Althouse: "The firearm never crossed state lines. That is a legal firearm in the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin is an open carry state. That charge is incorrect as a matter of state law."

September 1, 2020

"The firearm never crossed state lines. That is a legal firearm in the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin is an open carry state. That charge is incorrect as a matter of state law."

"He was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. This is 100% self-defense.... They began screaming that Kyle needed to be killed and they were going to kill him. They started relentlessly hunting him as prey as he ran down the street attempting to retreat. As he ran out of room to retreat, shots were fired from behind him. He fired and disarmed the individual, hitting him in the arm. He shot and killed the other person who was attacking him. And I got to tell you... in this war zone, in this chaos that is occurring in this city in America in the middle of Wisconsin... the only individuals that Kyle shot were the three individuals that were attacking him and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. This is a 17-year-old kid... This is amazing... That man survived. That man has not been charged. He came at a 17-year-old with a gun. Why has he not been charged?... [W]here are the charges for aggravated assault against Kyle Rittenhouse... and where are the charges against the people who are funding this activity and who are financing it?"

Said John Pierce, the lawyer for Kyle Rittenhouse (Real Clear Politics).

113 comments:

404 Page Not Found said...: In Joe Biden's America, you get arrested for defending yourself from a left wing mob.; 9/1/20, 6:30 PM
404 Page Not Found said...: In Joe Biden's America, you get arrested for defending yourself from a left wing mob.; 9/1/20, 6:30 PM
Gerrard787 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/1/20, 6:36 PM
Earnest Prole said...: He wasn't charged with bringing a firearm across state lines, he was charged with open carry by a person under 18, a violation of Wisconsin law.; 9/1/20, 6:39 PM
MayBee said...: I think it's fascinating that Kyle Rittenhouse's name has been made famous, when we have not heard the names of the murderers in CHAZ. There have been a lot of killings amongst these protests, and he is really the only shooter the press talks about.; 9/1/20, 6:41 PM
themightypuck said...: This has been happening since Trump got elected. Left wing activists attack Trump supporters, are arrested, released, and not charged or let off with a slap on the wrist. It's like 1930s Germany where the SA got the same treatment and the communists had the book thrown at them. Lesson: look deeply into the local DA before you protest/counter-protest.; 9/1/20, 6:44 PM
Dave Begley said...: Need to move the trial up to northwest WI.; 9/1/20, 6:44 PM
Dave Begley said...: Move the trial to Superior or LaCrosse.; 9/1/20, 6:46 PM
rehajm said...: In WI it's a class A misdemeanor for a person under 18 to open carry, yes? Is that what he's charged with?; 9/1/20, 6:48 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: The lawyer has a tell. “He came at a seventeen-year-old with a gun.” Yes, the seventeen-year old did have a gun. He shot three people but the self-defense evidence is only on the second and third person he shot. But if the first person was not shot in justified self-defense, then he had no justification in shooting the second and third person.

The justice for the dead will probably have to come from civil suits. The lawyer says he came at the request of the business owner, so that makes him and his insurance company liable for the actions of his untrained security guard. The lawyer also says he got the gun in Wisconsin, so if not from the business owner, there’s another person with potential civil liability.; 9/1/20, 6:51 PM
Lyle Smith said...: Democrats are totalitarians now... that is why arm-shot guy hasn't been arrested. Kenosha is a totalitarian Democrat controlled city.; 9/1/20, 6:52 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: 404 Page Not Found, this is Donald Trump’s America. Joe Biden is Not President.; 9/1/20, 6:53 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Then you have the fact that he fled the scene, even after he reached the safety of the police line. That’s evidence of consciousness of guilt, Still, though, prosectors charged first degree murder and the best they can expect from what we have seen so far is manslaughter.; 9/1/20, 7:01 PM
holdfast said...: They might be able to get him on a mickey-mouse firearms violation, though even there it's going to be murky. If he was under the supervision of an adult, and on the adult's property, when he was handed the rifle, and then became separated due to circumstances beyond his control. . .; 9/1/20, 7:04 PM
StephenFearby said...: ""The firearm never crossed state lines," "That is a legal firearm in the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin is an open-carry state. That charge is incorrect as a matter of state law."

Politifact.com:

"...In addition to the felonies, Wisconsin court records show that prosecutors have charged Rittenhouse with one misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18."

What to know about Wisconsin's open-carry laws, self-defense and more in Kenosha protest shootings
Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

"...Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant..."

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/; 9/1/20, 7:04 PM
Sebastian said...: "[W]here are the charges for aggravated assault against Kyle Rittenhouse... and where are the charges against the people who are funding this activity and who are financing it?"

Yes, where?; 9/1/20, 7:07 PM
Gospace said...: Earnest Prole said...
He wasn't charged with bringing a firearm across state lines, he was charged with open carry by a person under 18, a violation of Wisconsin law.

Which applies to only certain weapons, and because the law, like many anti-gun laws, was poorly written and doesn't actually appear to apply to the weapon he was carrying.; 9/1/20, 7:08 PM
rcocean said...: How may people have been killed by left-wingers and criminals in the Riots since May? Yet, the Media was indifferent. Who were they and who were the killers? Crickets. but now that three "peaceful Protesters" (who were armed ex-cons) get shot, then suddenly the the Media is very, very, obsessed with "Right Wing violence".

Even more absurd, the MSM is back to their old game of demanding Trump "disavow" and "Condemn" Rittenhouse as a "Murderer" and "Right Wing Militia member" despite there's no evidence he's either. Killing in self-defense is not murder, and Rittenhouse's politics are rather fuzzy, after all he's 17 year's old.

Execute a Trump supporter and the media yawns. Kill a Leftist and it's a NYT/WaPo headline for a week. And damn they STILL lying about trump-charlottsville!; 9/1/20, 7:11 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: But if the first person was not shot in justified self-defense, then he had no justification in shooting the second and third person.

