Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[K Graham]

As you’re fond of mentioning all sorts of off-topic incidents in these threads, I might point out to you that Ahmaud Arbery merely ran through the wrong neighborhood on his jog. He wasn’t carrying any firearm at all. Just ‘running while black’. That alone was enough for a couple of good ol’ boys to run him off the road with their truck, and then shoot him dead.

Ahmaud Arbery is a lot better case for your side to shout about but it's not getting much media attention. A couple of good ole boys down in Georgia have been smeared as racist long ago. Progressivism seeks to expand it's definition of white supremacism to Kyle Rittenhouse, Rustin Sheskey, Nicholas Reardon, and pretty much anyone else who doesn't think these people should be locked up and the keys thrown away. On this thread that includes people like Jersey Girl and even DocCam. That's why the Rittenhouse case is getting far more attention from the mainstream media.

During the Democratic primaries Joe Biden was a white supremacist. Is the supply of racial grievances higher in 2021 than it was in 1861? No, but the politicians demand for racial grievances is far greater than it was 200 years ago. Racial grievances are political gold and their worth and utility for Democrat politicians will only continue to increase until anything and everything must be about race. I expect to see racial tensions be higher in 100 years than ever before, even when people are so mixed that it's hard to tell which race one might actually belong to.

Oh gee, look. Another mindless rant based on grievances from the racist Right. And you almost had us convinced you've "changed" your views since your Nazi days at Stormfront.

[K Graham]

He went to protect business owners and property from BLM arsonists, vandals, and looters because the police force could not, would not, or simply weren't allowed not to do so.

Then why lie about it? He said the business asked him to do this. They did not. He said he was an EMT. He was not. He was there strutting down the middle of the street because he thought he was a rock star with his penis extension strapped around his shoulder. And you keep ignoring the fact that it is illegal to use lethal force to defend property. I thought Right Wingers you cared about the rule of Law? Oh, that's right. It all depends on the color of the person breaking the law.

What if it were me burning down illegal immigrant houses and you knew the police were not going to do anything about it because the politics of the time dictated that? Would you just stand by and film it or would you try to physically stop me.

You're comparing empty businesses with homes where people live? I would absolutely love the opportunity to stop you from burning human beings alive. And I wouldn't need a gun to do it, and I would not be breaking the law.

Because if you attempt to stop me, a reasonable person should be able to foresee that this is very likely to escalate to you having to kill me.

I wouldn't kill you nor would I need to. Killing someone even so vile and despicable as you are, would still haunt me for the rest of my days. It boggles my mind how some people talk about killing other people like its no big thing. Most of you are just all talk, but the true sociopaths are the ones who take up arms and act on the political BS. Hence, the reason why I think Kyle isn't genuine. There are hundreds and probably thousands of kids just like him sitting at home watching Tucker Carlson get them worked up about immigrants taking over, attending Trump rallies that get them hateful and scared of minorities, listening to idiots like you who tell them Democrats are coming for their guns, etc. But only one decided to get in his car, obtain a firearm illegally, and then start auditioning for a gig on FOX.

[Res Ipsa]

RI where are you????

Currently watching the prosecution attempt to trade down on offenses/penalties. Under discussion (where I'm at in the stream) is the portion of the law I enlarged below. 941.28 is easily accessible. Will post it below this. Can NOT locate ss. 29.304 to save my damn life. Am I looking straight AT it?

They're discussing barrel length. The prosecution can't recall if it was addressed, judge cannot recall, defense recalls and tries to explain what happened...meanwhile the kid's life basically hangs in the balance while the court shows the world how screwed up it is.

I have never seen a prosecution team behave in this way. Not saying it doesn't happen on the daily in courtrooms across the nation, I've never seen it myself in a high profile case which is the only type of case I ever follow. They know they're being totally creamed by the defense and now, after all the evidence has been presented, they're back pedaling on the charges? And not only that, the judge has to keep bringing them back to the fact that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Will probably comment later. Or not.

Color me astonished and not a little confused...

