Geeto67

well what do you expect? A lot of people felt that even if he was defending himself he was still reckless and they wanted to see him held accountable for that.

One of the pieces of excluded evidence is KR on camera saying he would like to shoot looters 15 days before the actual shooting took place. Although the jury won't be able to consider this evidence, in the court of public opinion it is pretty damning as to his intent to generally cause someone harm with his rifle and not just use it for self defense. Most legal experts that are familar with the particular Wis statute have commented in the media seem to agree that the law on it's face is poorly drafted, but it's legislative history as well as all related holdings are pretty clear he did not possess or carry his firearm legally.

I haven't been watching all the testimony, but I have been paying attention. the three shots thing I got from a news article which I will admit when I went back and read was written in a way that could be read either as he fired three shots one of which was at GG or that he fired 3 at GG. It's bad writing, and I apologize when I get that wrong. When I said "Rosenbaum testimony" I meant the testimony about the incident where Rosenbaum was shot, not the testimony of a dead man. I was trying to say a lot of armchair analysts were focused on that encounter as clearing KR and not the subsequent encounter with GG. That's on me for not being clear. I will also point out that I am not trying to call how this case is going to end. I honestly don't know and even for me this is a tough read.

no, you are just reading to much into "attempted". Attempted DOES NOT mean "something prevented" him from killing - it just means the person didn't die. The legislative history on "attempted" (and I am being really general here) is that homicide charges used to require a body as part of the evidence to convict. Attempted charges evolved out of closing the gap where the victim didn't die or their body could not have been recovered. Attempt does have an intent component that must be proven, which is why you may be confused. One could make the argument that because he didn't take another shot (after the initial multiple shots he took at him - one of which struck him) he didn't have the intent initially, but it is not definitive. This is what both sides will be looking to prove: Defense that he didn't have the intent or that if he did it was derived from his own fear of his life and acting in self defense, and Prosecution that he did have intent to kill Grosskreutz and then changed his mind after wounding Grosskreutz.

I think a lot of people feel this way, probably the majority. I know I feel this way too. He was a kid who made a mistake and people died, there are consequences that need to be held to account but at the same time I don't know that prison for 20+ years is the answer. I do think his actions highlight a larger problem, esp. with law enforcement recruitment. If you think about it: KR was really gung ho about becoming a cop, but not for the public assistance aspect of it or the helping the community aspect of it - but rather from the look at all the cool tactical gear and weapons I get to use aspect of it. There are plenty of things he could have done that don't involve a firearm that would have shown a commitment to public service, but instead of doing any of them, he gives his friend money to go buy him a rifle. If this hadn't happened who knows if he would have become a police officer or not, he was certainly trying to put himself on that track, but how many more are like him and do end up police officers? The Prosecution's strategy is always to prove their case and win. Their whole internal system rewards convictions and punishes failures to convict. Likely the prosecutor's strategy here is to push the line. In the instance about KR's silence the prosecutor knows that things can't be unheard so he may be pushing the line hoping that the jury maybe hears something that will color their opinions even if they have been instructed not to consider it. In the second instance the Judge excluded evidence that would be really beneficial to the prosecutions case because a proper foundation had not been laid for it and it's relevancy to the event had not been established. Likely the prosecutor was again testing the limits of the judge's decision to exclude to see if maybe he had changed his mind once the trial got underway. Because this case has national attention the prosecutor likely knows that the judge will use restraint before declaring a mistrial, and that he can maybe push the envelope a little. This is all my conjecture from actually having tried cases in front of a jury. Jury Trials are not like in the movies, there are no "a-ha" moments and things aren't always clear. They can be really procedural and boring at times and you have two people trying to actively manipulate the minds of the jury to side with them which means they will sometimes try any and everything in the moment to see what works. Correct, a mistrial with prejudice would be very bad for the prosecution, and I agree that this would not be in the strategy. That said, I do think both sides are going to try to push the envelope a little on the judges rulings a little because of the attention the case is getting on a national level. If they can't win the court, maybe they can still win in the court of public opinion.

