• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

police-involved shooting in Kenosha, WI...unrest ensues

Page 48 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
By the way I just looked it up and as best as I can tell you’ve needed to be 18 to enlist in the military since 1899. Lol.

Also, the idea that military service would somehow render statutes prohibiting a minor from possessing a firearm unconstitutional are nonsensical because 1) the presence of an exception would not cause the entire statute to be struck down and, more importantly, the law Rittenhouse will be convicted under already has a fucking exemption for military service, hahaha.

The dummy decided to invent a reason for a statute to be unconstitutional because it banned something it explicitly does not ban.Durrrrrrrr.
Click to expand...

Uh no. You can be 17 for military since 1898 in all military branches. Despite that, many people have gotten in younger in times of war with people looking the other way. The youngest of which was 12. Again, the point I was making was that a 17 year old can legally own and posses a firearm at the FEDERAL level in our country. Such a statement strengthen the argument against Wisconsin's statute being Constitutionally legal. That was the point I was making. Still made that point again. That point still stands. You may disagree with that, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter.

You also don't seem to understand the legal concept of strict scrutiny when it comes to application of laws that are restricting Rights. I suggest you read up on it.
 
Last edited:
zinfamous said:
Imagine making the argument that using a knife that is specifically designed for the purpose of killing humans (not that I disagree) is a justification for attempted murder/intent, whatever...but then in the next sentence trying to convince someone that a gun, any and all guns made in the history of humanity, have been made for any purpose that is not to kill humans.

imagine that!

Not really directed at you--here--it just occurred to me.
Click to expand...

False equivalency. That particular knife was designed to kill humans. It was not designed for opening boxes, dressing game, or whittling wood. We know the history of the design of that knife. Guns were originally created as fireworks in China long ago before being used for battle. Have some guns been designed to be better used on a battle field? Sure. Are all guns designed for the battlefield even today? Nope. If you want to say that a browning m1919 was designed to kill humans more than for any other practical usage, then I could agree to that. You want to say my IDPA/USPSA race gun was designed to do anything more than target practice then I am going to laugh in your face. See the diff?
 
fskimospy said:
And exactly what are those exceptions that you think apply?
Click to expand...

Since Rittenhouse seems to be going through dumbass lawyers like a hooker goes through Johns, I am not going to even guess as to what their defense to defeat that charge is going to be. It may be based on an exemption, or something else entirely. There have been claims of various defense which includes the exemptions, as well as leveraging the militia argument, as well as challenging the legality of the statute itself. I'll wait and see when the court date arrives to what happens unless his next/current lawyer lets slip into the public more details about their defense strategy sooner.
 
HumblePie said:
Since Rittenhouse seems to be going through dumbass lawyers like a hooker goes through Johns, I am not going to even guess as to what their defense to defeat that charge is going to be. It may be based on an exemption, or something else entirely. There have been claims of various defense which includes the exemptions, as well as leveraging the militia argument, as well as challenging the legality of the statute itself. I'll wait and see when the court date arrives to what happens unless his next/current lawyer lets slip into the public more details about their defense strategy sooner.
Click to expand...
So in other words, nothing.
 
HumblePie said:
Uh no. You can be 17 for military since 1898 in all military branches.

You also don't seem to understand the legal concept of strict scrutiny when it comes to application of laws that are restricting Rights. I suggest you read up on it.
Click to expand...
You keep telling others to, "Read up on it...it's sooo easy to find, etc etc" and yet you keep making false claims that they are supposed to "look up". How many times will you claim that you can join the armed forces at 17, when it's complete bullshit and fabrication?
HumblePie said:
Since Rittenhouse seems to be going through dumbass lawyers like a hooker goes through Johns...
Click to expand...
Welp, those lawyers might be 10% smarter than you, and realize they don't want to argue a losing case.
fskimospy said:
So in other words, nothing.
Click to expand...
Precisely. He's got nothing but lies and shit to fling.
 
Pohemi420 said:
You keep telling others to, "Read up on it...it's sooo easy to find, etc etc" and yet you keep making false claims that they are supposed to "look up". How many times will you claim that you can join the armed forces at 17, when it's complete bullshit and fabrication?

Welp, those lawyers might be 10% smarter than you, and realize they don't want to argue a losing case.

Precisely. He's got nothing but lies and shit to fling.
Click to expand...
He is a dumb person who desperately wishes he wasn’t.
 
Anyone posted this story yet?


So JB admit that he had a knife on him...so much for the "unarmed" narrative/lie.

There was an open felony warrant for his arrest...so much for the narrative/lie of them crackers cops just picked on the innocent black guy out of the blue just because.

So per JB, let put a weapon into the vehicle then will give yourself up while the cops were yelling out loud (within striking distance) for you to stop then claim that you couldn't hear? That will work in court, right? Uh huh.

This is why I don't take it and run with the information from the mainstream media outlets at the beginning of any big stories.
 
Last edited:
You're arguing with someone that literally sued Dick's for mental anguish for ruining his baby jesus birthday celebration by not selling him an assault rifle. You're not dealing with someone that is rational or operates in reality.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
You're arguing with someone that literally sued Dick's for mental anguish for ruining his baby jesus birthday celebration by not selling him an assault rifle. You're not dealing with someone that is rational or operates in reality.
Click to expand...

