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

[Maybenaut]

You’re free to interpret this however you want. I’ll wait and see what the judge says. If Rittenhouse’s defense counsel convince the judge that the law doesn’t apply to him, or whatever, good for them. They’re just doing their jobs. I’d probably make the same argument if I were them. But I wouldn’t expect it to get any real play. But that’s me.

Oh, I fully understand that no one is going to give it that much attention. I would think it much more likely to win on the ground that it's a mess or ambiguous.

Still their case depends crucially on claiming you can't say he was "not in compliance with" the requirement of certificate of accomplishment for hunting approval, because he was not hunting, so it doesn't apply to him. Legislative history could help them a bit with that.

Like I said…

[andersweinstein]

...Otherwise, I would give “in compliance with” it’s plain meaning, which is you’ve either done what the rule requires you haven’t.

So how can a 17 year old be "in compliance with" the rules governing people under 16? To get the exception you have to be in compliance wth both referenced rules? A 17 year old can't do what those rules require.

Nope. The statute says “or is not in compliance with [the under 16 restriction] and [the hunter safety requirement].” If it required a person to be in compliance with both the under-16 restrictions and the hunter safety requirement, it would render the statute meaningless for people between the ages of 16 and 18. One of the rules of statutory construction is that you can’t interpret it in a manner that eliminates any part of the statute if it can be interpreted in a way that does not. There is a boatload of caselaw saying the courts can interpret “or” to mean “and,” and vice-versa, when to do otherwise would render any other part of the statute superfluous.

One more thing: It's not so simple as just reading "and" to mean "or", since for under-16's it does have to be "and". So you would have to say it should be kept as "and" (as written) for under-16s but changes meaning to mean "or" for the 16-and-overs.

I have to say it doesn't seem at all odd to my ear to count 16-and-overs as trivially "in compliance with" restrictions applying to under-16s (because not violating them) so that they made no error in choice of conjunction. I think this is clearer in the negative: it would be misleading to point at a 17 year old and say "that person is not in compliance with WI 29.304" [restrictions on gun possession by under 16s]. That would imply some kind of violation.

Anyway, if there really is an obvious "plain reading" and it is the one you suggest, defense motion has no chance. What I see is different possible ways of making sense of problematic statutory text, each with different costs and benefits, so that it is not obvious which is best.

[Maybenaut]

So why did the legislature write the statute to apply to people between 16 and 18 if it didn’t intend it to apply to them or it only intended to apply to people who are actively hunting.

I mean, talk all you want, but you’re never going to convince me. I’ll wait to see what the judge says. Even then, I may disagree with the judge’s decision, which I am, of course, free to do.

[andersweinstein]

So why did the legislature write the statute to apply to people between 16 and 18 if it didn’t intend it to apply to them or it only intended to apply to people who are actively hunting.

I think the best understanding is that the 1991 rewrite basically wanted to keep the pre-1991-revision status quo. Following long WI tradition and a consistent regulatory rationale, that pre-1991 status quo exempted rifles from the dangerous weapon ban. The ban was only concerned about handguns and some other concealable weapons associated with crime (short-barreled rifles/shotguns, the martial arts stuff). But they also had those under-16 restrictions and the hunter safety restrictions on the books. So you could say that pre-1991, the rules exemplified the belief that rifles were not dangerous for 16 and 17 year olds to possess, the only danger was *hunting* with a rifle, a dangerous activity requiring regulation.

OK, so the 1991 change basically just moves the traditional rifle exception from the top line definition into a new exception as a way to link the regulations together. The didn't want to suddenly ban 16 and 17 year olds from possessing rifles for the first time. So they still exempt rifles (but not handguns). But they still wanted to prevent unsafe hunting as before. So if it's a *rifle*, you only fall into the excluded zone if you go hunting without safety training or violate the under 16 restrictions on possession or hunting. Otherwise you're cool as always.

It does change the status quo in this way: before 1991, if a teen went hunting without a permit, they could be cited for that, probably pay a fine. Now after 1991, they can tack on a minor-in-possession misdemeanor with further penalties, because if you go hunting with your rifle without training, you wander into the excluded zone by doing that dangerous thing with your rifle.