It's called a "Fight or Flight" response specifically because either of those two things happen when a person it threatened, it isn't a "just flight response". Just because you don't see it doesn't mean the jury sees it your way. Just as you don't threaten a wild animal without some expectation it will attack you, you don't threaten people without the same expectation. Everybody is focused on the Rosenbaum testimony, but don't forget there is also the testimony of a paramedic, Grosskreutz, who KR shot in the arm. Grosskreutz testified that he believed the teenager was an active shooter and so pursued him and unholstered his own concealed firearm. He testified that he put his hands up when Rittenhouse pointed his AR-15-style rifle at him but believed Rittenhouse did not accept his surrender. Rittenhouse shot him in the right bicep. That is tough testimony to get around, even if in the other interaction he acted in self defense. KR fired Eight shots in total that night - every single one of them has to have been in Self Defense in order for him to be found innocent of most of these charges, If even one of them isn't then it doesn't matter that the other 7 were.

not a dig at yo personally, just at this kind of punditry. IT's loaded crap like this that contributes to people being confused about their own justice system. The testimony speaks to one of the 6 charges, the attempted first degree intentional homicide, it does not contribute as evidence to any of the other charges. While it is not helpful testimony to the prosecution, it is not always clear how the jury will see that evidence in the context of the other evidence. They could read it as KR defending himself, or they could read it as KR's open carry was read by the witness as threatening causing them to draw their own weapon, which in in turn drew the shot from KR. One looks like self defense the other doesn't. I'm not there so I can't read the jury, and only those in the deliberation room know how it is going at this point. I will say that the "clip" is super annoying to watch with those three youtubers on the left side of things acting as the peanut gallery. This is a solid example of pundit pandering to an audience and not any real reporting. Personally I wouldn't rely on this and would probably look for another source of the trial without all the bullshit, I would say that sharing this as news of something contributes to the misinformation problem we are having with media in general right now.

No, because that's not how trials work.

Great work and a really great car. I loved my E30 but always thought it needed more power, I am super envious of your swap and all the hard work you put in. Congrats on making it this far and I look forward to more updates.

Nowhere in any previous post did I hold myself out as being "smarter" than anybody. I am a professional explaining a professional process that most people don't usually get a glimpse of and how just random google searches and reading NRA pamphlets is not going to hold it's own against ANY court decision (not just the supreme court). I am sorry that your personal insecurities have led you to think that this makes me seem like a know it all. I don't know it all, but I do know more than you about this one thing and you seem to be struggling with that. Worse than that you seem to be taking my offer to explain it as an insult to your intelligence, which I don't intend but am also not really sympathetic about either. You are on the ascent of mount stupid. You don't even know what it is you don't know to begin to conduct the actual research needed to discuss this at the level that is needed . You think finding a random definition in a google search is somehow going to "clarify" the central issue to what is now a massively controversial political football. Seems like a pretty clear mix of overconfidence and lack of knowledge to me.

an opinion built from nearly 20 years of training, work experience, education, etc...vs what? your 5 min of google search and suddenly you think you and I are on the same level (or worse you are on the same level as a supreme court judge). Thank you for illustrating the Dunning-Kruger effect.

See this is a good illustration about how lay people get confused about what things mean in the law and how precedent works. This is a definition for "infringe" in the context of intellectual property rights, patent law, copyright law, and trademark law. It is not a definition of how it is used in constitutional law. It's also not a source that a judge would give much credence to since it is not itself citing any prior holding, decision, statutory definition, nor is it from one of the recognized sources of definitions like Black's, Westlaw, Lexis, M-W, etc.... This is a good definition for someone who is just starting to learn about what it means when someone uses or misuses a trademark or copyright but it's not a "the buck stops here" definition in trying to understand a word's usage in a specific constitutional amendment. At best even when it is credible, a dictionary definition is a "secondary authority" so judges will always defer to how a word was interpreted previously in a case before they look it up in a law dictionary. Its this kind of information about source priority in research that lay people don't even begin to consider before they do whatever google "research" to try and get informed on an issue. IT's the value of training and experience that is leading to the "death of expertise".

