Right. Because your political leanings say he’s not guilty of anything. See? Crazy weirdos.
Rittenhouse Trial
- Thread starter El Correcto
- Start date
-
- Tags
- saint
So you've decided to go against the views of the Left because you've decided to be fair and honest about it? Good to know.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
No, I believe in self defense for all people.
Just A UPS Guy
Bully.
I just don't see him getting convicted of anything related to homicide or manslaughter. If anything, maybe a weapons charge, and will get some jail time at most, but no prison time. Just how I see it.
oldngray
nowhere special
The judge is supposed to instruct the jury about a loophole in the weapons law that indicates it can't apply to Rittenhouse. It was a very poorly written law that contradicts itself.
Just A UPS Guy
Bully.
Yeah, I read a little. The whole thing seems convoluted and impossible to interpret without a JD. That's why I think it's possible, but that's the worst case scenario in my mind.
And I guess the court will decide whether that happened or a crime was committed.
I’m not sure what the left says. I certainly haven’t heard premeditation proven but I’d say we could be a fair distance away from “free Rittenhouse”. I don’t know if that’s being fair and honest. It’s just how it looks to me.
oldngray
nowhere special
Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi cited Wisconsin Statute 948.60 on Friday, claiming his client was not subject to the law due to a narrow exemption. The statute's second section (2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
However, a third section under the law lists exemptions. That section states it applies only to a person under 18 years of age carrying a gun who is in "violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 ."
According to 941.28, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles are firearms that require a separate license under the National Firearms Act. Such rifles typically have a barrel less than 16 inches in length or shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches in length, or either which have an overall length of less than 26 inches. Rittenhouse's AR-style weapon is classified as a rifle and does not fall into either category, according to law enforcement detective testimony the defense claims to possess.
Statute 29.304 places "restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age." Chirafisi conceded "he's in violation of 29.593," however, he argued Rittenhouse wasn't in violation of 29.304, saying, "he [was] 17. It doesn't apply — it can't apply — Because of his age."
Rittenhouse judge signals he may ‘inform the jury’ of narrow gun law exemptions - Washington Examiner
The judge presiding in the homicide trial for Kyle Rittenhouse signaled Friday he may "inform the jury" about gun possession exemptions found in Wisconsin's gun law after the defense sought acquittal for a misdemeanor charge in the case.Rittenhouse, 18, testified earlier this week that he acted...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Yep. But I still know what's right even if they're wrong.
I'd think Kyle Rittenhouse supporters would generally understand if an Antifa member or black militant shot a rioting right winger after they'd threatened to kill them twice and then chased them down, started hitting them in the head with a skateboard or pointed a gun at their head.
Maybe it's more of a hope on my part.
Seems strange that is the defense attorney is correct that the judge wouldn’t simply dismiss the charge outright. Why bother with informing the jury if the law doesn’t apply? Can the jury simply disregard the letter of the law?Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi cited Wisconsin Statute 948.60 on Friday, claiming his client was not subject to the law due to a narrow exemption. The statute's second section (2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
However, a third section under the law lists exemptions. That section states it applies only to a person under 18 years of age carrying a gun who is in "violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 ."
According to 941.28, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles are firearms that require a separate license under the National Firearms Act. Such rifles typically have a barrel less than 16 inches in length or shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches in length, or either which have an overall length of less than 26 inches. Rittenhouse's AR-style weapon is classified as a rifle and does not fall into either category, according to law enforcement detective testimony the defense claims to possess.
Statute 29.304 places "restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age." Chirafisi conceded "he's in violation of 29.593," however, he argued Rittenhouse wasn't in violation of 29.304, saying, "he [was] 17. It doesn't apply — it can't apply — Because of his age."
Rittenhouse judge signals he may ‘inform the jury’ of narrow gun law exemptions - Washington Examiner
The judge presiding in the homicide trial for Kyle Rittenhouse signaled Friday he may "inform the jury" about gun possession exemptions found in Wisconsin's gun law after the defense sought acquittal for a misdemeanor charge in the case.Rittenhouse, 18, testified earlier this week that he acted...
You're very likely going to be disappointed.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
The evidence says he is not guilty.
You are a moderator. You should not be calling people crazy weirdos because you disagree with them.
Do better Sammy.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Yes, actually, a fundamental right of the juror is to disregard the law, or the letter of it, if the juror believes it represents an injustice.
UnionStrong
Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
Personal attacks
Also because insisting someone is guilty in spite of video that shows they're clearly not is also a pretty crazy weirdo thing to do. Talk about being influenced by political leanings!
Not really. Video evidence doesn’t really mean anything when it comes to the letter of the law. What you see may or not be what you see. Rodney King taught us that.
Wilber’s words. Not mine. I simply agreed with him.
UnionStrong
Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
Borderline.
I’ll let it go this time. LolSimilar threads
