advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: November 15, 2021 09:47AM
Judge Bruce Schroeder just dismissed Count 6 of the indictment against Kyle Rittenhouse, a misdemeanor charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

The charge was punishable by up to nine months in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Jury instructions are now being given (which may take longer than the jury deliberation). The actual voting jury is selected by drawing lots



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: mattkime
Date: November 15, 2021 09:54AM
So there's no @#$%& law against a minor running around with an automatic assault rifle?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: prymsnap
Date: November 15, 2021 10:05AM
Quote
mattkime
So there's no @#$%& law against a minor running around with an automatic assault rifle?

Depends on skin tone.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Rolando
Date: November 15, 2021 10:29AM
Quote
prymsnap
Quote
mattkime
So there's no @#$%& law against a minor running around with an automatic assault rifle?

Depends on skin tone.

Exactly



San Antonio, TX (in the old city)


"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Eli Weisel

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"I don’t want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it." - Billy Graham 1981

"Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise" - Barry Goldwater
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: November 15, 2021 10:40AM
Wasn't the loophole in the law to allow minors to carry rifles while hunting (presumably with a supervising adult)?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Acer
Date: November 15, 2021 10:55AM
Hey, look! A gun definition thread! Someone with an NRA membership will be along shortly with a wall of text to explain the minutia of how your use of the terms you are using is wrong and anyway second amendment and that.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: deckeda
Date: November 15, 2021 11:06AM
Quote
Lux Interior
Wasn't the loophole in the law to allow minors to carry rifles while hunting (presumably with a supervising adult)?

Yes. Poor Kyle was out hunting looters and rioters who fully deserved to be shot for their participation in causing a ruckus and in one instance, throwing a bag at him. Also, he was there to supply medical help. One trigger pull at a time.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 15, 2021 11:15AM
Quote
mattkime
So there's no @#$%& law against a minor running around with an automatic assault rifle?

Was it illegally converted to full auto? Or did it have the appropriate paperwork and license for a pre 1986 full auto or select fire lower?

I was not aware he had a full automatic rifle, just a semi auto, or "auto loader" rifle.

And no, I'm not an NRA member. Just someone who isn't ignorant about the subject being discussed.

And I think Kyle was a childish idiot looking for trouble. He really needs to do serious time for what he did. Rule #1 in self defense. Get yourself out of the situation if you can. He put himself IN harms way on purpose.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2021 11:20AM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: deckeda
Date: November 15, 2021 11:34AM
What the judge said the other day to the jury was that if the length of the firearm was incorrect they would be able to not consider the firearm as being wrong for him to carry.

He’s done about all he can for Rittenhouse except provide him a hanky for the tears that were never produced.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: mattkime
Date: November 15, 2021 12:08PM
Quote
Racer X
And no, I'm not an NRA member. Just someone who isn't ignorant about the subject being discussed.

I stand corrected, although I consider it a distinction without consequence.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 15, 2021 12:53PM
If that kid had an unlicensed full auto rifle, the Feds would be dealing with this and there wouldn't be any of this BS.

HUGE distinction.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: mattkime
Date: November 15, 2021 01:18PM
Quote
Racer X
If that kid had an unlicensed full auto rifle, the Feds would be dealing with this and there wouldn't be any of this BS.

HUGE distinction.

Understand thats how the law is written, but if you look at outcomes - how fast can bullets come out? Does it matter?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: deckeda
Date: November 15, 2021 02:42PM
It's not auto vs semi auto or whatever. It's length. In Wisconsin, longer firearms are less dangerous because they're for hunting.

From WaPo 4 days ago when it seemed likely Rittenhouse would be facing a possession charge:

Quote

In Wisconsin, lawful gun owners can generally open carry without a permit. But a person must be 18 or older to carry a “dangerous weapon.” Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shootings.

Rittenhouse’s attorneys previously argued he was protected under a vague state law that allows younger children to carry rifles for hunting, but he was charged with underaged unlawful firearms possession anyway. Criminal defense attorneys who specialize in Wisconsin firearm law say it will be hard for the defense to beat that back at trial.

“There are a variety of defenses to this charge; none of them are great or even rise to the level of good,” said Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee-based criminal defense attorney.