People keep saying that, but the 2nd and third person had no authority to threaten his life. They were not legal police authority, nor deputized. They were not in any imminent danger, but rather put themselves in danger. There is no justification for them to be presenting a threat to the boy. If the boy remained on scene and was threatening to shoot more people, then they would have justification in trying to kill him, but he was running from the scene, and TO the police line. If their concern was that he be neutralized, then that is what was already happening. Thus it is still self-defense against hostile forces for the boy. These rioters are not judge, jury and executioner, so you cannot use their attempts at lethal force as anything other than unjustified in the circumstances.; 9/1/20, 7:12 PM
rcocean said...: The weirdest thing about the whole situation is the silence of Mitt Romney. Given that Mittens called Trump a racist 20 times, and marched in support of BLM, I had expected him to pop up and condemn trump in the WaPo. But maybe that's coming.; 9/1/20, 7:13 PM
rcocean said...: I believe there are exceptions to the no one can Open Carry under 18 rule; 9/1/20, 7:14 PM
LilyBart said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...
Then you have the fact that he fled the scene, even after he reached the safety of the police line

Or evidence of someone trying to seek safety.; 9/1/20, 7:15 PM
Joe Smith said...: I like the financing angle.

Discovery will be fun unless there's a woke judge.

Oh, I forgot, there are no 'Obama lawyers.'; 9/1/20, 7:16 PM
Gospace said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...
Then you have the fact that he fled the scene, even after he reached the safety of the police line.

More complete BS from lefties. The police TOLD him to leave. I see the lefties are out in force trying to say that the first shooting wasn't self defense when the videos show otherwise. And twisting themselves in knots trying to conflate the Portland deliberate targeting and murder as self defense and Kyles self defense as murder. Two dead criminals with a criminal history killed during criminal acts by Kyle, and a third criminal with criminal history with an arm he'll never regain full use of shot performing a criminal act.

And in Portland- a criminal with criminal history- stopped by the police in Portland twice previously with a firearm and let go, kills someone on the the street in cold blood- with accomplices. All recorded on video with attached audio showing what's going on.; 9/1/20, 7:16 PM
Drago said...: Left Bank of the Charles: "Then you have the fact that he fled the scene, even after he reached the safety of the police line."

Keep the lies coming. Its all you've got now.; 9/1/20, 7:17 PM
cubanbob said...: Left Bank the three pieces of crap got the justice they deserved. Well actually only two. The third one got a lucky break. I doubt there will be a conviction. As for civil damages, dieing and or getting injured while committing felonies is a hard one for a sne jury to grant.; 9/1/20, 7:17 PM
h said...: Earnest Prole may be right. From what I've seen there are three separate shootings by Rittenhouse. The first (which I have not seen on video and I'm not sure there is video) occurs after (apparently) an anti-Rittenhouse protestor shoots into the air and (apparently) Rittenhouse returns what he perceives to be as fire directed at him and kills a person. (It's not clear to me whether Rittenhouse is shooting at the specific person who shot into the air, or whether Rittenhouse was aware that the shot was not directed at him, or whether Rittenhouse is shooting in some general direction of a shot.) The second occurs after Rittenhouse is fleeing (though not running) and falls to the ground, and then is assaulted by a man with a skateboard, who hits, or tries to hit Rittenhouse on the head with the skateboard, and who is shot and killed by Rittenhouse. The third occurs when Rittenhouse, still seated on the ground after falling and being threatened by the skateboard guy shoots another person who is running at Rittenhouse and who has a handgun.

So of all three of these, it is the first shooting where there is the most doubt about Rittenhouse was responding to a threat.; 9/1/20, 7:17 PM
Joe Smith said...: "Then you have the fact that he fled the scene..."

The reporter on the scene said he walked toward the police with his hands up and they drove their cars right past him.

@Left Bank

"...this is Donald Trump’s America. Joe Biden is Not President."

Sweeter words were never spoken.; 9/1/20, 7:19 PM
Big Mike said...: They started relentlessly hunting him as prey as he ran down the street attempting to retreat.

Beautiful piece of framing. The notion of being hunted like prey creates some chilling imagery.; 9/1/20, 7:20 PM
h said...: Replying to LeftBank -- What I see from the videos is that Rittenhouse approaches police with a rifle strapped across his mid section but with both arms raised. If the police instructed him to "go home", it can hardly be construed that Rittenhouse "fled the scene".; 9/1/20, 7:20 PM
Drago said...: Left Bank of the Charles: "404 Page Not Found, this is Donald Trump’s America. Joe Biden is Not President."

Looks like Left Bank has decided to go all in on Trump is causing the marxist riots.

Yeah, that's gotta work better than the russia collusion lies, the ukraine phone call hoax lies, Kavanaugh as a gang rapist lies, the post office scandal hoax lies, etc.

It really is amazing.

Trump has turned all the leftists into sputtering babbling morons.

Actually, I should say almost all the leftists. There is still a cadre of principled liberals and leftists who never bought into the above lies and because of that they were shunted to the side and ostracized by the remaining idiot leftists.

Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Mate, etc have never played along with this stupidity because they were smart enough to realize that all those lies emanate from the deep state uniparty.; 9/1/20, 7:21 PM
Earnest Prole said...: Ignore the violation of Wisconsin open-carry law for a moment and consider only that this seventeen-year-old boy placed himself in circumstances that would have taxed the skills of a man twice his age with years of military training and experience.; 9/1/20, 7:25 PM
effinayright said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
The lawyer has a tell. “He came at a seventeen-year-old with a gun.” Yes, the seventeen-year old did have a gun. He shot three people but the self-defense evidence is only on the second and third person he shot. But if the first person was not shot in justified self-defense, then he had no justification in shooting the second and third person.
**********

The people who were chasing him were not law enforcement people, and they were certainly not making a citizen's arrest when they attempted to physically harm him with a skateboard and a firearm. Why do you assume they SAW the first shooting, and knew it was unjustified? Isn't that precisely the point in the Georgia case, where two guys killed a black they thought was a burglar? And were does your conclusion come from that the first shooting was unjustified, when the first guy attacking him, threw a bottle at him and kep on coming? Do you really believe that wasn't an assault?

*************

"Then you have the fact that he fled the scene, even after he reached the safety of the police line. That’s evidence of consciousness of guilt, Still, though, prosectors charged first degree murder and the best they can expect from what we have seen so far is manslaughter"
***********

No one was chasing him when he LEFT the scene. He wasn't FLEEING anyone except other potential attackers. What...you expected him to stand around and wait to be attacked again? Didn't you see he tried to tell the police what he had done---that he had killed someone, not that he murdered them?; 9/1/20, 7:26 PM
William said...: They're eager to make this young man a monster. To some extent they succeeded with George Zimmerman. On the plus side, they're not painting his victims as holy martyrs in the way they did with Jacob Blake and George Floyd. Kyle had the great good luck to only shoot white assailants, and it's hard to paint child rapists as holy martyrs.....Kyle didn't travel from that far away, and he has some connections with Kenosha. Many of the rioters there are from far further afield than he. The media has never made much of a fifteen minute before.....I'd like to know more of the back story, but at this point he seems sympathetic and decent. On the monster-martyr spectrum he is way over towards the martyr side. The DA appears to be making a huge mistake charging him with first degree murder, and the media are doing themselves no favors by not making note of the criminal record of his "victims" and their activities prior to the gunplay.; 9/1/20, 7:27 PM
tim maguire said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...
404 Page Not Found, this is Donald Trump’s America. Joe Biden is Not President.

