Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

2A collateral damage

[neeneko]

In 1978, I learned a righteous respect for an M-16, etc. In Basic Training (Ft. Jax, SC - 45N) unlike this disrespectful, wannabe POS Rittenhouse. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to put a weapon of war in his pimply hands?

I would more describe what he was using as a glorified varmint gun dressed up to make the user FEEL like they were using a weapon of war.

[raison de arizona]

In 1978, I learned a righteous respect for an M-16, etc. In Basic Training (Ft. Jax, SC - 45N) unlike this disrespectful, wannabe POS Rittenhouse. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to put a weapon of war in his pimply hands?

IIRC that case for the 19yo straw man purchase is on hold pending the result of Rittenhouse's trial. He (19yo) faces two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under age 18, causing death. He's free on $2,500, but is facing six years if convicted.
https://abc7chicago.com/kyle-rittenhous ... t/7808894/

[raison de arizona]

Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers are still trying to get the gun possession charge dropped before the trial

At the end of a hearing Monday on different issues, Schroeder said he hadn't read the motion yet, but would decide it by next Monday, when jury selection in the case is scheduled to begin.

If the misdemeanor count is dismissed, prosecutors could no longer frame the night's events by Rittenhouse's unlawful presence with the Smith & Wesson M&P 15, assault-style rifle he had a friend buy for him [illegally, straw man] elsewhere with enhanced unemployment money earlier that year. Rittenhouse was working as a lifeguard in Kenosha at the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

Kyle Rittenhouse told police in Antioch, Illinois, where he lived at the time, that the assault-style rifle he used to shoot three people in Kenosha was in the trunk of a friend's car.

Whether or not Rittenhouse was engaged in unlawful activity when he fired shots could also add a complication to his invocation of self defense. The defense is generally not available to people involved in illegal activity that could provoke an attack — except if their lives are threatened, but then the person claiming it must show they "exhausted every other means of escape," before resorting to deadly force.

The Wisconsin law in question begins by defining dangerous weapons to include "any firearm, loaded or unloaded," as well as things like Tasers and even nunchucks and throwing stars.

A section of the statute also reads: "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" has an illegal short-barreled rifle or shotgun or hasn't earned a hunter safety training certificate.

The state has argued safety education, hunting or supervised target practice and on-duty military service are the only times a person under 18 can legally possess a rifle or shotgun. Prosecutors say it doesn't make sense to criminalize possession of nunchucks by a 17-year-old, but allow them to carry loaded assault-style rifles.

When the law was under consideration in 1991, the Legislative Reference Bureau did an analysis that also seems to mention the exception claimed by the defense.

Among the exceptions that could be claimed by those in younger age groups are when children have guns as part of hunter safety training and accompanied by an adult.

Lawyers promoted the idea that would suggest that 16 and 17-year-olds who had the training can possess a rifle while hunting alone.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cri ... 549233002/

[Patagoniagirl]

Dont be mad at me, but I'm curious as to Anders take on the Travon Marltn, and Amuad Arbrys killings by white men with guns.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/1 ... r-30-years

Rittenhouse judge has a history of jackassery that goes back over 30 years

A quick Google of a few well-known trials shows the word “victim” appearing frequently in transcripts of other cases. And claims that it’s not unusual to block this term are certainly news to CNN legal analyst Eric Honig, who in addition to saying this had never come up in in cases, called the ruling “crazy and wrong.”

Those trying to find some excuse for Schroeder might want to check a little into his history, because this isn’t the first time he’s done something that was extremely unusual. Or the first time his actions are likely to lead to giving attorneys excellent grounds for appeal. In fact, hundreds of people have tried to get their cases moved away out of Schroeder’s court, because his actions have been irrational and unpredictable.

As Kenosha News reports, in 2018, Schroeder revived a practice centuries out of date when he ordered that a woman convicted of retail theft be punished with “public shaming.” Schroeder sentenced Milwaukee resident Markea Brown to 15 months in prison, and during the two years that followed, he charged her with the responsibility that every time she entered a store, she had to “notify management at the service desk that she is on supervision for retail theft.”

Schroeder informed Brown that while he couldn’t “put her in the stocks,” he could still see that she was “embarrassed and humiliated.”

