Kyle Rittenhouse a hero? (update - not guilty on all charges)

Status
Not open for further replies.

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
61,401
53,231
287
56
East Point, Ga, USA
One of the best follows on Twitter is Ken White, a former AUSA and current criminal defense attorney whose nom de plume is Popehat.

Guy has more "judges are crazy/stupid/mean" stories than you can shake a stick at, and they're all hilarious.
i learned about him from one of your posts a while back. always good to read
 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,377
187
Judge dismisses gun charge because law is “not clear”. I’ll bet even if the jury finds him guilty, this jerkwad will overturn the verdict.
He has no business being a judge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide and 92tide

AlexanderFan

Hall of Fame
Jul 23, 2004
13,039
10,638
287
Birmingham
Some here actually understand the law isn't about emotional hand-wringing.
Some here understand that bending the law to get the verdict you want against a person you don’t like is fascism. This echo chamber is full of it.

No matter what B1G thinks there was a substantial section of the population who didn’t consider Trump President either. Watching this whole chamber do what they only accuse conservatives of doing is oddly satisfying, but sad.
 
  • Haha
  • Facepalm
Reactions: B1GTide and 92tide

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
61,401
53,231
287
56
East Point, Ga, USA
Some here understand that bending the law to get the verdict you want against a person you don’t like is fascism. This echo chamber is full of it.

No matter what B1G thinks there was a substantial section of the population who didn’t consider Trump President either. Watching this whole chamber do what they only accuse conservatives of doing is oddly satisfying, but sad.
says the dude who thinks jan 6 was just a protest that got out of hand
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide and Jon

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,377
187
I said 5 days ago when the curfew charge was dismissed that the gun charge probably wasn't far behind. It's ambiguous and lenity is probably rightly being applied here.
Baloney. No one who wrote that gun law had any intentions of including AR’s with “long guns”. They only wrote the exception for minors to incude hunters, and anyone not being disingenuous knows that.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: B1GTide

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,377
187
Man I hate it when defendants I don't like are afforded rights too.
Then why did the judge dismiss the initial attempt to have the charge dropped? Because at that point, he hadn’t accumulated an extreme dislike for the prosecuting attorney.
no attorney in his right mind would attempt a line of questioning the judge has forbidden; and I don’t know how often judges “open that door” or how often prosecutors try to go through it; but I’d bet anything, if a prosecutor gives that as a reason for doing it the judge doesn’t shout “I don’t believe you!”.
Judge is a whack job, and if you think he’s allowing this case to proceed fairly, you and I have different understandings of what that word means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide

rolltide_21

Hall of Fame
Dec 9, 2007
12,583
9,447
187
NW AL
One of the best follows on Twitt
er is Ken White, a former AUSA and current criminal defense attorney whose nom de plume is Popehat.

Guy has more "judges are crazy/stupid/mean" stories than you can shake a stick at, and they're all hilarious.
One of my favorite follows on the Twittersphere.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
86,587
44,791
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Baloney. No one who wrote that gun law had any intentions of including AR’s with “long guns”. They only wrote the exception for minors to incude hunters, and anyone not being disingenuous knows that.
No judge is going to way some assumed "intention" to rule against the plain language of a statute. This is the part of the statutes applying to the defendant - " These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun." If the judge had allowed that charge to remain and the jury convicted, the entire verdict would have been overturned on appeal. BTW, below are two .223 caliber weapons. Disregard the scope, as either or neither may be scoped. You might familiarize yourself with the assault weapon ban of 1994, where they tried to use cosmetics to determine what was an "assault weapon." The gun manufacturers easily designed around them. The magazine restriction is a separate matter. I favor it, although it's also easily circumvented...

rifle comparison sporter-vs-mil1.jpg
 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,377
187
No judge is going to way some assumed "intention" to rule against the plain language of a statute. This is the part of the statutes applying to the defendant - " These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun." If the judge had allowed that charge to remain and the jury convicted, the entire verdict would have been overturned on appeal. BTW, below are two .223 caliber weapons. Disregard the scope, as either or neither may be scoped. You might familiarize yourself with the assault weapon ban of 1994, where they tried to use cosmetics to determine what was an "assault weapon." The gun manufacturers easily designed around them. The magazine restriction is a separate matter. I favor it, although it's also easily circumvented...

View attachment 20582
948.60 (2)
Docs.legis.Wisconsin.gov
 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,377
187
You're trying to ignore the exceptions. As I said, had the judge let the charge stand, the whole case could have been reversed. Then everyone would be at the judge's throat for letting it remain...
Then why did he not dismiss the charge initially when the defense filed a motion to do so?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.