Right, nobody knows for certain. That said The next best thing is to look at the what notes and letters the founding fathers left behind, plus what other materials exist concerning this issue. The issue wasn't political until the late 1968's when gun control was swept up in the civil rights movement, so there weren't two sides to the political issue for most of the time. Although the 1st national gun control wasn't written until 1934, there were state and local gun control ordinances going back to the founding of this country. Since 1776 to today hundreds of jurists have looked over thousands upon thousands of pages of research and not one has come to the same conclusion as you about the definition of infringement. I get the feeling you don't really know how much work goes into a judge rendering a decision. Most Americans don't and that's a much longer conversation we can have about my issues with education in this country. When a judge renders a decision it is made up of three parts: the verdict, the sentence/outcome, and the opinion. A verdict is the black and white outcome of the case: Guilty/not guilty, etc... and the sentence/outcome is the punishment, fine, or other disposition of the issue. The "opinion" isn't an opinion like you or I have, it's more of a research paper where the judge details out exactly how they reached their conclusion, what sources they relied upon, which ones they didn't rely upon and why, what the context is for their decision. It is a heavily researched thing that usually involves weeks of time and the judge's whole staff (Research Attorney, Clerks, Interns, Assistant, etc). I was an interne for a state court judge and was part of this process, it's extremely well researched, more than most people can fathom and way more than most lay people are willing to undertake. That "opinion" and it's sources is used by other judges as research for their own cases and to render their own decision. Each builds on the precedent set by the other and creates a body of how the law is interpreted. Although it is publicly available, most people don't even know how to begin to research this stuff. Its not like there was nothing to go on, there were materials past judges could research and draw their conclusion, and each decision they made added to the collective materials on how this was treated. Even though there really haven't been as many gun control related cases considering legislation as other areas like say murder there isn't nothing. I honestly don't understand anything you have said here. What does it mean to see infringements for "what they are"? Do you mean "you have to see infringements for how I define the word infringement instead of the way someone who has way more research and and is actually in charge of determining what infringement means in the law"? if so that's nonsense. I'm not saying you shouldn't want to redefine infringement in the law, But just saying it is your way instead of how it actually has been defined by every court that has considered isn't credible.

Can you say with certainty that is how the framers defined it or used it in context? No you can’t, nobody can. You can say that in 2008 the Supreme Court looked at all other prior cases relating to this right and many other similar ones and came in with a different definition. So who is right? Well you are just some dude with no formal legal training and they are the Supreme Court who have devoted their lives to studying and interpreting the law so guess who wins? they do. Experience and expertise matter. You are right, that was simple.

I will add in here that there are actually way more than two sides and two opinions on this issue, it's really more of a spectrum with a total ban/repeal of 2A on one side and completely unrestricted on the other. Saying every gun transaction should be cash and carry only and every gun restriction is against 2A is unfortunately an extreme position, and like most it relies on a lot of speculative fiction and feelings more so than the actual legal environment to sell it to people. This is also true of the opposite pole - a ban will never happen and a 2A repeal is very very very unlikely. Another unfortunate circumstance is that being a "hot button" issue it is especially susceptible to brinkmanship - both sides benefit from making the voters caught in the middle think their rights or lives are in immediate peril and use the manufactured chaos to garner votes. Before Randy comes in here with his bullshit reductionist phrase of "two wings of the same Bird" we should talk about the NRA which despite being a small organization in size, is hugely influential as a lobbyist group and really goes above and beyond in terms of dishonesty, corruption, fear mongering, and bankrupt moral compass. I mean they really make the oil and gas lobby look like pious clergy.