[www.washingtonpost.com]

But today because the judge doesn't like how the law is written, he ignores its apparent intent. You know, the part where judgment comes into it.

Quote

Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on the murky wording of the statute. They pointed to a provision that said the law could only be applied if the minor was carrying “a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.” The statute defines a short-barreled rifle as having a barrel length of less than 16 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches.

Prosecutors have repeatedly argued that the defense was misinterpreting the statute, arguing that the exception that the defense cited only applies to minors who are hunting or in possession of a hunter’s education certificate. On Monday, prosecutors argued that the jury should be the ones to interpret the statute.

But Schroeder, who had previously rejected defense motions to dismiss the misdemeanor weapon charge, ultimately dismissed the count ahead of closing statements. The judge said he had “big problems with this statute” and ruled that prosecutors had not offered evidence that Rittenhouse’s AR-15 rifle had an illegally short barrel.

I'm not aware that the length of the firearm Rittenhouse carried made it difficult for him to use it. So perhaps we should all all feel lucky it wasn't shorter?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Acer
Date: November 15, 2021 02:56PM
Killed two and wounded a third, no? Pretty good for a gun that's not used for that. Somebody should have explained to the founding fathers that their militia flintlocks weren't useful for defense.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 15, 2021 03:34PM
Quote
mattkime
Quote
Racer X
If that kid had an unlicensed full auto rifle, the Feds would be dealing with this and there wouldn't be any of this BS.

HUGE distinction.

Understand that's how the law is written, but if you look at outcomes - how fast can bullets come out? Does it matter?
About 1.5 per second with practice and the right buffer weight and spring, versus 15+ per second.

the result would be that Rittenhouse would be in a Federal courthouse, with a real prosecutor, and with a guaranteed 10-20 for just the fully automatic rifle. Was it in his possession? Yes. Was it fully automatic? Yes. Was it licensed to him? No. Guilty. 10-20 years.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Bill in NC
Date: November 15, 2021 03:35PM
nothing 'murky' about it.

he can't be charged as a 'minor in possession of a dangerous weapon' as long as the rifle has minimum barrel length of over 16" which the AR-style rifle he carried did:

"Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on the murky wording of the statute.

They pointed to a provision that said the law could only be applied if the minor was carrying 'a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.'"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2021 03:36PM by Bill in NC.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: mattkime
Date: November 15, 2021 03:39PM
Clearly, the law was written this way to allow minors to carry AR style weapons.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 15, 2021 03:45PM
Quote
mattkime
Clearly, the law was written this way to allow minors to carry AR style weapons.

No, it was clearly written that way so a minor COULDN'T carry a NFA weapon, like a short barreled rifle, or short barreled shotgun. Neither have legit hunting uses.

A standard length NON NFA rifle HAS legit hunting uses.

And since Wisconsin is an open carry state, he could carry it around without it being in a case.

I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm trying to explain what is going on with respect to the firearm laws, both state and federal.

The media has no interest in putting forth the effort to educate.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: November 15, 2021 03:54PM
Doesn't matter - the judge tossed it. The question is whether prosecutors can refile since the jury never ruled on the charge.



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: mattkime
Date: November 15, 2021 03:58PM
Quote
Racer X
A standard length NON NFA rifle HAS legit hunting uses.

We may disagree, particularly where semi-automatic weapons are concerned.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2021 04:03PM by mattkime.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: wave rider
Date: November 15, 2021 04:04PM
Quote
Racer X
Quote
mattkime
Quote
Racer X
If that kid had an unlicensed full auto rifle, the Feds would be dealing with this and there wouldn't be any of this BS.

HUGE distinction.

Understand that's how the law is written, but if you look at outcomes - how fast can bullets come out? Does it matter?
About 1.5 per second with practice and the right buffer weight and spring, versus 15+ per second.

the result would be that Rittenhouse would be in a Federal courthouse, with a real prosecutor, and with a guaranteed 10-20 for just the fully automatic rifle. Was it in his possession? Yes. Was it fully automatic? Yes. Was it licensed to him? No. Guilty. 10-20 years.

Hmmmm… Defense ballistics (or something) expert testified that four bullets were fired in .76 seconds. He used video and audio files and measured down to frame rate to come up with his calculation. I think the defense was pointing out there was no time for Rittenhouse to react differently, i.e. shoot less times. Pretty sure that was the way I heard it…

Edit>
Quote
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Citing his analysis of several videos of the events, John Black told jurors in Rittenhouse's homicide trial the teen's first four shots at Joseph Rosenbaum took three-quarters of a second.

[www.jsonline.com]



=wr=



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2021 04:13PM by wave rider.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: deckeda
Date: November 15, 2021 04:12PM
Apparently there's nothing in the statute that says hunting rifles are used only for hunting. Possession alone implies legality of usage.

Homicide can occur with a car, but apparently not with a rifle if it isn't too short. Grosskreutz better I guess just arm himself up next time, because his pistol is curiously more of a threat than Kyle's AR.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 15, 2021 04:32PM
I've probably got better motion analysis software than their "expert" I've been doing high speed film, and then high speed video motion analysis since 1986, working for defense contractors testing weapons systems and various fire suppression systems and air bag designs.

Anyone know if the video is available?

4 shots in .76 seconds requires a well tuned system and a lot of practice. NOT something a 17yo is likely to have achieved unless he is especially gifted.

And again, I am in NO WAY defending his actions.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2021 04:36PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Ted King
Date: November 15, 2021 05:01PM
I'm getting a sort of George Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin's murderer) vibe about what happened with Rittenhouse's killings. Rittenhouse will probably get off on murder charges because the jury wasn't convinced by the prosecution that the killings were not done in self defense. The vibe is that they both will have used self defense legal defenses where the self defense context that legally counts is the events immediately before the killings. I suppose that from a legal perspective that makes sense. But with both of these guys it is clear that they created the conditions that led to them supposedly needing to defend themselves. They put themselves into a place where their lives could easily be in danger and neither one of them had a good reason to be in those places carrying guns with an intent of using them "if need be" doing what they did before the shootings.



e pluribus unum



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2021 08:41PM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 15, 2021 05:14PM
That's exactly how I see it Ted. Rule #1 in any self defense shooting is try and remove yourself from the situation. ie. RUN. Kyle actively went to that location, anticipating confrontation. That is obvious.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Speedy
Date: November 15, 2021 06:16PM
Quote
Racer X
That's exactly how I see it Ted. Rule #1 in any self defense shooting is try and remove yourself from the situation. ie. RUN. Kyle actively went to that location, anticipating confrontation. That is obvious.

Of course he did, he was there to protect the property of businesses in Kenosha. The kid is a selfless defender of property rights of those business people in a neighboring state to that of his residence. Also, to show support for law enforcement who were grateful to have him there.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: November 15, 2021 07:44PM
Doesn't matter - the judge tossed it. The question is whether prosecutors can refile since the jury never ruled on the charge.


The judge tossed in based on rule of law.

Some of you may be familiar with it.

Obviously most are not.

It seems the point is to convict no matter how because someone you presume guilty isn't entitled to a fair trial.

What statue specially did the prosecution believe was violated?

Who says it's a 'hunting law', does the statue say it's a 'hunting law'?

Is it part of the WI penal code or their Fish and Game code?

It seems the judge decided that according to statue law, the gun didn't meet the element of a violation.

Anybody got documentation to the contrary?

The judge refused to admit was is essentially an audio recording as evidence.

Again, audio recordings are not admissible unless they meet very specific exceptions.



The question is whether prosecutors can refile since the jury never ruled on the charge.[/i]

The question is whether or not the law can be interpreted to mean 'when hunting authorized game not humans' and that sounds like getting a court to interpret and rule on the statue, and how far appeals will go.

I wanted to see OJ convicted of murder, and I believe if the prosecution had done a better job, he very well might have been.

But not at the expense of subverting the rule of law, and by extension - justice.

Hey, why don't all y'all law and order haters saddle up, ride to WI, lynch him because rule of law is just a waste of time when you know he's guilty, right?

Honestly, you lot (exceptions noted) sound no different than the Repubs you mock for their lack of regard of rule of law.

No doubt there will be much written about this trial and its outcome, maybe even books.

I just hope some it comes from objective authors, knowledgable of and experienced in criminal law and especially WI law.




