When lies are used to censor truth

a reply to: neutronflux

The media is pushing a white child rapist felon who screamed ni**er as a hero. The media is pushing a wife beating felon as a hero. There are (paid) protesters outside of the Kenosha Courthouse holding up signs calling those two heroes. Media is filthy and should be completely shut down.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

You're basic understanding is on fact wrong...when you can come back and prove your statement maybe you will be taken more seriously but for now you may as well be generally talking out of your ass.

I also don't expect you will come back with that proof or admit you are wrong here either...but I would have a lot more respect for you if you did.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

The states makes allowances. Does that mean it’s illegal for them to possess a gun period? Or does that mean they are allowed to possess a gun. For example, it would be illegal for them to transport a long gun in a car to a hunting trip.

And again.

If you are trying to defend this from Politifact,

"It is against the law in Wisconsin for someone younger than 18 to possess a dangerous weapon. Period."

You already lost. The state law does allow 16 and 17 year olds to have a long gun on their possess. Or the simple act of transporting a long gun to a hunting trip would make them a criminal.

And some how having a gun they are allowed to have on their person to be used for self defense as allowed by the constitution makes them a criminal?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Allaroundyou

The states makes allowances. Does that mean it’s illegal for them to possess a gun period? Or does that mean they are allowed to possess a gun. For example, it would be illegal for them to transport a long gun in a car to a hunting trip.

And again.

If you are trying to defend this from Politifact,

"It is against the law in Wisconsin for someone younger than 18 to possess a dangerous weapon. Period."

You already lost. The state law does allow 16 and 17 year olds to have a long gun on their possess. Or the simple act of transporting a long gun to a hunting trip would make them a criminal.

And some how having a gun they are allowed to have on their person to be used for self defense as allowed by the constitution makes them a criminal?

No, I am infact correct. I have the proof just waiting to see if you guys can muster the courage to admit it

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Allaroundyou

You're basic understanding is on fact wrong...when you can come back and prove your statement maybe you will be taken more seriously but for now you may as well be generally talking out of your ass.

I also don't expect you will come back with that proof or admit you are wrong here either...but I would have a lot more respect for you if you did.

Ok then go read the law then not come back and defend your claim which btw is wrong.

For you though I will provide the law. I actually have respect for you.

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.
(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).

link

a reply to: Allaroundyou

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.

Rittenhouse was 17. Check. He had a rifle. Check.

Now cite 941.28 and 29.304 and 29.593

And has nothing to do with the blatantly false statement by Politifact of

"It is against the law in Wisconsin for someone younger than 18 to possess a dangerous weapon. Period."

And you didn’t answer why the judge dropped the charge.

Nice try. But it just look like your trying to white wash and obscure the actual opening post. Now. Please stay on topic of Politifact’s blatant falsehoods.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Allaroundyou

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.

Rittenhouse was 17. Check. He had a rifle. Check.

Now cite 941.28 and 29.304 and 29.593

And has nothing to do with the blatantly false statement by Politifact of

"It is against the law in Wisconsin for someone younger than 18 to possess a dangerous weapon. Period."

And you didn’t answer why the judge dropped the charge.

Nice try. But it just look like your trying to white what’s and obscure the actual opening post. Now. Please stay on topic of Politifact’s blatant falsehoods.

I could give two craps what politicofact or whatever says. But they are not wrong as I just proved. So yes I am on topic.
I'm not sorry that facts and laws may not jive with you. But the law is the law.
And to answer your second question about why the judge did what he did does not matter as he is a judge. That is his right and job. Now if another judge wants to look at it again then have at it idc.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

But Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that states the ban on minors possessing dangerous weapons applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns only if those weapons are short-barreled. The language stems from a bill that then-Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson signed in 1991. Lawmakers across the country were trying to find ways to curb gang violence around that time. Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini said the law was likely intended to prevent youths from carrying sawed-off shotguns.

Rittenhouse’s AR-15-style rifle was not short-barreled.

They asked Schroeder to dismiss the possession count on those grounds at a pretrial hearing in October. The judge acknowledged the intersection of the statutes was murky but ultimately refused to toss the charge. He said he might revisit the defense request, however.

apnews.com...

a reply to: Allaroundyou

You

I could give two craps what politicofact or whatever says

Dude. You just look stupid. This thread is literally about what Politifact published.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Allaroundyou

You

I could give two craps what politicofact or whatever says

Dude. You just look stupid. This thread is literally what Politifact publish.

Mmmhmm.........
And I look stupid.

1.You did not even link politiwhogivesacrap.
2. I did address the issue about what they may have claimed. I don't read them nor really much on those news web portals.
3. Don't really care what YouTube does as anyone that watches any of that crap for news is doomed. Learning is fun though.
4. The judge can do what he wants. And I agree with his decision. I would have done the exact same thing. I don't want some dumb now 18yo going to prison for self defense. And I had to look at every video and then review every local then federal law that would remotely pertain to this situation.
5. Kyle displayed what every 17yo would, and that is a massive ignorance to local and federal laws. But with all those charges tacted on top each would completely ruin this kids future. And that is what the prosecution wanted.
They dug in and killed their case bigly.
And now here we are.
With all that said.....he still broke the law......stupid.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Was this a true statement by Politifact?

