Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[dowie]

Really? This response has nothing to do with what I actually wrote. (No surprise there!)

Yeah it does, though if you're unsure why - the point is the weapons charge doesn't apply as he was carrying the rifle legally.

You said:

For me it was daft to charge him with murder. The only thing to charge him with was I think wrongful possession of his weapon.

But that's even dafter, at least they can attempt to make an argument re: the felony homicide or reckless endangerment charges, they don't even have a law that he breached re: the weapons charge.

RSo back to my point; the only thing where there might have been a breach of the law was to do with age and possessing that particular firearm. This was the only thing to charge him with, not murder, even though there might have been a technical reason why he was allowed to have that gun at his age.

It's not up to the jury to decide matters of law, this is a basic misunderstanding of what the function of the jury is, they decide matters of fact. The argument re: the facts are available already re: the weapons charge - is he 17 years old - yes, is the barrel length > 16 inches - yes. The prosecution agree and the judge threw the charge out, it didn't even get to the jury as there was nothing to decide.

Ironically Kyle was quite aware of Wisconsin law there and the prosecutor wasn't leading to him schooling the prosecutor on the stand when questioned about why he didn't carry a pistol.

 

[One More Solo]

I feel it needs to be pointed out that the corollary of someone being found not guilty of a crime is not that they shouldn’t have been charged in the first place. It also goes without saying that this is a really complicated case and it’s a bit dismaying to see posters on both sides trying to make it black and white (pun not intended).

It’s possible to think all of the following:

• The right decision was reached on the balance of the facts presented, but a country where you can do what Rittenhouse did within the bounds of the law is a mess.
• Biden/Harris shouldn’t get involved but understand why they did.
• The media were guilty of selective reporting/misreporting but this was not (always) out of malice.
• It’s very hard to understand this case properly as a non American because so much of it hinges on accepted parts of their culture we don’t have to live with every day. Open carry laws, for example.

 

[dowie]

I feel it needs to be pointed out that the corollary of someone being found not guilty of a crime is not that they shouldn’t have been charged in the first place.

That's a fair point re: the homicide charges but not necessarily re: the weapons charge which was thrown out.

It also goes without saying that this is a really complicated case and it’s a bit dismaying to see posters on both sides trying to make it black and white (pun not intended)

It's more just that the prosecution's case was really weak, there are strong provisions for self-defence and it seemed pretty clear that he'd been acting in self-defence here - they were trying to reach a bit with some blurry footage to claim some provocation angle or trying to argue that some aspects were excessive or reckless etc... There was perhaps some chance with the lesser charges included of a jury finding a guilty conviction if some really wanted to but I suspect it wouldn't have been too safe, seemed highly likely there was going to be a mistrial if he was found guilty and the judge was just waiting for the verdict to see if he could avoid having to make that call.

 

[Quartz]

Fact check, please:

I didn’t know the gas station where it all started and where Kyle stayed up until they started attacking him, is owned by his grandparents. They came on to his property to attack him.
I didn't know that Kyle put out a dumpster fire that was being rolled down to a gas station to blow up, with people all around.
I didn't know that the Police were told to stand down as businesses were destroyed.
I didn't know that Kyles Dad, Grandma and Friends all lived in Kenosha, 20 minutes from where he resided with his Mom part time in Illinois.
I didn't know that someone knocked Rittenhouse down twice and then attempted to kick him with lethal force to the head.
I didn't know that Huber had hit him in the head 2x with a skateboard.
I didn't know Gaige Grosskreutz, aimed his gun at Kyle first, as he admitted on the stand.
I also didn't know that in the State of Wisconsin, it is legal for Kyle to have a gun, even at 17 (which was why the gun charge was dismissed).
I didn't know that Kyle did not cross state lines with a gun he wasn't supposed to have. The rightful gun owner did, as he was legally permitted to do.
I also didn't realize that Rosenbaum was a 5 time convicted child rapist and that Huber was a 2 time convicted woman beater. I didn't know that Grosskreutz was a convicted Burglar with an assault on his record also.
I also didn’t know that all parties involved were Caucasian and no one of color was involved yet Kyle was and is still labeled by the MSM as a white supremacist.

 

[Skunkworks]

^That.

What are you on about?

 

[One More Solo]

That's a fair point re: the homicide charges but not necessarily re: the weapons charge which was thrown out.

Snipped for brevity but I do agree all round. I’m really not sure how the weapons charge even made it to court when it was easily disprovable based on known facts.

 

[Distracted]

I feel it needs to be pointed out that the corollary of someone being found not guilty of a crime is not that they shouldn’t have been charged in the first place. It also goes without saying that this is a really complicated case and it’s a bit dismaying to see posters on both sides trying to make it black and white (pun not intended).

It’s possible to think all of the following:

• The right decision was reached on the balance of the facts presented, but a country where you can do what Rittenhouse did within the bounds of the law is a mess.
• Biden/Harris shouldn’t get involved but understand why they did.
• The media were guilty of selective reporting/misreporting but this was not (always) out of malice.
• It’s very hard to understand this case properly as a non American because so much of it hinges on accepted parts of their culture we don’t have to live with every day. Open carry laws, for example.

