Hacker News Reader

Comment by belltaco | Hacker News Reader

Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles and point them at others (prior to the incident where life wasn't threatened) as admitted in court.

> To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while they are in the process of trying to assault and/or kill someone (which the evidence clearly shows) is in fact something to be celebrated. The world is a better place for his absence from it.

It might also be the result of provocation by someone open carrying around an assault rifle in public, after traveling from out of state in order to specifically do that.

View on HN

It wasn't an assault rifle, and it is legal for 17 year olds to open carry rifles and shotguns under Wisconsin law.

Open carrying is not provocation, otherwise open carrying itself would be inherently illegal, nor sure what your reasoning is there.

Edit: Also, what the hell does him crossing state lines have to do with anything? He lives like 5 minutes from the Wisconsin border and lives closer to Kenosha than his three assailants

>assailants

You mean victims.

There is currently a court case trying to decide if they are victims or not. We'll hopefully get to know what the jury think after considering all the evidence.

Too bad the victims are not around to defend their actions and give the jury the full picture.

>Too bad the victims are not around to defend their actions and give the jury the full picture.

With all the witnesses, video recordings, FBI heat imaging video, etc. what makes you suspect the jury is not getting the full picture? If Kyle is convicted on all charges, will you protest the conviction because of this?

One of them is, and he has repeatedly lied about what happened, including what is plain as day on video

You seem to be privy to some evidence that the court is not. Care to share it with us?

> Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles and point them at others (prior to the incident where life wasn't threatened) as admitted in court.

That charge was dropped because Kyle was not carrying a short-barreled rifle.

However, ADA Binger did take Kyle's rifle, pointed it at the jury without checking it (saying his assistant had), and had his finger on the trigger while doing so.

Thankfully he didn't go full Baldwin, because there was no clip and no round in the chamber and the judge made them check it afterwards, but you can watch the stream if you want to see how it went down.

All I can say is what a fucking idiot if I was on the jury I would have lost my shit on him. Even if you clear a gun I still pretend a magic bullet fell from the sky and some how chambered itself. Never point a gun a someone unless you are defending yourself or plan to shoot them. That is how hundreds of people had died. I can believe it that is so crazy. Obviously he was trying to provoke an emotional response by pointing a gun at them. This clearly tells me they evidence is not on his side he needs tactics to provoke the jury.

That proves his point that pointing a rifle at someone makes them mad

The crowd was complaining that a laser pointer (thought to be a gun sight) was pointed at them. Kyle's weapon has no such sight, making that impossible.

There's a disputed drone video footage where some think they see Kyle raising his gun in his left hand, but if you look at the video, the pixels they're pointing at exist before Kyle even reaches that point, meaning it can't be a gun. It may be a mirror or some other part of the car.

This is a major dispute because the prosecution gave the defense a low-quality, strange resolution rip of the video while having a higher-quality version for themselves. They admitted that "our version is better" in open court, before backing off to claim it's "just playing weird."

Kraus, who said he would have a much better job if he knew this encoding stuff, was seen with Handbrake installed on his laptop. The program was installed shortly after Kyle plead guilty according to the dates on the file.

> Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles

It was perfectly legal for Rittenhouse to carry rifle at the time. The weapon charge has been dropped.

> It might also be the result of provocation by someone open carrying around an assault rifle in public

First off, there's no such thing as an "assault" rifle, there's just a "rifle". Stop using idiotic terms made up morons who don't know shit about weapons.

Second, provoking someone who's openly carrying a firearm... yeah, that sounds like a good idea.

What is an assault rifle?

It’s a really big rifle. Next question.

It's not.

Most hunting rifles for e.g. deer rifles fire larger caliber rounds than the rifle in question in the case. Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but "big" does not necessarily mean "more deadly", nor does "big" actually apply to this rifle.

Thank you for the reply! While I have the chance, allow me one last question: When it comes to AR15 platform, what differentiates a pistol from a rifle?

Disclaimer: I own a few guns and am an Army vet, but this is just my current understanding. I recommend consulting the ATF guidelines yourself and/or your local sheriff's office since rules tend to vary by state and jurisdiction.