At any rate that's an understanding that makes sense of the text, fits with the legislative history, exemplifies a clear and consistent regulatory rationale (rifles not dangerous unless hunting without safety ed) and does not have to ascribe any drafting error.

[Maybenaut]

So the Wisconsin legislature wanted 16 and 17 year olds engaging in target practice to do it under adult supervision, and if they wanted to hunt, they had to get hunter safety education and a permit. But otherwise the Wisconsin legislature thought it was OK for 16 and 17 year olds to be able to accessorize their wardrobes with rifles without any requirement for gun safety training whatsoever.

Sorry, not buying it.

[andersweinstein]

So the Wisconsin legislature wanted 16 and 17 year olds engaging in target practice target practice to do it under adult supervision, and if they wanted to hunt, they had to get hunter safety education and a permit. But otherwise the Wisconsin legislature thought it was OK for 16 and 17 year olds to be able to accessorize their wardrobes with rifles without any requirement for gun safety training whatsoever.

Sorry, not buying it.

Well there's no question this was the state WI law before 1991. The expansion of the minor pistol ban into a minor in possession of dangerous weapon ban in 1987 added a whole bunch of weapons but only included firearms with barrels less than 12". The hunter safety regs had been on the books since 1984. So from 1984 to 1991 they definitely did think this combination of regulations was reasonable.

Note a target practice exception was still needed to allow 16 and 17 year olds to do target practice with *handguns* which were long banned for them. The focus of the ban is handguns, associated with youth crime.

Again, 30 states have NO minimum age for rifle possession. WI is evidently gun-friendly. I've seen people speak of a tradition in rural WI of teens having rifles that urbanites don't understand. Not surprising they would regulate rifles differently from handguns.

Sure one could guess that the point of the 1991 change was to rectify this absurdity and take away the right of 16 and 17 year olds to possess rifles for the first time. That would be one possible interpretation. But it could also be that gun-friendly WI never thought this absurd.

In 2017 WI passed a law allowing children of any age to hunt with parental supervision. I saw a story that there were 10 applications for "mentored hunting" licenses for people 1 year old or younger.

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/14/w ... nting-age/

[RVInit]

And show up with said accessories to insert themselves into a role nobody asked him to fill.

Oh, here is a message on a board full of Rittenhouse supporters. I find this interesting, I was searching for something along these lines because of one of the questions that came up the first day of the trial. I think I posted about this very thing a couple days ago.

Kyle had a single point sling on his AR so those criminals never were able to pull the AR out of his control. When they tried one was kill and guy which I will call, “canoe arm” never had a chance. Has, “canoe arm” been charged yet since is a criminal he lost his all of his privileges of owning a firearm.

So, you mean Rittenhouse didn't have reason to fear someone could disown him of his gun and therefore use it against him?

I'm expecting the prosecutor to bring up the subject of the sling again, as he specifically asked Dominick Black which one of them had gone into the store to buy the sling. I have watched a few trials now and I think I will be surprised if there wasn't a good reason for the question of who bought the slings to come up. I have a feeling we might hear about how reasonable it may have been or not been for Kyle to have any belief that anyone was going to deprive him of his manhood.

[Dave from down under]

Kyle feared that if anyone else was to fondle his manhood it would prefer them to him and thus his “life” would have ended. :s

[Uninformed]

An appalling but appealing translation of Rittenhouse/Rittenhouse is Rode House - ROAD HOUSE!

[RVInit]

Gaige Grosskreutz is on the witness stand this morning. I think things have turned a bit for Rittenhouse's defense, in a bad way. Turns out that Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse had a CONVERSATION as Rittenhouse was running away after shooting Rosenbaum!

After my meeting, I will tell more. Wow. I am blown away. I think the defense may be in trouble now.

[raison de arizona]

I interrupt this discussion briefly for... FASHION! Star Wars Fashion!

[Slim Cognito]

May The Force be with him.

[andersweinstein]

Gaige Grosskreutz is on the witness stand this morning. I think things have turned a bit for Rittenhouse's defense, in a bad way. Turns out that Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse had a CONVERSATION as Rittenhouse was running away after shooting Rosenbaum!

After my meeting, I will tell more. Wow. I am blown away. I think the defense may be in trouble now.

