband.
So, it's talking about the types of shotguns and rifles that Rittenhouse wouldn't have been allowed to carry. The exclusion isn't about swords and so forth.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I get your interpretation. I really do. But without the missing phrases, it makes no sense.
In what way?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Under your interpretation of this statute, a minor could carry a handgun.
No. The exception is only about rifles and shotguns.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
He'll, an I yr old could. He would simply point to it, as you have, and say the statute doesn't apply to him because the exemption in 3(c) states that it only applies to minors carrying short barreled long guns.
This is incorrect. The exception applies to rifles and shotguns, unless they breach the section I quoted about short barrelled rifles and shotguns.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
3(c) needs the qualifier to be interpreted your way: it must read 'minors carrying long guns which are not short barrels are exempt.'
The exception runs as follows:
"This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if...."
It isn't an exception for people who are under 18 and armed with knives, spears, or artillery pieces, just rifles and shotguns. It says exactly what you are asking for. It says that minors carrying rifles and shotguns are except if they aren't short barrelled, and they don't breach the hunting regulations.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 12:21 PM   #265
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
That "or" statement is key. Kyle was in compliance with 941.28, because it was not a short barreled rifle or short barreled shotgun. But he was not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593, which is about hunting.
Here are the regulations you quote:
Quote:
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.
So that one is about under 16s and doesn't apply.

Quote:
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.
This isn't about hunting. It is about getting a certificate.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I don't think the short barrel is the problem here, it's that Kyle was obviously not engaged in hunting when carrying this dangerous weapon, and thus in violation of the second part of that or statement making his carrying of any firearm a violation of the law as written.
None of these regulations say that under 18s can only be armed while hunting.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I don't think a jury is going to see much problem coming to a guilty verdict here for that particular charge.
But the laws being cited don't say that you have to be hunting.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Even if the defense were going to try to make a loophole out of this, does Kyle have a hunting certificate per section 29.593? If not, he's in violation.
He kind of seems like the type who would. We are going to have to wait on these details though.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
This strikes me as a very long shot that the jury isn't going to buy. Is the defense honestly going to argue that hunting regulations carve out an exemption for a 17 year old to carry a rifle during a riot?
It doesn't say anywhere that you need to be hunting.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 12:37 PM   #266
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
shuttIt, heres the thing. It doesn't say that minors carrying long guns are exempt strictly as long as they comply with the sawed off rule. There are a variety of conditions they must comply with, including adult supervision. Your interpretation is trying to handwave many paragraphs of conditions away in a sentence. Why do you suppose they require adult supeevision by statute if 3(c) makes it irrelevant?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 12:42 PM   #267
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,693
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Here are the regulations you quote:

So that one is about under 16s and doesn't apply.


This isn't about hunting. It is about getting a certificate.


None of these regulations say that under 18s can only be armed while hunting.


But the laws being cited don't say that you have to be hunting.


He kind of seems like the type who would. We are going to have to wait on these details though.


It doesn't say anywhere that you need to be hunting.
For this interpretation to make sense, you have to assume that the intention of the law was that "any firearm" only means short barrel rifles/shotguns. Why would they say any firearm if they meant only short barrel rifles or shotguns? It seems plain to me that under 18 carrying of firearms is prohibited unless it is compliant with the hunting regs. Kyle can not have been in compliance with the hunting regs since he was not hunting, so his carrying was unlawful.

I don't think there's much point in debating this anymore. He's been charged with this. Perhaps his defense attorney will try to argue that the law, as written, is incoherent. Maybe he will succeed, who knows. It certainly could be more clearly written. Perhaps a WI state law legal expert could share examples of other similar cases, but I'm not seeing any. Only time will tell.

It seems quite clear to me, and I suspect it will be clear to a jury, that the law prohibits 17 year old from carrying a rifle in the way that Kyle was carrying his.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 6th October 2020 at 12:56 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 12:54 PM   #268
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
shuttIt, heres the thing. It doesn't say that minors carrying long guns are exempt strictly as long as they comply with the sawed off rule. There are a variety of conditions they must comply with, including adult supervision. Your interpretation is trying to handwave many paragraphs of conditions away in a sentence. Why do you suppose they require adult supeevision by statute if 3(c) makes it irrelevant?
The section of the statute we are talking about is this one, isn't it?
Quote:
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.
(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.
You are talking about 948.60 (3) a. That is an exception for all dangerous weapons as defined in 941.295 (1c) (a). That allows those weapons to be used for target practice and instruction of under 18s with adult supervision. 948.60 (3) (c) is completely different. That is an exception for carrying long rifles and shotguns. It doesn't say anything about requiring adult supervision.

