The 2nd Amendment Thread

[MTK]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Oh, I agree with you on that whole heartedly. A teenager (heck anyone for that matter but especially a teenager) with a gun at a riot is a pretty volatile mix. That doesn't mean the verdict was wrong.

I haven't questioned the verdict. The prosecution seemed ill prepared from the start, and the high burden of proof rests on them with a self defense claim. Right from the jump it wasn't hard to see what way the case was heading.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by MTK

I haven't questioned the verdict. The prosecution seemed ill prepared from the start, and the high burden of proof rests on them with a self defense claim. Right from the jump it wasn't hard to see what way the case was heading.

Prosecution was weak. Plus Daddy Judge was going to do everything in his power to make sure Jr didn’t start crying again after the verdict. I mean there was “a black” on the jury.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Prosecution was weak. Plus Daddy Judge was going to do everything in his power to make sure Jr didn’t start crying again after the verdict. I mean there was “a black” on the jury.

LOL, yup . The murderd victims could not be called victims.

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Prosecution was weak. Plus Daddy Judge was going to do everything in his power to make sure Jr didn’t start crying again after the verdict. I mean there was “a black” on the jury.

And yet you think the Jury should have found him guilty. I just don't get that line of reasoning.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

And yet you think the Jury should have found him guilty. I just don't get that line of reasoning.

yes,he should have been found guilty, of something.

https://www.insider.com/6-myths-surr...bunked-2021-11

Kyle Rittenhouse didn't illegally bring a gun across state lines and 5 other myths surrounding the trial debunked

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Giantone

yes,he should have been found guilty, of something.

https://www.insider.com/6-myths-surr...bunked-2021-11

Kyle Rittenhouse didn't illegally bring a gun across state lines and 5 other myths surrounding the trial debunked

Was the jury supposed to add a more appropriate charge?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Was the jury supposed to add a more appropriate charge?

It had been said they could. The gun was bought on a straw purchase...that makes it illegal and Rittenhouse was part of that. Really , you are defending a 17 year old who thinks he needs an assault rifle and is getting paid to be security for a Car dealer , you're not that stupid.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state...-in-wisconsin/


Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1

The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.2

These restrictions do not apply, however, when the firearm is being used by a person under age 18 when supervised by an adult during target practice or a course of instruction.3

Wisconsin law generally provides that for hunting purposes, the minimum age for possession or control of a firearm is age 12.4 A person age 12 but under age 14 may not hunt without being accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.5 A young person 12 to 14 years of age also may possess a firearm if he or she is enrolled in instruction under the state hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case, unloaded, to or from that class, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.6

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

It had been said they could. The gun was bought on a straw purchase...that makes it illegal and Rittenhouse was part of that. Really , you are defending a 17 year old who thinks he needs an assault rifle and is getting paid to be security for a Car dealer , you're not that stupid.



https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state...-in-wisconsin/





Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1



The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.2



These restrictions do not apply, however, when the firearm is being used by a person under age 18 when supervised by an adult during target practice or a course of instruction.3



Wisconsin law generally provides that for hunting purposes, the minimum age for possession or control of a firearm is age 12.4 A person age 12 but under age 14 may not hunt without being accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.5 A young person 12 to 14 years of age also may possess a firearm if he or she is enrolled in instruction under the state hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case, unloaded, to or from that class, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.6

So if he was charged for the illegal transfer it would have been a misdemeanor: from the Wisconsin Statute:

Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Would that have been good enough in your view?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by Giantone

It had been said they could. The gun was bought on a straw purchase...that makes it illegal and Rittenhouse was part of that. Really , you are defending a 17 year old who thinks he needs an assault rifle and is getting paid to be security for a Car dealer , you're not that stupid....

Since as you say I'm not that stupid, I'm almost certain that juries (excluding grand juries of course - different animal entirely) cannot add charges to a case. Pretty sure they could be given a range of charges to consider that they could choose from but they can't decide on their own to add charges.

And BTW defending the jury decision does not equate to defending Rittenhouse. They made the correct decision based on the evidence presented and the laws of the state. Your beef should be with the laws on the books not the jury or those that think the jury made the correct decision.