Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

F-111 John · Nov 11, 2021

Jim Watson said:
Isn't there a legal doctrine of necessity where if you just must break the law in an extreme case - like defending yourself with a non-legit rifle - it isn't to be prosecuted?

That might apply in a situation such as Kyle sleeping at home, waking up to find intruders in the home threatening his mother, and he grabbed her firearm and used it to protect her. It that example, he necessarily broke the minor in possession of a deadly weapon in order to protect the life of his mother.

Deliberately arming yourself and going out into public prior to any necessity to protect yourself or others is a completely different matter.

The Glockodile · Nov 11, 2021

Interesting, from this simpleton's mind.

Having a lethal weapon to protect yourself when you encounter lethal harm.

Deliberately going into harm's way with a lethal weapon to protect yourself when you encounter lethal harm.

I really wonder how this will play out.

lemaymiami · Nov 11, 2021

Watched a bit of the trial (my wife was fascinated by it...) and noted how poorly the prosecution appeared to be conducting itself...

My first thoughts about the actual shooting incident was that Rittenhouse was a foolish young man - and that, good, bad, or indifferent - the outcome of the trial will not solve of soften the trauma of having taken a life or lives... But then I was pretty foolish myself at 17...

Hope he survives all that follows and goes on to make a decent life for himself....

F-111 John · Nov 11, 2021

Styx said:
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.

I agree that it was the intent of the legislature to carve out the exception for those in the act of hunting, but that is NOT how the statute was written. Because Kyle was older than 16, he did not need to comply with 29.304:

29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
(1) Persons under 12 years of age.

(a) Prohibition on hunting. No person under 12 years of age may hunt with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person under 12 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and he or she is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class under the supervision of his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.
(c) Restrictions on obtaining hunting approval. Except as provided under par. (d), no person under 12 years of age may obtain any approval authorizing hunting.
(d) Restrictions on validity of certificate of accomplishment. A person under 12 years of age may obtain a certificate of accomplishment if he or she complies with the requirements of s. 29.591 (4) but that certificate is not valid for the hunting of small game until that person becomes 12 years of age.

(2) Persons 12 to 14 years of age.

(a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may hunt unless he or she is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:

1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; or
2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.

(3) Persons 14 to 16 years of age.

(a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may hunt unless he or she:

1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; or
2. Is issued a certificate of accomplishment that states that he or she successfully completed the course of instruction under the hunter education program or has a similar certificate, license, or other evidence satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department.

(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:

1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian;
2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor; or
3. Is issued a certificate of accomplishment that states that he or she successfully completed the course of instruction under the hunter education program or has a similar certificate, license, or other evidence satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department.

Which leaves 29.593

29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1)

(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
(b) A certificate of accomplishment issued to a person for successfully completing the course under the bow hunter education program only authorizes the person to obtain a resident archer hunting license, a nonresident archer hunting license, a resident crossbow hunting license, or a nonresident crossbow hunting license.

(2) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(2m) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a bow hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an archer hunting license or crossbow hunting license.
(3) A person who successfully completes basic training in the U.S. armed forces, reserves or national guard may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(4) A person who is subject to sub. (1) may prove compliance with sub. (1) when submitting an application for an approval authorizing hunting by presenting any of the following:

(a) His or her certificate of accomplishment issued under s. 29.591.
(b) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter within 365 days before submitting the application.
(c) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter for a hunting season that ended within 365 days before submitting the application.

To my knowledge, Kyle did not possess a "certificate of accomplishment" as issued under Wisconsin Statute 29.591, or a certificate satisfactory to the Wisconsin DNR indicating successful completion of a hunter education course in another state.

Styx · Nov 11, 2021

F-111 John said:
I agree that it was the intent of the legislature to carve out the exception for those in the act of hunting, but that is NOT how the statute was written. Because Kyle was older than 16, he did not need to comply with 29.304:

29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
(1) Persons under 12 years of age.