I don't see why you are taking bits of the first exception and adding it to the third.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 01:00 PM   #269
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
For this interpretation to make sense, you have to assume that the intention of the law was that "any firearm" only means short barrel rifles/shotguns. Why would they say any firearm if they meant only short barrel rifles or shotguns? It seems plain to me that under 18 carrying of firearms is prohibited unless it is compliant with the hunting regs. Kyle can not have been in compliance with the hunting regs since he was no hunting, so his carrying was unlawful.
It doesn't say that you have to be hunting. If you have a certificate, there is nothing else in the text to be complied with.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I don't think there's much point in debating this anymore. He's been charged with this. Perhaps his defense attorney will try to argue that the law, as written, is incoherent. Maybe he will succeed, who knows. Only time will tell.
I'd have thought they would argue that it is coherent and applies as written. Who knows.... we are being armchair lawyers and for all any of us know there is a mountain of case law that answers our questions.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It seems quite clear to me, and I suspect it will be clear to a jury, that the law prohibits 17 year old from carrying a rifle in the way that Kyle was carrying his.
We will see.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 01:04 PM   #270
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The section of the statute we are talking about is this one, isn't it?

You are talking about 948.60 (3) a. That is an exception for all dangerous weapons as defined in 941.295 (1c) (a). That allows those weapons to be used for target practice and instruction of under 18s with adult supervision. 948.60 (3) (c) is completely different. That is an exception for carrying long rifles and shotguns. It doesn't say anything about requiring adult supervision.

I don't see why you are taking bits of the first exception and adding it to the third.
They are parts of the same section. They are related to each other, not standalone.

And 3(c) is most certainly not an exception for long guns. I read it as acknowledging that minors may carry long guns, subject to the previous statutory conditions, with the redundant add-on that Wisconsin really, really frowns on the short barrels.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 01:05 PM   #271
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,693
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
It doesn't say that you have to be hunting. If you have a certificate, there is nothing else in the text to be complied with.


I'd have thought they would argue that it is coherent and applies as written. Who knows.... we are being armchair lawyers and for all any of us know there is a mountain of case law that answers our questions.


We will see.
It's a poorly written statute, but is it poorly written enough to get him off the hook? I really wonder if anyone has ever even tried such a defense. If it weren't for the homicides, someone like Rittenhouse would probably just plead out to the misdemeanor. I suspect there's a good likelihood that no one with this specific fact pattern has actually gone to trial before.

I doubt this will really get much coverage before the trial given that the main events are the multiple felonies he is charged with.

This would be a fun thought experiment as a hypothetical, but given that we're discussing a killer gunman trying to weasel out of his rightful punishment, it's a bit tedious.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 6th October 2020 at 01:10 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 01:13 PM   #272
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,488
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It's a poorly written statute, but is it poorly written enough to get him off the hook? I really wonder if anyone has ever even tried such a defense. If it weren't for the homicides, someone like Rittenhouse would probably just plea out to the misdemeanor. I suspect there's a good likelihood that no one with this specific fact pattern has actually gone to trial before.

I doubt this will really get much coverage before the trial given that the main events are the multiple felonies he is charged with.

This would be a fun thought experiment as a hypothetical, but given that we're discussing a mass shooter trying to weasel out of his rightful punishment, it's a bit tedious.
I think the prosecution will have to lean heavily on any and all illegal activities prior to his shooting, to take the teeth out of the poor lad defending himself routine.

I bet he'll be framed as premeditating this from Illinois onward. No privilege of claiming self defense for the criminal.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 01:16 PM   #273
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,693
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think the prosecution will have to lean heavily on any and all illegal activities prior to his shooting, to take the teeth out of the poor lad defending himself routine.

I bet he'll be framed as premeditating this from Illinois onward. No privilege of claiming self defense for the criminal.
If the prosecution has any sense, they'll be combing this social media pretty closely.

Very slim chances that someone like Kyle doesn't kill people like this without consuming quite a bit of pro-murder propaganda on social media.