The sentence was overturned on appeal, with the appellate court declaring, “We are not persuaded that embarrassing or humiliating defendants with a state-imposed broad public notification requirement promotes their rehabilitation.”

[Maybenaut]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/1 ... r-30-years

Rittenhouse judge has a history of jackassery that goes back over 30 years

A quick Google of a few well-known trials shows the word “victim” appearing frequently in transcripts of other cases. And claims that it’s not unusual to block this term are certainly news to CNN legal analyst Eric Honig, who in addition to saying this had never come up in in cases, called the ruling “crazy and wrong.”

Those trying to find some excuse for Schroeder might want to check a little into his history, because this isn’t the first time he’s done something that was extremely unusual. Or the first time his actions are likely to lead to giving attorneys excellent grounds for appeal. In fact, hundreds of people have tried to get their cases moved away out of Schroeder’s court, because his actions have been irrational and unpredictable.

As Kenosha News reports, in 2018, Schroeder revived a practice centuries out of date when he ordered that a woman convicted of retail theft be punished with “public shaming.” Schroeder sentenced Milwaukee resident Markea Brown to 15 months in prison, and during the two years that followed, he charged her with the responsibility that every time she entered a store, she had to “notify management at the service desk that she is on supervision for retail theft.”

Schroeder informed Brown that while he couldn’t “put her in the stocks,” he could still see that she was “embarrassed and humiliated.”

The sentence was overturned on appeal, with the appellate court declaring, “We are not persuaded that embarrassing or humiliating defendants with a state-imposed broad public notification requirement promotes their rehabilitation.”

Sorry, but that guy’s an idiot. Whether the decedent is a victim or an aggressor in a self-defense case is what the jury is going to decide. Referring to them as victims unfairly undermines the self-defense claim. I’m not at all surprised by the ruling, particularly since it was in the interest of giving Rittenhouse a fair trial.

[Suranis]

Yep. Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with ruling. Calling the Victim "the Deceased" or similar is perfectly fine.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Thanks for the input, Maybenaut and Suranis.

[Uninformed]

Although I understand the judicial reasons for not allowing the use of the word “victim” I believe most members of the public would when hearing terms such as the “deceased/shot/killed/casualty (etc)” would be thinking just that. Whether the evidence or counsel’s words will negate that remain to be seen.

[pipistrelle]

Yep. Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with ruling. Calling the Victim "the Deceased" or similar is perfectly fine.

The original tweet was misleading, IIRC, and said they had to be called “rioters,” etc. which would be over the top, convicting the deceased in their deceased absence.

[Maybenaut]

Yep. Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with ruling. Calling the Victim "the Deceased" or similar is perfectly fine.

The original tweet was misleading, IIRC, and said they had to be called “rioters,” etc. which would be over the top, convicting the deceased in their deceased absence.

There were two separate issues - whether they could be called victims (no), and whether they could be called rioters, looters or arsonists (maybe, depending on what the evidence revealed).

Although I understand the judicial reasons for not allowing the use of the word “victim” I believe most members of the public would when hearing terms such as the “deceased/shot/killed/casualty (etc)” would be thinking just that. Whether the evidence or counsel’s words will negate that remain to be seen.

Right, but all the uproar is about the ruling, which was correct, IMO.

[p0rtia]

Yep. Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with ruling. Calling the Victim "the Deceased" or similar is perfectly fine.

The original tweet was misleading, IIRC, and said they had to be called “rioters,” etc. which would be over the top, convicting the deceased in their deceased absence.

This. There was no context for the "can't say victim" trope, and it came in juxtaposition with "but the judge is fine with calling the deceased looters and rioters," which was simply not true.

It was the false narrative that caused the outrage. Which had no objective truth in it at all.

[andersweinstein]

Wait, I didn't know Anders was the judge in this case.

[Foggy]

Instead of victim I'm calling them 'ammunition recipients'.

[raison de arizona]

Instead of victim I'm calling them 'ammunition recipients'.

Ammo is expensive these days, does that alone qualify them as looters or *gasp* thieves!?

Although I suppose Hero willingly gave the ammo to them, so that may be an uphill battle. Anders?

[andersweinstein]

Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers are still trying to get the gun possession charge dropped before the trial

The state has argued safety education, hunting or supervised target practice and on-duty military service are the only times a person under 18 can legally possess a rifle or shotgun.

This is a bit of a sidelight but: although the state HAS indeed represented the rules this way, I believe if you look at the statute, there really is absolutely zero basis in the text for the idea that WI law prohibits minors from legally possessing rifles unless hunting or under one of other enumerated exceptions. From 29.304, Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 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.[/list]

(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; [or? -AW]
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.]

So: restrictions on hunting are stated SEPARATELY from restrictions on possession and I don't see any implied link. And looks to me like the stated restrictions on possession entail -- quite unambiguously, I would think -- that:

- 12 and 13 year olds can possess if accompanied by a designated adult. (ANYWHERE*, not restricted to hunting.)
- 14 and 15 year olds can possess if accompanied by a designated adult (ANYWHERE*, not restricted to hunting)
- 14 and 15 year olds can possess unaccompanied if they have a hunter's ed certificate (ANYWHERE*, not restricted to hunting).

Also I believe the minor possession law exception entails at least that a 17 or 18 year old with a hunting license can also possess ANYWHERE*, not restricted to hunting. There's just no text anywhere in the statute that ever states any restriction to hunting.

So a 14 year old with the hunter's ed card could have legally carried an AR in the riot zone that night. And if Rittenhouse had only gotten a hunter's ed certificate (he could have done an Illinois equivalent) I think he would have had a strong claim to be in the clear.

I find this interesting because it has seemed to me the defense could support their argument in a small way by saying, look the state is just wrong about the restrictions restricting them to hunting. And if they are so wrong about that, that could help convince you they are wrong about the rest of their interpretation of the minor possession ban as well, in particular the ambiguous exception for rifles that team Rittenhouse is appealing to.

Also, one oddity of the interpretation the state is trying to make is that it gives under 16s MORE gun privileges than it does to 16 or 17 year olds. That is, some under 16s can possess if accompanied by an adult -- but 16 or 17 year olds can't. And some under 16s can carry their guns as described to a hunter's ed course -- but 16 and 17 year olds can't. It seems kind of ridiculous to think that was intended. "What's that in that case?" "My gun, I'm bringing to a hunter's ed class" "How old are you?", "15" "OK fine", "Wait, I mean 16", "You're under arrest".

*Edit: By "ANYWHERE", I mean anywhere not prohibited by some *other* law, of course.

[Foggy]

Rittenhouse was 17, so nothing you posted really applies to him, does it?

[andersweinstein]

Rittenhouse was 17, so nothing you posted really applies to him, does it?

It would be part of an argument that the state is misinterpreting LOTS of things about the existing law when it says it restricts possession to hunting (or one other exception). It would be to give credence to the idea that the state's interpretation is a big myth without foundation. It just is not true that teen rifle possession is so restricted as the state suggests if you go by text.

A bit bluntly, Binger is bullshitting when he calls this a "hunting exception". There is no hunting exception anywhere. The rules for possession under 16s never mention any hunting exception, they are much broader than that in the possession they allow. So why should we think the rules for 16 and 17s, which one would expect to be even less restrictive than those for younger teens, would limit them to possession only when hunting?

One bit in there did apply to Rittenhouse.

I acknowledged this was a sidelight. I think it's kind of interesting on its own. For example the consequence that someone as young as 14 year old could have legally carried an AR on the streets of Kenosha that night, as long as they had a hunter's ed certificate. Few people seem to appreciate this, but that looks to me to be what the statutory text actually entails.

As always, if I've missed something, I'm happy to be corrected on this.

[andersweinstein]

Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers are still trying to get the gun possession charge dropped before the trial

The state has argued safety education, hunting or supervised target practice and on-duty military service are the only times a person under 18 can legally possess a rifle or shotgun. Prosecutors say it doesn't make sense to criminalize possession of nunchucks by a 17-year-old, but allow them to carry loaded assault-style rifles.

If you're interested, heres a piece explaining a rationale for this from a view of the legislative history. It argues the main distinction is concealability -- WI historically considered concealed weapons more dangerous, so regulated them, while considering openly carried weapons safer.

Most weapons are excluded from the definition. The law only regulates the possession of concealable weapons, and not all concealable weapons.

All weapons are “dangerous” or they are not considered weapons. The law only applies to the weapons listed. Knives are not included in the law. Bows and arrows are not included. Crossbows are not included. Blowguns are not included. Clubs are not included. Only concealable firearms are included.