Joe, Thanks for the cordial response, I do appreciate it. Misinformation is misinformation because it is factually untrue. I am not denigrating how you feel it SHOULD be, but you are stating your interpretation and opinion as fact and that is where it becomes problematic. Let's take the statement "The requirement of taking a CCW class is a direct violation of the second amendment". The misinformation is that is is a "direct violation" which it is not. There is no legal precedent to support it is a direct violation, nor has any court ever held it to be so. "Direct Violation" as a term of art means there is an established law or precedent which the requirement goes against and it is a fact that there simply isn't one (and unlikely to be one). What you are really saying is: "I feel/interpret the requirement of a CCW goes against the spirt and context of the second amendment", which as an opinion I understand and respect (but do not agree with). Calling it a direct violation is misinformation. This language is not an accident by the way - the NRA has long spread this misinformation through their propaganda to the point where a lot of people believe it to be a fact instead of wishful thinking, and just assume it's some corruption of the government that causes it to continue to exist, and that's simply not the case. I am not saying you believe that last part, that's just the danger of misinformation. lets discuss: "There is not enough detail in the Second Amendment, because of it's limited verbiage, to split hairs." Anybody who remembers the Clinton impeachment trial will remember there as a section where there was some discussion over the definition and context of one word, so this is also not true. Again, you are stating your opinion as fact and it is not. Courts have discretion to interpret individual words and whole sentences in both their historical and modern context and meaning and in the light of prior precedent and decide which interpretation best suits the specific facts of the case they are overseeing. What you are really saying is "I don't agree with the court's historical treatment of the word 'infringed' and I think it should be read strictly in the modern definition and context". I will admit that there is a lot of merit to this point and it is consistent with the strict scrutiny. However, in order to do that, the court may be faced with overturning their decision in Heller in part of whole, which would wipe out the recognized right states have to enact gun control legislation that passes strict scrutiny. You aren't going to find any one case that explicitly says "infringement means", It is derivative by action. The Heller case is a prime example of that, by saying that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated they are saying "infringed" means only an outright ban, not a restriction (the dissenting opinion does recognize that there will never be a ban on guns under the 2nd amendment). As opinions, where you are self aware that these are opinions and not fact, and that to enact how you think it should be would be a significant departure from how they are currently and have been treated since they were first written, It's fine. It's good to want things and to advocate for changes to the law if you think they aren't serving the public at large as they stand. But.... ...if you think these are "facts" and it's everybody else who has been wrong for over 200 years and there is some corrupt cabal that is secretly out to take away all your guns...then it's starting to look more like Q-anon (ok maybe not that crazy out there) and it's going to be hard to find people to even meet you halfway.

Rittenhouse is charged with 6 counts: - FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON - FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON - FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON - ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON - FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON - POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18 - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT Of those charges, only two, intentional homicide and attempted intentional homicide, can use self defense as a defense. Self defense doesn't help when facing a "reckless" charge, and illegally possessing a weapon only further supports that he was reckless.

I'm not going to give you as detailed a description as you probably want but this is what I am comfortable sharing. When I was 13 I was taught gun safety and marksmanship at my summer camp. this continued until I was 17 and a counselor at the camp. I was given a Winchester 67 . 22 when I was 16 by a neighbor. That weapon sits in a locked case in the closet of my parent's house and I have not fired it in quite some time. In college and through law school I held a Security Guard License in NY, and worked in various jobs related to the personal security, some unarmed (event security), some armed (Bodyguard, Transfer Escort). During this time I carried a Glock 19 or a Colt 1911 as part of my job. I was going to the range semi-regularly (couple times a month) and kept both locked in their cases when not on my person. When my Kid was born I sold any firearms I had (except for that rifle and my grandfather's service pistol), not wanting to risk having a firearm in the house with a young child. I haven't been to a range since I moved to Ohio, although I have flirted with the idea from time to time. I do see myself likely owning firearms again in the future once my kid is grown and out of the house. My brother is a stunt professional in the motion picture industry. He is an armorer, stunt coordinator, and director with requisite training. He is also an amateur gunsmith and bladesmith. his specialty is edge weapon and hand to hand fight coordination. In a professional capacity I have read and written a few of his contracts, as well as been on set with him as a guest more than a few times. I will be the first to admit that I do not have your and most of the people here's level of training, enthusiasm, or experience, but my experience is not zero. Although I personally look at firearms as a tool and it is not a hobby of mine , as a motorcycle enthusiast I understand and am very sympathetic to people who are gun enthusiasts. At some point I will probably own a firearm again, when my risk profile changes. That said the overwhelming majority of my comments come from my perspective as an attorney and a government regulatory professional, not as a gun owner. Many of the comments from others I see here have some deeply rooted misconceptions about some very basic things in the legal system. Satisfied? probably not but that is all the olive branch I am offering. Believe it or not I do respect your experience and the work you do in teaching the CCW classes. Based on things you have said here I do believe you are someone who really wants their students go get a lot of value out of the courses you teach and I have a lot of respect for that. I am disappointed when you do spread misinformation (esp. about the constitution), but I understand that you do travel in circles that may make it hard to see that it is misinformation due to how highly politicized this issue has become. I would rather this be a more give and take, open minded, discussion, but if you are coming in hot with "The requirement of taking a CCW class is a direct violation of the second amendment" it's hard to see how that is going to happen. be well.

