General Discussion

hlthe2b

(114,004 posts)

43. NO, not at ALL. The issues around this case are major.

Sat Nov 20, 2021, 02:14 PM

Nov 2021

Maybe if you'd had any civics training (or obviously any broad constitutional law education) you'd appreciate that.

The favorite excuse for a few here caught not knowing what they are talking about appears to be accusing others of "moving the goalposts." So obvious.

Psst.. don't aggressively denounce a renowned constitutional scholar calling for examination/investigation of the issues surrounding this incident without being able to defend your position. It just makes you look silly. Consider following Tribe or Kayal or Chemerinsky or Vladek or any number of constitutional lawyers commenting on current cases and issues. You'd learn a lot.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Federal charges being looked into for Rittenhouse... [View all] pbmus Nov 2021 OP

K&R Solly Mack Nov 2021 #1

The judge made this necessary. Baitball Blogger Nov 2021 #2

+1 Bluethroughu Nov 2021 #3

k and r for exposure..I sure hope that he is charged & somehow serves time. Stuart G Nov 2021 #4

Would view this more optimistically if someone could cite a specific federal law onenote Nov 2021 #5

Not sure what he could be charged with by DOJ madville Nov 2021 #7

Weapons charges. WestIndianArchie Nov 2021 #19

Specific federal statute, please? onenote Nov 2021 #21

That's what Nadler asked the DOJ to look into. Give them a minute. brush Nov 2021 #29

I'll give them more than a minute. But it won't matter. onenote Nov 2021 #37

He did not transport a weapon across state kelly1mm Nov 2021 #28

I guess we will see WestIndianArchie Nov 2021 #33

Don't see any chance of that. What government should do is pass tough gun laws. Hoyt Nov 2021 #6

Cumulative conclusions: Aussie105 Nov 2021 #60

Asking for a DOJ review isn't the same as what the title implies NickB79 Nov 2021 #8

Hard to see it... regnaD kciN Nov 2021 #9

Wouldn't that constitute Double Jeopardy? connecticut yankee Nov 2021 #10

They did it with the cops who beat Rodney King Polybius Nov 2021 #12

A "workaround" that doesn't apply FBaggins Nov 2021 #32

He DID claim to beacting as a security guard tho. CrackityJones75 Nov 2021 #47

That doesn't mean shit. Calista241 Nov 2021 #65

Not necessarily onenote Nov 2021 #13

Federal charges aren't typically counted with state charges re: double jeopardy Fiendish Thingy Nov 2021 #18

Jerry Nadler... Polybius Nov 2021 #11

I think this whole case Deuxcents Nov 2021 #14

Just wait. James48 Nov 2021 #15

K&R for, *my* problem with TRIBE is that he tells us what we want to hear UTUSN Nov 2021 #16

Because the most preeminent constitutional lawyer in this country could not possibly have a clue hlthe2b Nov 2021 #35

Well, his pre-eminence might have pointed to a specific statute onenote Nov 2021 #36

That he believes it worth looking into is worth far more than your derisive, dismissive and hlthe2b Nov 2021 #39

Apparently you don't realize that this isn't a "constitutional" issue onenote Nov 2021 #40

State laws can be in violation of the consitution. Do you not realize THAT? This goes beyond Kyle R. hlthe2b Nov 2021 #41

Goalposts moved. onenote Nov 2021 #42

NO, not at ALL. The issues around this case are major. hlthe2b Nov 2021 #43

I've thoroughly defended my position. onenote Nov 2021 #44

Been reading this thead CrackityJones75 Nov 2021 #49

Please take another look at the thread onenote Nov 2021 #56

Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail. IANAL, so it was an educational back-and-forth TheRickles Nov 2021 #64

State criminal laws can indeed be ruled unconstitutional Zeitghost Nov 2021 #55

I wonder if civil rights charges are feasible? Fiendish Thingy Nov 2021 #17

No it is not. onenote Nov 2021 #22

onenote said it, no civil rights violation. Jon King Nov 2021 #24

It seems that an investigation is at least warranted... AntiFascist Nov 2021 #53

in 2016 llashram Nov 2021 #20

No chance, no federal laws apply. Jon King Nov 2021 #23

This is for both family's sanity. LiberatedUSA Nov 2021 #25

I don't see how this happens. iemanja Nov 2021 #26

No they are not Jose Garcia Nov 2021 #27

Not gonna hold my breath on this DetroitLegalBeagle Nov 2021 #30

They're playing to the crowd Sympthsical Nov 2021 #31

Karma will take care of him and his supporters. Sunsky Nov 2021 #34

I also join Chairman Nadler in that request. nt Roisin Ni Fiachra Nov 2021 #38

The problem is not Rittenhouse pinkstarburst Nov 2021 #45

In my government class after the holidays we cover the judicial branch Bucky Nov 2021 #46

Well, there was potentially an illegal straw purchase of the gun for Kyle-boy... Wounded Bear Nov 2021 #48

A straw purchase requires a transfer ripcord Nov 2021 #58

Rittenhouse went into this in depth during his direct testimony. Calista241 Nov 2021 #68

Bad idea and waste of time JI7 Nov 2021 #50

Move on manicdem Nov 2021 #51

What I dont understand- judge said victims were rioters and looters, in other words presumed Kashkakat v.2.0 Nov 2021 #52

Judge actually said they can be called rioters, etc., IF there is evidence of that. Hoyt Nov 2021 #67

That judge needs to be investigated. C Moon Nov 2021 #54

KR violated the victims' rights to peaceable assembly. Captain Zero Nov 2021 #57

That is not a crime Zeitghost Nov 2021 #59

Certainly, murder is a civil rights violation. jaxexpat Nov 2021 #61

Fingers crossed. Joinfortmill Nov 2021 #62

Unbelievable! Dreampuff Nov 2021 #63

18 USC 245 might work jmowreader Nov 2021 #66