- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rittenhouse attorneys announced.
Posted on 8/28/20 at 8:12 pm to 50407Tiger
Posted on 8/28/20 at 8:12 pm to 50407Tiger
quote:
And this is where I know I have now won the argument.
Lester Earl's alt account. You are unhinged in your grandiose insanity. Kind of a lefty trait, no?
This post was edited on 8/28/20 at 8:29 pm
0
Posted on 8/28/20 at 8:14 pm to 50407Tiger
quote:
And this is where I know I have now won the argument.
Oh, cot damn.
Posted on 8/28/20 at 8:14 pm to Bushwackers
quote:
Everyone can see you’re an idiot.
Lester and Tboy are idiots. To call this guy an idiot is an insult to idiots.
Posted on 8/28/20 at 8:26 pm to efrad
quote:
LINK
Who is the source of that? I say that because it appears to be a laymens opinion. 948.60(2)(A) is not modified/clarified by 948.60(3)(C), that section modifies 948.60(2)(B) which covers the transfer of a weapon to someone under 18.
Short barreled guns are illegal save some military/police ownership in WI. It makes no sense to limit 948.60(2)(A) to a gun already illegal to possess much less carry. 948.60(3)(C) simply does not modify/clarify 948(2)(A).
ETA
I woke up this morning bothered by my interpretation of the statutes. I realized I didn't really take the time to read them properly and spent more time citing them correctly than actually think passed what I was sure the intent of the statute was. Looking at it again today I figured I better fire up LexisNexis and dig a little deeper. Simply put I realised rereading the statutes they are simply screwed up and at odds with one another so then I went through the legislative history of the statute and found where it got fricked up and found legislative intent as well.
2005 Wisconsin Act 163 is where it went off the rails.
This is the previous text:
quote:
This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a firearm having a barrel 12 inches in length or longer and who is in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.
New text:
quote:
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.
Note 941.28 makes it illegal for anyone to own a short barreled rifle or shotgun 29.304 and 29.593 give exceptions to adult supervised hunters who are minors under 17.
Legislative intent emphasis mine
quote:
An Act to amend 948.60 (3) (c) of the statutes; relating to: possession of firearms by juveniles while hunting (suggested as remedial legislation by the Department of Natural Resources).
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:
Law Revision Committee prefatory note: This bill is a remedial legislation proposal, requested by the Department of Natural Resources and introduced by the Law Revision Committee under s. 13.83 (1) (c) 4., stats. After careful consideration of the various provisions of the bill, the Law Revision Committee has determined that this bill makes minor substantive changes in the statutes, and that these changes are desirable as a matter of public policy.
They literally flipped the meaning of the first part of the section and potentially made it legal for a 17yo to possess a long gun without supervision but leave it illegal for them to own a throwing star! The legislative intent is clear it was to subtly change the statute in regard to possession of firearms while hunting. This is typical sloppy code drafting. The next question is how much weight does WI give to legislative intent. I tracked down and read all the scholarly articles on the weight Wisconsin courts give legislative intent and they are pretty standard in that they avoid it if at all possible.
I personally find the two paragraphs to be at odds with one another and this is a time when most courts will look to legislative intent. The legislative intent is very suscinct and clear here in the official record that it was meant for juviniles hunting. I think it was clear here that the first clause was simply changed by mistake and there was no intent to make it legal for a 17yo to possess a long gun. This has me leaning toward the court using legislative intent in this situation.
Then I did some looking at the SCOW and it is interesting in that 6 of 7 justices are female. It appears they are overall conservative leaning. I obviously don't know the court well enough to give any salient opinion as I am not going to go back and read hundreds of cases to get a feel for them.
If I had to pick a side to argue on with the best chance of success I would pick the side arguing a 17yo can not possess a long gun but it is near 50/50. However, you can argue an ambiguous statute be interpreted in the defendant's favor.
WI statutes
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 7:15 am
Posted on 8/28/20 at 8:46 pm to Centinel
quote:
You can't be a mass shooter when you only drop the thugs that are attacking you.
Well, to be fair to Lester the simpleton, this good kid could be a mass shooter AND only drop the thugs attacking him. It's not like there was a shortage of violent criminals in close proximity.
Posted on 8/28/20 at 9:06 pm to Obtuse1
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/11/21 at 12:15 am
Posted on 8/28/20 at 9:20 pm to 50407Tiger
quote:
If I see someone with an AR, my first thought wouldn’t be if that is a good kid, it would be whoa look at that dangerous person with a rifle that can kill multiple people. O wait, he did.
You are absolutely right here in a vacuum, I'd be completely caught off guard by a guy walking around with an AR around a crowd of people. Problem is, when people are burning shite down and looting as a form of protest, people from the other extreme of the spectrum have and continue showing up with rifles, as is their legal right like it or not. So in this situation, no, I wouldn't be afraid at all of the people with rifles; I would just expect it as it's par for the course now.
Both sides are stupid in my book, get a job and get the fk out of the streets and contribute to society. No one is really accomplishing anything here, everyone is losing. The actions of few are super amplified to the millions in this day in age, and humans suck; get used to it.