(a) Prohibition on hunting. No person under 12 years of age may hunt with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person under 12 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and he or she is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class under the supervision of his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.
(c) Restrictions on obtaining hunting approval. Except as provided under par. (d), no person under 12 years of age may obtain any approval authorizing hunting.
(d) Restrictions on validity of certificate of accomplishment. A person under 12 years of age may obtain a certificate of accomplishment if he or she complies with the requirements of s. 29.591 (4) but that certificate is not valid for the hunting of small game until that person becomes 12 years of age.
(2) Persons 12 to 14 years of age.

(a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may hunt unless he or she is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:

1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; or
2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.
(3) Persons 14 to 16 years of age.

(a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may hunt unless he or she:

1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; or
2. Is issued a certificate of accomplishment that states that he or she successfully completed the course of instruction under the hunter education program or has a similar certificate, license, or other evidence satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department.
(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:

1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian;
2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor; or
3. Is issued a certificate of accomplishment that states that he or she successfully completed the course of instruction under the hunter education program or has a similar certificate, license, or other evidence satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department.

Which leaves 29.593

29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1)

(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
(b) A certificate of accomplishment issued to a person for successfully completing the course under the bow hunter education program only authorizes the person to obtain a resident archer hunting license, a nonresident archer hunting license, a resident crossbow hunting license, or a nonresident crossbow hunting license.
(2) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(2m) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a bow hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an archer hunting license or crossbow hunting license.
(3) A person who successfully completes basic training in the U.S. armed forces, reserves or national guard may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(4) A person who is subject to sub. (1) may prove compliance with sub. (1) when submitting an application for an approval authorizing hunting by presenting any of the following:

(a) His or her certificate of accomplishment issued under s. 29.591.
(b) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter within 365 days before submitting the application.
(c) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter for a hunting season that ended within 365 days before submitting the application.

To my knowledge, Kyle did not possess a "certificate of accomplishment" as issued under Wisconsin Statute 29.591, or a certificate satisfactory to the Wisconsin DNR indicating successful completion of a hunter education course in another state.

" Hunting mentorship program.
(1) A person may hunt in this state without obtaining a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591 and may, while hunting, possess or control a firearm if all of the following apply"

He had to be hunting at the time. That is the very reason why his lawyers tried to argue that he was on fact "hunting" by "hunting the streets."

[EDIT] I was incorrect. See post 81.

dogtown tom · Nov 11, 2021

AlexanderA said:
That's not what I said at all.

Yeah, it is. And you repeat it again....

There's a difference between bona fide self defense and voluntarily putting yourself in harm's way.

"bonafide self defense" can occur anywhere, anytime. It matters NOT ONE BIT whether you were there voluntarily or involuntarily.

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's called freedom fella. Kyle Rittenhouse had every bit the same right of free speech and free assembly as anyone else that night.
What other rights do you not like seeing exercised?

It was just a bad situation all around.

I hold no sympathy for the three that were shot.
I do sympathize for the legal mess that KR finds himself in.

He's going to walk. But this shouldn't be an example for gun owners generally.

I disagree. Kyle Rittenhous seems to have behaved in an exemplary manner. This wasn't a vigilante looking for trouble, taking out Tangos or doing a drive by. If he had been thirty years old the situation would be no different. From the video presented in his trial, it appears he only shot those assaulting him.....which IMHO is EXACTLY what needed to be done.

We should stay out of trouble spots.

You know, sometimes you don't choose where those trouble spots are.
"A man's got to know his limitations" Harry Callahan, 1973.

F-111 John · Nov 11, 2021

Styx said:
" Hunting mentorship program.
(1) A person may hunt in this state without obtaining a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591 and may, while hunting, possess or control a firearm if all of the following apply"

He had to be hunting at the time. That is the very reason why his lawyers tried to argue that he was on fact "hunting" by "hunting" the streets.

I don't know which statute you are quoting there, but under the Possession of a Dangerous Weapon clause, only two statutes are cited in order to qualify for an exception. The only one that mentions a Hunting Mentorship program is 29.304, which only applies to persons 14 to 16. Kyle was 17 at the time.

