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

[andersweinstein]

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.

I don't see how. On defense reading, teens 16 and 17 year olds are allowed to possess rifles AS LONG AS they don't violate rules governing young hunters. The defense argument is that he was NOT hunting, so not violating rules for young hunters, so falls under the rifle exception. This does not strengthen support for the murder charges.

Again, the defense argument depends CRUCIALLY on the fact that he was NOT hunting. Defense will NOT be arguing he was hunting. Defense will be relying on the opposite, that he was NOT hunting.

That damn headline is really misleading on this. It invites all this making sport of the defense claim this way. But it gets things completely backwards.

If you want an intuitive idea of the defense interpretation of the statute, I would explain it this way: on their reading, the law was aimed primarily at preventing teens from getting HANDGUNS. It embodies the idea that rifles are not dangerous weapons for teens over 16 to possess, so teen possession of rifles does not need to be regulated. But it also recognizes HUNTING is a dangerous activity for teens. So it requires they follow the rules for young hunters to ensure teens do it safely.

So, to avoid blocking 16 and 17 year olds from legally possessing rifles, the legislature wrote in an exception to the underage possession ban. On the defense view, that exception allows teens 16 and 17 to possess [long-barelled] rifles anywhere they want as long as they are not violating two regulations on teen hunting: one set of regs for under 16s, and the requirement to get a certificate in the hunter safety course to get a hunting license.

[noblepa]

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.

I don't see how. On defense reading, teens 16 and 17 year olds are allowed to possess rifles AS LONG AS they don't violate rules governing young hunters. The defense argument is that he was NOT hunting, so not violating rules for young hunters, so falls under the rifle exception. This does not strengthen support for the murder charges.

Again, the defense argument depends CRUCIALLY on the fact that he was NOT hunting. Defense will NOT be arguing he was hunting. Defense will be relying on the opposite, that he was NOT hunting.

That damn headline is really misleading on this. It invites all this making sport of the defense claim this way. But it gets things completely backwards.

If you want an intuitive idea of the defense interpretation of the statute, I would explain it this way: on their reading, the law was aimed primarily at preventing teens from getting HANDGUNS. It embodies the idea that rifles are not dangerous weapons for teens over 16 to possess, so teen possession of rifles does not need to be regulated. But it also recognizes HUNTING is a dangerous activity for teens. So it requires they follow the rules for young hunters to ensure teens do it safely.

So, to avoid blocking 16 and 17 year olds from legally possessing rifles, the legislature wrote in an exception to the underage possession ban. On the defense view, that exception allows teens 16 and 17 to possess [long-barelled] rifles anywhere they want as long as they are not violating two regulations on teen hunting: one set of regs for under 16s, and the requirement to get a certificate in the hunter safety course to get a hunting license.

IANAL. Nor am I a resident of Wisconsin.

Can the law be interpreted to say that teens are allowed to use long guns ONLY when hunting? Anders' explanation seems to be saying that the defense is arguing that teens have a more or less absolute right to own and use long guns and the safety rules apply only when they are hunting legal game.

[andersweinstein]

Can the law be interpreted to say that teens are allowed to use long guns ONLY when hunting? Anders' explanation seems to be saying that the defense is arguing that teens have a more or less absolute right to own and use long guns and the safety rules apply only when they are hunting legal game.

Yes, that is exactly Binger's preferred interpretation. This is what is being disputed by the defense.

The relevant bits of the statute:

{1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; ... [other stuff like martial arts weapons]

(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....

(3)... (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.

941.28 bans short-barreled rifles or shotguns. This does not apply to Rittenhouse's AR style rifle.

29.304 states restrictions when children under 16 can hunt and when they can possess firerarms. Also does not apply to then 17-year-old Rittenhouse.

29.593 states the requirement for a certificate of accomplishment of the state's hunter education course (or equivalent) for getting a hunting permit.

The question is whether you count as "in compliance with" the relevant hunting regs when you are not hunting. Defense says yes because they don't apply.

[raison de arizona]

Sounds a lot like saying you don't need a driver's license because you are traveling to me, but yeah, I suppose there is lawyerly nuance in there. Reading those, it seems pretty clear that their intent wasn't to allow 17yo's to walk the streets with ARs, but

To be clear IMO, "29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval." says that he needs to obtain hunting approval to me, not that you can go Nyah Nyah I'm Not Hunting so I DON'T HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE even though it says he MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE and therefore he's suddenly free to carry an AR wherever.

I mean, it specifically says, "is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593." which he wasn't in compliance with if he didn't have hunting approval.

But IANAL and I suppose you makes the arguments ya gots, and that one is as good as any. Good luck with it though IMO.

