Pardon the misdemeanor possession charge, odds are he’ll get off on time served for that one. The prosecution already fucked up the case so bad the judge threw out the curfew charge.
It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t his gun. He was in possession of it. And he was 17. We’re not talking about a 4 year old who somehow got hold of a pistol.
4 Likes
You realize “somewhere he didn’t need to be” has no relevance in the law of self-defense, right? As long as he was somewhere he had a right to be (which he did), he was entitled to defend himself.
4 Likes
Was he?
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(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.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult’s supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult’s supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
948.60(3)(c)(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. 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.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
1 Like
I’m not well versed on the specifics of self defence per se in America
But I’ll outline a scenario, I’m curious as to whether you’d think this is self defence.
I’m Jewish, lets say I go to a far-right convention consisting of neo nazis wearing an “IDF” T-shirt with a star of David around my neck and Hebrew letter ear rings. One nazi looks at me, tells me to get lost and I shout “fuck you! You piece of trash, you are vermin!”. (this scenario isn’t real)
The nazi throws a right hook and says “you dirty %$#%, I’ll crack your head open”, I bob and weave. I happen to have a pocket knife that I was conveniently carrying around because I ‘slice apples’ with it (lame excuse) and I stab the guy in the throat. Nazi dies
Is this self defence? Why did I attend this rally to begin with? (not real… I want to reiterate this is a made up scenario)
Yes, he was. Rittenhouse’s possession doesn’t meet any of these aforementioned criteria for an exemption.
Not old enough to legally drink, smoke tobacco, get married, drive a car independently (some states), rent a car, gamble, buy property, he can’t open a bank account independently in most state, various concerts will be off limits to him… But he’s old enough to go out to the scene of a riot armed with an assault rifle?
I don’t know why you chose this scenario, as it has virtually nothing in common with the evidence that has come to light in the Rittenhouse case. Let’s change your facts a bit to make them relevant. You’re a 17 year old Jewish boy. You hear that people are rioting and attacking Jews in Crown Heights, Brooklyn (which actually happened in 1991). You decide this is awful and you’re going to go help. So you go to Crown Heights with a rifle and you’re working with others similarly armed to protect Jews and Jewish-owned establishments. An anti-Semite screams that if he gets you alone, he’ll kill you. Sure enough, shortly afterward, this same person ends up chasing you in a public area, and reaches for your gun upon catching up to you. You shoot him. Is this self-defense? I’d say most likely.
4 Likes
I’m not a lawyer, but:
Then:
941.28 Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1) In this section:
(a) “Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.
(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
And I’m guessing that his rifle’s barrel was at least 16 inches. And he was not hunting.
For whatever reason you wanted to be there. You could even go there for the silliest reason you come up with. What would that have to do with legality? You’re allowed to be there.
1 Like
I am getting on a very troublesome conclusion here. It seems the people here who have leftist views have fully turned full communist and have no respect for the normal persons morality and legality sence. They will create narratives to win on any case, no matter the cost and they are not thinking in the same way like the rest of us. They have no respect for the current system and they want to destroy it.
3 Likes
You are allowed to be there, but SHOULD you be there? I could attend a plethora of local strip clubs legally, but should I? No… I’m aware the circumstance is different, but theoretically I do have the right to visit a brothel or a strip club in my state. I have a legal “right” to be there. If you look at (which post was it?) the start of my conversation on this thread it is apparent I’m not only talking about the legality behind Rittenhouse’s actions, I’m also talking about the morality behind them. Legality and morality make up two very separate dilemmas.
It was legal for him to be there… Expect for the firearm he possessed illegally… But should he have been there? I don’t think so…
So perhaps Rittenhouse had a right to be there, this doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do. I’ve been talking about the morality behind his actions. From a moral standpoint, I disagree with what he has done. That doesn’t mean I support rioting, burning down businesses and the likes… Though actually I did support the anti-lockdown riots that occurred in my area. Though I did not attend as 20K+ fines, rubber bullets and batons didn’t appeal to me.
Rittenhouse ought to be charged with illicit possession of the firearm be was carrying. Otherwise, provided witness testimonies and evidence caught on film corroborates with his anecdotes one can feasibly argue the killings might have been in self defence.