It's funny how Trump critics complain (sometimes in the same breath!) that Trump is dictator and that Trump isn't enough of a dictator. It's Donald Trump's America? No, it's not. He's president, not king. There is no Domesday book for the United States.; 9/1/20, 7:29 PM
roesch/voltaire said...: After killing on man who threw a plastic bag at him, he ran away and as the video shows one guy with a skateboard tried to disarm him and prevent further killings and he himself was killed.This hardly seems like self defense, but just the actions of. Someone on a killing spree.; 9/1/20, 7:29 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "He shot three people but the self-defense evidence is only on the second and third person he shot."

-- Vastly incorrect. Read the charging instrument/charges/whatever you want to call it. The one witness in it states clearly that the assailant was chasing the kid, that the kid tried multiple times to fall back, that the kid did not fire until the adult was on top of him reaching for the gun.

Pretty solid self-defense claim, with video evidence to back it up, and the NYT agreeing that some idiot other than the kid also fired a gun off during the chase.; 9/1/20, 7:31 PM
Michael K said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...
The lawyer has a tell. “He came at a seventeen-year-old with a gun.” Yes, the seventeen-year old did have a gun. He shot three people but the self-defense evidence is only on the second and third person he shot. But if the first person was not shot in justified self-defense, then he had no justification in shooting the second and third person.

Left bank has made his choice, which we always expected. Fortunately for you, you will be in the minority so you are safe. Just stay away from Antifa if they come to your neighborhood. They are not your friend.s; 9/1/20, 7:32 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "The justice for the dead will probably have to come from civil suits. The lawyer says he came at the request of the business owner, so that makes him and his insurance company liable for the actions of his untrained security guard. "

-- The dead got their justice when they attacked someone who was no danger to them. They are, respectively, a man convicted of forceful sexual relations with a child and a serial domestic abuser. Society gave them multiple chances; this time, they picked a victim that defended himself.; 9/1/20, 7:33 PM
William said...: The Covington kid got caught between a professional agitator and some kind of Black murder cult. The press investigated thoroughly. There wasn't much to find. We learned that a neighboring school painted themselves in their school color--black--for basketball games. We did not learn anything about the Black murder cult. We eventually found out that the agitator was a "Vietnam era" veteran rather than a combat veteran of an elite unit. We did not learn any of the circumstances of his divorce or prior criminal convictions.....I wonder if any enterprising journalist will try to locate the girl that one of his assailants raped and get her take on the events. Probably not, but if there's any dirt to be found on this kid, they will find it. They don't have any idea how bad this kind of coverage makes them look.; 9/1/20, 7:37 PM
clint said...: @Left Bank-

He was fleeing from the first person he shot, as well, and didn't shoot anyone until after one of his pursuers shot first (into the air). (There appears to be video showing all of this.)

A much more thorough written statement from his attorneys is here: https://www.scribd.com/document/474027394/Pierce-Bainbridge-Statement-on-Kyle-Rittenhouse-8-28-20

Also, if wikipedia is correct, the legal age for carrying a long gun (rifle 16"+ barrel or shotgun 18"+) is 16, not 18. Cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Wisconsin#Firearms_and_minors; 9/1/20, 7:41 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “He wasn't charged with bringing a firearm across state lines, he was charged with open carry by a person under 18, a violation of Wisconsin law.”

Need a cite for that. My reading of the WI statutes says that he did nothing wrong there.

“The lawyer has a tell. “He came at a seventeen-year-old with a gun.” Yes, the seventeen-year old did have a gun. He shot three people but the self-defense evidence is only on the second and third person he shot. But if the first person was not shot in justified self-defense, then he had no justification in shooting the second and third person.”

No. Doesn’t work that way. Even if his first shooting had not been justified, his escaping the scene would have reclaimed whatever innocence he might have lost (but that is hypothetical, since it is likely that his first shooting was justified too). He was running away, and they knocked him down, with people screaming that they should kill him. The two who died apparently had their hands on the gun, trying to take it away from him, after having assaulted him. And the one he shot but didn’t kill was pointing a gun at him. And regretted not killing him when he had the chance. Trying to take a gun away from someone, who is legally entitled to possess it, is typically treated as attempted murder, and typically is treated as threatening imminent death or great bodily injury.; 9/1/20, 7:47 PM
Danno said...: themightypuck said... Lesson: look deeply into the local DA before you protest/counter-protest.

Maybe the answer is kill the leftie DA before you do a protest/counter-protest. If the law is not applied equally this country will be in a civil war in no time flat.; 9/1/20, 7:47 PM
Danno said...: Blogger Dave Begley said...Need to move the trial up to northwest WI.

Have AllenS as jury foreman.; 9/1/20, 7:49 PM
traditionalguy said...: Like many a Marine, the age 17 Rittenhouse is a War hero. No wonder the Marxist Commissars want to see us all disarmed.; 9/1/20, 7:51 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “ Then you have the fact that he fled the scene, even after he reached the safety of the police line. That’s evidence of consciousness of guilt,”

Can be. But with the police having been ordered to stand down, stopping at the police line could very well have been a tragic decision. How did he know that they would protect him, since the only people they had been protecting were the rioters?

But I do agree, that the is absolutely no evidence, yet, of anything that would suggest the sort of premeditation required for 1st Degree Murder.; 9/1/20, 7:52 PM
Clues? said...: His name deserves fame. Like Davy Crockett; 9/1/20, 7:53 PM
Iconochasm said...: You're full of it, Left Bank. He tried to turn himself in repeatedly, and then left to his hometown where he did turn himself in.

As for the first shot, there's plenty for self-defense there, like the guy attacking him in melee, and the shots fired nearby. It's possible Rittenhouse did something sufficiently provocative, but we have tons of video of the whole event, and it's vanishingly unlikely that he did anything to warrant it.

