Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Page 49 of 60 [ 954 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 ... 60  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,687
Location: Northern California

07 Dec 2021, 9:13 pm

ironpony wrote:
Is that bad if there is a loophole in the law though? If there is a loophole in the law, then there is a loophole, and that's the law that the people wanted to a degree if they voted and passed such law?


This may be a little off topic, but I think it addresses your question.

Most laws are written by elected representatives without a vote from the public. Loopholes often exist simply because it is rare to think of all the possibilities while drafting legislation. Some are known at the time the statute is written and left alone because the legislators are comfortable with the loophole and/or intended to create it (in which case it isn't really a loophole, anymore, but most people will still call it that). Some are discovered as the law is put into the practice. Generally the known ones are considered "good" and the surprise ones are considered "bad." The easiest answer to a bad loophole is usually to change law.

Some laws are enacted through proposition, where anyone can draft legislation and, with enough signatures, get it put on a ballot for the voters to decide. In my experience, such laws tend to have more unintended (bad) loopholes than ones written by elected representatives. In my experience, legislators are hesitant to fix a law added by proposition without voter approval. As a result, such corrections can be really long and drawn out, if they can ever get passed at all.

I think in the Rittenhouse case, they found a listed exception in the law. That isn't officially a loophole, even if some people feel it is one.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Last edited by DW_a_mom on 07 Dec 2021, 9:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2021, 9:14 pm

ironpony wrote:
Is that bad if there is a loophole in the law though? If there is a loophole in the law, then there is a loophole, and that's the law that the people wanted to a degree if they voted and passed such law?


Brictoria and Dox can educate us definitively, but I was under the impression it wasn't a "loophole".
It was deliberately included in the gun totin' laws.

How is it a "loophole"? :scratch:



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Dec 2021, 9:16 pm

One has to really do research into order to find the "exceptions" in the law.

I hope nobody thinks Rittenhouse is some sort of hero.

I hope he learned his lesson, frankly.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2021, 9:28 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I always said that the "kids" were playing war games. Tragically, two people ended up dead, and one seriously injured.

I have excellent reasons for not wanting Trump to lead our nation. It has very little to do with the fact that he's a Republican.

I'm almost as irritated with the Wokeism which has become endemic here. I feel like this has the potential to be very harmful as well.

Yeah....if I'm biased, so be it!! ! !


Why are you bringing Hitler Trump into this discussion?
Does "Godwin's Law" cover him, also? :scratch: :mrgreen:

You said "the judge searched mighty hard for a loophole". :roll:

You seem to have a problem with judges being "sticklers" with the law.
Do you realise how silly that sounds? 8O

Also, why is a law that *specifically* allows 17 year olds to carry an un-shortened AR-15, a loophole?
Seriously, how is it a "loophole"? 8O



Last edited by Pepe on 07 Dec 2021, 9:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Dec 2021, 9:31 pm

Like I said, I don't mind that the guy was acquitted. I still wish he hadn't gone to Wisconsin with that gun. That's the way I feel.

This might inspire other adolescents to come to other states with guns to get into some adventure.

I don't feel Trump is Hitler----that's a ridiculous comparison----but I feel like he would take us down the wrong road, and provide reasons for other countries to insult us.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2021, 9:32 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
One has to really do research into order to find the "exceptions" in the law.

I hope nobody thinks Rittenhouse is some sort of hero.

I hope he learned his lesson, frankly.


I haven't seen *anyone* here suggest he is a hero.
I see him as a stupid 17 year old (at the time).
I doubt he will put himself in a similar situation ever again. 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2021, 9:39 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Like I said, I don't mind that the guy was acquitted. I still wish he hadn't gone to Wisconsin with that gun. That's the way I feel.

This might inspire other adolescents to come to other states with guns to get into some adventure.

I don't feel Trump is Hitler----that's a ridiculous comparison----but I feel like he would take us down the wrong road, and provide reasons for other countries to insult us.


As I said many pages ago, do they breed psychopaths in America? 8O
Who would want to go through what Rittenhouse did unless they had psychopathic/grandiose tendencies? :scratch:

As I said, I doubt anyone would do that, but sure as hell, if they found themselves is a similar position, they *would* use the "Rittenhouse Defence". 8)



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Dec 2021, 9:42 pm

The United States is a great nation.

By and large, most people are decent, whatever their political persuasion.

However, at this point, there is too much of a "strong minority" who are not decent people, and who would find any pretext to screw around with others.

This ruins it for the rest of us.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

07 Dec 2021, 9:43 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
In the vast majority of cases, people younger than 18 are not allowed to possess guns that are not shotguns or rifles within the State of Wisconsin. As far as I'm concerned, the judge searched mighty hard for a loophole, and he found it.

And yet, translating the law into simple terms, there was no loophole.
The law, as written:
Quote:
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

948.60(1)(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

948.60(2) (2) 

948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

948.60(2)(b) (b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

948.60(2)(c) (c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

948.60(2)(d) (d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.