[andersweinstein]

Anders' explanation seems to be saying that the defense is arguing that teens have a more or less absolute right to own and use long guns and the safety rules apply only when they are hunting legal game.

This may sound far-fetched, but I think there is some support for this from the legislative history. (I learned about this from someone on Twitter). Those teen hunting safety regs came first, in 1983, before there was any minor possession ban. In 1987 they wrote the first version of the minor dangerous weapon ban, which notes describe as an expansion of the existing minor pistol possession ban (it added the martial arts weapons and some exceptions). That version EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED long guns in its text:

(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm having a barrel less than 12 inches long; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); ...

So, in 1987, they definitely did clearly follow this rule, that 16 and 17 year olds could possess long guns anywhere. Those teens would still be subject to the teen hunting rules, of course, which were also on the books. But the age of legal rifle possession was effectively 16.

In 1991 they revised the minor possession law to something like the current form (though the referenced statute numbers were different).

So one could argue they did NOT intend the 1991 change to raise the rifle possession age above 16. Rather they just reformulated it to keep the existing regime while revising to clearly unify the two sections.

I'm not aware of any direct evidence about the legislative intent. But if legistlature's intent was to restrict teen rifle possession to hunting, the formulation they came up with would certainly be a very convoluted way to say that.

There is another fine point in support. The under 16 regulations carefully define an exception to allow under 16s to transport a firearm (unloaded and in a case) to a gun safety course. But there has never been any comparable exception defined for 16 and 17 year olds. This could just be an oversight of course. But it is consistent with the idea that they never intended to restrict possession of rifles by 16 and 17 year olds. So they never saw any need.

[andersweinstein]

Sounds a lot like saying you don't need a driver's license because you are traveling to me, but yeah, I suppose there is lawyerly nuance in there. Reading those, it seems pretty clear that their intent wasn't to allow 17yo's to walk the streets with ARs, but

To be clear IMO, "29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval." says that he needs to obtain hunting approval to me, not that you can go Nyah Nyah I'm Not Hunting so I DON'T HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE even though it says he MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE and therefore he's suddenly free to carry an AR wherever.

I mean, it specifically says, "is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593." which he wasn't in compliance with if he didn't have hunting approval.

Yeah, that's certainly a fair interpretation also, I think.

But can one say the statute unambigously bears that meaning? Defense also appeals to the "rule of lenity", a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner that is most favorable to the defendant.

[raison de arizona]

But it is consistent with the idea that they never intended to restrict possession of rifles by 16 and 17 year olds. So they never saw any need.

This just doesn't seem likely to me, but I'm not a citizen of Wisconsin. Maybe that's how they roll there? It just seems odd to me that Wisconsin would purposely allow unrestricted open carry for AR style rifles for 16 and 17yo's. But I could be totally wrong and they could be All About Thar Freedoms And Gunz.

But can one say the statute unambigously bears that meaning? Defense also appeals to the "rule of lenity", a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner that is most favorable to the defendant.

Fair enough.

[andersweinstein]

But it is consistent with the idea that they never intended to restrict possession of rifles by 16 and 17 year olds. So they never saw any need.

This just doesn't seem likely to me, but I'm not a citizen of Wisconsin. Maybe that's how they roll there? It just seems odd to me that Wisconsin would purposely allow unrestricted open carry for AR style rifles for 16 and 17yo's. But I could be totally wrong and they could be All About Thar Freedoms And Gunz.

I also have zero special knowledge of things in Wisconsin. My hunch is that back when they first wrote this law, the paradigm of a rifle, the mental image that comes up, would not be a military look rifle like an AR but rather a sporting rifle of a sort used for hunting or to pick off varmints around the farm. So maybe our common sense has changed but the law has not caught up.

It is true that at some point the idea got entrenched that WI only permits teens to possess firearms when hunting. This is stated on the DNR web site. The legislature once issued a statement including this. Hell, Rittenhouse seems to have believed it. Just not so clear when you look at the text.

[raison de arizona]

But it is consistent with the idea that they never intended to restrict possession of rifles by 16 and 17 year olds. So they never saw any need.

This just doesn't seem likely to me, but I'm not a citizen of Wisconsin. Maybe that's how they roll there? It just seems odd to me that Wisconsin would purposely allow unrestricted open carry for AR style rifles for 16 and 17yo's. But I could be totally wrong and they could be All About Thar Freedoms And Gunz.

I also have zero special knowledge of things in Wisconsin. My hunch is that back when they first wrote this law, the paradigm of a rifle, the mental image that comes up, would not be a military look rifle like an AR but rather a sporting rifle of a sort used for hunting or to pick off varmints around the farm. So maybe our common sense has changed but the law has not caught up.

