Get a free Kyle Rittenhouse at Culver's

AladainAF said:

How else do you read section (3)(c)?

View attachment 382060

Click to expand...

The prosecution reading of it is that it's always illegal for a 16-17 year old to possess a firearm, but if that illegal firearm is illegally possessed during those other cited instances this law applies, not the others.

It may be the intent of the law, and the misdemeanor charges for minors in violation aspect is clear, but the wording would be so poor if the intent were that it's always illegal for a 16-17 to possess. It would be very easy legally to make that clear, and make clear which law would apply to minors.

Instead the law goes out of its way to clarify possession specifically for rifles and shotguns, specifically for 16-17 year olds?

For a 15 year old the minor in possession law applies because the law clarifies any under 16. If C wasn't to clarify the specific circumstances of rifles and shot guns for 16-17 year olds being legal except if your otherwise doing illegal activity, then why even address that specific circumstance? Just make the law for anyone under 18, not under 16.

Imagine in farm country it being illegal for all 17 years olds to possess any firearm. You're 17 and a predator is threatening livestock. Sorry, not allowed to pick up the most common farm firearms: shotguns and rifles.

That doesn't mesh with existing law in a lot of places nor American culture. So the law seems to be creating a compromise and carve out for circumstances and expectations that are more common in rural America.

Does a city prosecutor even care to understand this? Or just reads the law in the way that least benefits those country bumpkin he doesn't align with ideologically?

Every angle I look at that law makes me side with the defense interpretation. The fact there is even confusion is concerning, though. If the law had been applied equally and without dispute then there wouldn't be a question.

Meaning, either way this is interpreted, my guess is somewhere a 16-17 year old was either wrongly convicted or wrongly allowed to illegally possess a dangerous weapon.

My guess, as often happens, urban PA offices have been applying the laws differently than rural. And as we've seen especially in recent years, intentionally for political reasons, not out of a simple misunderstanding of the intent of the law.

Even laws that put people in jail can be wildly misinterpreted until a high enough profile case comes along and creates attention to it.

Don't know the intent of that section for 16-17 year olds, but either way it's an obvious issue that probably affected a lot of people already so hopefully this case settles some law on the issue.

Hoss said:

Isn't he being tried as an adult right now? In a rational world, that would make a minor in possession charge go away. They're literally charging him as both an adult and a minor in the same fucking trial. Didn't even realize that till a few minutes ago.

Click to expand...

Yeah, interesting point. Makes this weak ass case even stupider. This is not a strong case, and the prosecution wants to go all in, every possible charge and try him as an adult and retain any charges they can against him as minor as well. Bah.

It's concerning to see overzealous prosecution, but the alarming thing is if you or a loved one is ever the victim of a violent crime this what you'll have to rely on to get justice? There are probably strong, righteous cases this prosecutor has also bungled, denying families justice and letting criminals go free (and probably by design the way things have been going).

One thing I agree with the elites: it may be time for a great reset.

I’d say move the fuck on and let’s see how it plays out, the law is ambiguous enough that legal professionals are in disagreement we here most certainly won’t. Personally I think they find him guilty of this and nothing else and point to this as look we found him guilty, so you can run that in the media.

Hoss said:

Isn't he being tried as an adult right now? In a rational world, that would make a minor in possession charge go away. They're literally charging him as both an adult and a minor in the same fucking trial. Didn't even realize that till a few minutes ago.

Click to expand...

Looking at Wisconsin law, you're considered an adult for charging purposes automatically at 17 regardless of the crime

Hoss said:

Isn't he being tried as an adult right now? In a rational world, that would make a minor in possession charge go away. They're literally charging him as both an adult and a minor in the same fucking trial. Didn't even realize that till a few minutes ago.

Click to expand...

Also notice the wording from the usual lefty media companies "18 year old Kyle Rittenhouse" etc.
Don't want to muddy those waters by stating that he was actually 17 at the time

popsicledeath said:

It's concerning to see overzealous prosecution, but the alarming thing is if you or a loved one is ever the victim of a violent crime this what you'll have to rely on to get justice? There are probably strong, righteous cases this prosecutor has also bungled, denying families justice and letting criminals go free (and probably by design the way things have been going).

Click to expand...

This case has been the clearest example of a prosecution just wanting a win at any cost instead of actually searching for the truth of what happened. The trash video "evidence" they submitted is a joke. You can't make anything out, yet that fat sack of shit was describing it as if it was clear as day

Imagine being such a shitty human being that you'll lie and cheat to fight tooth and nail to put away a kid for life who was just trying to save their own life.

Ambiturner said:

Imagine being such a shitty human being that you'll lie and cheat to fight tooth and nail to put away a kid for life who was just trying to save their own life.

Click to expand...

It's worse than that. The first person he killed that led to the entire chain of events was the child rapist. We've got video of him acting erratically, we've got his record, we've got him chasing Kyle, we've got eye witnesses testimony he had a chain and Kyle's story is the dude told him that he'd kill him if he caught him alone (sounds plausible), the dude chased him, Kyle pointed his rifle at him to deter him, it didn't, the child rapist grabbed his gun and he shot him.

And there's the prosecutor arguing that he fired too many rounds (in under a second). He was going down after the first shot, why did you keep firing? Why didn't you offer first aid? You play Call of Duty right Kyle?

Cops get a warrant for Vapor Bicep's phone. The prosecution says don't execute that warrant. The FBI has footage they never released so they release some of the grainy shit but they *lost* the high def footage that would show definitively whether or not Kyle pointed a gun at the time the prosecution says he was with that grainy photo. Did the cops do a DNA swab of the barrel to see if the child rapist's DNA was on it which would collaborate part of Kyle's story? No. They were told not to do that.

The only thing on the level here is the judge. He's a Midwest boomer judge with Midwest boomer sensibilities. He and the people like him are going to retire someday. Think of what the judges will look like in ten or fifteen years.



Oh hey, my judge has a pussyhat on. Just shoot me now I guess.

Lendarios said:

I really doubt that it is legal in the state of Wisconsin for a 17 to have a rifle, and there are carved exceptions to that rule, military, hunting, etc.
If no, then the law makes no sense and the exceptions are unnecessary.

Click to expand...

Those exceptions exist in part because they apply to any dangerous weapon under the provision. A 17 cannot possess a handgun or M60, but there is an exception for the military where they may be allowed.

Just like the law reads that a minor can't possess those defined dangerous weapons unless accompanied by an adult, meaning they can possess any of them otherwise legal under the supervision of an adult.

Which is why it's pretty clear them specifying rifles and shotguns is noteworthy. They could have just written a law nobody under 18 can possess any of those weapons except for those exemptions like the military, while supervised. But instead they basically said, but rifles and shotguns are different with slightly different rules.

If it was illegal for a 17 year old to possess a rifle why do they put in specific, separate language clarifying the possession of a rifle?

Could just be gross incompetence, I suppose, but even incompetent lawmakers rarely crate extra, redundant work for themselves.

Lendarios said:

What happened also yesterday was that the prosecution did not measured the full weapon to make sure it complied with certain sections of the law and the judge dinged them for it. Since they have to provide the evidence of guilt.
The whole thing was silly, the gun is in evidence, just grab it and measure it, is not on some extra dimension unnaccesible.

Click to expand...

Sorry, everyone, but....

So, like just measure a weapon AFTER charges are filed and accusations are made in front of a jury?

No big deal, better late than never for the prosecution to conduct their investigation. Middle of the trial? Already have the evidence, not too late to start looking into it!

Never go full raftarded.

It's comforting to know that no matter what I get wrong, I'll never be the dumbest poster in the thread as long as Lenindoritos is here.