HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Well, who da' hell woulda...

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 12:26 PM

Well, who da' hell woulda' thought?

Friend who bought Kyle Rittenhouse the rifle he used in Kenosha shootings agrees to a plea deal. Dominic Black, 20, bought an assault-style for the then-17-year-old prior to the fatal shooting of two protesters, and on Friday agreed to plead no contest for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and pay $2,000 to avoid possible conviction for two felony charges. Judge Bruce Schroeder, who oversaw the case against Rittenhouse and threw out a minor-in-possession charge against him before a jury acquitted Rittenhouse on all counts, is also handling Black’s case and is expected to rule on the plea deal at a hearing today.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/01/09/kyle-rittenhouse-dominick-black-plea-deal/9149545002/

How about that. A white guy commits two felonies and pleads down to $2000 fine. Rittenhouse was not charged with having a gun underage because there is a loophole in the state law to allow it for 'hunting'. I guess that applies. It certainly appears that he was looking for (er, I mean hunting) something. It was, after all, a BLM protest.

Meanwhile:
42 percent — the share of firearm homicide victims in 2020 that were Black men between the ages of 15 and 34, despite that group accounting for only 2 percent of the U.S. population.


Gun deaths and injuries are at a 15 year high and the trend is increasing.

Folks, we gotta' get this gun thing under control. Why are guns so damn special? Why are white guys with guns so damn special? Why can't we see what the entire world sees, that availability of guns is the SINGLE cause of increased homicide/suicide/accidental violence?

It doesn't have to be this way if we just pay attention and demand change. Imagine.

32 replies, 4801 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Well, who da' hell woulda' thought? (Original post)
AndyS Jan 2022 OP
Walleye Jan 2022 #1
Rebl2 Jan 2022 #7
CaptainTruth Jan 2022 #11
former9thward Jan 2022 #19
Diamond_Dog Jan 2022 #2
Hortensis Jan 2022 #3
AndyS Jan 2022 #5
Initech Jan 2022 #4
Takket Jan 2022 #6
tetedur Jan 2022 #8
KS Toronado Jan 2022 #9
Zeitghost Jan 2022 #10
AndyS Jan 2022 #12
Zeitghost Jan 2022 #13
AndyS Jan 2022 #15
Zeitghost Jan 2022 #22
AndyS Jan 2022 #23
Zeitghost Jan 2022 #25
AndyS Jan 2022 #26
Zeitghost Jan 2022 #31
AndyS Jan 2022 #32
Progressive Jones Jan 2022 #28
AndyS Jan 2022 #29
Progressive Jones Jan 2022 #30
llashram Jan 2022 #20
Zeitghost Jan 2022 #21
llashram Jan 2022 #24
Trueblue Texan Jan 2022 #14
czarjak Jan 2022 #16
Snackshack Jan 2022 #17
BSdetect Jan 2022 #18
Dial H For Hero Jan 2022 #27

Response to AndyS (Original post)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 12:29 PM

1. When do we apply the well regulated part of the second amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walleye (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 12:57 PM

7. Apparently never

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walleye (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 01:58 PM

11. And the necessary to the security of a free State part too?

I'm no expert, but from what I've read the whole idea of State militias "being necessary to the security of a free State" was because a Federal army could present a threat to the States if it was used maliciously to attack individual States, so the Second Amendment allowed States to form their own well regulated militias to ensure their security, which in this context meant defend the State from attack by Federal troops.

For example:

In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".

[link:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution|]

It's funny how constitutional originalists don't seem to ever be origionalist on this amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaptainTruth (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 03:59 PM

19. Many, if not most, state Constitutions have a militia clause.

Generally they state that all males between 17-45 are automatically part of the state militia. No requirement to affirmatively join it.

The U.S. has a militia law also. 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So if you are in that age range you are part of the militia, like it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 12:34 PM

2. Ain't America great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 12:36 PM

3. Apples and oranges. The deaths and shooters in Kenosha were white.

Everyone here says he wants strong gun control, and the first step to demanding change is first and always to vote Democratic for strong Democratic majorities. Anyone who says he cares but isn't committed to creating Democratic majorities is a lying hypocrite.

Because the majorities will be EITHER Republican or Democrat, and that is THE and the ONLY way it can and will happen.

That and many other priorities, including working to lower the very unacceptable rates of black-on-black violence, a complex problem that must be addressed in many different ways, and all of which do the same for society as a whole. ALL of them are in the Democratic Party platform every general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 12:53 PM

5. I beg to disagree.

The ONLY way to make things change is $$. That's the way the gun industry got us to where we are today. The industry; manufacturers, sellers and fetishists, gave money to the gun lobby. The gun lobby used it to buy legislators. Legislators, particularly Senators, can block any legislation with a single voice. The % of people who want gun laws less strict is 9%. Yet gun laws keep getting less strict.

If we want to see change we have to emulate the gun lobby. Out bid the gunners. Bloomberg knows this which is why he dedicated $500 mil to funding Everytown for gun safety and Moms Demand Action.