But more importantly, take a minute and consider why you're so confident in the moral character of a convicted child rapist who was on video, minutes before he was shot, being the most aggressive, confrontational person at the riot. Yelling "Shoot me, n*gga! Shoot me, n*gga!"

We should probably cancel him posthumously.; 9/1/20, 7:54 PM
iowan2 said...: Why can armed security guards protect your shit, but your friends can't? Does a person have the right to keep and bear arms?
If a paid security guard has the power to keep and bear arms who delegated that power to him?; 9/1/20, 7:56 PM
mandrewa said...: "...this is Donald Trump’s America."

Baloney. The riots and looting and destruction of so many small businesses in Kenosha has occurred with the connivance of the Governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers. These events have not happened despite Evers; they have happened with his active encouragement.

And of course it is not just Tony Evers that is guilty. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are also guilty. They are the leaders of the Democratic Party and they have had many, many chances to speak out against the wrongness of what has been occurring over the last three months. True, it matters what Joe Biden says today, but it does not change what he has said and not said before then.

Besides, what Joe Biden said today or yesterday, isn't honest or praiseworthy. It is just self-serving and contemptible. He, or whoever writes his words, is in reality trying put more gasoline on the fire.

And there are many more guilty parties, whose names I do not know, but obviously they exist. These riots did not occur by themselves. They have occurred with the help of many people and in particular with the help of the media who have buried the facts that they don't want the public to know.; 9/1/20, 7:58 PM
MayBee said...: Yes, the seventeen-year old did have a gun. He shot three people but the self-defense evidence is only on the second and third person he shot. But if the first person was not shot in justified self-defense, then he had no justification in shooting the second and third person.

I don't think that's true. Someone shot something or someone -but it wasn't him- and that's when the guys started running after him.; 9/1/20, 8:01 PM
Clues? said...: If they get me on a jury, it’s gonna be runaway.

Judge: Have you reached a verdict?

Foreman: Yes, your Honor. We find the District Attorney GUILTY of felony misconduct for charging the Defendant. We believe a prison sentence of 1 year in general population with violent offenders to be a punishment that fits the crime.; 9/1/20, 8:03 PM
alan markus said...: Charges pending against Kyle Rittenhouse

1 940.02(1) 1st-Degree Reckless Homicide Felony B
Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

2 941.30(1) 1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety Felony F
Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

3 940.01(1)(a) 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide Felony A
Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

4 940.01(1)(a) Attempt 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide Felony A
Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

5 941.30(1) 1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety Felony F
Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

6 948.60(2)(a) Possess Dangerous Weapon-Person < 18 Misd. A; 9/1/20, 8:04 PM
Bilwick said...: Shouldn't faze "liberals" at all. They've been trying to, in effect, outlaw self-defense for decades now.; 9/1/20, 8:08 PM
CWJ said...: Left Bank. You're trying way too hard.; 9/1/20, 8:09 PM
Retail Lawyer said...: Left says, "The justice for the dead will probably have to come from civil suits." I think justice has been served except for the guy with the pistol who survived.; 9/1/20, 8:21 PM
MayBee said...: Earnest Prole said...
Ignore the violation of Wisconsin open-carry law for a moment and consider only that this seventeen-year-old boy placed himself in circumstances that would have taxed the skills of a man twice his age with years of military training and experience.

Yes, it was a terrible decision.

Since the George Floyd refusing to get in the cop car/murder/dealth, we have been overtaken by people making terrible decisions.; 9/1/20, 8:21 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Left Bank just lying left and right just like Inga.; 9/1/20, 8:31 PM
D.D. Driver said...: "I think it's fascinating that Kyle Rittenhouse's name has been made famous, when we have not heard the names of the murderers in CHAZ."

That's because nobody cares. There is video of Antonio Mays Jr.'s execution. There were numerous participants and probably dozens of eyewitnesses. It's inconceivable that no one can "crack" the case. They just don't care.

A 16 year old carjacker shot up by gang of Marxist revolutionaries. Whose "side" are you on? If it doesn't promote a political agenda, what's even the point of reporting on it?; 9/1/20, 8:32 PM
CWJ said...: Poor r/v.

Left Bank got all the attention. You can try again tomorrow.; 9/1/20, 8:33 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Expect the DA to try to get the case moved to Milwaukee or Madison.; 9/1/20, 8:40 PM
Achilles said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...

Then you have the fact that he fled the scene, even after he reached the safety of the police line. That’s evidence of consciousness of guilt, Still, though, prosectors charged first degree murder and the best they can expect from what we have seen so far is manslaughter.

Bald faced lie.

He tried to turn himself in to the police that night.

They told him to go home. Because self defense is not a crime.

He turned himself in the next day.

You are a lying piece of shit.

Democrats are utterly disgusting people.; 9/1/20, 8:41 PM
CWJ said...: I suspect that I'm completely wrong from a legal standard which makes no sense, but make up your mind. Sheesh, pick a side, either try him as an adult or try him as a minor. Trying him as an adult and charging him with open carry under 18 is having it both ways. But then I no longer trust the law.; 9/1/20, 8:41 PM
iowan2 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/1/20, 8:42 PM
iowan2 said...: "...this is Donald Trump’s America."

This is something I have explained to my superiors, on more than one occasion.

I can only be responsible for those things my superiors have given me the power to manage.

If this is truly the responsibility of President Trump, exactly what power has he refused to exercise.

Just like the covid response, the left only says the President has failed. But never enumerate those actions the President refused to take.; 9/1/20, 8:42 PM
Paul said...: We do know for a fact Soros does fund BLM (many millions.. listed on Wikki.)

Now if BLM funds Antifa and all these protest/riots (and they have found bus loads of people with weapons coming across state lines and from other cities just to protest/riot hence SOMEONE is footing the bill) THEN one can be charged with inciting riots. And if deaths occur, then it's murder.

More importantly one can SUE THOSE THAT FUND THESE THINGS. Suing only requires 51 %, preponderance of evidence. Might be a cool thing to sue Soros and demand discovery.; 9/1/20, 8:42 PM
Drago said...: roesch/voltaire: "After killing on man who threw a plastic bag at him, he ran away and as the video shows one guy with a skateboard tried to disarm him and prevent further killings and he himself was killed."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

The lefties/LLR-lefties have committed themselves to their legion of lies and are now stuck with those lies all the way to the end.

