Author Topic: The I'm-not-a-lawyer "legal" thread  (Read 2200 times)

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21926
  • I don't belong here.
The I'm-not-a-lawyer "legal" thread
« on: November 24, 2021, 03:44:28 pm »
a thread for musings about the law and how (or if) it relates to justice.  we wander into this territory fairly often.

obligatory disclaimer: discussion in this thread is for entertainment purposes only.  no one should construe anything said here as actual legal advice.  please see a real lawyer if you have an real legal issue. 

with that out of the way, onward...
<sig>

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21926
  • I don't belong here.
Re: The I'm-not-a-lawyer "legal" thread
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2021, 03:46:47 pm »
question: why hasn't rittenhouse been charged with weapons violations?  he was underage (so not allowed to own a gun), purchased it illegally (someone bought it on his behalf), and he crossed state lines with said illegal weapon.  seems like he could spend some serious time behind bars for these actions.

also: will any of the victims sue him for wrongful death?  if not, why?
<sig>

StoneTheCrow

  • Member
  • Posts: 2297
Re: The I'm-not-a-lawyer "legal" thread
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2021, 03:59:15 pm »
The judge dropped the weapons charge. Why, I’m unsure. That's the one charge that appeared to be a lock.

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21926
  • I don't belong here.
Re: The I'm-not-a-lawyer "legal" thread
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2021, 04:00:33 pm »
The judge dropped the weapons charge. Why, I’m unsure. That's the one charge that appeared to be a lock.

found the answer: "because it wasn't illegal" :(

"Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled." https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031


a few more details here... essentially, the prosecution kinda effed up.  on the one hand it made sense for them to focus on the homocide charges instead of seeking clarification on the (minor) weapons charge, on the other hand they should have been able to walk and chew gum.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2021, 04:16:42 pm by sweetcell »
<sig>

StoneTheCrow

  • Member
  • Posts: 2297
Re: The I'm-not-a-lawyer "legal" thread
« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2021, 04:01:18 pm »
Yikes

kosmo vinyl

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 15425
    • Hi-Fi Pop
Re: The I'm-not-a-lawyer "legal" thread
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2021, 04:08:52 pm »
Pretty sure the weapons charge was the one the the judge dismissed at the last minute

Here is a lengthy thread that was passed along a couple times by smarter people then I

https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/1461781401053937669?s=21

tl,dr

It was clear to some that he was going to get off due to stand your ground laws in WI, the prosecution made huge mistakes, the third witness who threatened with a gun was horrible

But bottom line is that many already abhorrent bottom feeders sink to even lower depths celebrating this loser

And who among those with any decency is going to want to spend anytime in his vicinity.. work, university,etc
T.Rex

kosmo vinyl

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 15425
    • Hi-Fi Pop
Re: The I'm-not-a-lawyer "legal" thread
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2021, 04:16:33 pm »
T.Rex


sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21926
  • I don't belong here.
Re: The I'm-not-a-lawyer "legal" thread
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2021, 04:28:56 pm »
as another non-legal-expert said:

"OK, cards on the table: I'm not a legal expert, so I can't tell you whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse broke the law. But I can tell you this: if he didn't break the law, we should change the law."
<sig>

StoneTheCrow

  • Member
  • Posts: 2297

Re: The I'm-not-a-lawyer "legal" thread
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2021, 08:41:19 pm »
he crossed state lines with said illegal weapon. 
this point has been refuted many times
He didn't in fact cross the state line with the weapon in his hand, he retrieved it when he got to WI

So something libs keep on saying, but in my understanding is not factually true
slack

Re: The I'm-not-a-lawyer "legal" thread
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2021, 08:44:12 pm »
as another non-legal-expert said:

"OK, cards on the table: I'm not a legal expert, so I can't tell you whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse broke the law. But I can tell you this: if he didn't break the law, we should change the law."
this is 100% the take IMO
the court didn't really do anything out of line of what the law said...so we should get beyond this case and change the laws going forward
slack

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21926
  • I don't belong here.
Re: The I'm-not-a-lawyer "legal" thread
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2025, 05:17:09 pm »
ERA (?)

I was going to post about this, but will need someone much smarter than me to explain it in layman's terms...  something something about the archivist

in order for an amendment to be added to the constitution, it needs to a) be passed by 2/3 of both chambers of Congress, and then 2) be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures within "a reasonable amount of time". congress did the first half way back in 1972.  the issue is that "a reasonable amount of time" is not defined in the Constitution.  congress typically attaches an arbitrary deadline of 7 years.  by 1979, the required 3/4 of states had not ratified.  it wasn't until VA ratified in 2020 (!) that the threshold was met, long after the "expiry date."  the trump administration determined that the ERA amendment was "expired" and thus not valid.  this put a chill on any parties who were willing to bring up the question of arbitrary expiry dates not being mandated in the Constitution. 

today, biden stated that the ERA "is the law of the land" indicating that he considers it ratified.  this means exactly nothing from a legal standpoint, but ERA supporters are hoping that this might give a push to those willing to argue in favor of the 28th amendment, push for the Archivist to formally publish it thus kicking off its entry into force, etc. 

that won't happen, at least not for the next 4 years: trump opposed the ERA in his first admin, and he (aka his DOJ) will opposed it in his second.  that the ERA hasn't become a constitutional amendment is 100% on the Republicans: GOP state legislations either blocked or dragged their feet on ratification, running out the clock on the 7 year "expiry date".  at least 5 red states have attempted to rescind their previous ratifications.  twice in 2023 the GOP blocked the senate from in passing laws that would have (or tried to) get around the expiry date.  from what i've read, the most common stated reason why conservatives opposed the ERA is that women are already protected under the 14th amendment, so the ERA is redundant, a waste of resource, virtue signaling, etc.

tl;dr: biden said something symbolic that got the ERA hopeful excited, but ultimately means nothing.

*apologies to the lawyers here, please feel free to correct me
« Last Edit: January 17, 2025, 05:19:00 pm by sweetcell »
<sig>