|
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 189
Posts: 18758 | Quote: fleaswatter POLITIFACT fact checking FAIL In the above link, POLITIFACT is fact checking the following: "At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.” The "POLITIFACT Truth-O-Meter" indicates: FALSE POLITIFACT also says: "Since Rittenhouse is 17 years old, he would not qualify for a concealed carry permit in Illinois. It is against Wisconsin law for someone younger than 18 to possess “a dangerous weapon.”So this is one of the "fact checking" websites that lefties here utilize to prove their information and disprove posts made by right leaning members here? LMAO YEP, keep relying on POLITIFACT and Snopes. LOL LOL LOL
You think an occasional mistake proves your point? Good grief. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
|
| SOOPOO Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 22
Posts: 4171 | Quote: rxwine Quote: fleaswatter POLITIFACT fact checking FAIL In the above link, POLITIFACT is fact checking the following: "At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.” The "POLITIFACT Truth-O-Meter" indicates: FALSE POLITIFACT also says: "Since Rittenhouse is 17 years old, he would not qualify for a concealed carry permit in Illinois. It is against Wisconsin law for someone younger than 18 to possess “a dangerous weapon.”So this is one of the "fact checking" websites that lefties here utilize to prove their information and disprove posts made by right leaning members here? LMAO YEP, keep relying on POLITIFACT and Snopes. LOL LOL LOL
You think an occasional mistake proves your point? Good grief.
If you are supposedly a ‘fact checking website’, that’s quite a big mistake! It’s not like it was me or ams or EB stating something is a fact! Will Politifact issue a retraction and apology? Better yet, will the prosecution!?!? |
|
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 189
Posts: 18758 | Quote: SOOPOO
If you are supposedly a ‘fact checking website’, that’s quite a big mistake! It’s not like it was me or ams or EB stating something is a fact! Will Politifact issue a retraction and apology? Better yet, will the prosecution!?!?
Feel free to point out a more accurate site. You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
|
| Mission146 Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147 | Quote: SOOPOO Quote: rxwine Quote: fleaswatter POLITIFACT fact checking FAIL In the above link, POLITIFACT is fact checking the following: "At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.” The "POLITIFACT Truth-O-Meter" indicates: FALSE POLITIFACT also says: "Since Rittenhouse is 17 years old, he would not qualify for a concealed carry permit in Illinois. It is against Wisconsin law for someone younger than 18 to possess “a dangerous weapon.”So this is one of the "fact checking" websites that lefties here utilize to prove their information and disprove posts made by right leaning members here? LMAO YEP, keep relying on POLITIFACT and Snopes. LOL LOL LOL
You think an occasional mistake proves your point? Good grief.
If you are supposedly a ‘fact checking website’, that’s quite a big mistake! It’s not like it was me or ams or EB stating something is a fact! Will Politifact issue a retraction and apology? Better yet, will the prosecution!?!?
It’s a mistake, to be sure, but it’s hard to believe that they specialize in everything. They might not even have so much as an attorney on the staff. That’s not to be an apologist, or anything. I don’t personally look at the site (I don’t find laws hard to research, though they can sometimes be hard to interpret properly) and I think they should err on the side of not calling things false if they aren’t sure. Do they have an, “Unclear,” ranking, or some such? If not, and they don’t know, then they just shouldn’t include the claim. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
|
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 189
Posts: 18758 | Quote: Mission146 Do they have an, “Unclear,” ranking, or some such?
a collection of recent checks. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/ You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
|
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 189
Posts: 18758 | Quote: EDITOR'S NOTE, Nov. 16, 2021: Judge Bruce Schroeder recently dismissed a misdemeanor charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 against Kyle Rittenhouse.
Readers asked us if this made the fact-check below invalid. We don’t think so. Here’s why.
In August 2020, we fact-checked a claim that it was "perfectly legal" for Rittenhouse to possess an AR-15 without parental supervision. Our reporting found that it was far from perfectly legal, and that it was, in fact, legally murky. That’s why we rated the claim False.
Wisconsin law says that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
In our fact-check, we cite the possibility of an exception for rifles and shotguns. The exception is aimed at letting children ages 16 and 17 hunt. But, as it is also clear, Rittenhouse wasn’t in Kenosha to hunt.
This same legal debate played out a couple of times during the Rittenhouse trial, according to the Associated Press.
Rittenhouse’s defense asked Schroeder to dismiss the firearm possession charge during a pretrial hearing in October. Schroeder, according to the Associated Press, acknowledged the intent of the statute was murky but decided not to dismiss the charge.
The issue came up again on Nov. 15 as lawyers were debating instructions to the jury.
Prosecutors argued that allowing an exception for hunting-style weapons would effectively eliminate the prohibition on minors carrying weapons.
But in this instance, Schroeder dismissed the charge, saying he had a "big problem" with the state statute.
In its reporting, the Associated Press quoted Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini, who is not involved in the case. Cicchini said when statutes aren't clear, they must be read in favor of the defense. "This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws," Cicchini wrote in an article.
The ruling does appear at odds with the intent of legislators. In 2018, the Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff, a nonpartisan legislative service agency akin to the Congressional Research Service, wrote that, "Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm."
These subsequent events show the grey areas of local gun laws — hardly a case of something being "perfectly legal." Our fact-check remains unchanged.
• • •
The 17-year-old accused of shooting three people during a protest in Kenosha, Wis., faces several charges, including first-degree intentional homicide. But some widely shared Facebook posts say he should be cleared of at least some of them.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really? |
|
| Mission146 Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147 | Fair enough. I probably would have read the law the same way they did, but I'm not an attorney and I don't know the full verbiage of the statute. It would be nice if they would identify the specific statute, though. "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman |
|
| terapined Member since: Aug 6, 2014
Threads: 73
Posts: 11791 | Politifact is a fabulous website It's my go to website to check facts Their explanation was enlightening Why do Trumpers hate this site Its simple Trump said he won the last election Politifact rates it as a lie Trumpers can't forgive anybody calling Trump a liar Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World" |
|
| kenarman Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 14
Posts: 4495 | Quote: Mission146 Fair enough. I probably would have read the law the same way they did, but I'm not an attorney and I don't know the full verbiage of the statute. It would be nice if they would identify the specific statute, though.
As mentioned earlier in the thread Politicifact.com is known as a left leaning fact checker. This is a perfect example of why. The law was possibly muddy on the point but they chose to label the claim false. A label of 'unclear' or what ever term they use for that would have been a more truthful answer. They are supposed to be in the business of supplying the truth after all. "but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin |
|
| terapined Member since: Aug 6, 2014
Threads: 73
Posts: 11791 | Quote: kenarman As mentioned earlier in the thread Politicifact.com is known as a left leaning fact checker. This is a perfect example of why. The law was possibly muddy on the point but they chose to label the claim false. A label of 'unclear' or what ever term they use for that would have been a more truthful answer. They are supposed to be in the business of supplying the truth after all.
Is their a right wing site for fact checking Nope Trump wouldn't allow it No way he wants a conservative fact checker to tell him he lost Might want to check politifact for the facts, no doubt they have Trump losing the last election I'm not even sure Newsmax is admitting that For or against Murkowski? Funny how Trumpers can't answer a simple question Trump is against. Republican party supporting Sometimes we live no particular way but our own - Grateful Dead "Eyes of the World" |