I am that Masked Man.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Speedy
Date: November 15, 2021 08:27PM
I would say he was hunting.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: deckeda
Date: November 16, 2021 08:32AM
Quote
Speedy
I would say he was hunting.

Of course he was. He traveled to fertile ground.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: deckeda
Date: November 16, 2021 08:36AM
Rammie, rule of law? It's not about "lynching," it's about application of law. That's kinda why the judiciary exists.

I see people all the time fall back on say, the Constitution (or state law, or whatever) as if interpretation and argument are never part of the process.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Fritz
Date: November 16, 2021 08:39AM
Quote
Ted King
I'm getting a sort of George Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin's murderer) vibe about what happened with Rittenhouse's killings.

yup.



!#$@@$#!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: pdq
Date: November 16, 2021 08:45AM
Quote
Speedy
Quote
Racer X
That's exactly how I see it Ted. Rule #1 in any self defense shooting is try and remove yourself from the situation. ie. RUN. Kyle actively went to that location, anticipating confrontation. That is obvious.

Of course he did, he was there to protect the property of businesses in Kenosha. The kid is a selfless defender of property rights of those business people in a neighboring state to that of his residence. Also, to show support for law enforcement who were grateful to have him there.

I know Speedy’s dry humor. It reminds me of Alexanda Petri’s (In full here):

Quote

The important thing to remember about the decisions that left two people dead and a lot of other people holding loose kidneys with expressions of abject horror is that the teenager who showed up in the operating room with a scalpel he had brought from home was a big fan of doctors and thought that he would be able to help.

What ensued was very sad. Obviously it was sad. If this teen had not been there, it does seem that, at minimum, he would not personally have stabbed anyone. It is possible that some people who are not alive now would still be alive. But it is also possible that they would have perished in unrelated accidents! We can never truly know, so the important thing to keep in mind is what he meant to do…

Wouldn’t we all have done the same in his position, with our father on the operating table? Well, not literally his father — in fact, not someone he knew personally at all… Because, again, he was a big fan of doctors and always dreamed of being one someday. This makes his presence understandable, and we can’t possibly pass judgment on him for [the multiple stabbings that] happened.

…That two people are now dead as a result of his actions is tragic, but the real tragedy would be if people were discouraged from showing up to operating theaters with scalpels and full hearts and a can-do attitude and zero medical degrees. He was merely trying to be a doctor, which is something you can do simply by showing up with equipment you brought from home.

… Yes, this boy just wanted people to be safer, and although the consequence of his actions was the exact opposite of that, consequences are not what count, at least not in this case... A teenager showed up with weapons and made a situation worse, but the important thing is that he says he meant well.

Hear, hear!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: pdq
Date: November 16, 2021 09:30AM
BTW, I just read the relevant WI statutes, and I don’t buy the judge’s reasoning. A reasonable person would call Rittenhouse’s assault rifle a dangerous weapon, and no reasonable person would conclude he had it in his possession that night for hunting purposes.

Quote

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; [and lots of other examples]

…(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

[ie the mother]

Here’s the contentious part:

Quote

(3)…
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

The first [941.28] is where the 16” barrel thing comes from, and is a red herring, if you ask me. The second [29.304 and 29.593] are hunting regulations. Rittenhouse was not hunting, and no reasonable person would believe he was “in compliance” with hunting regulations, either in specific (did he have a WI hunting license? For what kind of “hunting”?) or in the plain common-sense intent of the statute.

The judge seized on the 16” herring as an excuse to pretend Rittenhouse was okay when the plain meaning of the statute seems to me that someone under 18 cannot be in possession of a dangerous weapon unless they’re 1) target shooting with an adult, 2) in the armed forces, or 3) hunting and in compliance with hunting laws.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: kj
Date: November 16, 2021 05:29PM
I'll go along with that. Judges should use Judgement, not just interpret law like a bad AI program.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Ted King
Date: November 16, 2021 05:51PM
Quote
kj
Judges should use Judgement, not just interpret law like a bad AI program.

goodone



e pluribus unum
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge drops Rittenhouse gun charge
Posted by: Racer X
Date: November 16, 2021 08:22PM
Then the prosecution can file an appeal on the ruling of the dismissing of the weapons charge. Should be a slam dunk with most any other judge.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 78
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020