Uh no, I sued them for breaking a contract. I won that as well. Sorry you don't like the way the world works.
 
Svnla said:
Anyone posted this story yet?


So JB admit that he had a knife on him...so much for the "unarmed" narrative/lie.

There was an open felony warrant for his arrest...so much for the narrative/lie of them crackers cops just picked on the innocent black guy out of the blue just because.

So per JB, let put a weapon into the vehicle then will give yourself up while the cops were yelling out loud (within striking distance) for you to stop then claim that you couldn't hear? That will work in court, right? Uh huh.

This is why I don't take it and run with the information from the mainstream media outlets at the beginning of any big stories.
Click to expand...

Already posted all here. Including the article with the statements by the officers there that Jacob actually swung said knife at them while they were struggling to cuff him. All this info was viewable in the two videos and readily available to the media months ago. They chose to not release said info until forced to.
 
Pohemi420 said:
You keep telling others to, "Read up on it...it's sooo easy to find, etc etc" and yet you keep making false claims that they are supposed to "look up". How many times will you claim that you can join the armed forces at 17, when it's complete bullshit and fabrication?
Click to expand...
Idiot, I POSTED the link when I responded to the mod earlier. Are you fucking blind as well as stupid?

Pohemi420 said:
Welp, those lawyers might be 10% smarter than you, and realize they don't want to argue a losing case.
Click to expand...

You literally aren't following shit. Lin Wood was a massive looney idiot of a lawyer for him, and John Pierce was stealing his money raised for him by not putting the money in a trust specifically for use for the case. It had nothing to do with the merits of defending Rittenhouse in this case but because Rittenhouse originally chose bad lawyers.
 
snoopy7548 said:
Wait, really? Link?
Click to expand...

Dick's is a bunch of *****.

Not sure how many are aware of this, but Dick's Sporting Goods management is a bunch of Dicks. I'm spreading word of mouth of what they have done to many customers recently as a big FU to many customers today nationwide. The story goes as follows. For a few weeks leading up to Black Friday...
forums.anandtech.com

I'll save you some time, the thread isn't worth the read.
Cliff notes:
He won the lawsuit but showed what a complete hypocritical crybaby bitch (legally he defined himself as that) he is. (He got a settlement so it never went to trial, so he didn't actually file a lawsuit, nor did he win it, but Dick's got tired of dealing with him so settled and despite him claiming he was filling the lawsuit to be a champion like MLK, he took the money and ran.)
 
Last edited:
darkswordsman17 said:

Dick's is a bunch of *****.

Not sure how many are aware of this, but Dick's Sporting Goods management is a bunch of Dicks. I'm spreading word of mouth of what they have done to many customers recently as a big FU to many customers today nationwide. The story goes as follows. For a few weeks leading up to Black Friday...
forums.anandtech.com

I'll save you some time, the thread isn't worth the read.
Cliff notes:
He won the lawsuit but showed what a complete hypocritical crybaby bitch (legally he defined himself as that) he is. (He got a settlement so it never went to trial, so he didn't actually file a lawsuit, nor did he win it, but Dick's got tired of dealing with him so settled and despite him claiming he was filling the lawsuit to be a champion like MLK, he took the money and ran.)
Click to expand...

A couple of months ago, a dumbbell set w/ rack came up on Amazon. Naturally, I bought it as fast as I could because I wasn't going to the gym, and I didn't have any weights at home. Ten days after I bought it, I got a cancellation e-mail where they "only" refunded my money. So I shrugged my shoulders, said, "Oh well", and moved on with my life.

Think I could have tried to sue them? 😛
 
snoopy7548 said:
A couple of months ago, a dumbbell set w/ rack came up on Amazon. Naturally, I bought it as fast as I could because I wasn't going to the gym, and I didn't have any weights at home. Ten days after I bought it, I got a cancellation e-mail where they "only" refunded my money. So I shrugged my shoulders, said, "Oh well", and moved on with my life.

Think I could have tried to sue them? 😛
Click to expand...
Get with the program. You are supposed to sue Dick's
 
snoopy7548 said:
A couple of months ago, a dumbbell set w/ rack came up on Amazon. Naturally, I bought it as fast as I could because I wasn't going to the gym, and I didn't have any weights at home. Ten days after I bought it, I got a cancellation e-mail where they "only" refunded my money. So I shrugged my shoulders, said, "Oh well", and moved on with my life.

Think I could have tried to sue them? 😛
Click to expand...

Clearly you're not a true hero like MLK!
 
Haha that clown sued dicks because they canceled his order and refunded his money? Best thing I've seen in a long time, thanks for posting it.
 
So ... the courts apparently tried to get in touch with Rittenhouse and their hearing notice was returned due to his not living at the address he'd given them and there being no fowarding address.

https://www.wisn.com/article/prosecutors-kyle-rittenhouse-violated-conditions-of-release/35410096

His lawyers are apparently telling the court that they had been advised by a member of the police department to *intentionally* list an incorrect address on their court papers.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1357127181227282432
Now, IANAL, but that seems ... wrong?
 
Last edited:
So, as I understand it, the ADA turned them down (request to seal) but told them to make a motion to the court. Instead of doing that they lied to the court then admitted so when found out and stated they were advised to do so by police.

Lawyers are very rarely sanctioned for wrongdoing but they're really tempting fate here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top