(3) Persons 14 to 16 years of age.

(4m) Hunting mentorship program. The prohibition specified in sub. (1) (a) and the restrictions specified in subs. (1) (b) to (d), (2), and (3) do not apply to a person who is hunting with a mentor and who complies with the requirements specified under s. 29.592.

Styx · Nov 11, 2021

F-111 John said:
I don't know which statute you are quoting there, but under the Possession of a Dangerous Weapon clause, only two statutes are cited in order to qualify for an exception. The only one that mentions a Hunting Mentorship program is 29.304, which only applies to persons 14 to 16. Kyle was 17 at the time.

(3) Persons 14 to 16 years of age.

(4m) Hunting mentorship program. The prohibition specified in sub. (1) (a) and the restrictions specified in subs. (1) (b) to (d), (2), and (3) do not apply to a person who is hunting with a mentor and who complies with the requirements specified under s. 29.592.

I am out and about on my phone right now. When I get home, I will connect the "dots" aka the statues.

dogtown tom · Nov 11, 2021

Anyone else wonder how this case would be viewed if Kyle Rittenhouse was thirty five years old?

Styx · Nov 11, 2021

dogtown tom said:
Anyone else wonder how this case would be viewed if Kyle Rittenhouse was thirty five years old?

Things are always viewed differently if you are a woman, senior, or a low income majority in the hood when it comes to self defense IMHO... I've watch a few First 48 episodes on A&E that should have and would have been self defense if it were one of us, but because the person who had a gun pulled on them and as a result got into a gun fight was a low income person living in the hood, it wasn't deemed self defense. Double standards exist.

wiscoaster · Nov 11, 2021

CapnMac said:
Grosskreutz was concealing a Glock 19, which he later drew on Kyle.

sorry, wasn't reading your post closely enough and mistook the reference.

wiscoaster · Nov 11, 2021

herrwalther said:
...
I hope not. Mistrials have a risk of being tried again, as they are not protected under double jeopardy clauses. I....

That's what I think the prosecutor's intent is. They knew they blew the homicides and are hoping for another trial.

wiscoaster · Nov 11, 2021

Styx said:
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).

Thanks for that research.

Ethan Verity · Nov 11, 2021

CapnMac said:
Grosskreutz was concealing a Glock 19, which he later drew on Kyle. Potentially carrying concealed in 4 different states w/o a permit.

Per his testimony, a Gen 4 Glock 27.

herrwalther · Nov 11, 2021

wiscoaster said:
That's what I think the prosecutor's intent is. They knew they blew the homicides and are hoping for another trial.

The judge has admonished the prosecution several times that I have seen on the live feeds. If it turns out to be a mistrial, hopefully it is declared with prejudice against the state. Meaning they would have to come up with something substantial in order to open another trial. Rittenhouse attorneys have already requested a mistrial. I have no doubt they have a similar line of thinking, hoping that the judge will rule in favor of the defense before the jury even weighs in. The misdemeanor weapons charge is ambiguous and frankly nonessential point to the trial. Icing on the felony charges as far as the prosecution is concerned.

hso · Nov 12, 2021

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?

Spats McGee · Nov 12, 2021

F-111 John said:
But do you have an SD claim while in the commission of a crime? Can you, for example, claim self defense if you shoot an armed guard who is pointing a gun at you while you are in the process of robbing a bank? No, of course not.....

But the nature of my crime may determine whether I am the initial aggressor, who ordinarily cannot claim SD. If I were robbing a bank (Aggravated Robbery in Arkansas), then I am the initial aggressor, and SD is not available to me. OTOH, if I were carrying some weed in my pocket without a Medical Marijuana card (also illegal in Arkansas), then I am 'in the commission of a crime,' but I may not be an initial aggressor. If I'm not the IA, then I can still claim SD, .... though my judgment on the situation may be questioned by the jury because of the weed.