The Charlottesville car-attack nazi had shared a meme about running over protesters before the rally. These people can't help but pop digital boners about the prospect of committing "justifiable" murder, and I would be very surprised if that wasn't the case here.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2020, 01:35 PM   #274
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It's a poorly written statute, but is it poorly written enough to get him off the hook? I really wonder if anyone has ever even tried such a defense. If it weren't for the homicides, someone like Rittenhouse would probably just plead out to the misdemeanor. I suspect there's a good likelihood that no one with this specific fact pattern has actually gone to trial before.
Who knows. I have a bias on things like this towards dealing with each piece in isolation. I agree that the image the writers of that law probably had in their head was of some kid going through the woods on a hunting trip. Maybe the case law makes it clear that despite what the text says, that is what it actually means.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I doubt this will really get much coverage before the trial given that the main events are the multiple felonies he is charged with.
Probably. Time served or something.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
This would be a fun thought experiment as a hypothetical, but given that we're discussing a killer gunman trying to weasel out of his rightful punishment, it's a bit tedious.
There isn't much to say on any of it at the moment beyond picking over such tedious details. It looks like being a little while before either the prosecution or the defence have to support their positions in court.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2020, 01:51 PM   #275
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,431
Case again delayed to Oct. 30 --- apparently there were some problematic technicalities about the extradition request.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2020, 04:37 AM   #276
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,693
Considering that the killers of Ahmaud Arbery are still rotting in jail awaiting trial, I doubt there will be any quick movement on this case. That killing was in February and not much has really happened after the arrests of the three accused murderers.

Capital murder cases tend to take their time, neither defense nor prosecution want to rush such a high stakes case. At the very least, Kyle is going to be on ice for the immediate future regardless of the outcome.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2020, 05:48 AM   #277
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,431
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Considering that the killers of Ahmaud Arbery are still rotting in jail awaiting trial, I doubt there will be any quick movement on this case. That killing was in February and not much has really happened after the arrests of the three accused murderers.

Capital murder cases tend to take their time, neither defense nor prosecution want to rush such a high stakes case. At the very least, Kyle is going to be on ice for the immediate future regardless of the outcome.
Kyle is not "...in jail awaiting trial" -- That step of arraignment for trial has not yet happened.
His legal team is now questioning Wisconsin prosecutors’ (political) motivation for pursuing these murder charges.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2020, 05:50 AM   #278
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,693
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
Kyle is not "...in jail awaiting trial" -- That step of arraignment for trial has not yet happened.
His legal team is now questioning Wisconsin prosecutors’ (political) motivation for pursuing these murder charges.
He's in custody. What are you talking about? He's in a juvie center in Illinois and is currently fighting an extradition to Wisconsin.

Quote:
Rittenhouse is currently in a juvenile detention facility in Lake County, Ill. He attended the hearing virtually, wearing a gray mask.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...f1a_story.html

The best he can hope for here, realistically, is to delay his extradition a bit longer. He's facing multiple felonies, he will be transferred to a Wisconsin prison sooner or later.

Quote:
Jeff Neslund, a Chicago-based criminal defense attorney, said fighting extradition is extremely rare. Extradition typically gets a procedural hearing to move a defendant to the jurisdiction where the crime is alleged to have happened. It is usually a “delay tactic” when used otherwise, he said.

“I cannot see a legitimate basis not to send [Rittenhouse] back to Wisconsin. The idea that a mob will get him absurd on its face,” Neslund said.
Maybe come up for fresh air from whatever CT world you're getting your news, because nobody with any sense actually thinks Kyle is going to successfully avoid extradition here.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 12th October 2020 at 05:53 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2020, 06:18 AM   #279
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
Kyle is not "...in jail awaiting trial" -- That step of arraignment for trial has not yet happened.
His legal team is now questioning Wisconsin prosecutors’ (political) motivation for pursuing these murder charges.
Political motivation? Maybe the fact he killed two people and should stand trial to see if the courts agree it was self defense.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2020, 07:47 AM   #280
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,431
Yes, political. One of the current Presidential candidates is using this specific incident to generate political points.

He is seen on video acting in self-defense, so what other evidence is there to prove otherwise? Just because two people are dead (and a third drastically injured) doesn't automatically raise these reactions on the part of Kyle Rittenhouse to the level of murder 1 (or attempted).

As for the extradition itself, I am not convinced the Wisconsin paperwork is in order.
The Illinois court was presented a 16-page petition for a writ of habeas corpus, describing the case in court as "a very unique, extraordinary situation" and noting that there was "no reason to rush."
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.