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

[RVInit]

I sure hope the little asswipe is found guilty, otherwise he will likely find himself in another situation where he will convince himself that pointing and shooting is his only option against someone else who is packing a dangerous and oh so scary plastic bag.

[Gregg]

I sure hope the little asswipe is found guilty, otherwise he will likely find himself in another situation where he will convince himself that pointing and shooting is his only option against someone else who is packing a dangerous and oh so scary plastic bag.

Pfft, he'll be a big RWNJ Celebrity with regular appearances on Fox News and OAN up until he's elected to Congress. From Florida where he's gonna move when he's acquitted. To move into an illicit love nest with Laura Loomer.

I know, I just ruined a lot of people's breakfast.

[Frater I*I]

To move into an illicit love nest with Laura Loomer.

That was beyond the limits of good taste sir....

[Gregg]

To move into an illicit love nest with Laura Loomer.

That was beyond the limits of good taste sir....

Okay, I went too far. Let Webhick feed to the interns....

(oh, wrong site, who is in charge of torturing interns here?)

[raison de arizona]

Hunting laws allowed Kyle Rittenhouse to carry weapon during fatal shootings in Wisconsin, lawyers say
Prosecutor Thomas Binger dismissed the defense argument, saying Rittenhouse's attorneys should tell a jury he was "hunting on the streets" in Kenosha.

Attorneys for Kyle Rittenhouse, who is charged with fatally shooting two people during a protest in Wisconsin last year, argued that hunting laws allowed him to carry the assault-style weapon used during the shootings.

Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under age 18 from being armed, but Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that state laws only forbid minors to carry short-barreled rifles and shotguns. The other prohibitions pertaining to children fall under hunting laws, which say children under age 12 can’t hunt with guns, Rittenhouse’s attorneys said at a hearing Tuesday.

Rittenhouse, of Antioch, Illinois, was 17 on Aug. 25, 2020, when he fatally shot two men and wounded another man while carrying an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle at a protest prompted by a police shooting of a Black man, prosecutors have said.

“There appears to be an exception for 17-year-olds,” defense attorney Corey Chirafisi said, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger responded that if the defense wants to tell a jury that Rittenhouse was only hunting, it should do so.

“They can submit evidence that the defendant had a certificate to hunt and he was engaged in legal hunting on the streets of Kenosha that night,” Binger said, according to the newspaper.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hu ... s-n1280950

[Gregg]

I don't think its legal to hunt "colored folk" anymore. Not even in Georgia, certainly not in Wisconsin.

Snark aside, if I was the prosecutor I think I'd love for him to claim he was hunting. I have lots of curious questions about what you were hunting for and why you thought you'd find it where you were at.

There has been some evidence that the ""why" in this case is "to protect businesses from rioters" so that would imply, if you say you were hunting, that you went to hunt rioters. Right?

[neeneko]

Snark aside, if I was the prosecutor I think I'd love for him to claim he was hunting. I have lots of curious questions about what you were hunting for and why you thought you'd find it where you were at.

Yeah.. this is really a case of where it might technically be a defense, but the optics are so bad that it wouldn't be worth trying.

[Suranis]

Last I checked, Deer kind of avoid large protests of people.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

In the Washington Post video posted by someone up thread Written house is walking around with his AR15 in a sling and on his hip is a medical bag. He is asking if anyone needs medical assistance. Whut????? That is some cognitive dissonance.

[Frater I*I]

I don't think its legal to hunt "colored folk" anymore. Not even in Georgia, certainly not in Wisconsin.

Snark aside, if I was the prosecutor I think I'd love for him to claim he was hunting. I have lots of curious questions about what you were hunting for and why you thought you'd find it where you were at.

There has been some evidence that the ""why" in this case is "to protect businesses from rioters" so that would imply, if you say you were hunting, that you went to hunt rioters. Right?

It was wabbit season....

[Estiveo]

It was wabbit season....

Duck season...

[Dave from down under]

“Purge” day….

