Get a free Kyle Rittenhouse at Culver's

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Status
Not open for further replies.

Lanx

<Prior Amod>
65,280
147,183
I'd be more interested in what Cad or the other forum lawyer (name on the tip of my tongue but escaping me atm) had to say since they're the only ones I'd consider to likely be more versed in interpretation of law than the forum cop, who thinks I'm probably right. Although I don't think either one is a criminal lawyer so maybe it's a wash.

Credit to Kyle's lawyer for successfully creating/exaggerating the appearance of ambiguity though, he may be better at his job than we thought.
the other lawyer is Butthurt Butthurt whom i confuse with BrutulTM BrutulTM , b/c they should have their avatars swapped
 

popsicledeath

Potato del Grande
7,547
11,831
Not one person disputed it until Kyle's lawyer got them whacked out on hopium. And like I said, I hope his lawyer talking in retarded circles works because I'd love to see him walk away completely clean.

Not one person questioned it until his trial attorney brought it up? And questioning the meaning of the law is being whacked out on hopium?

Can you make a coherent point without absurd hyperbole?

Pretty sure questions about the legality of him possessing the rifle were being discussed here from the beginning. And I know for a fact it was being discussed in other places. So not sure why you're making that dumb assertion.

Like I've said, you may be right, but your inability to show your work and reliance on hyperbole undermine your credibility.

Personally, if he is in violation of possession laws then I think he should be convicted of those violations of law.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

OneofOne

Silver Baronet of the Realm
6,886
8,712
I'd be more interested in what Cad or the other forum lawyer (name on the tip of my tongue but escaping me atm) had to say since they're the only ones I'd consider to likely be more versed in interpretation of law than the forum cop, who thinks I'm probably right. Although I don't think either one is a criminal lawyer so maybe it's a wash.

Credit to Kyle's lawyer for successfully creating/exaggerating the appearance of ambiguity though, he may be better at his job than we thought.

Yeah, what am I thinking, I forgot Lithose washes cars for living.
 
  • 1Truth!
Reactions: 1 user

BoozeCube

The Wokest
<Prior Amod>
51,520
302,462
5XnHCVay.jpeg
 
  • 17Worf
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 17 users

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,981
79,567


Some truth still shines through the darkness of the Twitterverse. Mainly from people with no pull but still good to see.


If Kyle was black the Right would loudly and publicly be able to proclaim how based he was which they would do.
 
  • 6Like
  • 3Truth!
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 9 users

BoozeCube

The Wokest
<Prior Amod>
51,520
302,462
How can one lawyer be this fucking stupid. You want to know why lawyers have a reputation of lower than scum it's because of this guy right here.

S9PVQTJb.jpeg
 
  • 7Like
  • 4Worf
Reactions: 10 users

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,915
31,021
Jokes aside he's factually guilty of violating WI 948.60.

Just like the judge kept saying and has been stated multiple times here, you have to use the full statute, not just that one part. You have to read 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.

He's not in violation of 941.28. He is not in compliance with 29.593 (his defense admits this) but he IS in compliance with 29.304 because 29.304 only applies to those under 17.

To be factually guilty of violating 948.60, he must be in violation of 941.28 OR he must be out of compliance WITH BOTH 29.304 AND 29.593.

This is what the judge repeatedly kept telling the prosecution, which they kept choosing to ignore.
 
  • 6Like
  • 2Truth!
Reactions: 7 users

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,915
31,021
I'm not the one confused/mis-reading. My entire point is that 948.60(3)(c) is entirely irrelevant to Kyle's situation because he was neither armed with a short-barreled weapon, nor was he hunting which is what 29.304 and 29.593 are referring to. 948.60(2)(a) is crystal clear with zero ambiguity.

Now if his lawyer has come up with some cockamamie argument about how the law doesn't apply because of grammar (someone earlier described his argument as being largely based on a semi-colon) I'm all for it because I'd love to see a full acquittal. Realistically I think he's getting the weapons charge, and hopefully a slap on the wrist because the Judge seems pretty hostile to the prosecution.

This is EXACTLY What the prosecution tried to say to the judge and the judge kept saying you can't ignore the (3)(c) exemption. What you're doing here, and what the prosecution tried to do, is to simply ignore that exemption and say "it doesn't apply" because the two laws that it references are for things that don't qualify what Kyle was doing. Laws just don't work like that (Obviously, Cad can correct me here). An exemption is an exemption. The law is probably written poorly. If it was worded such as "or is in the act of hunting or target practice and not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593" then you'd be correct, because hes not in the act of hunting or target practice. It doesn't say that though, and so the only logical outcome here is that it applies to all acts.

It's very clear to me.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: 3 users

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
43,738
52,289
How else do you read section (3)(c)?

View attachment 382060
Fuck man I've read that shit at least a dozen times tonight, why would the thirteenth suddenly read differently? I think the intention of the law is the way I've been interpreting it, but you seem to be right about the way it's written and that's what matters.

This is why juries are so goddamn dangerous. I'm not a stupid man, but hell if I wasn't completely convinced until reading the exact same passage for the umpteenth time suddenly caused a breakthrough. Now imagine if I was charismatic and forceful instead of an obnoxious shitposter, and how easily I could have swayed other jurors.
 
  • 3Worf
  • 1Like
  • 1Horowitz
Reactions: 5 users

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,915
31,021
Fuck man I've read that shit at least a dozen times tonight, why would the thirteenth suddenly read differently? I think the intention of the law is the way I've been interpreting it, but you seem to be right about the way it's written and that's what matters.

This is why juries are so goddamn dangerous. I'm not a stupid man, but hell if I wasn't completely convinced until reading the exact same passage for the umpteenth time suddenly caused a breakthrough. Now imagine if I was charismatic and forceful instead of an obnoxious shitposter, and how easily I could have swayed other jurors.

You should see what the judge said about it. It's interesting exchange.

Feel free to watch the exchange, I've timestamped it.

 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Stave

Potato del Grande
2,106
4,027
Would smaller charges affect enlisting or firefighter / police stuff down the road?
At this point, I would doubt he would want to be anywhere near the legal system or government ran services that failed him. I know I sure as shit wouldn't want to be. Try to help out your community, help put out fires, help protect businesses, only to end up getting attacked by multiple criminals with zero help, having to save yourself, and then getting the book thrown at you to make an example of you, all while the people you were trying to protect yourself from, walk away with zero charges. Naw fuck that shit, he should go tour the US, do paid appearances, write a book, find some way to do a fundraiser, sue the massive shit out of any news organization that lied about him, and once he's got all that money saved up and stashed away safely, make some sort of comedy skit of him blowing away a bunch of chomos and liberals and antifa just as one last fuck you trigger to the libs, and then disappear into the mountains to grow old in a cabin/bunker stocked for 100+ years.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2Solidarity
Reactions: 4 users

Abigailicious

Lord Nagafen Raider
204
453
... then disappear into the mountains to grow old in a cabin/bunker stocked for 100+ years.
They got drones, satellites and vaccine passports on your spyphone, there is no more frontier, the West is dying. We can't run from tyrants anymore.
 
  • 1Solidarity
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,664
31,522
4chan /pol brought up an interesting question. If Kyle skates will Biden, who already publicly labeled the kid a White Supremacist send Garland in the drum up some Fed Charges like they had planned to do to Chauvin if he walked.

state_line_road_west_bottoms.jpg
I honestly think that this would be the ideal outcome to start the ball rolling. The more tyrannical the fed the greater the push back has been and this would be an unprecedented move move to get involved in a local issue essentially. This is particularly true when people start putting together that these agitators taters were effectively working for the fed in the 1st fucking place.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 2 users
Status
Not open for further replies.