What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The GQP Thread: I'm even sick of that fuck's number and, anyway, he's gone (for now)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The judge at Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial has dismissed a count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

The charge is only a misdemeanor, but it had appeared to be among the likeliest to net a conviction for prosecutors. There’s no dispute that Rittenhouse was 17 when he carried an AR-style semi-automatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha in August 2020 and used it to kill two men and wound a third.

But the defense argued that Wisconsin’s statute had an exception that could be read to clear Rittenhouse. That exception involves whether or not a rifle or shotgun is short-barreled.

After prosecutors conceded in court Monday that Rittenhouse’s rifle was not short-barreled, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge.
Click to expand...

jfc

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loc...rge-at-kyle-rittenhouse-murder-trial/2684765/
 
Basically riots/protests are now essentially Purge events. There is no way protester/riotor/peacekeepers would ever do anything out of the realm of self defense.
 
sagard said:
Basically riots/protests are now essentially Purge events. There is no way protester/riotor/peacekeepers would ever do anything out of the realm of self defense.
Click to expand...

That appears to be the case. So, tell your loved ones to stay the hell away from anything resembling such a thing. It's not safe. It will never be safe.
 
Is Binger the best the Sconnies have?

I mean we know Sconnies can't write long-gun laws (barrel length exception leads to dismissed charge), but Binger points an AR into the jury box with his "booger-picker on the bang switch". Not a good look post-"Rust".

Before y'all jump all over me, remember: I'm not in favor of open carry.
 
The Sicatoka said:
Is Binger the best the Sconnies have?

I mean we know Sconnies can't write long-gun laws (barrel length exception leads to dismissed charge), but Binger points an AR into the jury box with his "booger-picker on the bang switch". Not a good look post-"Rust".

Before y'all jump all over me, remember: I'm not in favor of open carry.
Click to expand...

The barrel length exception has essentially nothing to do with the gun charge. It was never argued by the prosecution, and it was odd that the judge brought it up now and that the judge didn't dismiss the gun charge pretrial if this was his reading of the statute.

The issue is with the way the statute is written. 948.60(2) makes it illegal for someone under the age of 18 to carry a dangerous weapon, the definition of which includes any gun. There are supposed to be three exceptions to this (that make it legal for someone under 18 to carry a gun): target practice/instruction under adult supervision (948.60(3)a), armed forces (948.60(3)b), and what is supposed to be for the purpose of hunting (948.60(3)c). C then has exceptions to the exception (making it illegal even if hunting) if carrying a short barreled weapon or violating other hunting regulations. However, c is so poorly written that it is basically nonsensical, leaving out language cleary tying it to hunting so that the intent is only understood in the context of a and b and the references to hunters safety and regulations. It is quite possibly too vague to enforce, although I don't believe there is any relevant case law.
 
bigus said:
The barrel length exception has essentially nothing to do with the gun charge. It was never argued by the prosecution, and it was odd that the judge brought it up now and that the judge didn't dismiss the gun charge pretrial if this was his reading of the statute.

The issue is with the way the statute is written. 948.60(2) makes it illegal for someone under the age of 18 to carry a dangerous weapon, the definition of which includes any gun. There are supposed to be three exceptions to this (that make it legal for someone under 18 to carry a gun): target practice/instruction under adult supervision (948.60(3)a), armed forces (948.60(3)b), and what is supposed to be for the purpose of hunting (948.60(3)c). C then has exceptions to the exception (making it illegal even if hunting) if carrying a short barreled weapon or violating other hunting regulations. However, c is so poorly written that it is basically nonsensical, leaving out language cleary tying it to hunting so that the intent is only understood in the context of a and b and the references to hunters safety and regulations. It is quite possibly too vague to enforce, although I don't believe there is any relevant case law.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that explanation. That adds some context to the news reports, which frankly didn't explain it very well.

I'd really like to hear what the prosecution and defense were thinking regarding this motion. In my opinion, this case could very well be one where the jury decides to convict on one of the lesser charges, sort of as a compromise among the jurors. Maybe they don't accept murder, but will go with manslaughter or something like that. If I were the defense, I might be inclined to leave that gun charge in, since it's only a misdemeanor. A compromise verdict with just a finding of guilt on that misdemeanor would have to feel like a win, I'd think.

I suppose, however, they are required to ask that it be dismissed if they think it doesn't apply, in order to preserve that for appeal, and if the judge grants it, so be it.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
One wonders what the DOJ is actually doing. These morons committed high treason. That's right up there with mass murder on the bad scale. Yet, no one important is going to jail, and the minions are getting reduced sentencing.
Click to expand...

That would be too polarizing politically, and we can't be throwing our political opponents in jail just because they committed some light treason...
 
aparch said:
That would be too polarizing politically, and we can't be throwing our political opponents in jail just because they committed some light treason...
Click to expand...

So, we have decided as a nation that since one of our political parties has gone full Autocracy that we cannot uphold the law anymore? I am literally starting to get legit scared.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
So, we have decided as a nation that since one of our political parties has gone full Autocracy that we cannot uphold the law anymore? I am literally starting to get legit scared.
Click to expand...

If it makes you feel better, apparently Flynn wants to have a single religion in the US. Which sounds remarkably like communism to me (the forced lack of a religion is exactly the same as a forced single one). Let alone, very much opposite of Constitutional.
 
SonofSouthie said:
American Taliban.
Click to expand...

ptuuERI.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top