There are a LOT of non-profit orgs fighting for meaningful change in gun laws.

Do a simple search on gun control organizations. https://www.google.com/search

Pick one and give them a few $. I do.

As for Black on Black violence, well, that's a dog whistle. Be careful using it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 12:50 PM

4. Black guys get murdered in their cars. White guys get made conservative celebrities.

Ain't our justice system great?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 12:54 PM

6. This is actually way more outrageous than the Rittenhouse verdict

There is absolutely no excuse for this clown not doing prison time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 01:08 PM

8. Well technically there was no crime committed

just two people murdered and one with his arm nearly shot off. So that's why they are letting Black off with a slap.

There's a reason 17 year-olds should not have AKs. They don't have the maturity to handle a volatile situation and will resort to pulling the trigger as fast as they can when they are shitting their pants in fear just as Rittenhouse did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 01:46 PM

9. " pay $2,000 to avoid possible conviction for two felony charges."

People should not be able to "Buy Off" felony charges when two people were killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 01:54 PM

10. It's the right call

The two felonies became impossible to get a conviction on when the associated deaths were ruled justified by a jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 02:06 PM

12. It's still okay to be outraged that four wrongs seem to make a right. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 02:07 PM

13. I stand by the jury's decision

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 02:20 PM

15. I understand that but

Rittenhouse was not charged with underage possession because there is a allowance for hunting. Was he hunting? If not how does that exemption apply. No jury involved in this one, it was a Judge's call.

Because of that dubious decision the one who made the deaths and injury possible is not charged with a crime he admitted to committing and allowed to plea bargain down to a fine. So the deaths of two and maiming of one is worth $666 each.

On the second item no jury was involved. It wasn't placed before a jury.

But whatever, guns are so special and white guys with guns doubly so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 08:30 PM

22. The WI law made no mention of hunting

In the case of Mr. Black, his dropped charges were based on the two men being killed illegally. When their deaths were found to be legally justified, the case fell apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 10:18 PM

23. What ever you say.

I recall the very same commentary over Andrew Zimmerman.

I stand by my former comments. Rittenhouse was not charged with underaged possession because of an allowance in the law for hunting. If he was hunting it was for human beings.

Because he was not charged the felon who provided the weapon and admitted to doing so was allowed to plea bargain to a $666 fine for each person killed or injured due to his straw purchase.

Keep preaching brother, it is by their words that we know who they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 11, 2022, 01:23 PM

25. You can stand by your errant statement all you want

The WI possession law is there for anyone to read and it makes no mention of hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 11, 2022, 03:50 PM

26. I read it but this excerpt from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is easier to understand.

Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 12, 2022, 01:21 PM

31. Again...

The WI law in question says nothing about hunting. Zero.

It's all readily available for you to read yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 12, 2022, 03:29 PM

32. We must be talking about two different laws because the one I read

specifically mentions hunting as an exception to carrying a dangerous weapon under the age of 18.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 12, 2022, 01:24 AM

28. As I recall, the lack of a charge for underaged possession came after

some bogus argument about "barrel length" put forth by Pudge Rittenhouse's attorneys.
This involved some technicality in the underaged possession stautes.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive Jones (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 12, 2022, 12:40 PM

29. See # 26 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 12, 2022, 12:57 PM

30. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 04:36 PM

20. the jury spoke, true

yet...with Rittenhouse and the clown that sold him the WMD entitlement and lacking any melanin helped also. The jury may have spoken. But their spoken words, "not guilty" dripped with the hypocrisy and malignant hate that has guided this country since its inception. So bully for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to llashram (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 08:27 PM

21. The Jury

Followed the laws on the books and the facts at hand. With so much video evidence, the case was pretty clear cut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 11, 2022, 11:17 AM

24. ok

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 02:14 PM

14. Well, they can't get a revolution going without guns.

This has been in the works a long time, I'm convinced. Besides, guns stoke fear and fear prepares folks for authoritarianism. It makes perfect sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 03:11 PM

16. Joe Arpio said, "Besides Sean, I've got a gun", while on the traitor's show. Baked-in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 03:15 PM

17. This trial was rotten...

…and IMO the outcome was predetermined from the start. The judge in this case is a disgrace. His decision to not allow the victims (those people who were killed or injured) to be called victims but instead had to be referred to as rioters or protestors was unbelievable.

Then the comments he made and how he injected his point of view on several matters to the jury instead of being the non-bias professional adjudicator he was supposed to be has left a stain on this verdict that will never go away. So this is no surprise.

“Hunting” what a complete farce and disgrace. Hopefully the families will be able to get some form of justice/closure through a civil process because the federal process failed miserably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snackshack (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 10, 2022, 03:33 PM

18. I'm astonished no appeal has been lodged to void the result.

The murderous little shit got a biased trial judge.

Unbelievable shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BSdetect (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 12, 2022, 12:36 AM

27. You can't appeal a verdict of not guilty, it would be double jeopardy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread