Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Kyle Rittenhouse Abandons Q&A After Being Confronted About Organizer's Racist Remarks


Grim Reaper 6

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Did you get bullied a lot in school? Do you have a yearning to be a Cop but couldn't pass the physical? Because damn, you're sure an authoritarian. 

Useful post after useful post.  Great contributions as usual. :tu:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Posted (edited)

Good video on Ana Kasparian (The Young Turks) having to apologize and admit they (and media) lied about Rittenhouse.  Nate is pretty balanced.

He addresses all the claims:

Bringing a gun across state lines...

Legal gun....

Where Kyle lived

All the stuff the folks keep trying to bringing up on here.

Edited by Edumakated
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Thanks for the info,  Susie.  It was a lot of trials ago, but it's cleared up now!

Nothing is ever really black and white PA. Black broke the law by purchasing the gun for Rittenhouse and technically, he was the legal owner. Black was prosecuted. I do think Rittenhouse believed his life was in danger when he shot, but he was still in illegal possession of the weapon because he was only 17 at the time of the shooting. He shouldn't have had the gun. That's something Rittenhouse was never charged with that I know of. The court did find the shooting was in self defense.

Edited by susieice
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, susieice said:

Nothing is ever really black and white PA. Black broke the law by purchasing the gun for Rittenhouse and technically, he was the legal owner. Black was prosecuted. I do think Rittenhouse believed his life was in danger when he shot, but he was still in illegal possession of the weapon because he was only 17 at the time of the shooting. He shouldn't have had the gun. That's something Rittenhouse was never charged with that I know of. The court did find the shooting was in self defense.

There is an exception in the law that says minors can posses shotguns and rifles as long as they are not short barreled.   That is why it was thrown out.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

There is an exception in the law that says minors can posses shotguns and rifles as long as they are not short barreled.   That is why it was thrown out.

You need to read the whole link. It's a little long. Under Wisconsin law it's legal only under certain conditions. 

PolitiFact | 'Perfectly legal' for Rittenhouse to carry a gun? False

In its reporting, the Associated Press quoted Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini, who is not involved in the case. Cicchini said when statutes aren't clear, they must be read in favor of the defense. "This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws," Cicchini wrote in an article.

The ruling does appear at odds with the intent of legislators. In 2018, the Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff, a nonpartisan legislative service agency akin to the Congressional Research Service, wrote that, "Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm."

These subsequent events show the grey areas of local gun laws — hardly a case of something being "perfectly legal." Our fact-check remains unchanged.

Edited by susieice
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, susieice said:

You need to read the whole link. It's a little long. Under Wisconsin law it's legal only under certain conditions. 

PolitiFact | 'Perfectly legal' for Rittenhouse to carry a gun? False

In its reporting, the Associated Press quoted Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini, who is not involved in the case. Cicchini said when statutes aren't clear, they must be read in favor of the defense. "This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws," Cicchini wrote in an article.

The ruling does appear at odds with the intent of legislators. In 2018, the Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff, a nonpartisan legislative service agency akin to the Congressional Research Service, wrote that, "Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm."

These subsequent events show the grey areas of local gun laws — hardly a case of something being "perfectly legal." Our fact-check remains unchanged.

The way the law is written it doesn't say anything about hunting...it just describes the firearm in the section that grants the exception for minors.   The intent is irrelevant.  It was legal as the law was written which was why it was thrown out.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/explainer-why-did-the-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

The way the law is written it doesn't say anything about hunting...it just describes the firearm in the section that grants the exception for minors.   The intent is irrelevant.  It was legal as the law was written which was why it was thrown out.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/explainer-why-did-the-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge

I repeat from link.

In its reporting, the Associated Press quoted Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini, who is not involved in the case. Cicchini said when statutes aren't clear, they must be read in favor of the defense. "This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws," Cicchini wrote in an article.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, and-then said:

Yet IL never charged him.  P'raps because the DA knew he had no case?

Your Right!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, susieice said:

Nothing is ever really black and white PA. Black broke the law by purchasing the gun for Rittenhouse and technically, he was the legal owner. Black was prosecuted. I do think Rittenhouse believed his life was in danger when he shot, but he was still in illegal possession of the weapon because he was only 17 at the time of the shooting. He shouldn't have had the gun. That's something Rittenhouse was never charged with that I know of. The court did find the shooting was in self defense.

Rittenhouse was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. The State was unable to prove that the legislation prohibited carrying the gun, the charge was thus dismissed in court.  Whether someone wants to argue that the law is murky or not,  the legal decision was to dismiss the charge,  therefore he had a right to legally carry the gun! 

Quote

After prosecutors conceded in court on Monday that Rittenhouse’s rifle was not short-barrelled, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/11/15/judge-dismisses-firearm-possession-charge-against-rittenhouse

Most people would define this as being Not Guilty of illegally using the firearm

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, susieice said:

I repeat from link.

In its reporting, the Associated Press quoted Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini, who is not involved in the case. Cicchini said when statutes aren't clear, they must be read in favor of the defense. "This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws," Cicchini wrote in an article.

The politifact piece you linked to tries to claim that Rittenhouse really isn't innocent because the law's intent was for hunting.  However, the law does not explicitly say the minor needs to be hunting, only that the weapon cannot be a shot gun or have a short barrel.  The inference being that rifles typically are used for hunting which may be true and that might aslo be the intent.  However, as we know, the law has to be specific and since it is not, Rittenhouse is not guilty based on how the law is written.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

The politifact piece you linked to tries to claim that Rittenhouse really isn't innocent because the law's intent was for hunting.  However, the law does not explicitly say the minor needs to be hunting, only that the weapon cannot be a shot gun or have a short barrel.  The inference being that rifles typically are used for hunting which may be true and that might aslo be the intent.  However, as we know, the law has to be specific and since it is not, Rittenhouse is not guilty based on how the law is written.

The judge acknowledged that the law was unclear and dropped the charges. At first it was upheld if you read the whole link. The quote says "when statutes aren't clear, they must be read in favor of the defense". They didn't write what they meant.

Edited by susieice
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyle Rittenhouse shows how stupid Republicans are.  They worship him and give him money.  He is worth more than 90% of people that vote Republican.  Why?  Because he was a stupid kid that brought a gun over state lines looking for trouble.  He will most certainly live the life he deserves once the right wing forgets about him.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
3 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Kyle Rittenhouse ... was a stupid kid that brought a gun over state lines looking for trouble.

I've no problem with your interpretation of Rittenhouse as stupid, a kid, or looking for trouble.  But in spite of everything posted in this thread - why are you repeating the LIE that he took a gun over state lines? 

That's been settled in court, proven to be untrue, and reiterated repeatedly in this thread.  Please read the evidence and review the facts before making further incorrect claims.

Rittenhouse was tried in a court of law.  He was found not guilty on five charges*.  He wasn't judged on "bringing an illegal weapon across state lines" because that allegation was disproven and dropped early in the process.

* Two counts homicide, one count attempted homicide, two counts wreckless endangerment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2024 at 12:04 AM, and-then said:

Absolutely.  They still repeat the nonsense about "good people on both sides".  They don't even care if someone proves it's a lie.  The harvest they're going to eventually reap is one where their opposition becomes as willing to ignore the law as they have been.  They'll lose their minds over that.  Hypocrisy is all they have now.

Yea, it's like you and many others here still spread the conspiracy theory that the election was stolen!!!!!!:rolleyes: This is a perfect example of the Pot calling the Kettle black!!!!:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.