It seems SOME people who have right wing ideals will also use any narrative to justify the wrongdoings associated with their side. Politics nowadays isn’t bipartisan. It should be noted I’m not left wing, nor am I a communist. So with that in mind, if you are referring to me (just as you inferred my distaste for Rittenhouse’s action to mean I support rioting…) it should be noted I am split firmly down the middle regarding the political spectrum. Back in the day I would have considered myself left wing, but the mainstream integration of woke/PC culture, socialist covid policy in Aus etc skewed me further towards the right. At this point I’ve noted both sides make good points depending on the topic at hand.
You’re picking sides here, this is a dangerous mentality to fall into. On both extremes of the spectrum, left/right wing ideologies are highly problematic. Communism = collectivism, the redistribution of wealth through centralised control. Deconstructing social class and structuring a new societal paradigm absent of class/hierarchy. It’s a stupid idea, because some people do work harder than others, some are capable of achieving more than others.
There’s no reason a cardiologist who has gone though med school, res and specialisation should pull in 600K/yr only for the government to swoop in and say “okay, you get 10K, everyone gets 10K”.
As does the right… there is a growing divide between the left/right, neither side is willing to sit down and hear the other out. Both are pandering towards vested moral superiority. I believe one day there will be a war between political factions. The mainstream left and the mainstream right will split off into different subsections. You’ll have the moderate left wing that pushes back against woke ideals, PC authoritarianism and the idea of wealth redistribution and you’ll see the right wing moderates and the “alt-lite” variation of right wing split off. Should be noted the “alt-lite” are these enveloped within the right wing political spectrum who adhere to the ideologies associated with the alt right minus the racism and white supremacy. Alt right = political extremism, alt light = borderline. The line that divides right/left wing and far right/far left is subject to interpretation, there is no one singular definition. The line that divides left wing moderates from communism or right wing moderates from fascism however is very obvious.
It’s SO irritating to see those who identify with the left vehemently stick to their side no matter the wrongdoings present. I saw this in my state (Aus) with the covid rhetoric, people justifying 10K+ fines for not wearing a mask etc, justifying police raids over engagement parties (then having all attendees doxxed on the news resulting in death threats being sent out to the families present). Then you’ve got the right wing variation of this, wherein someone like Donald Trump or Boris Johnson is considered to be the Messiah. Gladys (previous right wing premier of NSW) can get away with strip searching kids because she’s Gladys, it’s also totally fine for her office to shred documents during an inquery looking into political corruption. She’s Gladys… She’s innocent… Except this year she had to stand down pending allegations of corruption. But many of those entrenched in the right wing spectrum over here are adamant she is an absolute Saint in despite of mounting evidence suggesting otherwise.
I happen to believe both Daniel Andrews and Gladys ought to be locked up … Clearly I’m not sticking with one side …
Neither side is perfect, singling out the left wing and only the left wing is disingenuous.
In the scenario, I’d agree with you.
Rittenhouse however wasn’t standing up against anti semitism or discrimination against his own kind. We can agree to disagree on this matter. To note, this doesn’t make me a communist or a member of your local antifa chapter. I just happen to think that Rittenhouse was probably an asshole who wanted to kill people.
Could I be wrong? Absolutely, I’m not taking any kind of moral high ground here
Instead I’m giving my opinion extrapolated from the narratives I’ve heard. I’m very skeptical of the “brave patriot” theory. I don’t stock that much faith in the current generation of youth. We will see how the trial unfolds
I don’t practice in Wisconsin but I’ll weigh in. That assistant district attorney should be immediately demoted to child support enforcement cases, exclusively.
I don’t think the judge’s open court tirade is enough to neutralize the damage the ada’s questioning has done. I vote for mistrial with prejudice.
2 Likes
This is literally carry training 101. If you interfere in a confrontation, you’d better know damn well who the “good guy” is. And the answer is that, no, if Rittenhouse was firing in self defense only, it would be murder as a 3rd party to then shoot him. It is fairly obvious California here doesn’t even know the basics of the law. If you were genuinely curious please go take a basic carry safety class.
2 Likes
For such a high profile case he seems like a clown/cocky SoB.
…The judge laid into him with that “dont get brazen with me!” rant after after having to admonish him for 5-6 minutes straight and then he still chirps back 
He’s not. He has no curiosity about these things. It’s why he believed Brian Sicknick was beaten with a fire extinguisher. With no video evidence. With countless cameras filming everything.
Why?
The taser failed you dope
To my knowledge, the individual who supplied the gun to Rittenhouse has been charged
If his gun was legal for him to possess, why was his friend slapped with charges for buying the weapon and giving it to Kyle?