>He allows that charge and any conviction would get thrown out
>on appeal.

Rittenhouse was charged with the minor possession offense, so the charge had already occurred. It wasn't until the defense objected on the technicality that the charge was thrown out - so the judge would've allowed the charge to go through w/ out that objection on technicality.

Writ large in our jurisprudence is the balancing of both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law - as the old idiomatic antithesis goes. What happened here is that the judge sought to interpret a technicality and obey the letter of the law (but not the spirit of the law) in a way that does not recognize the intent of the statute. We see this time and time again where judges have to make judgment calls on not just what the letter of the law says literally - but also the spirit of the law i.e. what is the intent of the law as written.

Whether this would've been taken up on appeal successfully depends largely on the judge - as they are not the objective jurisprudential creatures that some purport.

>Blame tbe idiots that allowed that law to stay on the books as
>written. I mean its fucking georgia, they may 'correct' the
>law by removing the entire statute completely.

This occurred in Wisconsin, but yea, it's not the first time a law was poorly/vaguely written.

This case was always a very difficult case to prosecute given the facts and clear self-defense claims available to Rittenhouse in Wisconsin, but interpreting the statute to include the intent of the law (re: minor possession weapons charge) would've at least demonstrated that the vigilante lawless violence of Rittenhouse wasn't wholly excused by the justice system.

I actually think the jury made the right call on the homicide charges, given the facts at hand. But ain't no way he should've walked scot free on the possession charge.


-->