This video has been public for a long time. Rittenhouse is on Grosskreutz's Facebook Live video telling him "I'm going to the police" plus something harder to make out, but seems to be "I didn't do anything". Rittenhouse defenders have stressed that Rittenhouse *told* him he was going to the police (while running in that direction) and was apparently disbelieved.

Today Grosskreutz testified that he heard it as "I'm working with the police" at the time. But acknowledges he now (after later hearings) believes Rittenhouse actually said "I'm going to the police". He testifed that at the time, "I'm working with the police" struck him as odd and reminded him of the report that police had told "militia" they, the police, were going to push the protestors towards the armed men and let the armed men deal with them. (I missed how Grosskreutz became aware of that)

As I understand it, the whole issue of what Grosskreutz believed is of no relevance to the self-defense claim. What matters for that is what it was reasonable for Rittenhouse to believe. Still this testimony does show that, by his own acknowledgement, Grosskreutz had at least one significant misunderstanding informing his actions.

[LM K]

Gaige Grosskreutz is on the witness stand this morning. I think things have turned a bit for Rittenhouse's defense, in a bad way. Turns out that Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse had a CONVERSATION as Rittenhouse was running away after shooting Rosenbaum!

After my meeting, I will tell more. Wow. I am blown away. I think the defense may be in trouble now.

This video has been public for a long time. Rittenhouse is on Grosskreutz's Facebook Live video telling him "I'm going to the police" plus something harder to make out, but seems to be "I didn't do anything". Rittenhouse defenders have stressed that Rittenhouse *told* him he was going to the police (while running in that direction) and was apparently disbelieved.

Today Grosskreutz testified that he heard it as "I'm working with the police" at the time. But acknowledges he now (after later hearings) believes Rittenhouse actually said "I'm going to the police". He testifed that at the time, "I'm working with the police" struck him as odd and reminded him of the report that police had told "militia" they, the police, were going to push the protestors towards the armed men and let the armed men deal with them. (I missed how Grosskreutz became aware of that)

As I understand it, the whole issue of what Grosskreutz believed is of no relevance to the self-defense claim. What matters for that is what it was reasonable for Rittenhouse to believe. Still this testimony does show that, by his own acknowledgement, Grosskreutz had at least one significant misunderstanding informing his actions.

This absolutely supports the prosecution's case. The conversation between Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz indicates that Rittenhouse knew exactly why Grosskreutz wanted to disarm him. And Rittenhouse may have said that he "didn't do anything". That was a lie.

You obviously believe that Grosskreutz should have submitted to Rittenhouse because of what police said earlier. (It is possible that Grosskreutz is incorrect about what he heard.)

Rittenhouse had just shot a man 4 times. Do you really think that Grosskreutz could have reasonably believed that Rittenhouse was going to the police? And do you think it was reasonable for Grosskreutz to think it was safe to allow Rittenhouse to walk around armed after shooting Rosenbaum 4 times?

If your answer to those two questions is "yes", you need to do some serious reflection about your biases about Rittenhouse.

As you engage in this reflection, ask yourself if you would have different assumptions if it were Rosenbaum or Huber in Rittenhouse's shoes. (Hint: yes, your assumptions would be different.)

[Uninformed]

An appalling but appealing translation of Rittenhouse/Rittenhaus is Rode House - ROAD HOUSE!

Grovelling apology for reposting, actually just wanted to correct an autocorrect but now realise the post isn’t at all funny.

[sugar magnolia]

Gaige Grosskreutz is on the witness stand this morning. I think things have turned a bit for Rittenhouse's defense, in a bad way. Turns out that Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse had a CONVERSATION as Rittenhouse was running away after shooting Rosenbaum!

After my meeting, I will tell more. Wow. I am blown away. I think the defense may be in trouble now.

This video has been public for a long time. Rittenhouse is on Grosskreutz's Facebook Live video telling him "I'm going to the police" plus something harder to make out, but seems to be "I didn't do anything". Rittenhouse defenders have stressed that Rittenhouse *told* him he was going to the police (while running in that direction) and was apparently disbelieved.