"one guy with a skateboard tried to disarm him"

Viciously attacking the 17 year old with a skateboard (as clear video evidence shows) after months and months of antifa/fascist/marxist terrorists just like him have been attacking police and bystanders with exactly those types of skateboards.

r/v, like Left Bank, is now locked into permanent Inga Mode and he/she/xe ain't never coming out of that rhetorical death spiral.; 9/1/20, 8:46 PM
RobinGoodfellow said...: “Why has he not been charged?... [W]here are the charges for aggravated assault against Kyle Rittenhouse... and where are the charges against the people who are funding this activity and who are financing it?”

All good questions.; 9/1/20, 8:48 PM
RobinGoodfellow said...: @Left Bank

"...this is Donald Trump’s America. Joe Biden is Not President."

“Sweeter words were never spoken.“

This is Donald Trump’s America. Hillary Clinton is not president.

Those words are pretty sweet, too!; 9/1/20, 8:56 PM
MadTownGuy said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...

"404 Page Not Found, this is Tony Evers' Wisconsin. Donald Trump is Not Governor."

FIFY.; 9/1/20, 8:57 PM
Earnest Prole said...: Need a cite for that.

I take it you can’t be bothered to read the indictment. It’s the sixth charge.; 9/1/20, 9:28 PM
Big Mike said...: Left Bank showcases his elitism. In rural counties hunting by family members is an important source of meat in the family's diet, so if a 16 year old cannot openly carry a legal rifle or shotgun he (or she!) cannot help put food on the family table.

But modern Democrats do not pay the slightest attention to rural poor, only to impoverished urban dwellers.; 9/1/20, 9:33 PM
Michael K said...: I'm not sure that the first guy shot was shot by the kid. I think there was some confusion there. He may even have gone to render first aid to that person and is how he got separated from his group.

Eventually, we will find out but probably slowly.

Left Bank has no doubt however.; 9/1/20, 9:42 PM
The Godfather said...: A lawyer's first job in any litigation is to explain the client's side of the story in a way that the listeners can understand. Pierce did that in this (friendly) interview. That doesn't mean that his version is the true version, but it does mean that the (metaphorical) lynch mob needs to up their game more than they have on this comment thread.; 9/1/20, 9:53 PM
bagoh20 said...: R/V said:
"After killing on man who threw a plastic bag at him, he ran away and as the video shows one guy with a skateboard tried to disarm him and prevent further killings and he himself was killed.This hardly seems like self defense, but just the actions of. Someone on a killing spree."

You are either a fool, a liar, or both. Before Rittenhouse ever fired a shot, he was screamed at by a mob of grown men, threatened, and then chased by those men only because he was there to try and protect innocent people and their property from a violent mob. They specifically and stupidly targeted an openly armed 17 year old. If he was on a killing spree, he wouldn't have waited until he was on the ground and surrounded by people including an armed man all calling for him to be killed -, not talked to, not disarmed, not apprehended, but killed.

What kind of idiot sees a 17 year old boy on the ground being attacked by a mob as someone on a killing spree? Are you retarded? What would have happened to Rittenhouse if he had not shot those attackers. Is he supposed to let them kill him, because they were going to do just that.

Your compatriots in the mob are the ones on a killing spree across the country. They are not killing in self defense. They are killing Americans for their political views, and sometimes just for fum, and you will own your support of them as a sign of your character forever.; 9/1/20, 9:57 PM
Nichevo said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...
Then you have the fact that he fled the scene, even after he reached the safety of the police line. That’s evidence of consciousness of guilt, Still, though, prosectors charged first degree murder and the best they can expect from what we have seen so far is manslaughter.

Left Bank, why do you seek to do evil instead of good? You're not always this way.; 9/1/20, 10:05 PM
Narayanan said...: Earnest Prole said...
He wasn't charged with bringing a firearm across state lines, he was charged with open carry by a person under 18, a violation of Wisconsin law.
-----------==========
I had question about if he was charged as juvenile - ?

Under Wisconsin law, a juvenile is defined as any person under the age of 18 years, except that for purposes of investigating or prosecuting violations of state or federal criminal law, a "juvenile" does not include a person who has attained 17 years of age. Under prior law, 17-year-old offenders were treated as juveniles.; 9/1/20, 10:33 PM
Ken B said...: I warned y’all months ago. There will be jury nullifications. Not just in this case but with antifa defendants. No one will serve time for bombings or arson or blinding cops.; 9/1/20, 11:13 PM
Jupiter said...: Earnest Prole said...
"Ignore the violation of Wisconsin open-carry law for a moment and consider only that this seventeen-year-old boy placed himself in circumstances that would have taxed the skills of a man twice his age with years of military training and experience."

A man twice his age would be well past his prime as a combat infantryman. But that to one side, what's your point? That the right to walk the streets without being assaulted by Communist rioters is a privilege that you had not granted to Kyle Rittenhouse? Where should we send our Full Citizenship applications, EP? How much do you charge to process them?; 9/1/20, 11:47 PM
Jupiter said...: The reason this is important, aside from Kyle Rittenhouse's right to justice, is that the Democrats are laying the groundwork for a contested mail-in election, in which they seize power, claiming that the count will ultimately bear them out, while their street militia paralyzes any opposition. The only thing that can go wrong, from their point of view, is that the tissue of civil society is torn before they are ready to tear it.; 9/1/20, 11:54 PM
eddie willers said...: Left Bank just lying left and right just like Inga.

I'm not so sure. He could be just stupid.

Either way, he's wrong.; 9/2/20, 12:02 AM
James L. Salmon said...: I've watched all the videos multiple times.

Growing up on a ranch in West Texas I have considerable experience with firearms of almost every kind, including the rifle wielded by Kyle and the Glock wielded by the guy with the now mangled bicep. I also know a thing or three about strategy and tactics.

The NYT - in a shocking exhibition of actual journalism - did a good job compiling the videos and wrote a relatively straight forward news piece on the event. Relevant videos of all three shootings are linked in the NYT piece.

Multiple adults FAILED spectacularly over the course of this event - and during the days leading up to it - but Kyle performed in a commendable and heroic manner.

I continue this comment below due to space limitations.; 9/2/20, 12:10 AM
James L. Salmon said...: This is a continued comment.

First, two spineless sniveling snot sucking excuses beta males that serve as the Governor of Wisconsin and the Mayor of Kenosha failed Kyle. The also utterly failed their citizens. Following the tragic - though in retrospect fully justified - shooting of Jacob Blake those two should have called President Trump IMMEDIATELY. They did not, and tragically waited two days? or so to make that critical call. Those two individuals are awful pathetic excuses for human beings and unworthy of title "man". They both bring to mind the manager of the chicken slaughter facility in Far and Away that Nicole Kidman's character Shannon Christie described as a "spinless little fraction of a man!" The main problem with ALL the riots this summer is the lack of leadership at the local and state level and the REFUSAL of those "leaders" to drop the hammer on the bad actors.

Second, the adults who armed Kyle with the weapon failed him. Those individuals took advantage of his inexperience and naivety when they deployed him, and other inexperienced individuals in Kenosha. The melee at the gas station - where Kyle put the burning dumpster out with a fire extinguisher - forms the basis for the foregoing opinion / assessment. While their hearts were in the right place nobody will confuse any of them with lieutenant / captain / major Winters in Band of Brothers or Captain Miller in Saving Private Ryan.

Finally, the Kenosha police - who reportedly herded the rioters towards Kyle and his cohorts - failed him. Of course, this failure is strongly tied to the failure / decisions of the eunuch governor Wisconsin and the eunuch mayor of Kenosha.

Against that backdrop, and against incredible odds, Kyle performed well. In the initial attack he fired 4 rounds when he turned to face Rosenbaum - the registered sex offender who begged "Niggas" to shoot him earlier. He got his wish. Apparently X 4. Reportedly, Kyle shot Rosenbaum in the leg, the groin, the back and the head. I'll hold out for the ballistics report as I suspect the shot in his back MIGHT be from a fellow rioters who was shooting at Kyle.

After retreating, post haste for almost a 1/4 of a mile, Kyle fell in the street - cardio is your friend and don't EVER neglect it! - and was attacked. He took a boot to the face and spun to face his attackers. With visions of the "boot to the face" video from in Portland playing in his head he took a skateboard to the noogin. The media proclaims skateboard boy was attempting to disarm Kyle. Riiiiiiight. Unlike boot to the face boy, Kyle was ready for Skateboard boy's return and he shot him through the heart.

Next comes Glockman. The Glockman initially dropped his pistol to his side and Kyle lowered his weapon in response. Glockman then re-raised the pistol, and brought it to bear on Kyle. Before he could align the pistol for a shot Kyle fired, blowing away a large portion of Glockman's right bicep.

Kyle then turned his weapon on other threats, but, incredibly refrained from firing any additional rounds. Thus, Kyle fired 7 rounds and each round struck an assailant - unless, as I suspect, Rosenbaum was struck in the back by "friendly fire" from a fellow traveler.

As Glenn Reynolds constantly reminds us, the police are there to protect the criminals and to ensure the criminals are arrested and enjoy access to the protections of the US Constitution. When EUNUCHS like the governor of Wisconsin and the Mayor of Kenosha STAND DOWN heros like Kyle stand up.

Ask yourself whether, under the same circumstances, you could have put 6 of 7 rounds - maybe 7 of 7 rounds - on target AND refrained from raking those running towards you with the remaining rounds in you weapon? Not sure I could and, again, I actually have some experience. Thank GOD for young men like Kyle and let's hope this tragic incident doesn't ruin his life.; 9/2/20, 12:11 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...

The justice for the dead will probably have to come from civil suits.

Justice for the dead came from Rittenhouse's AR-15; 9/2/20, 12:56 AM
Ken B said...: Does the felony murder rule apply with misdemeanours? One would assume not from the wording but that might not be a safe assumption. Any lawyers from Wisconsin here?; 9/2/20, 1:05 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: The prosecution has an additional problem. They might have been able to get by with their highly political prosecution a decade or two ago. But now there is video of everything on the Internet. If I were defense counsel right now, I would be searching out and archiving as much video of the events as I could right now. Lefty’s narrative requires that the events be taken out of context. The videos can be used to put everything back into context. Rittenhouse was the victim here, not the two guys he killed and the one he wounded. They were at the front of a mob that was trying to catch him and either kill him or cause him great bodily injury (and, yes, skateboards can do just that). That is the context that the left is trying to remove. But play all the videos of the riots in which Rittenhouse was attacked, with the mob yelling for his blood, and the three guys he shot in the front of the mobS trying to injure, if not kill him, and even with a hostile jury, I don’t think that the prosecution will be able to disprove his claim of self defense, of being in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, he was the good guy there. He worked in Kenosha as a life guard, and lived right on the other side of the border in IL. That night he had been using his first aid to help save lives, and had been caught behind the lines working on a victim of the rioting. Few of the rioters appear to have been locals. They came to Kenosha from around the country, burned it down, and most of them went back home, to their parents’ basements in suburbia, elsewhere in the country, etc. The jury has to live with the effects of the rioting, with the burned out businesses, etc. They will see it every day for years to come. The rioters, mostly don’t have to. Video of all of those out of state recreational rioters burning down their city is not going to sit well with much of the jury.

The claim that Rittenhouse was in illegal possession of the firearm is based on an intentional misreading of the statute in question. Lawfare, if you will. Their problem (beyond that courts, and esp appellate courts, can properly read statutes, even if the prosecutor chooses not to) is that it tacitly assumes that it is legal to deprive 17 year olds of the right to (keep and) bear arms in self defense. Where is the compelling state interest there? That we have too many 17 year olds? 17 year olds have long born weapons in our country’s defense, even back to the original militia members who started the fight with the British in Lexington and Concord in 1775. How is that interpretation of that statute, or the statute itself, narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling state interest (whatever they dream up)? In short, I expect an as applied 2nd Amdt attack on the sixth charge. (This has already been suggested by defense counsel).; 9/2/20, 4:20 AM
Rusty said...: Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
We obviously didn't see the same videos. But since you are a known fabulist and liar I'm just going to conclude you're lying now.; 9/2/20, 5:12 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: This is a 17-year-old kid - out after curfew.

If illegals are wrong for crossing the border, then he's wrong for being out when he shouldn't have been.; 9/2/20, 6:50 AM
Rick said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...
the self-defense evidence is only on the second and third person he shot

This is not true. There is video of the first attacker chasing and throwing something at him.; 9/2/20, 7:31 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "The claim that Rittenhouse was in illegal possession of the firearm is based on an intentional misreading of the statute in question. "

-- My other problem with this is that, if he had been chased and came across a gun at random -- would he be legally allowed to use it in self-defense, or is the law requiring him NOT to pick up a weapon when being chased. Like, if a woman is about to be raped, but she takes her attacker's gun and uses it against him, is the law going to say, "Sorry lady. You just committed murder. Should've let yourself get raped."

