Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney plans to argue that his client was part of a "well regulated militia", so he can shoot whoever he wants I guess?   (nbcnews.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Supreme Court of the United States, Antonin Scalia, United States Constitution, District of Columbia v. Heller, Kyle Rittenhouse, possession of a dangerous weapon, list of charges  
•       •       •

1355 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Sep 2020 at 1:44 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



221 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-01 11:53:54 AM  
So all his militia buddies are co-conspirators?  Hey, good to know!
 
2020-09-01 11:54:58 AM  
He's gotta say somethin' I guess.
 
2020-09-01 11:56:57 AM  
"well regulated militia."

Well there's a phrase that's never been argued as vague and highly subjective. "Bold strategy, Cotton."
 
2020-09-01 11:58:13 AM  
This is nice because it implicates the Kenosha PD in the use of child soldiers.
 
2020-09-01 11:59:20 AM  
I can't wait to hear about his training and what standards he was admitted and declared ready for duty.
 
2020-09-01 12:00:32 PM  
On one hand, really?

On the other, if he's being charged as an adult for the murder charges, then he should be considered an adult for the weapons charge.  It seems disingenuous that he's considered adult for one, and minor for another.

Then again, isn't that the way it goes for some of the sex crimes charges?
 
2020-09-01 12:01:24 PM  
So he was shooting at a poorly regulated militia?
 
2020-09-01 12:02:01 PM  
Oh good.

I was hoping he would hire some deranged MAGAt loon as his attorney who would argue the court lacks jurisdiction over the Sovereign Person of his client because gold fringe on the flag makes it an admiralty court.

Hopefully he'll subpoena Hillary Clinton to make an appearance in her True Form as a baby eating lizard person.
 
2020-09-01 12:03:39 PM  
It works for the police, doesn't it?
 
2020-09-01 12:04:40 PM  
The discovery portions of this trial are not going to be kind to this little piglet and his enabling mom.
 
2020-09-01 12:06:09 PM  
Registered, licensed, AND insured?

I doubt that.
 
2020-09-01 12:06:32 PM  
Wouldn't a well-regulated militia ensure that their members are all legally allowed to participate and carry the weapon they're holding?
 
2020-09-01 12:08:45 PM  
He didn't seem very well regulated when he shot that guy.
 
2020-09-01 12:09:31 PM  

BizarreMan: On one hand, really?

On the other, if he's being charged as an adult for the murder charges, then he should be considered an adult for the weapons charge.  It seems disingenuous that he's considered adult for one, and minor for another.

Then again, isn't that the way it goes for some of the sex crimes charges?


Kind of like how abortion is legal, but murder charges for the fetus if you kill a pregnant woman
 
2020-09-01 12:10:26 PM  
Well regulated? How many "well regulated" units are that tactically stupid?

Wait... don't answer that.

Well regulated? That is an incredibly dangerous argument and if a Trump judge upholds that we are well and truly f*cked.

After what happened to the Branch dildoans, I'm terrified of where we're going in allowing this sh*t. The Army of the Angry Whites is not a f*cking militia.
 
2020-09-01 12:10:26 PM  

Bootleg: It works for the police, doesn't it?


Police get "qualified immunity" which means that because they didn't put an officer in jail for an offense before, they can't now.

Imagine trying that sh*t as a normal human person.  'Yes, officer, I beat my wife today but you can't arrest me because I also did it last week and you didn't put me in jail then.'
 
2020-09-01 12:12:35 PM  

BizarreMan: On one hand, really?

On the other, if he's being charged as an adult for the murder charges, then he should be considered an adult for the weapons charge.  It seems disingenuous that he's considered adult for one, and minor for another.

Then again, isn't that the way it goes for some of the sex crimes charges?


For the weapon the law specifically bans its use because of his age.  Charging him as a child is the only way to charge him.  (not the state-line thing, the minor in possession).

For the murder the question is whether he is mature enough to understand the consequences of his actions.  Murder wasn't illegal because he was 17.
 
2020-09-01 12:14:57 PM  

weddingsinger: BizarreMan: On one hand, really?