The ATF makes these rules, and currently (my understanding, haven't looked in a while to see if anything changed with the new administration) an AR pistol is something that's less than 26" overall with a barrel of less than 16". There's also rules about how you can't put an actual buttstock on it (but you can put a "brace" ... the definition of which can be confusing). Anything shorter than that and does have an actual stuck is an SBR (short-barrel rifle) and you need an ATF tax stamp for that.

I appreciate your time to explain that, thanks. I'm now off on a journey to find the exact line between what is a brace and what is a stock! Take care, my friend.

Thank you for the explanation (genuinely). I wasn't exactly being sarcastic, though - my interest is in the messaging that this gun carries when wielding it in a urban environment during a riot.

> my interest is in the messaging that this gun carries when wielding it in a urban environment during a riot.

Yeah, exactly. ""Assault"" rifles are defined entirely by your emotional response to seeing it. It's a concept invented by the media.

I wouldn't say the concept was "invented" by the media, but it does have a swirling personality around it that feels that way. Obviously I am biased, but "assault" to me always meant the rifle has ergonomic enhancements that make it safer to employ since you can better control recoil, among other things. That's ... not exactly something you'll hear on CNN.

That isn't relevant to the case, but I understand what you're getting at.

> the messaging that this gun carries when wielding it in a urban environment during a riot.

The "messaging"??

The only thing wrong with the "messaging" was that every single citizen of Kenosha didn't show up with AR-15s to ensure all of the out-of-towners weren't able to burn down anything, or try to assault anyone.

If you can spend time to riot, you can spend time filling out resumes for a job. I don't have time to fucking riot... I'm too busy working. These people should have been too. You wanna make the world better for people? Tell them to stop committing sexual assault and stealing people's SUVs. If Jacob Blake hadn't been doing those things, he wouldn't have had a warrant out for his arrest, he wouldn't have been shot for trying to go for his knife, Kenosha wouldn't have had rioting, Joseph Kiddiediddler and Dumbshit Skaterboi would still be alive, the prosecution's star witness would still have his bicep, and Kyle Rittenhouse wouldn't be in this mess.

Amazing how two people had to die, and two others had their lives ruined, and we had hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage, all because a black man in Kenosha thinks he doesn't have to obey the law, only to find out very dramatically that he will in fact obey the law.

It's almost like obeying society's law results in a harmonious society!

To answer your lower question since I can't respond directly, the legal difference between a rifle and pistol is pretty much only barrel length. Overall length also matters, and whether or not the AR "started out" (at manufacture) as a rifle or pistol determine if it becomes a "short barreled rifle" after certain modifications, but that's getting into the inane and nonsensical world of ATF regulations.

As far as what an assault rifle is, it's basically a rifle capable of burst fire or automatic fire (it's a bit more complicated than that but that's the basic idea). Rittenhouse's AR (and virtually all civilian owned firearms for that matter) are not capable of burst or automatic fire and are not assault rifles.

> To answer your lower question since I can't respond directly, the legal difference between a rifle and pistol is pretty much only barrel length.

This is only half-true. The difference between a pistol and a rifle is whether it has a stock. The difference between a normal rifle and a short-barreled rifle is whether the barrel is 16" or not.

I'm not saying it makes more sense, but that is the classification the ATF uses. Never put a stock on any weapon with less than a 16" barrel, unless you're really, really, really sure you fall under some kind of exemption (i.e. that might not apply to black powder weapons).

If "provocation" is a defense for someone to follow, ambush and assault someone, wouldn't what Kyle did also be defensible?

You don't have to answer that, you can if you want, but I just felt the need to point out how ridiculous this "provocation" point actually is.

Sure, prosecute those people too, if they haven't been shot dead.

The difference is

I suggest not ever using the phrase “assault rifle” because you’ll just get responses where people say “it’s not an assault rifle” and they’ll think they actually won an argument.

As opposed to falsely claiming he had an assault rifle and thinking that somehow strengthens the emotional/moral impact of an argument?

You are either being intentionally disingenuous or you are so deep in this that you don’t understand how other people think. To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. And saying “actually it’s technically not an assault rifle” makes absolutely no difference. It’s not always a false claim; rather it’s a minor, irrelevant detail. Swatting it down doesn’t matter, except to the person swatting it down.

>To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle.