Does it *matter* how he had the weapon, when his use of it is valid?; 9/2/20, 7:54 AM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: “Does the felony murder rule apply with misdemeanors?”

It’s called misdemeanor murder. The punishment is usually a fine and a few months probation. No big whoop.; 9/2/20, 8:03 AM
madAsHell said...: He stopped shooting before the magazine was empty?; 9/2/20, 9:08 AM
Ampersand said...: There are still too many gaps in our knowledge of this. Reserve judgment.; 9/2/20, 9:19 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: I think the video evidence will show that the first shooting followed a long, blocks-long chase. I saw it on some site that I cannot find now, explained from different videos from different locations.

I suspect that the videographer "journalist" who was closest to the action on the first shooting, who was first on scene and rendered first aid (McGuniness?), knew that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and followed because he wanted to capture it on video. Dont be surprised if it comes out that Rosenbaum told McGuniess of his plan to isolate and attack Rittenhouse, and that McGuiness followed the chase for blocks. That is why McGuniness was so close and almost got shot himself. He thought he was going to film Rosenbaum beating or killing Rittenhouse.

I also wonder if an autopsy was done on Rosenbaum to check for meth. The earlier video shows he is extremely agitated -- the most out of control of anyone there on either side -- and was trying to provoke a fight. Maybe that's just his child raping way, but the anger seems fueled by artificial means.; 9/2/20, 9:28 AM
Rick said...: roesch/voltaire said...
After killing on man who threw a plastic bag at him,

Note how the left wingers try to avoid reality. If the guy just threw a plastic bag it wouldn't have gone more than two feet (nor would he have bothered to throw it). Obviously there was something in it. But the left pretends there wasn't because their mission is Protecting the Team. Truth and facts are irrelevant.; 9/2/20, 9:30 AM
Douglas B. Levene said...: There is enough evidence of self-defense here to entitle Rittenhouse to a jury charge on that defense. Then it will be up to the jury to decide as a factual matter whether he was in reasonable fear of his life or serious bodily injury, and whether he had an opportunity to retreat.; 9/2/20, 10:01 AM
walter said...: Crack,
The curfew applied to everyone there. If Evers had authorized the requested help, it just might have been enforceable. Problem solved.; 9/2/20, 10:26 AM
RichardJohnson said...: The Crack Emcee
This is a 17-year-old kid - out after curfew.If illegals are wrong for crossing the border, then he's wrong for being out when he shouldn't have been.

Please inform us about the proportion of illegal border crossers who are arrested for doing so. "Impunity" comes to mind....; 9/2/20, 10:33 AM
walter said...: Blogger Douglas said...
whether he was in reasonable fear of his life or serious bodily injury, and whether he had an opportunity to retreat.
--
Reportedly, retreat not required in WI law.; 9/2/20, 11:30 AM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: In leftwing corrupt America - you cannot shoot to kill any leftwing terrorist who wants to kill YOU.

Do you understand?

You will be labeled a "white supremacist" and you will be given the Nick Sandman treatment or worse.; 9/2/20, 12:04 PM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: Leftwing mobsters with intent to loot and burn are OK - but no one is allowed to protect property in corrupt leftwing America.

Got that?; 9/2/20, 12:08 PM
Jim at said...: as the video shows one guy with a skateboard tried to disarm him and prevent further killings and he himself was killed. - R/V

The stupidest take so far. Congrats.; 9/2/20, 2:01 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: Earnest Prole said...
Ignore the violation of Wisconsin open-carry law for a moment and consider only that this seventeen-year-old boy placed himself in circumstances that would have taxed the skills of a man twice his age with years of military training and experience.

And?

And in that situation, he shot and killed a pyromanic child molester who attacked Kyle for putting out the fire he started.

Then he shot an killed another criminal (can't remember which crimes eh'd already been convicted of) who was attacking him while he was on the ground and unable to flee,

Then he observed a third attacker putting up his hands and backing away, and didn't shot him.

Then he observed a fourth attacker. This one came at him with a gun (said gun was possessed illegally because that attecker had previously been convicted of misusing a firearm while drunk). IIRC Kyle started moving his rifle to the 4th attacker, and the attacker stopped, and pointed the gun down. So Kyle stopped trying to point his gun at attacker #4, and didn't shoot him.

Then attacker #4 raised his gun to point it at Kyle, and THEN Kyle shot him.

Said 4th attacker was quoted by a friend the next days as saying his big regret was that he had not killed Kyle.

So, Kyle shot 3 known felons. The only one he didn't kill stated that he was trying to kill Kyle, and regretted that he'd failed.

You should be praising Kyle, Prole, not attacking him; 9/2/20, 2:07 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “Leftwing mobsters with intent to loot and burn are OK - but no one is allowed to protect property in corrupt leftwing America.”

The issue here, with Rittenhouse is not in protecting property, but in protecting his own life. The prosecutor here says “no”. No right of self defense for him. He isn’t woke enough.; 9/2/20, 2:17 PM
Rusty said...: The Crack Emcee said...
"This is a 17-year-old kid - out after curfew.

If illegals are wrong for crossing the border, then he's wrong for being out when he shouldn't have been."
Oh dear lord.; 9/2/20, 2:20 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: roesch/voltaire said...
After killing on man who threw a plastic bag at him, he ran away and as the video shows one guy with a skateboard tried to disarm him and prevent further killings and he himself was killed.

1: You can't throw a plastic bag at someone. It won't travel far enough to hit him, and he wouldn't ahve noticed it if it did hit him

So that's lie #1

2: You don't "disarm him and prevent further killings" by striking him in the head with a board.

That's lie #2

3: "He fled justice, he must be guilty"

No, in fact he went up to the police to turn himself in, and they sent him away. So that's yet another lie.

The Child molester attacked Kyle at the same time that some other rioter was shooting off a gun. Then he grabbed at Kyle's gun.

A reasonable man would consider himself in danger of great bodily injury in that situation. Putting out at fire that someone had illegally started does not count as the kind of threatening activity that costs you your right to self defense. Neither does open carry in WI.

So Kyle has an easy and solid self defense claim for the first shooting.