Rifles and shotguns are excluded from the “any firearm, loaded or unloaded” by the exception in 3(c), except for short-barreled rifles and shotguns, which are unusual and concealable. That has been the case in Wisconsin law since 1878. It is not a recent change, nor has it been limited to hunting.

...[history]...

The thrust of the law remains unchanged. Concealable firearms are included in the definition of what are considered dangerous weapons for people under the age of 18. People from 16 to 18 can possess and use (carry) rifles and shotguns, as long as they are not concealable. From age 18 to 21, people can openly carry concealable firearms as well as rifles and shotguns. Age 21 and older, people can obtain a permit to carry weapons concealed.

There is no “hunting loophole” in the law. The law merely continues the long tradition in Wisconsin law of prohibiting people under the age of 18 from possessing certain concealable weapons. It maintains the age restriction scheme for openly carried firearms put in place in 1984, which only restricts people under the age of 16.

http://kenoshacountyeye.com/2021/10/17/ ... un-charge/

This piece is by some "2nd Amendment guy" and published in a quirky right-wing source, but I believe it contains accurate information about the legislative history. I personally think association with crime could also be a factor -- historically rifles would not be associated with crime, but nunchucks might be feared. And recall my point that when the law was written folks were not thinking of military-look rifles like the AR.

[filly]

I call bullshit.

[andersweinstein]

Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers are still trying to get the gun possession charge dropped before the trial

The state has argued safety education, hunting or supervised target practice and on-duty military service are the only times a person under 18 can legally possess a rifle or shotgun. Prosecutors say it doesn't make sense to criminalize possession of nunchucks by a 17-year-old, but allow them to carry loaded assault-style rifles.

Note also the first version (1987) in which they added nunchucks quite unambiguously exempted long guns from its definition of "dangerous weapon". The list in the definition only includes firearms with barrels less than 12" in length. Obviously that wording was carefully chosen. So, yes, there's zero question that at one time the lawmakers certainly thought it made perfect sense to do the highlighted thing.

The question is whether they ever changed this to raise the legal age of rifle possession from the traditional 16.

The suggested interpretation is that the 1991 rewrite just relocated the existing rifle exemption, moving it out of the definition of "dangerous weapon" but restoring its effect by adding a separate exception for rifles (to apply provided not violating hunting regs). On this view there never was any intention to change things to ban 16 and 17 year olds from possessing rifles for the first time. They just kept up the status quo which did not consider that dangerous. And that looks like a reasonable way to make sense of why they wrote the rifle exception as they did.

As I've said, I expect they were not thinking of "assault-style" rifles in an age of mass-shootings, but that is irrelevant. Bringing up assault weapons looks like a clever rhetorical move to try to trick us into back-reading many people's present common-sense about assault weapons into that 1991 text. And while there was a more recent revision in 2005 to fix the definition of short-barreled rifles/shotguns, I don't think it affects this issue.

I think this is a surprisingly good argument. No one wants to get into the weeds on the gun law, I understand that. There's sort of a conspiracy not to take it seriously. The frame that there is a "hunting exception" is SO persusasive and plausible sounding. But it could just be a myth.

Defense may still have a shot under the much simpler idea that the rifle exception is ambiguous. It really is confusing text.

[Patagoniagirl]

Anders said:

"So a 14 year old with the hunter's ed card could have legally carried an AR in the riot zone that night. And if Rittenhouse had only gotten a hunter's ed certificate (he could have done an Illinois equivalent) I think he would have had a strong claim to be in the clear."

I suppose. If he was hunting. Oh, wait a minute. ...

[Suranis]

Only the worst kind of troll could start arguing that a hunters law would cover someone wandering around with an assault weapon in the middle of a city screaming "Medic!" That the kind of arguing that would have a lawyer glance over at the jury box and seeing all 12 of them making up and down fist motions.

[zekeb]

Anders said:

"So a 14 year old with the hunter's ed card could have legally carried an AR in the riot zone that night. And if Rittenhouse had only gotten a hunter's ed certificate (he could have done an Illinois equivalent) I think he would have had a strong claim to be in the clear."

I suppose. If he was hunting. Oh, wait a minute. ...

I haven't hunted in Wisconsin in nearly 50 years, but as I recall you needed a hunting license at age 16. Perhaps scrive can expound.