Speaking of relevance, unless and until the video is admitted as evidence and is shown to the jury, it has no relevance to the case at all. If a juror saw the video on facebook and mentions it during deliberations or has any opinion on it at all, the juror can be dismissed or a mistrial declared.

[RVInit]

So I had an opportunity to rewind the testimony. Oh boy. The jury will never forget what they just saw. I do not recommend watching the testimony beyond the point where the gunfire that hits Grosskreutz in the arm unless you are prepared. It is graphic and hard to see. I was not really prepared.

So, essentially Grosskreutz is aware that someone is shot. He is running the same direction as Rittenhouse and comes up close behind him. At this point he doesn't know who was shot and who was the shooter. But people are starting to yell at that point "that man just shot someone". Grosskreutz doesn't know at this point who they are referring to, and also, it was at the beginning of people starting to identify Kyle as a shooter. So, Grosskreutz asks him "hey, what are you doing? You shot somebody?". He is videoing with his phone the whole time, so the conversation is recorded. There is no question this took place. Grosskreutz believes he has heard Kyle say "I'm working with the police". it's hard to hear exactly what Kyle did say, but it's reasonable to believe that is what you hear, especially if you consider what you would have perceived in the moment.

Grosskreutz testifies that earlier in the evening, he had been present when Balch stated that the police were going to "drive" the protestors down towards the militia and Balch had stated that the police were leaving whatever needed to happen to protestors basically up to "the militia", which is how Grosskreutz said the armed people were referring to themselves as. Their words, not his, according to his sworn testimony.

So, now he thinks he heard Kyle say "I'm working with the police" combined with Balch earlier insinuating that the police had made arrangements with the militia that basically the militia is "deputized". He didn't use that word, but that was what he thought Balch was talking about. So, he turned around and started going in the opposite direction after that short convo with Rittenhouse. Then, more and more people were obviously identifying Rittenhouse as the shooter. Grosskreutz, who has a Glock tucked into the back of his pants, becomes concerned about all these people now following Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse identified as the shooter and he's hearing gunfire from various places and he becomes concerned that his services as an EMT may be required, given that guns are involved and there is a potential for more serious injuries to occur.

Oh yeah, I forgot his whole beginning testimony where is established that, unlike Rittenhouse, Grosskreutz actually IS an EMT, he has the required training, passed all his coursework, took his certification testing, and professionally worked as an EMT. He had just spent the last 75 days at the site of the protests with another EMT friend, volunteering his services in a more official manner - i.e. made arrangements with protest organizers, was properly outfitted for providing first aid and also, he and his friend did not participate in any protesting because they needed to be seen as legitimate first aid - offering assistance to anybody on either side of the protest.

So, he testified, as I fully expected and gave my opinion earlier in this thread, that all of the people who are now following Rittenhouse are all doing so for the same purpose. They are all aware that he has shot someone and they are concerned that he is possibly going to shoot more people. At some point, Grosskreutz does take out his weapon, but never points it at anyone. He testifies that he has it at the ready just in case. His testimony is interspersed with the very close up video of what transpires as various people are trying to disarm the "active shooter", which is how Grosskreutz describes that everyone is now considering Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz tries to get near Rittenhouse and his testimony is that, even after witnessign Rittenhouse shooting at two people, killing one of them, he still wants to try to stop Rittenhouse by any means other than lethal. He could easily have shot and killed Rittenhouse as is amply demonstrated by teh video. However, he puts his hands up to show Rittenhouse that he is not going to take any shots at him. His testimony is that while he has his hands up and Rittenhouse is pointing the gun at him, he clearly sees Rittenhouse chamber another round and aim it higher at him. In that split second he tries to shorten the distance between himself and Rittenhouse, hoping to knock his gun down, or somehow reduce the chance of himself being killed. What happens next is just awful. As the bullet makes contact with Grosskreutz bicep, even at the distance of the video at this point, you know this is a very serious wound. I won't describe why I'm saying that.

