No. He said somebody leant it to him in state.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
American politics
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
No. He said somebody leant it to him in state.
That's the bit I was sure he'd be convicted of as there's no real room for doubt there.
The rest of the case was far from airtight and poorly made, but that should have stuck.
No equivalence from me, I just think society's better off without all three of them.
Two out of three isn't bad.
Is that not illegal, you can just ring a mate up and borrow their assault rifle? That's nuts.
Apparently the wording of the gun laws in that state is a little fudged.
They're all cobbled together and ended up combining hunting rules with general gun control rules and it turns out that (if you take the letter of the law) it's only illegal for a minor to own a sawn-off shotgun or a snub-nosed automatic weapon. Obviously it's not the intent of those making the laws but that's how they've turned out.
That's why that charge was dropped. Even if it had stood, it was a misdemeanor charge and would have resulted in a small fine.
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
I thought his friend bought it on his (Rittenhouse's) behalf, kept it at his house and then gave it to Rittenhouse once he had travelled to Kenosha. I think the friend was charged with providing the rifle to someone underage, but don't know if anything came of that, especially after the judge ruled on a technicality it was legal for Rittenhouse to be carrying it.
I really don't understand how the absurdity, to put it politely, of US gun laws can't be seen to a majority of people in the US when it's plain as day to everyone outside.
The majority of people do find it absurd. But the military industrial complex in the us has vast power. Providing jobs in every state and funding a lot of politicians. Isn't new has been going on for decades.
A huge problem with modern day (and especially us) politics. Is that nice people and industries don't feel as much of a need to give lots of money to politicians or parties. For the likes of fossil fuels, tobacco, guns etc... their very future might depend on it. So they are willing to throw huge amounts of money around and thus have a massive say in how a country is run. It isn't so much a democracy as an oligarchy. Run by the absolute worst of humanity.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
And this is why the law cannot be trusted to provide clean justice. These 'areas' which are open to extreme exploitation and out of context defense are found by the higher paid lawyers. State prosecutors vs highly paid defense teams? The difference is the paid defense knows that they simply have to find the grey area and plant doubt into the minds of jury they will already have had a major role in selecting. In short, they will be smarter, dirtier and less virtuous than a state prosecution team. Failing to get a jury to convict Rittenhouse for murder, and allowing it to fold as self-defense, is IMO incredibly meagre, sloppy and embarrassing work.
JerusalemMan
Chris Perry
Murder??
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Absolutely.
When you cross two state lines with an AR-15, it should be easier to find enough probable cause for intent to commit homicide. The level of premeditation involved should've been easy to prove.
Instead, the defense did a "brilliant" job of making the focus about self-defence. Once again, prosecutors missed a chance to try and illustrate to the jury that someone attempting to accost a man brandishing an AR 15 would 'usually' be considered a 'hero' trying to prevent many deaths.
The defense, sadly, played their cards well.
You're thinking of it with an english mindset. Yes that's how we'd see it and how a uk jury would see it. These are americans though. They have been brought up with the right to bear arms. The right to stand your ground. Even more they are kenoshans. It was their town being targeted by the protestors. They would haveseen the violence at other protests and were probably terrified that night.
I'm not saying what he did was right at all. Just that the jury might not (and did not) look at it the same way as you.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Trust me.
I know the American mind-set.
I am giving my opinion as to WHY the jury voted the way they did.
The defense team was clever in making sure self-defense became the main narrative. They set the pace the race was run at. The prosecution team never caught up and was never able to ignite those easy touch-papers.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
So to conclude, it is obvious that the jury played off the fears and 2nd Amendment stuff, however a good prosecutor would've been able to pick the self-defense case apart.
In Wisconsin, provocation does not remove the right to self defence. It just shifts the burden to the defendant to show he exhausted all other possibilities. The jury watched a video of Rittenhouse running away and clearly decided that was enough. It's not hard to see how a jury could come to that conclusion.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
Again, and I am not sure why it is hard to understand this point, the defence made sure that self-defence was the main issue very early, playing to that most local (and indeed, American) of galleries. The prosecution missed their chance and never ever caught up.
We followed the case and the verdict was unsurprising precisely because of this.
What other issue could it have ever been?
There are only two factors for the prosecution in a case like this. Did the defendant do it, and was it in self defence? The former wasn't at issue as it was never in dispute. The only remaining factor was that of self defence.
The defence didn't make the case about that, it was the case.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
The defense made sure that was the case. That is my point. The prosecution had the chance to illustrate that he crossed two state lines with the premeditated aim of shooting people - in the eyes of most people, this would be intent to commit homicide. Again Scara, public law vs private law usually results in one result. The muscle and might of private wins far, far more often. You should've learned that about US law with the OJ case, if nothing else. It is all about framing the narrative to either plant doubt or hype an element which will find sympathy with jurors. In this case, we both know what that was, the self-defense argument. Shambolic.
I made the point earlier, not sure if you saw it, that it doesn't matter what he did beforehand.
Taking a gun with him and marching about with it doesn't mean he can't still claim self defence - it just shifts the burden of proof that he exhausted all other reasonable means of avoiding shooting before doing so. His intent when leaving his house and crossing state lines has no bearing on that in Wisconsin law.
The only remaining factor (not created by the defence, created by the Wisoncin statute) is whether he had exhausted all other reasonable means before shooting. The jury believed that by running away until he got caught, he had.
If you think that's a ridiculous law, especially when combined with those that apply to minors and guns, I'm with you. But if you think this is some kind of travesty of a decision, it's a margin call that could have gone either way.