"It is against the law in Wisconsin for someone younger than 18 to possess a dangerous weapon. Period."

Which is part of the actual topic of the opening post.

Evidently Rittenhouse’s lawyers argued the below effective enough to have the present judge drop the weapons charge.

But Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that states the ban on minors possessing dangerous weapons applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns only if those weapons are short-barreled.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: visitedbythem

the Wisconsin law concerning underage possession of a dangerous weapon - which covers everything from guns to brass knuckles - is written in a way that it seems to apply restrictions on gun possession only when the person is carrying a short-barreled weapon such as a sawed-off shotgun, less than 12 inches. That is what Rittenhouse's lawyers argued. ...The .223 caliber Smith & Wesson rifle Rittenhouse used in the shootings has a 16-inch barrel.

That sure seems like more stuff to discuss somewhere, but it is not a quote of the actual law. That makes that whole paragraph a deflection by the standards of the course "101 a study of fake debunker technique: Deflection".

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Was this a true statement by Politifact?

"It is against the law in Wisconsin for someone younger than 18 to possess a dangerous weapon. Period."

Which is part of the actual topic of the opening post.

Evidently Rittenhouse’s lawyers argued the below effective enough to have the present judge drop the weapons charge.

But Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that states the ban on minors possessing dangerous weapons applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns only if those weapons are short-barreled.

OK and again I really don't care about what they say. I only care about the law. A smart person would follow what they said until they actually learned the laws regarding ownership and legal safe keep and use of a firearm.
Regardless of what they said he still broke the law.
Is this really that hard for you? I really don't mean to upset you but if you or anyone have questions regarding gun laws in all capacity I strongly urge you to contact your local sheriffs office. Also please remember to always do this if you plan on traveling with a firearm as laws can be different even within states county to county. I know that seems really odd but they do exist.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Regardless of what they said he still broke the law.

Can you not read?

Evidently Rittenhouse’s lawyers argued the below effective enough to have the present judge drop the weapons charge.

But Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that states the ban on minors possessing dangerous weapons applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns only if those weapons are short-barreled.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Regardless of what they said he still broke the law.

Can you not read?

Evidently Rittenhouse’s lawyers argued the below effective enough to have the present judge drop the weapons charge.

But Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that states the ban on minors possessing dangerous weapons applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns only if those weapons are short-barreled.

I was about to ask you the same. But you proved you can not.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

You made the same misjudgment of that statute as the prosecutors did. Let me insert a pretty solid breakdown and reporting of why the judge instructed the jury as he did.

Let’s unpack it further. It’s the “and” that makes Rittenhouse’s carrying of the rifle legal.

Rittenhouse is not in violation of s.941.28 because that’s the statute that explains that the rifle must be short-barreled to be illegal, and no one presented evidence to the jury that his gun was short-barreled, not even prosecutors. Moving on, then, the “and” means the state must show he was in violation of BOTH 29.304 and 29.593. That’s how we, the defense, and the judge read it. 29.304 makes it illegal for anyone under 16 to carry a gun. In fact, that statute is headlined, “Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.”

But Rittenhouse was 17. The last part, 29.593, relates to not having a hunter’s safety certificate. Rittenhouse concedes he did not.

Thus, he does not meet 2 of the 3 violation requirements, but because of the way the law is worded (“and”), the state needed to show he was either in violation of the short-barreled provision OR both the age and hunter’s safety certificate elements. They have not, and can not, do so because he’s not under 16. This is what the jury will be instructed, the judge indicated in court.

source

So as we can see that little bit it the bottom of the statute which you probably didn't even read is why. The legislation in WI wrote such a convoluted statute that even the judge had a hard time understanding it and he has been a judge longer than any living judge in WI.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Dude. He had a rifle and was completely legal to posses it and open carry it in Wisconsin.
It says so and the Judge said so.
You are wrong. lol

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Regardless of what they said he still broke the law.

Can you not read?

Evidently Rittenhouse’s lawyers argued the below effective enough to have the present judge drop the weapons charge.

But Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that states the ban on minors possessing dangerous weapons applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns only if those weapons are short-barreled.

I was about to ask you the same. But you proved you can not.

I asked you this…

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.

Rittenhouse was 17. Check. He had a rifle. Check.

Now cite 941.28 and 29.304 and 29.593


—————
You didn’t look up 941.28, did you.

941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov...

As used by Rittenhouse’s lawyers for this

But Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that states the ban on minors possessing dangerous weapons applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns only if those weapons are short-barreled.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

You

Regardless of what they said he still broke the law.

Really? When was he convicted by a court of law. The charge was dropped, so he is innocent regardless.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Gee. It’s like Rittenhouse’s lawyers are paid to know the law, or something.

Makes you wonder what the prosecution is paid for.