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
948.60(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.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... tes/948/55

941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1)  In this section:
(a) “Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.
(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.
(4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968.
(5) Any firearm seized under this section is subject to s. 968.20 (3) and is presumed to be contraband.
History: 1979 c. 115; 2001 a. 109.
The intent in sub. (1) (d) is that of the fabricator; that the gun is incapable of being fired or not intended to be fired by the possessor is immaterial. State v. Johnson, 171 Wis. 2d 175, 491 N.W.2d 110 (Ct. App. 1992).
“Firearm" means a weapon that acts by force of gunpowder to fire a projectile, regardless of whether it is inoperable due to disassembly. State v. Rardon, 185 Wis. 2d 701, 518 N.W.2d 330 (Ct. App. 1994).

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 941/iii/28

Sorry, work’s been busy and I haven’t followed the case at all. I looked at the statute, which is horribly drafted. The last paragraph was originally written as an exception to allow under 18’s to legally hunt as long as they weren’t doing so with short barrel shotguns or rifles. It was amended in 2005 to its present form, which breaks the connection between the length of the barrel and hunting. As I read the statute, Rittenhouse didn’t violate the statute unless he was armed with a short-barreled rifle.

I doubt that was the intent of the statute, but Rittenhouse gets to rely on what it says.

[Res Ipsa]

That’s regarding the person who provides the firearm if I’m reading it correctly.

- Doc

You may be right. I wonder if any effort has gone toward finding the person who sold/gave/lent him the gun.

Christ, I'd never be a lawyer. Laws are written in the most cryptic way possible (I'm guessing to give lawyers something to argue about). Insert paragraph A in subsection B.

At the very least, he's guilty of a misdemeanor.

State legislator is often a part-time job, and the result is often poorly worded statute. The statute Jersey quoted has been amended multiple times and, as a result, doesn’t actually do what it appears intended to do.

[canpakes]

Is the supply of racial grievances higher in 2021 than it was in 1861? No, but the politicians demand for racial grievances is far greater than it was 200 years ago. Racial grievances are political gold and their worth and utility for Democrat politicians will only continue to increase until anything and everything must be about race.

ajax, grievance is right under your own nose and at your own fingertips. All of the time, every day, in every post you make. You want to pretend that it exists on only one side then seek to exploit it for your own gain. Just in this thread you posted a rant by Ben Shapiro that added a claim of racial grievance to the discussion, but in which Shapiro blatantly lied to your face, yet you repeated his claim anyway, because ‘your grievance’.

Thousands of your aggrieved peers decided to throw a nationally televised grievance tantrum and sack the Capitol on January 6, to keep in place a man who spent 4 years prior telling you what your grievances were, whether or not they were real or wholly imagined.

Your exalted Lord Trump is quite possibly the most blatant grievance grifter to exist in modern times.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is now a meme thread -



- Doc

[ajax18]

I wouldn't kill you nor would I need to. Killing someone even so vile and despicable as you are, would still haunt me for the rest of my days.

So imagine I'm down in the Nuevo Puerto Rico collective burning casas of faithful disciples of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. We both know that the police are either unable or not allowed to do anything about it. Would you come and try to put out the fire? Or do you have no right to be there and do that?

Now let's assume you attempt to put out the fire. That of course pisses me off so I chase you down with some other confederate flag bearing boys. We catch up with you, knock you off your feet and start to beat the tar out of you. Would you just lie there and take your licking or would you shoot back? What if you just punched back at one of us and because this attacker had taken enough fentanyl to kill a horse, he died from a single blow? Do you deserve to spend the next fiver or 10 years in prison for that?

[canpakes]

That of course pisses me off so I chase you down with some other confederate flag bearing boys. We catch up with you, knock you off your feet and start to beat the tar out of you. Would you just lie there and take your licking or would you shoot back?

Why would you assume that he would have had a firearm?

[Jersey Girl]

Sorry, work’s been busy and I haven’t followed the case at all. I looked at the statute, which is horribly drafted. The last paragraph was originally written as an exception to allow under 18’s to legally hunt as long as they weren’t doing so with short barrel shotguns or rifles. It was amended in 2005 to its present form, which breaks the connection between the length of the barrel and hunting. As I read the statute, Rittenhouse didn’t violate the statute unless he was armed with a short-barreled rifle.

I doubt that was the intent of the statute, but Rittenhouse gets to rely on what it says.

But I cannot locate ss. 29.304 to save my life and that is what was was under discussion in the courtroom. I haven't seen the entire trial either, just three days of it in replay.

[Res Ipsa]

Try here: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... /29/iv/304