The 2nd and 3rd shootings are obvious self defense.; 9/2/20, 2:26 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(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

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/304

29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
(1) Persons under 12 years of age.
(2) Persons 12 to 14 years of age.
(3) Persons 14 to 16 years of age.
...
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:
...
(4) Parental obligation. No parent or guardian of a child under 16 years of age may authorize or knowingly permit the child to violate this section.
(5) Exception.

Nothing in 29.304 applies to people between ages 16 and 18.

941.28 Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. He isn't in violation of that
29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval. Doesn't apply, he wasn't hunting, and he's over teh age of 16

So the law is quite clear, he's not guilty of violating any law for carrying that rifle; 9/2/20, 2:40 PM
eddie willers said...: unless, as I suspect, Rosenbaum was struck in the back by "friendly fire" from a fellow traveler.

That has bothered me as well. Now, TV will show people flying through windows if shot, but it is my understanding that Newton's Law remain with gunshots. Only the amount of energy is acted/reacted by the bullet.

So for Rittenhouse to have shot Rosenbaum in the back (the fatal shot) his body had to be spun around by one bullet to expose his back to another bullet a microsecond later.

Is this even possible? If not, a "friendly fire" shot is the most likely.; 9/2/20, 3:01 PM
Required field must not be blank said...: " Blogger Jim at said...

as the video shows one guy with a skateboard tried to disarm him and prevent further killings and he himself was killed. - R/V

The stupidest take so far. Congrats.

9/2/20, 2:01 PM"

Lefty sophistry always reminds me of this old joke:
(Two dogs are making bacon in the street)
Kid: Mom, what are those dogs doing there?
Mom: Uh, one of them is blind and the other is helping him across the street.

In other news... I read somewhere that trying to explain to a stupid person that they are stupid is a stupid idea :-); 9/2/20, 3:18 PM
walter said...: He was re-imagining skateboarding.; 9/2/20, 5:15 PM
Prince Hal said...: It is always helpful before expressing views about the meaning or applicability of statutes to read them. Fortunately, as with most states, Wisconsin's statutes are available on the Internet.

Because the bulk of the commentary here has been about the weapon possession charge against Mr. Rittenhouse, and because that charge is a much more objective than subjective charge to evaluate, I am going to explore it.

Mr. A. Markus reported above that the single weapons charge against Mr. Rittenhouse is for a violation of Wisconsin Statutes section 948.60, a Class A misdemeanor. Section 948.60 provides, in pertinent part as applicable here, as follows :

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded....

(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.

Wis. Stats. § 948.60(1) and (2).

Were we to stop there, this would appear to be the end of the story for Mr. Rittenhouse--he is under 18 years of age and he possessed and went armed with a "dangerous weapon", to wit: a loaded firearm of the AR type rifle.

But section 948.60 does not stop there, and, hence neither may we.

After some extraneous matter not relevant here in the rest of paragraph (2) of section 948.60, paragraph (3) of section 948.60 provides a number of exceptions to the general applicability of the entire section. The first two of these exceptions are also irrelevant here, having to do with possessing or being armed with a dangerous weapon in adult-supervised target practice (Wis. Stats. § 948.60(3)(a)) and members of the armed forces or national guard possessing or being armed with such a weapon in the line of duty (Wis. Stats. § 948.60(3)(b)). This brings us to section 948.60(3)(c), which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(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. ....

Wis. Stats. § 948.60(3)(c).

This exclusion, if applicable, puts a rather different light on the matter. But is it applicable? By its terms, if a person under 18 years of age, such as Mr. Rittenhouse, possesses or is armed with a rifle, as Mr. Rittenhouse was, section 948.60 does not apply to him so long as he is not in violation of section 941.28 or not in compliance with sections 29.304 or 29.592. Thus, we must run each of those down in turn to see if Mr. Rittenhouse was in violation of the former section or not in compliance with the latter two sections.

Section 941.28 prohibits, among other things, possession or going armed with a short-barreled rifle. Wisc. Stats. 941.28(2). Section 941.28(1)(b) defines a "short-barreled rifle" as a rifle having either a breach-to-muzzle length of less than 16 inches or an overall length of less than 26. Wisc. Stats. 941.28(1)(b). Not having measured Mr. Rittenhouse's rifle, I'm not in a position to determine either of those lengths, but, from the pictures I have seen of him with his rifle, it does not look like that rifle was a short-barreled one. Thus, Mr. Rittenhouse was, likely, not excepted from the inapplicability of section 948.60 to him as a person under 18 years of age who possessed or went armed with a short-barreled rifle in violation of section 941.28.

Next, we turn to Mr. Rittenhouse's compliance with section 29.304. That section governs hunting and possession, use, and control of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. Wisc. Stats. § 29.304. It is clearly not applicable to Mr. Rittenhouse in any way. Thus, he is also not excepted from the inapplicability of section 948.60 to him as a person under 16 years of age for failure to be in compliance with section 29.304.

[continued in next comment]; 9/3/20, 12:56 AM
Prince Hal said...: [continued from previous comment]

Finally, we come to Mr. Rittenhouse's compliance with section 29.593. That section governs the requirements for obtaining from the State of Wisconsin an approval authorizing hunting. Wisc. Stats. § 29.593. Section 29.001(42) defines "hunt" or "hunting" to include "shooting, shooting at, pursuing, taking, capturing or killing or attempting to capture or kill any wild animal." Wisc. Stats. § 29.001(42). While some might view those at whom Mr. Rittenhouse shot, in the hyperbolic or rhetorical sense as "wild animals", they are in no legal sense such. Accordingly, Mr. Rittenhouse was not engaged in hunting and, hence he could not have been in violation of section 29.593. Thus, he is also not excepted from the inapplicability of section 948.60 to him for failing to be in compliance with that section.

While there may be decisional authority putting some judicial gloss on these sections, it is hard to see how, under the plain language of these various statutes, Mr. Rittenhouse, even though under 18 years of age, but older than 16 years of age, was in violation of section 948.60 merely for possessing and going armed with a rifle that was not a short-barreled rifle while he was not engaged in hunting, even if he did not have a State of Wisconsin approval authorizing hunting. That's it.

It seems likely that his defense counsel will be making these points at an appropriate time.; 9/3/20, 12:56 AM
Prince Hal said...: Oh my. I now see that while I was working on my just-posted post, Mr. Class Traitor had gone down the same path ahead of me. Bravo, Mr. Class Traitor, and please pardon the duplication.; 9/3/20, 1:02 AM