Only someone so willfully ignorant to condone Rittenhouses actions, would be MAGA. I understand the laws better than you and it was intended for hunting. The exception wasnt intended for children going to riots. The judges misinterpretation of the law is the issue.
The judge did not misinterpret the law as it is currently written. Strictly interpreted, any person aged 16+ is not acting unlawfully by being in possession of a rifle or a shotgun, unsupervised. The judge could not just add a hunting requirement where none exists in the statute.
The amendment in its entirety was for hunting. The only reason for children having a gun ws for hunting. It wasnt for shooting someone that tossed a paper bag at you.
He shot Rosenbaum when he made a lunge to grab the rifle, not seconds earlier when he threw his hospital toiletries bag. The exception to WI s.948.60 is not so prescriptive as to require hunting specifically for it to be valid, regardless of its intent. That is the issue.
So if a judge were to interpret the second amendment and say its for militias and not individual use....Can u tell me what mental gymnastics youd be prepared to go through? Lets use ur logic to interpret the second amendment.
The judge interpreted the law strictly, to the wording of the statute. There is no wording in WI s.948.60 3(c) that mandates hunting as a requirement. The judge has no authority to add that requirement if it is not there in black and white.
Do you think the law was intended for a 17 yr old to have a gun at a riot? Just curious.
No, but you cannot enforce the law where it provides an exception for persons over the age of 16 in simple possession of a rifle or a shotgun just because you believe the use was not in the spirit of the statute. An attempt to add a hunting caveat to s.948.60 in the wake of the shootings failed.
Because republicans are horrible people, yes. They want more children to die, I guess. If i were on the jury, id have convicted or it would have been hung. Hes lucky.
That is a wider argument than whether his possession of the rifle was unlawful or not. Your verdict is your prerogative of course. I would have acquitted him on all charges, as his belief the force used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable.
True to the letter of the law ignoring the nuance. Its funny how maga is letter of the law when they like a decision, but ignore the outcome or disagree when dislike it. AKA EJC case. AKA falsifying business records. The fact of the matter is, Rittenhouse created the conditions for the event.
And yes, my acquittal would be true to the letter of the law,, because self-defense is a narrow enquiry. The legality of use of force in self-defense concerns itself primarily with the immediately adjacent circumstances. All the peripheral theater about crossing state lines etc etc, was irrelevant.
Thats why you are maga. You are willing to do mental gymnastics for a law that clearly wasnt intended for what this child got away with. Prove me wrong. Do you think the EJC case was justified in the indictment of DJT?
What does MAGA have to do with it? Have I ever once expressed support for MAGA or Donald Trump? It is just a cop out for you people so that you can all rationalize views that don’t align with your own. How did Rittenhouse create the conditions for the incident? By existing? Crazy.
Would you allow your 17 yr old child to cross state lines with a gun to attend a riot he has no reason or cause to be part of? Even if he had cause? Would you allow it? If so, they need to go to DC. The republican wet dream of govt forces taking over city streets. Hed be justified now.
Explain why there was an effort AFTER the trial to add an exception (3d). Legislators wanted to add "hunting only" to the exception for minors. This was a direct response to the Rittenhouse trial. That measure failed & today, the law remains as originally written. www.cbs58.com/news/democra...
I dont know if you are being dishonest, so ill humor you. 948.60 was originally intended as amendment to allow for hunting. Thats why shortbarrels werent allowed. I would say common sense....did you think they intended the law for children to go to riots?
Read the exceptions under 948.60 (3)(c). That's the exception that allowed Kyle to legally possess a long-barreled rifle. A SBR would've been illegal. The prosecution agreed & conceded.
So im guessing ur fine with Trump being convicted of rape in the the EJC case. He was found guilty by his peers and the judge on case law. He penetrated her vagina with his fingers against her will. Proven. Convicted. 9 jurors unanimously convicted him..
Lol. Despite all the sources I've posted, you still believe that Kyle wasn't legally armed. Why would I get into a political debate with you? You're not interested in an honest discussion. That much is obvious.
No he was legally armed according to the law. He should not have been armed. The case law was written for hunting, not for riots. Sure its poorly worded, but it is a loophole and you damn well know it. Since you are so hard core on interpretation of the law, whats your thoughts on the 2nd amend?
Except, that "loophole" was reviewed & there was an effort to modify it. That measure failed & today the law remains as originally written. Under these circumstances, we can't refer to this as a "loophole" anymore.
Yup the exception was for hunting as the writers of the legislation came out and said
No. They wanted to add that exception (3d) to include all minors. That measure failed & today the law remains as originally written.