On the other, if he's being charged as an adult for the murder charges, then he should be considered an adult for the weapons charge.  It seems disingenuous that he's considered adult for one, and minor for another.

Then again, isn't that the way it goes for some of the sex crimes charges?

For the weapon the law specifically bans its use because of his age.  Charging him as a child is the only way to charge him.  (not the state-line thing, the minor in possession).

For the murder the question is whether he is mature enough to understand the consequences of his actions.  Murder wasn't illegal because he was 17.


And my argument would be, if he's mature enough to join a Facebook group, organize people to go to Kenosha and cause trouble... he's mature enough to suffer the consequences of that action
 
2020-09-01 12:16:15 PM  
That's great.

I hope they try this and fail miserably so that it goes down into law that all these tacticool, meal team six, cosplay f*ckheads are just delusional maniacs with guns and if they act out their perverted gun fantasies they will go to prison for a long, long time.
 
2020-09-01 12:19:30 PM  
gold fringed loonatic
 
2020-09-01 12:20:25 PM  
It's kind of funny, well "funny" that NOW the gun nuts care about the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment.   Also, that might not be a great precedent to be setting for yourself when you then want to go and ignore that part later on.
 
2020-09-01 12:23:35 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Registered, licensed, AND insured?

I doubt that.


Whoa now....none of that is in the Constitution.

CIVIL WAR!
 
2020-09-01 12:24:40 PM  
Sweet Summer Child Ker_Thwap was taught that the well regulated militia would be a tool to fight inequality/fascism/authoritarianism... and I believed it.
 
2020-09-01 12:33:08 PM  
His attorney is a dumbass, the legal age to be included in the militia under the US militia act is 18.
 
2020-09-01 12:33:22 PM  
So "well-regulated" means "regulations can't apply?"
 
2020-09-01 12:38:25 PM  
This is the defense from the super expensive attorney?
 
2020-09-01 12:38:52 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-01 12:39:55 PM  
that's a strange spelling for "not even remotely regulated".
 
2020-09-01 12:44:57 PM  
This kid should be beaten to death with an aluminum baseball bat.
 
2020-09-01 12:48:09 PM  

weddingsinger: Bootleg: It works for the police, doesn't it?

Police get "qualified immunity" which means that because they didn't put an officer in jail for an offense before, they can't now.

Imagine trying that sh*t as a normal human person.  'Yes, officer, I beat my wife today but you can't arrest me because I also did it last week and you didn't put me in jail then.'


That one would actually get the qualified immunity pulled from the wife-beater.  If there is an acknowledged incident beforehand, then qualified immunity is not applicable.  QI is basically "Until a cop repeats the exact circumstances of a previously adjudicated bad act, then he is incapable of understanding how it is a violation of a person's rights."  The first one is free, but subsequent repetition is not covered.  So, if Officer Smith grabbed a claw hammer and anally raped a random woman with it, he gets off because there is no way he could have known this was bad since it hadn't happened before.  But if another officer does it afterward, that is prosecutable.  Note that if the second officer used a ball peen hammer, raped her vaginally, or raped a man anally with a claw hammer, those are all fine and dandy because they were not exact matches to the previous event.  Also, note that judges in the last few years have been granting qualified immunity without actually allowing a description of the precipitating act to be in the decision specifically so that there can be repeats of those acts since there is no record to refer back to see if it was a repeat.
 
2020-09-01 12:49:01 PM  
so there's more people that can be sued for wrongful death. good for them.
 
2020-09-01 12:56:20 PM  
Kommandant Mom will need her own attorney, then?
 
2020-09-01 1:08:02 PM  

BizarreMan: On one hand, really?

On the other, if he's being charged as an adult for the murder charges, then he should be considered an adult for the weapons charge.  It seems disingenuous that he's considered adult for one, and minor for another.

Then again, isn't that the way it goes for some of the sex crimes charges?


Both are strict liability crimes. His mom might be in line for a felony charge as well. Here's the relevant WI statute:

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(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.
History: 1987 a. 3321991 a. 18, 1391993 a. 981995 a. 27, 771997 a. 2482001 a. 1092005 a. 1632011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

Looks like his defense is going to be that he's a member of the armed forces or national guard. Good luck with that. However, the atty has to argue that, otherwise he's illegally in possession of the weapon he used to defend himself... which violates his claim of self defense. I don't see this turning out well for him.
 