Posted on 8/28/20 at 9:23 pm to stickly
quote:
You used to be a decent poster back in the old days.
No he didn't. He's always been a shitbag that needs to be punched in the mouth so hard he shits teeth for the rest of his life.
Posted on 8/28/20 at 9:25 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
quote:
You used to be a decent poster back in the old days.
No he didn't. He's always been a shitbag that needs to be punched in the mouth so hard he shits teeth for the rest of his life.
Dude. Trying to be nice. But yeah, you are correct.
Posted on 8/28/20 at 10:52 pm to Lester Earl
Lester feels no need to tell the truth anymore in anything he posts. He’s gone full Trump Derangement Syndrome. Like CNN he is no longer fettered by reality.
Posted on 8/28/20 at 11:00 pm to 50407Tiger
Quote “ I just don’t get why you guys are glorifying a murderer. ”
Cuz
A: he’s not a murderer, he defended himself successfully from criminals attacking him.
B. These criminals were involved in a riot that burns down businesses and a Revolutionary communist/socialist/Marxist Attempt to replace our democracy with a system of govt which has resulted in the deaths of over 100 million worldwide and for which thousands of our troops have died fighting against to protect the world from for over 70 years. Hope 100s more of these sick bastards find out.
Cuz
A: he’s not a murderer, he defended himself successfully from criminals attacking him.
B. These criminals were involved in a riot that burns down businesses and a Revolutionary communist/socialist/Marxist Attempt to replace our democracy with a system of govt which has resulted in the deaths of over 100 million worldwide and for which thousands of our troops have died fighting against to protect the world from for over 70 years. Hope 100s more of these sick bastards find out.
Posted on 8/28/20 at 11:13 pm to IAmNERD
quote:
quote:
Lester Earl
Since you've harped on the legality, or lack thereof, of the 17 yr old's possession of an AR15, when are you going to even acknowledge the illegal possession of a handgun by the convicted felon who was one of the people chasing him?
I just would like to hear your opinion on that. Or see you denounce his actions. Or, hell, even acknowledge it. Because it's been brought up multiple times in posts directed to you and you've yet to say a single word about it. Or are you just gonna continue on with the unflinching hypocrisy?
Nearly 3 1/2 hours later...
Crickets.
So, I can only draw from your silence in the matter that your opinion of the felon in possession of a gun doesn't really matter and you're okay with it. Also, you're okay with the fact that said felon in possession of an illegal firearm pursuing/assaulting a minor.
Since he was in opposition to the guy you label as a "white supremacists who went there with intent to kill while in possession of an 'illegal firearm'" it is fine and dandy for him to break the law. Right?
Your "silence is violence" on the matter. Your hypocrisy has been put on full display for all the members of TD to see. Congrats, bruh.
This post was edited on 8/28/20 at 11:14 pm
Posted on 8/28/20 at 11:24 pm to YF12
quote:it means he had enough time to think about where he was going (a known riot zone) and what he was gonna do there. He was also clearly excited to have no less-than-lethal rounds.
You have to be some kind of moron to think crossing state lines means literally anything in the context of this altercation.
I am seriously trying to figure out what people think that is supposed to mean.
It is odd that a Trump supporting Blue Lives Matter kid wouldn’t trust the local police to keep order, or that a Blue Lives Matter kid would be providing medic services at a Black Lives Matter protest
This post was edited on 8/28/20 at 11:30 pm
Posted on 8/29/20 at 1:29 am to Centinel
It is illegal for someone under 18 to openly carry a weapon in Wisconsin. Rittenhouse is 17. He'll get extradited to Wisconsin most likely. What I think will likely happen following extradition is he will claim self-defense and be acquitted of the homicide charges, however, I think it is likely the recklessly endangering safety and possession of a dangerous weapon charges will stick. Also worth noting that should he be extradited to Wisconsin, whoever bought the gun he used can be implicated in the case under Wisconsin law.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 1:54 am
Posted on 8/29/20 at 2:09 am to Lonnie Utah
Posted on 8/29/20 at 3:39 am to BrohanDavey
Would seem that if his use of the firearm against the other parties was legally justified by virtue of self-defense, it probably cannot also be determined to be legally reckless at the same time. Just spitballing there.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 3:52 am to 50407Tiger
quote:
I just don’t get why you guys are glorifying a murderer
He didn't murder anyone, he defended himself.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 4:30 am
Posted on 8/29/20 at 6:59 am to efrad
quote:
He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.
Lin Wood finna eat
Posted on 8/29/20 at 7:11 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
It is odd that a Trump supporting Blue Lives Matter kid wouldn’t trust the local police to keep order,
Are you fricking kidding me?
quote:
that a Blue Lives Matter kid would be providing medic services at a Black Lives Matter protest
I agree with that
Posted on 8/29/20 at 7:16 am to efrad
quote:
I cannot understand what 948.60(3)(a) modifies if it doesn't modify that.
After taking some time and rereading I modified my answer and think my initial reading was flawed.
Page 16 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News