“Imagine what just happened there. The prosecutor knew it wasn’t illegal, yet was going to argue it anyway for a jury.”
That isn’t a fact. It’s a belief that the defense would like you to have.
2 Likes
You’re saying the New Yorker doesn’t run a tight ship in terms of fact-checking?
Look, we can argue for the positions that we want, but injecting misinformation into the discussion ultimately doesn’t help our side. Stating baldly that the AR-15-style weapon was transported across state lines prior to the shootings is VERY debatable at best. Going by preponderance of the evidence, really just an out-and-out lie in my opinion. Just repeating rumor or poorly-sourced information from early reporting as fact.
The liberal/humanist side of this issue, as with many others, actually considers truth and fact; the right-wing/authoritarian/Drumpfist disloyal opposition does not. Let’s not sink to their level please.
“This is going to touch a nerve for some people,” said John Gross, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin. “But this is not an unreasonable reading of this statute by this judge.”
Gross said the Wisconsin law concerning underage possession of a dangerous weapon - which covers everything from guns to brass knuckles - is written in a way that it seems to apply restrictions on gun possession only when the person is carrying a short-barreled weapon such as a sawed-off shotgun, less than 12 inches. That is what Rittenhouse’s lawyers argued.
The .223 caliber Smith & Wesson rifle Rittenhouse used in the shootings has a 16-inch barrel.
What the legislature did in its writing of the law was to “accidentally carve out a rule that says somebody under the age of 18 can legally have a rifle or shotgun as long as the barrel is of sufficient length,” Gross said. “It’s just a legislative blunder and it should be fixed.”
So my question, @comedian…does your response have an /s or not?
5 Likes
I very pointedly did not state that. There is no evidence for that that I am aware of, other than that it is a weird thing to receive a gift and not take possession of it. The evidence for the converse however doesn’t rise to the level of calling it a fact.
Ah, I wasn’t saying that you had made this claim, but several others in the discussion here did. That’s what my original comment was speaking to
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