There are additional photos as people are surrounding Grosskreutz, and he is trying to avoid going into shock as he is instructing someone on the proper use of the turniquet as he is far too wounded to try to help himself. So, he and Lackowski, one of the militia, are both giving instructions to the person who is saving Grosskreutz life at this point. (Edit - be prepared if you are thinking about watching the testimony video, which is all over YouTube. This part is hard to watch)

This is powerful testimony and clear and convincing video. All I can say is that while Rittenhouse may get away with some of the other charges, I can't see any way an honest jury can ignore the very clear video showing that Grosskreutz is not a threat to Rittenhouse, holding both hands in the air, while Rittenhouse chambers another round and shoots him at point blank range. If this jury finds Rittenhouse not guilty as to this particular charge, there is something seriously wrong.

[RVInit]

And no. The video I am talking about is not previously available online as it was taken by Grosskreutz, who gave it to the police and did not make it available to anyone else. Also, the video that is used in court to demonstrate what took place as people were trying to stop Rittenhouse also is not available online, as the person who took that video also apparently did not make it available. It is the most clear video, being taken at an angle that very clearly shows what transpired and the fact that they were trying to stop Rittenhouse for a good reason. Not to mention the shot taken at Grosskreutz, who was making it very clear that he was not a lethal threat. Had he wanted to stop Rittenhouse by shooting him, he had ample chance to do so as Kyle was busy shooting at other people, Grosskreutz already had his gun out and could have used it. His testimony was that although he was prepared to possibly stop Rittenhouse by shooting him, he did not want to shoot him if it was in any way possible to stop him with non-lethal means.

[Maybenaut]

Still thinking about this illegal gun business…

Back in 2012, 17-year-old Marcus Fultz lived with his grandmother in Milwaukee. Someone reported to the police that a rifle had been passed through a window of the grandmother’s house. The police searched Marcus’s room and found a bolt-action .22 caliber rifle hidden behind a dresser in the bedroom. Marcus admitted that the gun was his, and he was charged with being a minor in possession under Wis. Stat. 948.60.

Presumably it was not a “short-barrel” gun because he apparently wasn’t charged with being in violation of section 941.28.

Marcus pled guilty, and his appellate counsel filed a “no merit” appeal, meaning that, although Marcus wanted to appeal the validity of his guilty plea, in the counsel’s view any appeal would be frivolous. On appeal the appellate court found no reason to question the validity of the guilty plea.

In Marcus’ case, he wasn’t even holding the gun, let alone walking around in public with it. But by affirming the conviction, the appellate court necessarily must have concluded that found that the statute applied to 17 year olds.

[raison de arizona]

I can't watch right now, but this is what they are saying is happening on cross?

NOTE: this is a craptastic source, which is why I'm asking.

[RVInit]

I'm at the beginning of the cross exam now. I will give you my impression when it's over. So far, the defense appears to be trying to take parts of his statement that happened earlier and trying to insinuate those things happened during the actual time period that Rittenhouse shot him. I'm guessing the re-direct (correction) will straighten things out.

[LM K]

Two guys with a gun. One knows what he's doing, the other does not.

Grosskreutz' testimony really highlights how utterly incompetent and irresponsible Rittenhouse was that night.

Gaige Grosskreutz Testifies Rittenhouse Reloaded His Weapon While Holding Him at Gunpoint

Gagie Grosskreutz, the lone survivor in the Kenosha shooting, testified he saw Kyle Rittenhouse reload his AR-15 despite holding Grosskreutz at gunpoint.


"After he pointed his rifle at me, I put my hands up," Grosskreutz told the jury on Monday.

He said that despite approaching Rittenhouse with his hands in the air, Rittenhouse made "re-racking" motion that would load the next bullet into the chamber of the AR-15.

"Re-racking the weapon, in my mind, meant the defendant wasn't accepting my surrender," Grosskreutz said.


The 27-year-old, who was armed with a pistol, testified that he believed the best course of action was to close the distance between him and Rittenhouse, but that he never had the opportunity.

Grosskreutz told the jury he felt he "had to do something to prevent myself from being shot or killed" but that he "was never trying to kill the defendant."

"In that moment, I was trying to preserve my own life," he testified.


Video and photo presented to the jury showed Grosskreutz wearing a hat that said "paramedic" and carrying medical supplies on the night of August 25, 2020.

Grosskreutz also testified to being armed that night with a pistol.

[LM K]

[raison de arizona]

Not too sure about these folks legal chops, but here's the video.

[LM K]

Are any journalists live tweeting?