language evolves, words change meaning and context all the time. Our founding fathers knew this because most of them spoke multiple languages and were born into wealth and education. They saw how the language evolved in their own time from their English and European born parents to their American born dialect. Our legal system is the way it is because of this understanding that language is evolving - it's part of what makes democracy a living thing and keeps our body of laws relevant. The unfortunate side effect is that the law sometimes defines words in a different way than how lay people define it, which adds to confusion. It's the reason why most legislation and a lot of contracts have a definition section.

Dude, all I did was ask you a direct question, which you still haven't answered.

that covers the parking lot, not the actual building. I believe I said INSIDE target, not hang out in the parking lot of target.

Sure it is a definition issue. You have chosen to interpret "shall not be infringed" as meaning any kind of restriction, where as every single legislator, jurist, and court (including the framers of the constitution) that has ever considered legal issues related to firearmsl has defined infringement as an absolute ban. Also there is a whole body of constitutional law that advocates of the 2nd amendment continently ignore which says constitutional amendments are not absolute and have never been absolute. Federal, State, and local governments can write laws that restrict constitutional rights as long as they pass the strict scrutiny test. If you want to ignore all of American legal history, and piss on the constitution by redefining "infringed" your own way instead of how it has been treated this entire time I guess that is your first amendment right, but it doesn't mean it's true.

Open carry has limitations in that it's visible. Maybe there might be a small bump in new people carrying that wouldn't before, but I think the larger concern is that you may end up with more firearms in places where they really shouldn't be and not be held by as responsible people. There are plenty of places that don't allow firearms on their premises and if you walk in with a visible firearm they may ask you to leave. If it is concealed, how are they going to know to enforce their policy? This brings up another interesting question: If you bring a firearm into a store that prohibits it, you are technically trespassing which is a crime. The argument is there that there will be an increase of non-violent crime directly related to this law. How are we supposed to treat these people? They are technically criminals committing a gun related crime, but are they not the same as someone who holds up a liquor store. This is why I find the conversation by "constitutional carry" advocates disingenuous because they don't see this as a crime and they don't see these people as criminals - they think it is perfectly ok to violate the personal individual liberty of the premises owner just because they want to, and I can't buy into that. fair point, but remember any group is only as good as it's least common denominator. You want to raise the bar of the least common denominator one sure fire way is to make a factor of the group conditional on license and training. But let me ask this - what about the future state? Sure the change goes into effect now and you have owners who have had to be responsible and in some cases have training, but what about the kids who turn 18 a year from now and don't have that training? That's the problem with this type of deregulation as time goes on the number of less responsible, less savvy, and less experienced owners are going to enter the group until they outnumber those who are responsible.

how many days per week? How many weeks per semester? nobody said it had to be 8 hours all at once.

a) I can't imagine the mental gymnastics required for you to see guns and abortions as equal things, but b) 33 states require counseling prior to an abortion, and the majority of those require a 24 hour waiting period between counseling and the procedure. so yeah, I guess it is "okay" since 33 is a majority of states. Also this is in addition to most high school students in American getting sex education as part of their school curriculum (which is way way way more than 8 hours).