948.60(3) (3) 

948.60(3)(a)(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

948.60(3)(b) (b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

948.60(3)(c) (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2015/chapter-948/section-948.60/
Breaking it down, the following sections were relevent in this case:
Quote:
948.60(1)(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded

Fairly self explantory
Quote:
948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Again, fairly self explanatory, and where those claiming the rifle was illegale (or a "loophole" was required) tend to stop reading.
Quote:
948.60(3)(c) (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

This is what many people prefer to ignore, so I'll break it down for easier comprehension:
Quote:
This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if

Somewhat self explantory - if the "dangerous weapon" is a rifle or shotgun, then this specific law only applies only under specific circumstances, which follow
Quote:
the person is in violation of s. 941.28

This statute relates to barrel(and overall) length of the rifle\shotgun, and a violation of this would result in additional charges for that - It appears designed to limit use\possesion of weapons such as "sawn-off" shotguns\rifles.
Quote:
or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

Starting with the joiner here: The use of "and" requires both conditions to be met (or, in this case, a violation of both conditions to be present). These relate to hunting laws, the former (from memory) applying to only those under 16, and the later to possesion of a hunting licence.

Given Mr Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the incident, the last component is not met (He could not have been in violation of a law which only applied to people younger than he was, so the possesion (or otherwise) of a hunting licence would be irrelevent to him as a result.

So, for a person of his age, the relevent reading of the law would have been:
It is illegal for a person under the age of 18 to be in possesion of a rifle or shotgun (loaded or unloaded) if the barrel length (or overall weapon length) were below a certain measurement - had he been under 16, additional restrictions would also have applied.

On cross-examination, a prosecution witness stated the weapon was of legal dimensions, and so it was legal for him to have had possesion of it.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,687
Location: Northern California

07 Dec 2021, 9:45 pm

Pepe wrote:

As I said many pages ago, do they breed psychopaths in America? 8O



Actually, those of us who live here are beginning to wonder.

Still only a minuscule percentage of the population, however. Just one that is very good at getting noticed.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2021, 9:46 pm

I guess you could be saying the law allowing a 17 year old to carry a weapon, during a protest, is a loophole.
Presumably, the law is intended for 17 year olds to use a weapon to kill snakes on the farm, as an example?

Where are our resident lawyers when you need them? :mrgreen:



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

07 Dec 2021, 9:47 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Like I said, I don't mind that the guy was acquitted. I still wish he hadn't gone to Wisconsin with that gun.

^ How to tell the person discussing the case has little-to-no understanding of the events behind\surrounding the case...

As was determined at trial, the rifle was only ever in Wisconsin. No-one "went to Wisconsin" with that gun.

Edit: In fact, this has probably also been posted in this (and other) threads at least a dozen times, suggesting that those who persist in making such statements aren't interested in what truely happened, prefering a fictional series of events to the known facts, and so intentionally attempting to spread misinformation.



Last edited by Brictoria on 07 Dec 2021, 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Dec 2021, 9:51 pm

That's not so good, either.....that he was given the gun in Wisconsin. That actually makes it sort of "worse," in a way.
in



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Dec 2021, 9:54 pm

Whether he got the gun in Wisconsin, or took it with him from Illinois, I still feel he should not have been at that scene.

He was acquitted after spending a year or so under stress. Maybe that's punishment enough---I don't know.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2021, 9:59 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Whether he got the gun in Wisconsin, or took it with him from Illinois, I still feel he should not have been at that scene.

He was acquitted after spending a year or so under stress. Maybe that's punishment enough---I don't know.



You think his punishment ends with that? 8O :lmao:
This will probably follower him for the rest of his life.
There have already been protests trying to stop him from going to a university, I believe.

He may make a motser, but he is already looking over his shoulder. 8O



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,687
Location: Northern California

07 Dec 2021, 10:10 pm

Brictoria wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Like I said, I don't mind that the guy was acquitted. I still wish he hadn't gone to Wisconsin with that gun.

^ How to tell the person discussing the case has little-to-no understanding of the events behind\surrounding the case...

As was determined at trial, the rifle was only ever in Wisconsin. No-one "went to Wisconsin" with that gun.

Edit: In fact, this has probably also been posted in this (and other) threads at least a dozen times, suggesting that those who persist in making such statements aren't interested in what truely happened, prefering a fictional series of events to the known facts, and so intentionally attempting to spread misinformation.


It has, I think we all know it, but I think failures to be clear and precise about it are hasty writing more than lack of knowledge. On this board at this point, at least.

Rittenhouse left his home with an intent to acquire a weapon before arriving at the protest. While which state he picked up the gun in makes a legal difference, but it doesn't change the fact that a child brought a gun to a situation he should have stayed out of. Don't we all wish he hadn't shown up at the protest in Wisconsin with that gun? It would have saved him at least a year of stress and two people their lives.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).