Yes, exactly my point. It's cosmetically scary and calling it an assault rifle makes the minds of many of those hearing it jump to a fear-based response. When in reality an AR-15 is no more or less deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle in the same caliber. Slapping black plastic on a gun may make it look "scarier" to the uninformed, but it doesn't change the threat that Kyle did or did not pose by being there armed.

Hey, that's my point, too! In this particular event, everyone aside from him was uninformed.

Walking through the streets of a riot (I won't say "brandishing" but...) carrying what LOOKS to be a big scary gun is sending a very strong message to other people around him. A lot of people equate that gun with "active shooter" and "paramilitary."

Then they should learn to change their emotional response to it, or seek to repeal the 2nd Amendment that allows people to open carry. Their emotional response is on them.

I disagree given that it’s impossible to know the intentions of the gun wielder, and there is lots of precedent for people who look just like that (white man carrying an AR15) being a mass shooter. If I was marching around (legally) carrying a big ass knife, I’d think I’d also possess enough awareness to realize that some folks might be uncertain of my intentions.

"Machine gun? Not a machine gun? What's the difference?"

You may not appreciate it, but there is a substantial difference, not just practically but legally. If you're ignorant of that difference, that's fine. Everybody is mistaken or ignorant some of the time. We're all human after all. But if you know the difference and choose to use the wrong terminology anyway, then you are being deliberately deceptive. Either way, it warrants a correction.

Where's the legal definition of "assault rifle" == "machine gun" from?

the phrase comes from the unique German WW2 weapon "Sturmgewehr 44" (literally Assault Rifle 44).

It was the first example of the Assault Rifle weapon type with the defining characteristics being an intermediate cartridge (between pistol round and rifle round) that allows controllable automatic fire at engagement ranges further than submachine guns.

Most AR15s cannot be considered 'Assault Rifles' as although they are chambered in an intermediate cartridge, they are for the most part semi-automatic and not capable of automatic fire.

Note that 'Assault Rifle' does not seem to be a ATF defined term, they always use the term Machine Gun for automatic weapons. The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word

> The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word

Every game I've played where it is relevant uses the "Assault Rifle" term, and way more young people are familiar with game definitions than anything else. Here is roughly how weapons are defined in games:

Submachine gun - Automatic pistol with large clip.

Rifle - Single shot long barrel higher calibre weapon

Battle Rifle - Burst fire rifle with large clip

Assault Rifle - Automatic fire rifle with large clip

Machine gun - Belt fed automatic fire rifle

Edit: Nothing legal about the above, of course, just noting what the general population would associate with each term. And you can understand why people would be worried about automatic fire high calibre weapons. They aren't useful for anything other than to kill lots of people.

I don't think general population cares about the full-automatic distinction of "assault rifle" because you don't actually need full-auto for the kind of attacks people are potentially worried about.

And afaik the usual distinction for a battle rifle is that it's larger caliber (e.g. as many cold-war standard-issue rifles were)

Just to be pedantic, as we're already in the weeds here, all but "rifle" in your list probably do not use a "clip", they use a magazine. The M1 garand is a rifle that uses a clip, the mini-14 would be a rifle that uses a magazine. Generally.

I understand the point you were making. I do have to ask people, if there's any difference between the Mossberg 464 lever action and the Mossberg 464 ZMB rifle - I mean purely from how scary it is, or whatever.

right, parent commenter seemed to claim that it's a legally clear definition. Which people do all the time, and then don't back up if asked, but still feel the need to make sure to let everyone that doesn't use their definition know that they are wrong. While "assault weapons" at least has been used legally to also include semi-automatics, which muddles the water for general usage quite a bit.

>>>To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. >>>It’s not always a false claim;

Words have meaning and details matter, especially when discussing legalities. It absolutely is always a false claim.

To a lot of people, any big Navy ship that is not an aircraft carrier is "a battleship". To a lot of people, anybody banging away on a keyboard from the command line = "hacking". That doesn't make either claim true. Specificity and clarity are important. To mutually work through a problem set we need commonly-understood definitions, and the lexicon thankfully isn't limited to the simplistic understanding of the uninformed masses.

The word "assault rifle" has a definition, and when you call something that isn't an assault rifle an assault rifle as pertinent to your point and someone points out that it is not an assault rifle and therefore your point is invalid, they have in fact actually won an argument.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com