Jim Watson said:
Isn't there a legal doctrine of necessity where if you just must break the law in an extreme case - like defending yourself with a non-legit rifle - it isn't to be prosecuted?

Yes, but I doubt it would apply here. Had KR been attacked and picked up an AR laying in the street, that would apply, and likely get him out of the weapons charge. However, that's not what happened. He took the rifle to the riot, so that changes things.

Spats McGee · Nov 12, 2021

I think y'all are doing better at staying on topic, but let's avoid the Biden/Pelosi/defamation lawsuit stuff. That opens a whole different kettle of fish. If you are just dying to discuss that, open a new thread please.

armydog · Nov 12, 2021

If this would have been a girl, would there be this much controversy? Would she have been charged? Liberals found a pudgy white male/kid to target despite the video evidence. The prosecution's witnesses have made KR's case for him. This is about this kid being white with a combination of hatred for the AR15. I know girls that are highly skilled at running and gunning. When watching KR in the videos, he wasn't running and gunning, he was just flailing and lucky. I didn't see any tactical skill displayed by KR.

The liberals found a white guy/kid piñata and as usual, the truth is slowly but surely coming out.

If this was some NJ or NY judge, I could see the judge doing everything to assist in the prosecution with the same facts, photos, videos and witnesses in this trial. The judge in this case is the biggest blessing for KR. He seems to be going above and beyond to ensure KR is not crucified because of an obviously political agenda. What is really sad is that the judge has to be this involved in the first place.

wiscoaster · Nov 12, 2021

I'm curious about what you guys think the gun community in general will find as an acceptable outcome of this trial: if it goes to jury and the jury comes back with a guilty verdict on the underage weapons misdemeanor charge and not guilty on all the other felony charges, will the consensus be that's a just and acceptable outcome?

Jim Watson · Nov 12, 2021

The judge isn't DOING much. OK, the lawyer says something unethical, the judge sends the jury away and scolds the lawyer. So what is accomplished? The jury doesn't hear the admonishments, the outrageous statements can't be erased from their minds, so what good does it do?

I think we need to eliminate such courtroom theatrics. Maybe prequalify questions. Maybe tape everything, completely delete anything successfully objected to, and show the jury a movie.

Madcap_Magician · Nov 12, 2021

wiscoaster said:
I'm curious about what you guys think the gun community in general will find as an acceptable outcome of this trial: if it goes to jury and the jury comes back with a guilty verdict on the underage weapons misdemeanor charge and not guilty on all the other felony charges, will the consensus be that's a just and acceptable outcome?

Maybe. I wouldn't be able to judge the weapons possession charge myself based on what I've seen so far, the critical point will be the jury instructions on that count. I have heard commentary that it arguably doesn't apply or that if it arguably did apply, the law is unconstitutionally vague anyway, which is a bit more of a hail Mary for the defense than if they can conclusively argue that the possession clause has a loophole for 17-year-olds.

F-111 John · Nov 12, 2021

Jim Watson said:
The judge isn't DOING much. OK, the lawyer says something unethical, the judge sends the jury away and scolds the lawyer. So what is accomplished? The jury doesn't hear the admonishments, the outrageous statements can't be erased from their minds, so what good does it do?

What is accomplished is that the admonishments are entered into the record, and can be referenced if the judge ultimately does decide to declare a mistrial, or to go further and dismiss with prejudice due to gross prosecutorial misconduct.

AlexanderA · Nov 12, 2021

Jim Watson said:
Isn't there a legal doctrine of necessity where if you just must break the law in an extreme case - like defending yourself with a non-legit rifle - it isn't to be prosecuted?

The misdemeanor offense of weapons possession by a minor was complete before the necessity for self defense arose. Therefore that can't be used as an excuse. It would be different if he armed himself after being attacked.

Jim Watson · Nov 12, 2021

I get it.
I doubt the present judge will declare a mistrial, although of course everything will be appealed.
I think any discussion of the grammar of the OMG, IT'S A KID WITH A GUN law or about the interpolated (fake) pixels of the enlarged video will go right over the jurors' heads.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads