The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha
-
There seems to be some thought that the prosecution is purposefully shooting for a mistrial?
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
There seems to be some thought that the prosecution is purposefully shooting for a mistrial?
There is no way that's not happening.
-
The exception still applies. Transporting across state lines is a problem. Justice could charge him under Federal law, but if they do this after an acquittal, it would certainly have political fallout.
@jolly said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
The exception still applies. Transporting across state lines is a problem. Justice could charge him under Federal law, but if they do this after an acquittal, it would certainly have political fallout.
Of course they should prosecute him on the transport charge, and his mother too for driving him, if the law allows it. That crime ultimately resulted in two deaths. If you didn’t charge it in this case, when would you?
(Assuming they can show the gun was transported from IL, last I recall that was in question but I haven’t followed this at all or read anything about it since last year)
-
@jolly said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
The exception still applies. Transporting across state lines is a problem. Justice could charge him under Federal law, but if they do this after an acquittal, it would certainly have political fallout.
Of course they should prosecute him on the transport charge, and his mother too for driving him, if the law allows it. That crime ultimately resulted in two deaths. If you didn’t charge it in this case, when would you?
(Assuming they can show the gun was transported from IL, last I recall that was in question but I haven’t followed this at all or read anything about it since last year)
@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Of course they should prosecute him on the transport charge
His attorneys in the double murder case maintain that Rittenhouse did not bring the assault-style rifle from Illinois to Wisconsin prior to last month's killings. They say the rifle was owned legally by a Wisconsin friend and handed over to Rittenhouse the afternoon of the killings as he and a friend tried to help police defend Kenosha businesses that came under siege by looters and vandals. They maintain under Wisconsin law it is legal for the friend, not a minor, to have provided the rifle to Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse is charged with possession of a dangerous weapon, not with transport across state lines or possession of a stolen or illegal weapon.
Further, Rittenhouse's attorneys contend that he never crossed the Illinois border at all that day because he had slept at a friend's place the previous evening so he could go to work as a Kenosha pool lifeguard.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
But...
https://heavy.com/news/2020/08/how-did-kyle-rittenhouse-have-gun/
A 17-year-old can’t legally own a firearm in Wisconsin except for hunting purposes and with the permission of a legal guardian, according to the Giffords Law Center. In Illinois, where Rittenhouse lives, people under 21 can only own a gun legally if a parent or guardian who meets the eligibility criteria to own a gun signs off on their child owning a gun.
Lin Wood!
open carry is legal in Wisconsin, but not for minors.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Of course they should prosecute him on the transport charge
His attorneys in the double murder case maintain that Rittenhouse did not bring the assault-style rifle from Illinois to Wisconsin prior to last month's killings. They say the rifle was owned legally by a Wisconsin friend and handed over to Rittenhouse the afternoon of the killings as he and a friend tried to help police defend Kenosha businesses that came under siege by looters and vandals. They maintain under Wisconsin law it is legal for the friend, not a minor, to have provided the rifle to Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse is charged with possession of a dangerous weapon, not with transport across state lines or possession of a stolen or illegal weapon.
Further, Rittenhouse's attorneys contend that he never crossed the Illinois border at all that day because he had slept at a friend's place the previous evening so he could go to work as a Kenosha pool lifeguard.
-
@jon-nyc said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@jolly said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence:
Kid's a dumbass, but he should walk. It's clearly self-defense.
Yes on all three counts
You and @Jolly forgot to mention that he was pretty damn solid, too. Debate all you want about whether he should have been there, but when the shit went down? Solid. I mean, there should be recruiters from the SEALS and Rangers waiting to talk to this kid in hallway.
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
You and @Jolly forgot to mention that he was pretty damn solid, too. Debate all you want about whether he should have been there, but when the shit went down? Solid. I mean, there should be recruiters from the SEALS and Rangers waiting to talk to this kid in hallway.
I would think they care about judgement, too. I’m sure some big city swat team would hire him.
-
-
@george-k you could have quoted the second half of my post George. I haven’t followed this, I assumed Jolly had and he mentioned transport.
@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@george-k you could have quoted the second half of my post George.
Where you said, "(Assuming they can show the gun was transported from IL, last I recall that was in question but I haven’t followed this at all or read anything about it since last year)"?
I didn't because you said you didn't know or that it was unclear, so I tried to clarify.
-
But...
https://heavy.com/news/2020/08/how-did-kyle-rittenhouse-have-gun/
A 17-year-old can’t legally own a firearm in Wisconsin except for hunting purposes and with the permission of a legal guardian, according to the Giffords Law Center. In Illinois, where Rittenhouse lives, people under 21 can only own a gun legally if a parent or guardian who meets the eligibility criteria to own a gun signs off on their child owning a gun.
Lin Wood!
open carry is legal in Wisconsin, but not for minors.
"When you start manufacturing facts to support false accusations, you get into trouble under the law of defamation."
When this is all said and done, I wonder who comes out richer?
Nicholas Sandmann or Rittenhouse?
We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on. -
@george-k you could have quoted the second half of my post George. I haven’t followed this, I assumed Jolly had and he mentioned transport.
@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@george-k you could have quoted the second half of my post George. I haven’t followed this, I assumed Jolly had and he mentioned transport.
I was going by the news reports. Court testimony has been different.
-
"When you start manufacturing facts to support false accusations, you get into trouble under the law of defamation."
When this is all said and done, I wonder who comes out richer?
Nicholas Sandmann or Rittenhouse?
@improviso said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
BTW, Wood is NOT his lawyer now. It looks like he might have been originally.
Ms. Rittenhouse claims on the podcast that two of #FightBack’s leaders—Wood and conservative firebrand John Pierce—latched onto her son’s case for their own personal reasons.
“They used Kyle to gain money, gain Twitter followers,” Ms. Rittenhouse told Law&Crime. “I felt now they didn’t care about Kyle.”
The mother has cut ties with #FightBack to start a new legal defense fund for her son under her control called FreeKyleUSA, and she claims that Wood and Pierce have ignored repeated requests to open up their books.
“He used my son’s image to make profit off of that. And I asked for an accounting of it. And I never got it. I was ignored,” Ms. Rittenhouse said of Wood in an interview with Law&Crime. “They used a 17-year-old kid’s image for their own political shit.”
“I asked Lin, where’s the money?” Ms. Rittenhouse recalled separately. “I wanted to see the books, like the accounting books.”
In an email, Wood denied receiving any request for an audit and said FightBack would be “perfectly willing to undergo any audit required by law.”
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Pretty much what they did to Sandmann. Look how that turned out.
-
The gun was transported across state lines afterwards… Didn’t the boy turn it in to police at his home?
-
The gun was transported across state lines afterwards… Didn’t the boy turn it in to police at his home?
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
The gun was transported across state lines afterwards… Didn’t the boy turn it in to police at his home?
If that's the case he could be charged. Doesn't matter whether he turned it into the police or not.
-
@improviso said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
BTW, Wood is NOT his lawyer now. It looks like he might have been originally.
Ms. Rittenhouse claims on the podcast that two of #FightBack’s leaders—Wood and conservative firebrand John Pierce—latched onto her son’s case for their own personal reasons.
“They used Kyle to gain money, gain Twitter followers,” Ms. Rittenhouse told Law&Crime. “I felt now they didn’t care about Kyle.”
The mother has cut ties with #FightBack to start a new legal defense fund for her son under her control called FreeKyleUSA, and she claims that Wood and Pierce have ignored repeated requests to open up their books.
“He used my son’s image to make profit off of that. And I asked for an accounting of it. And I never got it. I was ignored,” Ms. Rittenhouse said of Wood in an interview with Law&Crime. “They used a 17-year-old kid’s image for their own political shit.”
“I asked Lin, where’s the money?” Ms. Rittenhouse recalled separately. “I wanted to see the books, like the accounting books.”
In an email, Wood denied receiving any request for an audit and said FightBack would be “perfectly willing to undergo any audit required by law.”
-
-
Andrew McCarthy on the open-carry:
Openly carrying a rifle, as he was doing, is generally legal in Wisconsin — where a friend, who was also armed and seeking to protect property, gave Rittenhouse the gun to protect himself that night. The prosecutors counter that, having not yet attained the age of 18 at the time, Rittenhouse’s possession was unlawful — a misdemeanor. But the controlling statute, a densely worded muddle that prohibits most gun possession by minors, appears to exempt long guns. The law is so vague, in any event, that a conviction based on it is apt to be constitutionally unstable.
Responsible prosecutors don’t charge offenses based on statutes they cannot explain, and the prosecutors can’t explain the pertinent exemptions. Moreover, to the limited extent that Rittenhouse’s appearance should have any bearing on the case — and criminal charges focus on the operation of the accused’s mind, not spectators’ perception of the accused — his open carrying of a long gun was neither more nor less provocative than the perfectly lawful open-carrying by those on the streets who were over 18. Indeed, it was more benign than the illegal concealed-carrying of a handgun by the state’s star witnesses, over which — surprise! — the prosecutors have not filed charges.
So why is the state so insistent on stacking a minor, selective, incomprehensibly vague misdemeanor gun-possession charge on a defendant who is facing so much potential imprisonment on murder and attempted-murder charges that he’d have to live three or four lifetimes to serve the sentence prosecutors are hoping for?
Because the prosecutors know they have no case. They need the misdemeanor to distort reality such that they’ll be able to hoodwink the jury . . . if the judge is sufficiently cowed to let them get away with it by letting the misdemeanor count stand.
-
Boy, you talk about a lyin' sack of shit...
Active shooters don't discriminately only shoot the people that are trying to kill them. Nor do they walk towards the police to give themselves up. Nor do they try to get help for the people they've shot.
I understand NBC and their maniacal anti-gun focus. They've been that way for decades. But this is a helluva stretch, even by their standards...
