Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fine Figure of a Man said:
Defamation/slander.
Calling someone a white supremacist in a political ad meets the standard in my non-professional opinion. We will see what the courts say.
Do you not think that Rittenhouse is affected negatively by the Biden political ad?
Click to expand...
I’ve not seen the ad you’re referring to. Was it actually produced by the Biden campaign or by some shadowy 503c group? If the latter then that’s who he would have to go after.
 
I have been watching every minute of it thus far, it's very interesting. Though, trying to catch up on ~7 hours of video each day after work has been messing with my sleep schedule a bit, but it's hard to pull away.

As someone actually following this trial closely, it is interesting seeing what out-of-context misleading statement the mainstream media likes to cherry pick for their news story next day.
 
Kyle will likely be font guilty of the misdemeanor weapons charge, and not guilty of everything else. He was carrying the firearms illegally.
 
wiscoaster said:
The topic that interests me is the prosecutor going into great detail and effort with respect to determining where, when and how the gun was stored and who had control of it, also when, where and how and with what it was loaded and chambered, etc. etc. These are all legal issues, yes, but I fail to see or understand how they relate to proving or disproving lawful self-defense. Where the gun was and who had it the night before it was used seems to be irrelevant to me. In my state a "safe storage" bill has been introduced, so that's why that line of questioning caught my attention. How does safe storage relate to lawful self-defense?
Click to expand...

I believe he was trying to get Rittenhouse to state that he had either crossed state lines with the gun, or that he knew that he wasn't able to possess it (which is a matter of some legal debate regarding the WI statute). I don't think Rittenhouse did himself any favors in how he acquired the gun, he basically admitted to a straw purchase, and I think the only thing that could keep him out of that is it being conclusively demonstrated that he wasn't ineligible to possess. Remember that he's charged with more than just the murder counts, the state is also trying to prove the reckless endangerment count and the possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 count.

The latter one is tricky because it's not as clear-cut as you might think.
 
AlexanderA said:
...... The takeaway for us as gun owners, though, is not to get into such situations in the first place.
Click to expand...
So......just stay in our caves and watch Seinfeld reruns?:scrutiny:
How we can be champions of the right to keep and bear arms.......yet avoid the situations where they are needed?
Dumb kid? Maybe. But his actions weren't. I haven't seen one bit of testimony that showed KR instigated a "situation".



He may have tactically been in a self-defense situation, but strategically he went looking for trouble. In other words he was not totally blameless for what happened.
Click to expand...
Horsehockey.
Using your theory, every police officer, armed security guard, homeowner, business owner and every person who carries a firearm for self defense purposes goes "looking for trouble". Thats ridiculous.

Blame goes on the instigators..........in other words the rioters who thought it a good idea to threaten, pursue, point a handgun or assault with a skateboard a seventeen year old armed with an AR15.

Blaming Rittenhous for getting into "such situations" and "looking for trouble" sounds a bit like victim blaming.
 
For some situational awareness, the "distance" Kyle traveled is similar to to that between Kansas City, KS and Kansas City, MO--only without a river between. The distance traveled is better measured in minutes than miles.

Kenosha is a melting pot, a microcosm of "America"--there was a a strong sense that "this is Kenosha, we don't have riots; somebody ought to do something." And, and idealist or twelve tried to do just that. To varying levels of success.

Note that Grosskreutz admitted to having traveled to several places to agitate and "protest." He, quite probably, did violate a number of WI Laws, particularly in carrying a concealed weapon without a current permit, and with the intent of involving himself in "protest actions." He also (IIRC) admitted to crossing State lines, armed. to join the protests.
 
Telekinesis said:
The prosecutor is going into this because one of the other charges against Kyle is related to being in possession of a firearm by someone under 18. That brings all of the questions about how he came into possession of the gun into scope..
Click to expand...
This analysis makes sense to me. The prosecution has blown homicide charges; they've got to get him on something. I'm wondering if this charge is a felony or a misdemeanor if they can get him on that?
 
Kleanbore said:
I learned a long time ago to not try to guess what juries will do.
Click to expand...
If it goes to jury. The prosecutor's conduct of the prosecution has been so egregious that either a mistrial or a directed verdict might be the result. Though, maybe that's their plan. Depends on whether it's with or without jeopardy.
 
I have watched some of the live coverage of the Rittenhouse trial. Unfortunately, I am too busy to watch the whole thing and usually have to catch the highlights after. Many of the highlights are glaringly showing the media bias against Rittenhouse, still calling him a "murderer" "White supremacist" "terrorist" etc. But when I watch the trial live, the prosecution is falling all over themselves with technical errors, witnesses that corroborate self-defense, and flagrantly irrelevant questions in an attempt to smoke screen the jury.

wiscoaster said:
mistrial
Click to expand...

I hope not. Mistrials have a risk of being tried again, as they are not protected under double jeopardy clauses. In order for this to be a "win" for gun owners it needs to be a not guilty verdict on the felony crimes at least and ideally all of them.
 
dogtown tom said:
Using your theory, every police officer, armed security guard, homeowner, business owner and every person who carries a firearm for self defense purposes goes "looking for trouble". That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said at all. There's a difference between bona fide self defense and voluntarily putting yourself in harm's way. This kid was what might be called an "officious intermeddler." He didn't have to be there at all. (And the same might be said about the individuals who were shot.) It was just a bad situation all around.

He's going to walk. But this shouldn't be an example for gun owners generally. We should stay out of trouble spots.
 
