I get the families of the people being heard but not on bail or in any proceeding other than sentencing. For instance a motion to suppress evidence a "victim" statement should bare no weight unless they actually witnessed the crime and not the videos online.

If 'Marcy's Law' as you describe is accurate, that is totally insane!

Watching Huber's interview on CNN weeks ago made me sick.

https://www.marsyslaw.us/what_is_marsys_law

"To be notified of specific public proceedings throughout the criminal justice process** and to be present and heard during those proceedings"**

emphasis added

and sorry it's Marsy's Law, not Marcy's Law

TL;DR: A billionaire in California started this organization after his sister was killed and the family encountered her killer in a grocery store a week later and weren't notified by the court that he was out on bail.

Some aspects of the law seem pretty reasonable, like notifying alleged victims after an alleged defendant is released on bail. I don't see any issue with that

But, as per usual with these things, the comprehensive list of points in this cookie-cutter amendment to states' constitutions includes too much.

including giving alleged victims the right to "be heard" at every proceeding

My main morale argument is against the declaration of victimhood before a trial has even begun. On principle I just don't think that this ensures a fair trial.

Mmm I agree with you

It sounds like it might be unconstitutional on those grounds

the language of this organization and in the cookie-cutter amendments adopted by states doesn't use the term "alleged"

just declares them victims. so that's problematic

> TL;DR: A billionaire in California started this organization after his sister was killed and the family encountered her killer in a grocery store a week later and weren't notified by the court that he was out on bail.
>
> Some aspects of the law seem pretty reasonable, like notifying alleged victims after an alleged defendant is released on bail. I don't see any issue with that
@Neph (Nec) / Krystaps (War) I think the courts had a mechanism in place to allow for notification but only on request by the victims family. I know I have seen it in other states like Florida for one but it is usually in domestic matters. The victims or their family are allowed to be present but have no say other than in sentencing.

If my sister was killed and I encountered her killer in a grocery store... They would need 🧹 clean up in the isle he was in.

@xephael I share that view

Cleanup aisle 5

If I was a billionaire, you better be hiding better than Osama did😂

https://waow.com/2020/11/09/gun-used-by-rittenhouse-in-kenosha-killings-was-bought-in-ladysmith-complaint-states/

This breaking news on the rittenhouse case?

`The complaint says Black bought the gun with money from Rittenhouse with the intention of giving the gun to him.`

They'd have a helluva time proving who's money it was, & loaning a rifle unless I'm mistaken isn't a crime

This Writtenhouse Thing is a Political Farce far as I'm concerned

Seeing the election results, I got to say it's not looking good for Rittenhouse

hopefully we don't live in a place where the election results have an impact on a case

Are we expecting the new regime to interfere in this case?

Will he be convicted though?

How do you buy an illegal gun if you are legally allowed to buy it lol

Wouldn't that type of purchase, if proven, be considered a "straw" or "straw hat" purchase? I do believe those types of purchases are illegal. In PA i know they are illegal.

yes

they put up warning signs all over the stores

although in this case I am not sure

he wasn't actually not allowed to have the gun

(he was perhaps in context)

but there are hunting exceptions

so maybe - even if this allegation is 100% and provable - he can claim that he is not meant to be covered by limits of "straw purchase" laws, because he is not a felon or whatever, and could use the weapon, just under specific circumstances allowed by the hunting exception

Since his incident wasn't a hunting exception, could he still be charged with the "unlawful possession of a deadly weapon by a minor" charge in Wisconsin? It's a misdemeanor but would it still fall under the particular statute since he is a minor and he was in possession of a deadly weapon? If Robert already covered it then I probably missed it.

Robert doesn't know

he said it has no impact on the murder charge