[Maybenaut]

It was wabbit season....

Duck season...

Off Topic

► Show Spoiler

Bugs: He doesn’t have to shoot you now.

Daffy: Yes he does! Shoot me now! Shoot me now!

[Estiveo]

It was wabbit season....

Duck season...

Off Topic

► Show Spoiler

Bugs: He doesn’t have to shoot you now.

Daffy: Yes he does! Shoot me now! Shoot me now!

Off Topic

► Show Spoiler

Pronoun trouble.

[andersweinstein]

Hunting laws allowed Kyle Rittenhouse to carry weapon during fatal shootings in Wisconsin, lawyers say
Prosecutor Thomas Binger dismissed the defense argument, saying Rittenhouse's attorneys should tell a jury he was "hunting on the streets" in Kenosha.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hu ... s-n1280950

This is a very stupid misrepresentation of the defense argument by NBC News (and ADA Binger). No one should rely on it.

In fact, the defense argument is completely the opposite: that the statutory language properly construed ONLY bars 16 and 17 year olds from possessing long-barreled rifles if they are in violation of certain hunting regulations. So, they argue, the ban does not apply to Rittenhouse precisely because he was NOT hunting at the time he possessed.

If you go to the language of the statute, you'll find the exception clause 960.48(3)(c) is EXTREMELY convoluted. This raises a very messy question of statutory interpretation. I think the defense interpretation is viable, particularly if you follow the principle that ambiguous statutes should be interpreted in a light most favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, I concede Chirafisi did a very weak job of presenting it at the pretrial hearing on motion to dismiss. Since this is only a misdemeanor charge for Rittenhouse, it is understandable that his team might not put a whole lot of effort in it. But the issue is MUCH more consequential for Dominick Black who faces felony charge of providing the weapon to a minor which was discharged causing a death, under identical statutory language. I believe that carries 6 years, and prosecution is trying to charge him with two counts because of the two deaths. (Whether the law supports multiple counts this way is also disputed).

[andersweinstein]

In the Washington Post video posted by someone up thread Written house is walking around with his AR15 in a sling and on his hip is a medical bag. He is asking if anyone needs medical assistance. Whut????? That is some cognitive dissonance.

It seems to have been Rittenhouse's fantasy to apply his lifeguard training to be a kind of combat medic, providing first aid to injured protestors. Video shows him roaming the immediate area around the car lot he was guarding repeatedly chanting "anyone need medical?". Protestors regarded him warily but one injured woman is seen starting to take him up on his offer -- though I believe she is ultimately carried off on the back of another protestor.

In general Rittenhouse does not appear to have been hostile to the protestors.

[bob]

This is a very stupid misrepresentation of the defense argument by NBC News (and ADA Binger). No one should rely on it.

Chicago Tribune: Kyle Rittenhouse attorneys argue Wisconsin hunting laws allowed him to carry the gun he used to kill two people and injure a third.

Pretty impressive for both the Tribune and AP to make the same "stupid misrepresentation" about a "weak" argument.

In general Rittenhouse does not appear to have been hostile to the protestors.

Other than the murders, sure.

[keith]

I don't think its legal to hunt "colored folk" anymore. Not even in Georgia, certainly not in Wisconsin.

Snark aside, if I was the prosecutor I think I'd love for him to claim he was hunting. I have lots of curious questions about what you were hunting for and why you thought you'd find it where you were at.

There has been some evidence that the ""why" in this case is "to protect businesses from rioters" so that would imply, if you say you were hunting, that you went to hunt rioters. Right?

Does Wisconsin issue tags for Jews (circumstantial conclusion based on surnames only)? Did he forget to put the tags in the ears?

[neeneko]

This is a very stupid misrepresentation of the defense argument by NBC News (and ADA Binger). No one should rely on it.

Are you insinuating that the press did not do an adequate job researching the underlying argument and instead went with something sensioantaonal which would bring in more ad dollars? *gasp*

[andersweinstein]

This is a very stupid misrepresentation of the defense argument by NBC News (and ADA Binger). No one should rely on it.

