Yeah being proven wrong will do that to you, won’t it?
Lmao fucking seethe, dipshit.
I’m not wrong. The entire case is being done incorrectly. As soon as they dismissed the curfew issue they lost credibility for taking this case seriously and following laws. Just skipping over every law Kyle broke
“I am completely unaware that courts drop minor charges all the time.” Also, five bucks says Leany doesn’t think the rioters who were also breaking curfew should be punished.
(8) The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
The rifle in question was a Smith and Wesson M&P15, at least as reported. That model has a 16″ barrel and has an overall length of 36.625“. It fills neither part of the definition of SBR.
Judge is right; you are wrong.
“… dismissed the curfew issue….”
After all this you want him slapped on the wrist for being a naughty boy and staying out late?
This is a pretty silly post from a number of different perspectives.
First, people are quoting federal law. Federal law doesn’t matter here. Wisconsin law does. Therefore, if you’re going to be quoting law that actually applies to the case (and that the judge was actually considering), you would need to quote Wis. Stat. § 948.60. That’s what is actually relevant in the judge’s determination. In a federalist system, state trial court judges tend to not really care what federal law says. It’s at most persuasive precedent. In this case, it’s irrelevant.
Second, just because a judge says something doesn’t mean that it’s right. Sure, it might have the backing of a particular interpretation of the law, but there are other interpretations of the law that can exist. Also, appeals exist for that exact reason.
Now, there is a way to read this statute such that this forbids prosecution against Rittenhouse for the gun charge. I think that’s obvious. But it’s also obvious that this particular reading essentially invalidates the main thrust of § 948.60. Rather than a statute forbidding minors from possessing firearms, it becomes subsidiary to the general statute forbidding possession of short-barreled rifles. Furthermore, this means that minors, despite the clear wording of the general part of § 948.60, are in fact allowed to possess dangerous weapons in the form of rifles so long as they are not already proscribed short-barreled rifles or shotguns. That seems absurd to me, but the drafting here is really bad. Per evidence from the legislative history of § 948.60, the exception was meant to provide some security for minors who needed to hunt without supervision, but it’s very clear that whomever drafted the statute did a poor job. Essentially, the way the judge interpreted the statute was “It’s illegal for minors to use guns that are already illegal. Sure, we already knew that, but it’s especially illegal for minors.” Again, the way the judge has interpreted the statute, Rittenhouse could have been 10 and he still would have been exempt from prosecution. That’s silly. But that does appear to be what was drafted—though almost self-evidently not what was intended.
But anyone who doesn’t think that interpretation is ridiculous just isn’t reading the case or the law. And I’m pretty sure that’s a lot of people in this thread.