One thing for sure, his “emotional breakdown” in the hot seat was a win for him. That is likely a point very much considered by his legal team. It shows a human who has been greatly and negatively affected by the situation that they were involved in. The prosecutors are no longer putting together a case against “that guy” but against a young man who became a victim that night. A victim perhaps by his own poor decisions, but a victim nonetheless. Legal, illegal, gray area, it no longer matters. Some jurors will see that young man and not be able to bear the thought of taking his freedom.
 
F-111 John said:
To me it is a clear cut case of poor judgement on the part of a 17 year old to put himself in that situation that night, but also a clear cut case of justifiable self defense.
Click to expand...
I think that sums up this whole situation.

I don't think this kid is a criminal, just in way over his head and was lucky to make it out alive after the crowd turned on him.
 
Styx said:
Kyle will likely be font guilty of the misdemeanor weapons charge, and not guilty of everything else. He was carrying the firearms illegally.
Click to expand...
That sounds reasonable, however, the prosecutor might have already instilled in a juror or two that they aren't going to convict this kid on anything... and I wouldn't blame them if jury nullification was the result of this prosecutor's tactics.
 
[EDIT] I was incorrect. See post 81.

JTHunter said:
What is your basis for such a statement?
Click to expand...

Wisconsin has a law that makes it a Class A misdemeanor for anyone under the age of 18 to carry a firearm (Wisconsin statue 948.60 (2) (a) Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.) The friend who either gave, sold, or loaned him the AR15 is guilty of a Class I felony; however, because Kyle fired the AR15, his friend is guilty of a Class H felony under Wisconsin law 948.60 (2) (c).

Wisconsin Code 948.60 said:
48.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.


(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.


(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.
Click to expand...
The law is clear, and there is no grey area. Those ceavets to the statue are:
  1. If Kyle was using his weapon "in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult." (Wisconsin: 948.60 (3) (a))
  2. If Kyle was an "armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty." (Wisconsin: 948.60 (3) (b))
  3. If Kyle had a hunting licence and was in the act of hunting. (Wisconsin: 948.60 (3) (c); 29.593 (1) (a); 29.592 (1))

Kleanbore said:
I learned a long time ago to not try to guess what juries will do.
Click to expand...

If they uphold the law, that's the way it should go.

armydog said:
That sounds reasonable, however, the prosecutor might have already instilled in a juror or two that they aren't going to convict this kid on anything... and I wouldn't blame them if jury nullification was the result of this prosecutor's tactics.
Click to expand...

He may beat the other charges in the jury is fair; however, I do not see him beating the weapons charge which fortunately for him is a misdemeanor. That might be a good thing. Some jurors might not feel comfortable letting him go scott free, so they'll be content with sticking him with something minor. On the flip side, they could ignore the clear fact that Kyle broke the law just because they do not like the prosecutor.
 
Last edited:
JTHunter said:
Styx said: ↑
Kyle will likely be font guilty of the misdemeanor weapons charge, and not guilty of everything else. He was carrying the firearms illegally.

What is your basis for such a statement?
Click to expand...

Wisconsin Statute 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(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.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.​
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(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.
​
948.60 3(c) is the exception that is under debate. I believe the legislative intent of 3(c) was to carve out an exception to the possession of a dangerous weapon charge for those under 18 who were engaged in hunting. 941.28 is a prohibition against SBRs and SBSs, and doesn't apply. 29.304 is titled "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age", and since Kyle was 17 at the time, doesn't apply. Which leaves 29.593 titled "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval." If Kyle did not possess a Wisconsin Hunter Safety certificate at the time he was carrying the rifle, then he was not in compliance with 29.593, and thus not entitled to the 3(c) exception to the possession of a dangerous weapon statute.


wiscoaster said:
... but he was't carrying the AR-15 concealed ...
Click to expand...

CapnMac was referring to Grosskreutz, not Kyle Rittenhouse.
 
F-111 John said:
Wisconsin Statute 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(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.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.​
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(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.
​
948.60 3(c) is the exception that is under debate. I believe the legislative intent of 3(c) was to carve out an exception to the possession of a dangerous weapon charge for those under 18 who were engaged in hunting. 941.28 is a prohibition against SBRs and SBSs, and doesn't apply. 29.304 is titled "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age", and since Kyle was 17 at the time, doesn't apply. Which leaves 29.593 titled "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval." If Kyle did not possess a Wisconsin Hunter Safety certificate at the time he was carrying the rifle, then he was not in compliance with 29.593, and thus not entitled to the 3(c) exception to the possession of a dangerous weapon statute.




CapnMac was referring to Grosskreutz, not Kyle Rittenhouse.
Click to expand...
[EDIT] I was incorrect. See post 81.
Not exactly... He not only had to have had a hunting license, but he also had to be in the act of hunting at the time which he clearly was not. The Defense's argument is that Kyle was, and I quote, "Hunting the Streets", but that's clearly a bunch of BS. He is guilty as sin of violating that law.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Fine Figure of a Man
  • Locked
What happens after Rittenhouse is acquitted?
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
5K
Walkalong
Walkalong
G
  • Locked
Weapons type at trial
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
193
Views
7K
Deanimator
Deanimator
Craig_AR
  • Locked
SAF, et al., Sues MD over Concealed Carry Process
Replies
7
Views
1K
JTHunter
JTHunter
Good Ol' Boy
  • Locked
Bench Or Jury?
Replies
20
Views
2K
lemaymiami
lemaymiami
DeepSouth
  • Locked
Protecting the community
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top