Are you insinuating that the press did not do an adequate job researching the underlying argument and instead went with something sensioantaonal which would bring in more ad dollars? *gasp*

Yes, not at all surprising. You really have to get into the weeds of a very confusing clause in the statute to understand what is being argued. Even apart from sensationalist motivations, a journalistic piece is not suitable for doing that.

Still, I think this earlier piece on Dominick Black's motion did a fair job of summarising the defense argument.

Cotton argues that there's also a requirement to trigger the general ban on minors with guns — that they must be in violation of rules for young hunters. One law applies to how and when children under 16 may possess firearms while hunting. Another requires young hunters to obtain a hunter safety education certificate.

The first could not apply because Rittenhouse was 17, Cotton argues, and the second doesn't apply because Rittenhouse wasn't hunting, and therefore wasn't in violation of doing so without a safety education certification.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cri ... 426343002/

That doesn't make clear that this exception would be for long-barreled rifles only, not handguns. On the defense reading, the exception clause would be better described as a "rifle exception" rather than a "hunting exception". But apart from that, it is accurate.

[Gregg]

I don't think its legal to hunt "colored folk" anymore. Not even in Georgia, certainly not in Wisconsin.

Snark aside, if I was the prosecutor I think I'd love for him to claim he was hunting. I have lots of curious questions about what you were hunting for and why you thought you'd find it where you were at.

There has been some evidence that the ""why" in this case is "to protect businesses from rioters" so that would imply, if you say you were hunting, that you went to hunt rioters. Right?

Does Wisconsin issue tags for Jews (circumstantial conclusion based on surnames only)? Did he forget to put the tags in the ears?

Tags issued from October1st to November 15, limit 3.


As for the lawyerin' about what the hunting thing does or does not mean or how that applies or don't, IANAL and at trial the judge will have to explain that to the jury, but if I was on the jury, no matter how you try to explain it away, in my mind you've planted the idea that this guy got his gun and went hunting...for people. If it is even brought up, that's gonna be a tough thing to shake away from people's minds.

[Azastan]

As for the lawyerin' about what the hunting thing does or does not mean or how that applies or don't, IANAL and at trial the judge will have to explain that to the jury, but if I was on the jury, no matter how you try to explain it away, in my mind you've planted the idea that this guy got his gun and went hunting...for people. If it is even brought up, that's gonna be a tough thing to shake away from people's minds.

Yes, I'm not really sure I'd want to introduce that 'defense' and get it stuck in the minds of the jurors that Kyle was out there 'hunting', and so legally allowed to carry a gun at a protest.

[Luke]

That wiener dog's got a gun!

[raison de arizona]

I don't think its legal to hunt "colored folk" anymore. Not even in Georgia, certainly not in Wisconsin.

Snark aside, if I was the prosecutor I think I'd love for him to claim he was hunting. I have lots of curious questions about what you were hunting for and why you thought you'd find it where you were at.

There has been some evidence that the ""why" in this case is "to protect businesses from rioters" so that would imply, if you say you were hunting, that you went to hunt rioters. Right?

Does Wisconsin issue tags for Jews (circumstantial conclusion based on surnames only)? Did he forget to put the tags in the ears?

Tags issued from October1st to November 15, limit 3.


As for the lawyerin' about what the hunting thing does or does not mean or how that applies or don't, IANAL and at trial the judge will have to explain that to the jury, but if I was on the jury, no matter how you try to explain it away, in my mind you've planted the idea that this guy got his gun and went hunting...for people. If it is even brought up, that's gonna be a tough thing to shake away from people's minds.

Assuming Anders is correct about the legalities for the sake of argument, it would seem that they are trading a defense to the possession charges (via hunting) for strengthening support for the murder charges. Which seems like a crappy trade.

[Gregg]

Are we sure GIL isn't helping?