2020-09-01 1:16:03 PM  

OldRod: weddingsinger: BizarreMan: On one hand, really?

On the other, if he's being charged as an adult for the murder charges, then he should be considered an adult for the weapons charge.  It seems disingenuous that he's considered adult for one, and minor for another.

Then again, isn't that the way it goes for some of the sex crimes charges?

For the weapon the law specifically bans its use because of his age.  Charging him as a child is the only way to charge him.  (not the state-line thing, the minor in possession).

For the murder the question is whether he is mature enough to understand the consequences of his actions.  Murder wasn't illegal because he was 17.

And my argument would be, if he's mature enough to join a Facebook group, organize people to go to Kenosha and cause trouble... he's mature enough to suffer the consequences of that action


And that's how he's being charged.  As noted, the only reason the weapons charge has him listed as a minor is that the act of possessing th egun is only illegal for him because he's not yet 18.  If her were 18, they couldn't charge him with that particular charge.

His mom needs to be charged as an accessory, as does the Kenosha PD.
 
2020-09-01 1:46:36 PM  
Is he being charged with owning a gun illegally? Or is he being charged with f***ing murder?
 
2020-09-01 1:47:01 PM  
Interesting defense. I anxiously await the jury acquitting him because Wississippi is full of racist farksticks.
 
2020-09-01 1:47:11 PM  
Oh well this should be interesting
 
2020-09-01 1:47:14 PM  
Yeah nothing says "well regulated" like randomly firing into a crowd...
 
2020-09-01 1:47:21 PM  
Kyle Rittenhouse is no different from Eric Harris.
 
2020-09-01 1:47:26 PM  
Rico their assess
 
2020-09-01 1:47:57 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Well regulated? How many "well regulated" units are that tactically stupid?

Wait... don't answer that.

Well regulated? That is an incredibly dangerous argument and if a Trump judge upholds that we are well and truly f*cked.

After what happened to the Branch dildoans, I'm terrified of where we're going in allowing this sh*t. The Army of the Angry Whites is not a f*cking militia.


On the other hand - this farkwit might be unwittingly building the foundation for a more strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. 

Oh who am I kidding, this is Murka. We get tuh have guns!
 
2020-09-01 1:48:48 PM  

Purple_Urkle: Kyle Rittenhouse is no different from Eric Harris.


Judging by the video of him at school, I would say that sounds about white.  He skipped the entire school shooting to murdering people on the streets
 
2020-09-01 1:49:26 PM  
I mean... I guess that's more viable than arguing that he self-defensively shot someone in the back.
 
2020-09-01 1:49:37 PM  
So was Timothy McVeigh
fark these guys
 
2020-09-01 1:50:00 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: Looks like his defense is going to be that he's a member of the armed force


So he claims he's a soldier who killed a civilian?
Good, send him to The Hague.
 
2020-09-01 1:50:03 PM  

JerseyTim: This is nice because it implicates the Kenosha PD in the use of child soldiers.


Bingo-child soldier link made. Police are recorded thanking the "militia" for their support, also.
 
2020-09-01 1:50:05 PM  

Jake Havechek: This kid should be beaten to death with an aluminum baseball bat.


I really appreciate your energy lately.
 
2020-09-01 1:50:06 PM  
That sounds like Fox News Lawyering. Ask Michael Flynn how that turns out.
 
2020-09-01 1:50:27 PM  

Squid_for_Brains: The discovery portions of this trial are not going to be kind to this little piglet and his enabling mom.


Video came out the other day of him assaulting a woman, so he doesn't even have character defense.
 
2020-09-01 1:50:35 PM  
Kayleigh McEnany needs to condemn Kyle Rittenhouse or she's loudly proclaiming it's a good thing to ask people if they're Christians who believe in god then shoot them in the head.

She can't pick and choose between Eric Harris and Kyle Rittenhouse, they're the same. They both killed Americans.
 
Displayed 50 of 221 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.