Posted on 10/12/2021 5:19:38 AM PDT by servo1969
This judge, sadly, may be under intense pressure to ‘find a way to convict this guy, or else.’
It’s just the reality we live in.
The judge appears to know the law and how to apply it, and is caught in his own logic AND precedence.
The four legs good; two legs better types are looming over his every decision.
If the prosecution had any faith in the criminal homicide charges, it wouldn’t be messing around with collateral nonsense which is just distracting. It also gives the jury a “fall back” compromise if they can’t agree on the serious ones. Or the prosecutor just doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Why is the attacking pedophile not in a prison cell?
He looks like a beauty.
It’s pretty clear Kyle was defending himself.
> More specifically, whereas the defense argued that Rittenhouse cannot be in non-compliance with § 29.503 because he was clearly not engaged in hunting, ADA Binger argues that Rittenhouse was by definition not in compliance with § 29.503 precisely because he was not engaged in hunting.
wut
bkmk
The misdemeanor charge is clearly there to allow the jury to find something to convict in the case they find each of the shootings were defensive.
Clearly, the legislative intent for the exceptions to 948.60 was to exclude minors who were "armed with a rifle or shotgun" in the act of legitimate hunting. That is why among all of the "dangerous weapons" listed in 948.60, only rifles and shotguns are mentioned as possible exceptions, because they are weapons commonly used in hunting.
Kyle did not conform to 29.593 because he was not hunting, therefore he was not eligible for the exception to 948.60.
Sorry, but that's the law as written.
Theis is a clear cut case of self defense. All the direct and video evidence points this out. This petty charge is an attempt to convict him of something since no jury with one eye and a grain of sense would convict him on murder.
Keep reading.
“There is a fundamental doctrine of US Constitutional law—based on the due process provisions of the 5th Amendment and incorporated (or applied) to the states through the 14th Amendment—that a law is unconstitutional and invalid if a normal person reading it would be unable to understand precisely what conduct was being deemed unlawful. Such a law is deemed “unconstitutionally vague,” and without effect.”
Also, they define “dangerous weapon” as a short barreled rifle. He was not carrying a short barreled rifle. In this case this should apply.
“There is a fundamental doctrine of US Constitutional law—based on the due process provisions of the 5th Amendment and incorporated (or applied) to the states through the 14th Amendment—that a law is unconstitutional and invalid if a normal person reading it would be unable to understand precisely what conduct was being deemed unlawful. Such a law is deemed “unconstitutionally vague,” and without effect.”
No! He should be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his heroic actions!!!
They also list brass knuckles and nunchaku as dangerous weapons. He was not carrying brass knuckles or nunchaku. I fail to see the relevance of the short barreled rifle comment.
The 948.60 was very clear.
(c) 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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
Did Kyle have a valid hunter safety certificate and a valid hunting license at the time of possession of the rifle? No? Then he was not in compliance with 29.593. Nothing vague about that.
It is obvious by the plain reading of 948.60 that in addition to other provisions that carved out exceptions to 948.60 for minors who were engaged in legitimate target shooting, or minors who are in the military and are armed as part of that service, the paragraph above was designed to carve out an exception for minors engaged in hunting.
Kyle was not engaged in hunting.
Sorry, but those are the facts. Kyle, at 17, violated 948.60 because he was not engaged in hunting at the time he possessed a rifle.
§29.593. Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
This section requires a certification in order to be licensed to hunt.
Clearly, the legislative intent for the exceptions to 948.60 was to exclude minors who were “armed with a rifle or shotgun” in the act of legitimate hunting.
“Clearly the clause of 948.60 was to apply to minors who were hunting without a valid license.”
All of the requirements in the statute were almost certainly debated by the legislature in the committees drafting the legislation and/or in debates of the full chamber at the time the legislation was being considered for ratification. The transcriptions of these debates and deliberations should bring clarity to “intent”.
So the problem is Lawyers writing law.
So the problem is Lawyers writing law.
Clearly the clause of 948.60 was to apply to minors who were hunting without a valid license.
So it is your argument that it was the intent of the legislature to charge minors with possession of a deadly weapon if they are hunting with a rifle without a valid hunting license, but not to charge minors with possession of a deadly weapon if they are walking down a city street with a rifle?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.