7 ms·

I was also duped on this one. I still think he shouldn't have been there, but after watching the trial and finding out the facts, he didn't appear to do anythin

by mehphp 4y ago

I was also duped on this one. I still think he shouldn't have been there, but after watching the trial and finding out the facts, he didn't appear to do anything unlawful.

Natsu 4y ago
As a rule now, I do my best to watch the trial itself rather than trial coverage, or at least to read official court documents and transcripts. Even when they're trying to be honest, most media completely screws up reporting on trials. They love to do things like quote huge demands for damages ("x files a $BIGNUM lawsuit against y") that are almost always either never granted or substantially reduced later, print big headlines for suits that are almost surely meritless (SCO), etc. Mind you, I say "almost never" because there is that 1% of the time when $BIGNUM damages are actually granted, like the billion dollar Alex Jones trial. The later trillion dollar thing I don't know about, though, I'll wait to see how things play out in court and whether the awards stick on appeal (for the billion dollars, they actually might).
ashwagary 4y ago
>he didn't appear to do anything unlawful Having the weapon at his age wasnt illegal?
- Natsu 4y ago
  No, it wasn't. The straw purchase was, and Rittenhouse's friend got in trouble for making it. That, in turn, lead to him testifying against Rittenhouse as part of a plea agreement. Rittenhouse didn't actually take possession of the gun until he was 18 and did not face any charges related to the purchase of the gun, which he had destroyed after trial to avoid it becoming a symbol. There was also a separate charge against Rittenhouse for carrying it that was dismissed at the very end of the trial due to a confusingly-worded law. But Rittenhouse wasn't carrying anything that counted as a short-barreled rifle. The judge ruled that the law did not apply to what Rittenhouse did, since the prosecutor did not allege any facts that the jury could have agreed with that would have made him guilty. The prosecutor was apparently going by the caption of the law (which says something about guns held by someone under 18) but that has no legal effect and the judge admonished him for trying to pull a fast one again. This was covered right before it went to the jury as I recall, if you want to look up videos of how it went down at trial.
- Nasrudith 4y ago
  The gun laws were written incredibly poorly, listing at one point "all dangerous weapons" then for minors, citing an anti short barreled shotgun and rifle law. The defense successfully argued that the phrasing meant rifles and shotguns with a barrel length of sixteen inches or more were exempted.
mrcheesebreeze 4y ago
Furthermore he didn't shoot anyone black nor did he interact with anyone black. There was no racism in the shooting inherently. Pair that with the fact that they attacked him and you find out the kid didn't do anything wrong.

by mehphp 4y ago

I was also duped on this one. I still think he shouldn't have been there, but after watching the trial and finding out the facts, he didn't appear to do anything unlawful.

Natsu 4y ago

As a rule now, I do my best to watch the trial itself rather than trial coverage, or at least to read official court documents and transcripts. Even when they're trying to be honest, most media completely screws up reporting on trials. They love to do things like quote huge demands for damages ("x files a $BIGNUM lawsuit against y") that are almost always either never granted or substantially reduced later, print big headlines for suits that are almost surely meritless (SCO), etc. Mind you, I say "almost never" because there is that 1% of the time when $BIGNUM damages are actually granted, like the billion dollar Alex Jones trial. The later trillion dollar thing I don't know about, though, I'll wait to see how things play out in court and whether the awards stick on appeal (for the billion dollars, they actually might).

ashwagary 4y ago

>he didn't appear to do anything unlawful Having the weapon at his age wasnt illegal?

Natsu 4y ago
No, it wasn't. The straw purchase was, and Rittenhouse's friend got in trouble for making it. That, in turn, lead to him testifying against Rittenhouse as part of a plea agreement. Rittenhouse didn't actually take possession of the gun until he was 18 and did not face any charges related to the purchase of the gun, which he had destroyed after trial to avoid it becoming a symbol. There was also a separate charge against Rittenhouse for carrying it that was dismissed at the very end of the trial due to a confusingly-worded law. But Rittenhouse wasn't carrying anything that counted as a short-barreled rifle. The judge ruled that the law did not apply to what Rittenhouse did, since the prosecutor did not allege any facts that the jury could have agreed with that would have made him guilty. The prosecutor was apparently going by the caption of the law (which says something about guns held by someone under 18) but that has no legal effect and the judge admonished him for trying to pull a fast one again. This was covered right before it went to the jury as I recall, if you want to look up videos of how it went down at trial.
Nasrudith 4y ago
The gun laws were written incredibly poorly, listing at one point "all dangerous weapons" then for minors, citing an anti short barreled shotgun and rifle law. The defense successfully argued that the phrasing meant rifles and shotguns with a barrel length of sixteen inches or more were exempted.

mrcheesebreeze 4y ago

Furthermore he didn't shoot anyone black nor did he interact with anyone black. There was no racism in the shooting inherently. Pair that with the fact that they attacked him and you find out the kid didn't do anything wrong.