It’s actually pretty cut and dry. A guy exercised his rights according to the law.
That’s it.

Everyone that takes issue with what happened shouldn’t be going after Kyle, they should be working to change the laws that allowed it to happen.

 

[olivier renault]

I feel it needs to be pointed out that the corollary of someone being found not guilty of a crime is not that they shouldn’t have been charged in the first place. It also goes without saying that this is a really complicated case and it’s a bit dismaying to see posters on both sides trying to make it black and white (pun not intended).

It's not that complicated, if you watched the trial and the videos.

 

[Quartz]

I feel it needs to be pointed out that the corollary of someone being found not guilty of a crime is not that they shouldn’t have been charged in the first place.

Yes.

It also goes without saying that this is a really complicated case and it’s a bit dismaying to see posters on both sides trying to make it black and white (pun not intended).

I'm not so sure about that. It seemed pretty clear-cut to me, but then I don't know the minutiae of American law.

 

[ianh]

Regardless of the outcome there aren't any winners in this case though.

Yeap, two are dead, one maimed for life, a teenager left with PTSD with his life under threat and a Country more divided than ever - the only winners here are the media who gained so much money from click-bait headlines whilst they fan the flames of hatred.

 

[StriderX]

Yeap, two are dead, one maimed for life, a teenager left with PTSD with his life under threat and a Country more divided than ever - the only winners here are the media who gained so much money from click-bait headlines whilst they fan the flames of hatred.

The media isn't the only winner here. Anyone who benefits from the workers tearing each other apart instead of working together to improve their standard of life has won.

A one-sided rebellion against the American upper class is never going to work.

 

[Twinz]

The media isn't the only winner here. Anyone who benefits from the workers tearing each other apart instead of working together to improve their standard of life has won.

A one-sided rebellion against the American upper class is never going to work.

"Workers of the world, unite!"???

 

[MartinPrince]

Yeah it does, though if you're unsure why - the point is the weapons charge doesn't apply as he was carrying the rifle legally.

I'm probably going to take the word of a US Law Professor over a dilettante on a UK forum... you might want to read and try to comprehend what was actually going on.

The misdemeanor charge of illegally possessing a dangerous weapon as a minor was much less serious than the felony counts Mr. Rittenhouse faced, and it carried a relatively short sentence. But jurors might have settled on the charge, said Steven Wright, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, if they balked at the more serious counts but wanted to convict Mr. Rittenhouse of something.

When he was arrested and charged last year it was not clear cut that he was carrying the gun legally (as you are trying to make out). Actually the opposite was said to be the case and that as the law was not totally clear then it was up for legal debate.

You might want to take an objective view rather than your conflated, misconstrued narrative.

This should put you straight and keep you silent going forward. (Pigs might fly) My point has been made.

'Perfectly legal' for Rittenhouse to carry a gun? False


EDITOR'S NOTE, Nov. 16, 2021: Judge Bruce Schroeder recently dismissed a misdemeanor charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 against Kyle Rittenhouse.

Readers asked us if this made the fact-check below invalid. We don’t think so. Here’s why.

In August 2020, we fact-checked a claim that it was "perfectly legal" for Rittenhouse to possess an AR-15 without parental supervision. Our reporting found that it was far from perfectly legal, and that it was, in fact, legally murky. That’s why we rated the claim False.

Wisconsin law says that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

In our fact-check, we cite the possibility of an exception for rifles and shotguns. The exception is aimed at letting children ages 16 and 17 hunt. But, as it is also clear, Rittenhouse wasn’t in Kenosha to hunt.

This same legal debate played out a couple of times during the Rittenhouse trial, according to the Associated Press.

Rittenhouse’s defense asked Schroeder to dismiss the firearm possession charge during a pretrial hearing in October. Schroeder, according to the Associated Press, acknowledged the intent of the statute was murky but decided not to dismiss the charge.

The issue came up again on Nov. 15 as lawyers were debating instructions to the jury.

Prosecutors argued that allowing an exception for hunting-style weapons would effectively eliminate the prohibition on minors carrying weapons.

But in this instance, Schroeder dismissed the charge, saying he had a "big problem" with the state statute.

In its reporting, the Associated Press quoted Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini, who is not involved in the case. Cicchini said when statutes aren't clear, they must be read in favor of the defense. "This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws," Cicchini wrote in an article.

The ruling does appear at odds with the intent of legislators. In 2018, the Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff, a nonpartisan legislative service agency akin to the Congressional Research Service, wrote that, "Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm."

These subsequent events show the grey areas of local gun laws — hardly a case of something being "perfectly legal." Our fact-check remains unchanged.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...le-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/

 

[dowie]

I'm probably going to take a the word of a US Law Professor over a dilettante on a UK forum... you might want to read and try to comprehend the timeline of events.

You don't need to take my word for it, it's got nothing to do with my word, it's just fact! (how are you not following that??? This isn't "dowie's opinion of the law", watch the case instead of posting from a position of ignorance, see the ruling from the local Judge with decades of experience, he's an expert in local law here.

