Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

with a weapon he freely admitted he knew was not legal to possess.

Based on the instructions that judge said he will give to the jury on that charge, it was legal in Wisconsin for 16-17 year old to posses and open carry an AR-15 as long as its barrel was 16" or longer.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Based on the instructions that judge said he will give to the jury on that charge, it was legal in Wisconsin for 16-17 year old to posses and open carry an AR-15 as long as its barrel was 16" or longer.

From what I read, the intent of that law is for hunting purposes, not vigilante purposes. Although I will admit that the wording is ambiguous and not clear.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

There's a lot of people in this thread who are so confident of their opinion on this but they get basic facts wrong.

He did not cross state lines with a gun. He got it in Kenosha from his friend

That is different from some of the information presented. We'll go with this then, which doesn't change things other than the potential federal charge for interstate transport of a weapon.

Originally Posted by accord1999

Based on the instructions that judge said he will give to the jury on that charge, it was legal in Wisconsin for 16-17 year old to posses and open carry an AR-15 as long as its barrel was 16" or longer.

That direction by the judge is not consistent with the law on the books. For Rittenhouse to have possession of the weapon he would have required approval by his legal guardian, not his "friend" who furnished the weapon. He also would have to have been accompanied by his legal guardian while in possession of the rifle. Neither condition existed. If he wishes to use the "hunting" defense, there is a requirement for him to have completed a training course and have the appropriate certificate to prove completion (Wisconsin RS 29.593 and 29.591. Rittenhouse had neither. The judge is asking for exceptions that Rittenhouse had not met. Just like the rest of his framing of this trial, this is inconsistent with what many judges would expect in their court rooms. This guy is a loose cannon, and I think the grounds are there for appeal on both sides because of the judge's actions.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

From what I read, the intent of that law is for hunting purposes, not vigilante purposes. Although I will admit that the wording is ambiguous and not clear.

It seems to be pretty clear. It is the judge's interpretation that appears to be unclear.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Based on the instructions that judge said he will give to the jury on that charge, it was legal in Wisconsin for 16-17 year old to posses and open carry an AR-15 as long as its barrel was 16" or longer.

That it is just straight ****ed.

[SeeGeeWhy]

If Rittenhouse is not guilty is there an ability for a higher court to hear an appeal?

This judge does not appear to be very competent.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

If Rittenhouse is not guilty is there an ability for a higher court to hear an appeal?

This judge does not appear to be very competent.

No, double jeopardy applies.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

That is different from some of the information presented. We'll go with this then, which doesn't change things other than the potential federal charge for interstate transport of a weapon.



That direction by the judge is not consistent with the law on the books. For Rittenhouse to have possession of the weapon he would have required approval by his legal guardian, not his "friend" who furnished the weapon. He also would have to have been accompanied by his legal guardian while in possession of the rifle. Neither condition existed. If he wishes to use the "hunting" defense, there is a requirement for him to have completed a training course and have the appropriate certificate to prove completion (Wisconsin RS 29.593 and 29.591. Rittenhouse had neither. The judge is asking for exceptions that Rittenhouse had not met. Just like the rest of his framing of this trial, this is inconsistent with what many judges would expect in their court rooms. This guy is a loose cannon, and I think the grounds are there for appeal on both sides because of the judge's actions.



It seems to be pretty clear. It is the judge's interpretation that appears to be unclear.

But, like I've been pointing out, he is not being charged with any of that

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

If Rittenhouse is not guilty is there an ability for a higher court to hear an appeal?

This judge does not appear to be very competent.

Rittenhouse has to feel confident right now. He went on a hunting trip to kill people fighting for social justice and he gets Archie Bunker as the judge. I would say it looks good for him.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Rittenhouse has to feel confident right now. He went on a hunting trip to kill people fighting for social justice and he gets Archie Bunker as the judge. I would say it looks good for him.

The prosecution seems special too.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

No, double jeopardy applies.

I don't know us law, but assuming it's the same as Canada you can appeal if the judge made a mistake in his charge to the jury or his rulings on what is admissible

[PeteMoss]

Seems quite likely he'll be found not guilty for self defense reasons. Based on existing laws and rules that makes sense.

There is the question on self defense laws themselves and how they apply in situations like this. Basically he's out there armed and taking the law into his own hand. The thing he's supposedly protecting has no link to him. If he's not armed to the hilt does any of this happen? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/u...e=articleShare

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I don't know us law, but assuming it's the same as Canada you can appeal if the judge made a mistake in his charge to the jury or his rulings on what is admissible

The only exception in the United States is if the judge was literally bribed by the defendant. Otherwise you cannot appeal a jury acquittal in the United States

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Seems quite likely he'll be found not guilty for self defense reasons. Based on existing laws and rules that makes sense.

There is the question on self defense laws themselves and how they apply in situations like this. Basically he's out there armed and taking the law into his own hand. The thing he's supposedly protecting has no link to him. If he's not armed to the hilt does any of this happen? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/u...e=articleShare

This has more to do with gun control laws.

At that point in the night there were many looters out, some of them armed themselves. The local law enforcement was encouraging people to defend their own property.

The obvious solution is to pull the guns off the street. It's even nuttier that teenagers are allowed to carry guns, the major restriction being barrel length. Not only do you have guns, but they are in the hands of emotionally immature people, who aren't deemed old enough to drink or vote.... But they can carry an ar-15 as long as the barrel is long enough and then purposely walk into a tense situation with that weapon.

[Amethyst]

Getting yourself all armed up, going in search of people, provoking them, and then shooting them when they react doesn't seem like it should count as self defence to me.

It's not like he was somewhere, minding his own business, when a protest came along.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Getting yourself all armed up, going in search of people, provoking them, and then shooting them when they react doesn't seem like it should count as self defence to me.

It's not like he was somewhere, minding his own business, when a protest came along.

There's no law that says you have to mind you own business.

Imagine the same thing playing out without the guns. It's a pretty clear case of self defence then. The major issue is, once again, carrying assault weapons on the street.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by blankall

There's no law that says you have to mind you own business.

Imagine the same thing playing out without the guns. It's a pretty clear case of self defence then. The major issue is, once again, carrying assault weapons on the street.

I see two strangers arguing in the street and join in the yelling, one of them tries to chase me off and I punch them in the face... that doesn't seem like self defence either.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

I see two strangers arguing in the street and join in the yelling, one of them tries to chase me off and I punch them in the face... that doesn't seem like self defence either.

If you try to back off, then yes it is. There are no laws preventing someone from arguing. Theoretically, no matter how angry someone is, they shouldn't be assaulting anyone else, and yes chasing someone is a threat.

[Locke]

I think when the reality is that law and justice are divorced from reality and morality there is a far more serious problem afoot.

Rittenhouse provoked a reaction but maintained the lethal force to end it in his favour.

To then say he is 'not responsible' or worse 'innocent' is quite callous and the fact that it would be deemed legal? Even worse.

If that turns out to be the case then it stands to reason that those laws are well and truly broken.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

I see two strangers arguing in the street and join in the yelling, one of them tries to chase me off and I punch them in the face... that doesn't seem like self defence either.

If you run down the street to get away and I pursue you, catching up to you in an alley, damn right your actions are self defence. Otherwise, what protection is afforded to someone who is being attacked?

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by 81MC

If you run down the street to get away and I pursue you, catching up to you in an alley, damn right your actions are self defence. Otherwise, what protection is afforded to someone who is being attacked?

Not getting involved at all is the general point.