We are nearing the finish line in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and one piece of news today really set off a firestorm. That would be the judge dismissing the illegal gun charge, which was once thought to be the prosecution’s best hope at getting a conviction on something.
Naturally, the response from the left, which has become cultishly invested in Rittenhouse being put in prison for life for defending himself, was pure hysteria.
It is absofuckinglutely disgusting that Judge Schroeder has dismissed count 6 in the #KyleRittenhouse case about illegal possession of a firearm under age.
Pretty sure the judge thinks it is OK for him to commit murder too
— David Leavitt (@David_Leavitt) November 15, 2021
Some of that was driven by a Politifact report which boldly and confidently proclaimed that it was “false” to say that Rittenhouse was legally carrying a gun the night of the shootings. They originally gave the rating back in August of 2020, slamming a Facebook post that made the claim. They then re-upped that article today in response to the judge dismissing the illegal gun charge, further feeding the meltdown of people who are too vapid to do their own research.
A Facebook post says, “At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.” That's False. https://t.co/Rxtw5rkFZb
— PolitiFact Wisconsin (@PolitiFactWisc) August 28, 2020
It has never been clear that it was "perfectly legal" for then-17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse to carry a gun. https://t.co/2xvPi9LvRv
— PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) November 15, 2021
The problem is that it is actually fairly clear. The law stipulates in Wisconsin that a 16 or 17-year-old can carry a long rifle or a shotgun as long as it is not concealed. That means Rittenhouse was within his rights to be armed with the gun he had that night. That fact is not ambiguous, but Politifact ridiculously claims that because the law was supposedly written with hunting in mind, that it is false to say Rittenhouse was legally armed.
— Bad Legal Takes (@BadLegalTakes) November 15, 2021
That’s not how any of this works. Nowhere in the statute is hunting mentioned as a qualifier, and while lawmakers may have had a certain preference for why they allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to carry rifles in public, that is irrelevant to the question of whether Rittenhouse broke the law or not. He simply didn’t, and Politifact is maliciously misframing matters. That has served as the basis for another round of attacks on a judge that is just doing his job.
Further, even if Politifact wanted to suggest that the law was meant for hunting while conceding he was still technically legally armed, the proper rating there would be “mostly true” with a mention on the further context. But to outright call the claim false is malpractice.
In the end, it is the prosecution’s fault for bringing the wrong charge in the first place, with ADA Thomas Binger once again showing he has very little grasp of the facts. That’s where the blame lies here, not with the judge for cleaning up the mess. Like it or not, Rittenhouse was legal to carry the gun that night, both by an unbiased reading of the law and via the decision of the judge. But the damage is already done, as partisans are now claiming the charge was improperly dismissed.
Let this be a reminder that the fact-checking industry is an absolute joke. They are heavily partisan and will twist and spin just about anything to come to a preferred conclusion. It is a travesty that they hold so much power on social media. I can’t tell begin to tell you the garbage RedState has to put up with to please bad-faith actors who threaten our livelihoods simply for telling the truth.