So what is the over/under on deliberation time? 2 hours?
Gotta make it look good. At least finish the donuts.
4 Likes
Yah I think the jurors understand that there is going to be “looters and rioters” pillaging their streets so they will be chill and take at least the whole day for appearances sake.
1 Like
The dude can rack up a few more bodies at his own protest. Now thats efficiency.
4 Likes
LOL. “After his acquittal, Rittenhouse got his AR-15 and returned to the mean streets of Kenosha offering first aid (except to those he shoots) and promoting a general sense of well-being for disinterested business owners”.
I wasn’t really paying attention to the dismissal of the gun charge. While the removal of that charge in theory might actually be bad for him (it could have served as a lesser charge for the jury to convict on rather than murder, but they’re going to do something like that anyway), the reasoning for why it was dismissed is absolutely koo koo bonkers LOL America.
Prosecutors argued it was clear that Mr. Rittenhouse’s possession of the gun was illegal and that the jury should be asked to decide on the charge. The defense lawyers argued that the statute barring “possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18” did not apply in this case.
The statute says it applies to minors carrying a rifle or shotgun only if they are not in compliance with at least one additional statute. Those include the regulation of “hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age,” and the prohibition of rifles with barrels less than 16 inches long.
Mr. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shootings. The judge threw out the charge after nobody in court disputed the length of the gun’s barrel.
A statute violation does not apply unless the person is also violating a different statute?
Am I reading that right? I hope not, because if so that’s the dumbest thing I’ve read in quite some time.
1 Like
I think the implication is that so many teenagers are wandering around with rifles and shotguns that it wouldn’t be practical to prosecute them all for that, so you need to focus on the ones that are also doing something else wrong. Like not being white, for example.
7 Likes
That appears to be the case. And if you don’t break any other laws, the possession itself isn’t a crime. I guess things like crossing state lines with the gun or, like, shooting people aren’t on the list.
4 Likes
I wonder if the original intention was to carve out hunting. Otherwise no one under 18 would be able to hunt with a rifle or shotgun. Pretty tough to hit a deer with a pistol.
With hunting as a carve-out, this becomes the pretty obvious subtext
2 Likes
That’s loser talk.
1 Like
From the AP article Prana posted earlier,
“The language stems from a bill that then-Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson signed in 1991. Lawmakers across the country were trying to find ways to curb gang violence around that time. Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini said the law was likely intended to prevent youths from carrying sawed-off shotguns.”
So, yeah, it seems like the law was targeting “gang violence” while not preventing older teens from deer hunting. Still seems crazy that (a) an AR 15 doesn’t fall into the category of a “deadly weapon” and (b) that this would be the first time that this issue has come up since 1991. I wonder if the defense team got super creative, or if the judge ignored previous precedent in order to find this loophole.
Wait…did I just see Kyle Rittenhouse drawing slips out of a raffle barrel containing the numbers of the jurors who are going to decide his fate. WTF? Its like a fucking game show. Insanity.
Wut?
18 jurors hear the case and the defendant picks the six alternates using raffle balls with each juror number on it. Very cool and modern system that is impossible to rig.
I don’t think it’s even an issue of precedent. The plain language of the statute makes it clear that he was not violating the law. It shouldn’t have been charged in the first place.
1 Like
If it was super clear, the judge should have ruled on it when the defense made a motion to dismiss it the first time, no?
Yes no idea if this is standard lolWisconsin or OMGthisnjudgeiswhack
This is the relevant part of the statute in question:
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.
941.28 is the statute dealing with short barreled rifles/shotguns and the other two references are to underage hunting laws. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Edit: I’m not sure when the defense first raised a MTD but the judge would obviously need to wait for the close of the state’s evidence to see whether they produced anything to indicate that the rifle was short barreled. If he denied it after the state rested, I have no idea why. It’s not up for debate IMO.