Also, the law professor doesn't contradict that the charges were thrown out he's just commenting that the jury might want to settle on such a charge had it been available. That doesn't negate anything posted! IF Kyle had broken the law they might have just settled on that charge - you don't include a link for context even (wonder why that is...).

When he was arrested and charged last year it was not clear cut that he was carrying the gun legally (as you are trying to make out).
[...]
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...le-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/

Clear to whom? And where did I say anything about last year? I'm commenting on your retrospective assertion in the post I literally quoted... you're now shifting some goalposts.
Also LOL, you're literally quoting Politifact who famously got this completely wrong FFS! Also worth nothing the defence made the argument in court without relying on making any argument re: hunting provisions etc.. they specifically state they weren't doing so even.

To be clear though - this is the post I took issue with:

For me it was daft to charge him with murder. The only thing to charge him with was I think wrongful possession of his weapon.

That's just ass backwards, the only thing to charge him with was the one charge where he didn't break local laws resulting in the prosecution having an egg on face moment and the charge being dropped??? Also, you wouldn't want to even attempt a charge re: reckless endangerment or similar etc.. if you were the prosecutor?

 

[ianh]

"fact checkers" - LOL, what an oximoron!

Despite a Judge dismissing the charge, irrespective of why, and therefore deciding that in the eyes of the law it was "perfectly legal" for Rittenhouse to carry a firearm, the fact-checkers at politicfact have decided that they won't admit that their claim of "false" is now incorrect and refuse to change their webpage despite it being legally incorrect................................and people wonder why so many people don't believe "fact" checkers, especially those proven to point blank refuse to admit mistakes.

 

[C Kent]

"fact checkers" - LOL, what an oximoron!

Despite a Judge dismissing the charge, irrespective of why, and therefore deciding that in the eyes of the law it was "perfectly legal" for Rittenhouse to carry a firearm, the fact-checkers at politicfact have decided that they won't admit that their claim of "false" is now incorrect and refuse to change their webpage despite it being legally incorrect................................and people wonder why so many people don't believe "fact" checkers, especially those proven to point blank refuse to admit mistakes.

my particular favourite in the 'fact check' was using Michael Cicchini as a reference

In its reporting, the Associated Press quoted Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini, who is not involved in the case. Cicchini said when statutes aren't clear, they must be read in favor of the defense. "This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws," Cicchini wrote in an article.

Whilst totally ignoring this part

To Kenosha-based defense attorney Michael Cicchini, the statute clearly requires a weapon to be short-barreled to apply, and the judge made the right call.
“There doesn’t seem to be much ambiguity here,” he said. “(The charge) should have been dismissed earlier.”

Source: https://apnews.com/article/why-did-...e-gun-charge-d923d8e255d6b1f5c9c9fc5b74e691fb

 

[chroniclard]

Fact check explanation seems reasonable.

Let's face it most people who dismiss fact checkers are often right wing conspiracy pushers.

 

[Energize]

"fact checkers" - LOL, what an oximoron!

Despite a Judge dismissing the charge, irrespective of why, and therefore deciding that in the eyes of the law it was "perfectly legal" for Rittenhouse to carry a firearm, the fact-checkers at politicfact have decided that they won't admit that their claim of "false" is now incorrect and refuse to change their webpage despite it being legally incorrect................................and people wonder why so many people don't believe "fact" checkers, especially those proven to point blank refuse to admit mistakes.

Fact checkers have zero credibility, they routinely contradict themselves by saying a claim is mostly false, then in the explanation say that actually almost everything in the claim is true and there is one minor technicality that is wrong.

It's a profitable business though, through the façade of being a source of truth they have managed to dupe social media companies into paying for their services.

 

[Caracus2k]

"fact checkers" - LOL, what an oximoron!

Despite a Judge dismissing the charge, irrespective of why, and therefore deciding that in the eyes of the law it was "perfectly legal" for Rittenhouse to carry a firearm, the fact-checkers at politicfact have decided that they won't admit that their claim of "false" is now incorrect and refuse to change their webpage despite it being legally incorrect................................and people wonder why so many people don't believe "fact" checkers, especially those proven to point blank refuse to admit mistakes.

Fact checking is in deed a joke take this clown world fact check, that's still up, from AP!

THE FACTS: His implication that Rittenhouse only shot the men after he tripped and they attacked him is wrong. The first fatal shooting happened before Rittenhouse ran away and fell. Trump did not say whom he meant by “they” — the two men he shot or others in pursuit of him. But he spoke in defense of someone who opposed racial-justice protesters, who authorities say was illegally carrying a semi-automatic rifle and who prosecutors accuse of committing intentional homicide.

And the absolute dishonesty of all these people going on about the misdemeanour possession charge as if they would have been OK with the situation if Kyle had just be a little bit older

 

[One More Solo]

It's not that complicated, if you watched the trial and the videos.

I’m not simply talking about the trial but the context of it. The legal arguments are relatively straightforward but the circus around it is anything but. It’s disingenuous to wonder why a not guilty verdict doesn’t automatically bring an end to it.