It is true that at some point the idea got entrenched that WI only permits teens to possess firearms when hunting. This is stated on the DNR web site. The legislature once issued a statement including this. Hell, Rittenhouse seems to have believed it. Just not so clear when you look at the text.

Huh, good points.

[RVInit]

Yeah, just wait until Jeremiah, one of the protesters. gets up on the witness stand. He will likely tell the jury the same story he's already told reporters and probably told prosecutors. He was trying to figure out how to get to his car because he had heard that tires were being slashed and he just wanted to get the heck out of there. He kept running into armed white men everywhere he went. At one point he was crossing the street, looked up, and there was Rittenhouse, pointing his gun right at him. That isn't going to look good to a jury.

I think the impact of eyewitness testimony is going to paint Rittenhouse's behavior to have appeared to be that of a mass shooter. If you consider his actions, pointing his gun at multiple unarmed people and then shooting and killing one of them, that is classic mass shooter behavior, with the exception that he didn't take a shot at all of them. And the fact that several of the witnesses chased him and tried to separate him from his gun - yeah, that's also a fairly normal response to a mass shooter incident where the shooter turns tail and runs. They likely believed they could remove the gun from his possession. Their behavior was pretty heroic, if dangerous, trying to prevent him from killing anyone else. And I guarantee one after another of them will take the witness stand and when the prosecutor asks each one in turn "why did you chase Kyle Rittenhouse" they will answer something along the lines of "to take his gun away and prevent him from killing anyone else".

[Gregg]

So the defense is gonna be "He was carrying a rifle in a riot and he shot 3 people, but he wasn't hunting, so its all good"?

[Frater I*I]

So the defense is gonna be "He was carrying a rifle in a riot and he shot 3 people, but he wasn't hunting, so its all good"?

It's a bold strategy Cotton...let's see how it plays out...

[bob]

So the defense is gonna be "He was carrying a rifle in a riot and he shot 3 people, but he wasn't hunting, so its all good"?

If Rittenhouse loses the motion to dismiss this charge, at trial he'll likely concede his guilt on this charge -- to bolster his credibility with the jury when urging it to find he acted in self-defense.

[neonzx]

All good points, RVInit.

I'm reminded of the video of when the skateboarder went at Kyle in attempt of disarming him. Heroic, but ended badly.

[neonzx]

So the defense is gonna be "He was carrying a rifle in a riot and he shot 3 people, but he wasn't hunting, so its all good"?

If Rittenhouse loses the motion to dismiss this charge, at trial he'll likely concede his guilt on this charge -- to bolster his credibility with the jury when urging it to find he acted in self-defense.

IIRC, he shot one (unarmed) victim in the back. Self-defense?

[bob]

IIRC, he shot one (unarmed) victim in the back. Self-defense?

Just acknowledging that's Rittenhouse's chosen defense.

[Uninformed]

“A man is known by the company he keeps”.

[pipistrelle]

Remember? Does she think he’s dead?

[Dave from down under]

Grifters must grift..

[neonzx]

Oh my, there are 14k replies to her tweet. This should be a fun ... here I go.

[Lani]

Oh my, there are 14k replies to her tweet. This should be a fun ... here I go.

Gotta link to that?

[neonzx]

Oh my, there are 14k replies to her tweet. This should be a fun ... here I go.

Gotta link to that?

Just click the tweet... or here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/mtgreenee/st ... 0297705474

[andersweinstein]

Yeah, just wait until Jeremiah, one of the protesters. gets up on the witness stand. He will likely tell the jury the same story he's already told reporters and probably told prosecutors. He was trying to figure out how to get to his car because he had heard that tires were being slashed and he just wanted to get the heck out of there. He kept running into armed white men everywhere he went. At one point he was crossing the street, looked up, and there was Rittenhouse, pointing his gun right at him. That isn't going to look good to a jury.

There is a fair bit of video of Rittenhouse that night. As far as I know, there is no video evidence of Kyle ever raising his rifle or behaving in a threatening way to protestors before he came under attack.

I suspect Jeremiah, a local activist, spun an a highly embellished yarn for reporters and his story will not hold up. If you're interested, here is something by a sort of Rittenhouse case obssessive who IDed and tried to track Jeremiah through the evening. It is not 100% conclusive but it gives reasons for skepticism.

[raison de arizona]

There is a fair bit of video of Rittenhouse that night. As far as I know, there is no video evidence of Kyle ever raising his rifle or behaving in a threatening way to protestors before he came under attack.

My understanding is that there exists video of Rittenhouse following and engaging the initial victim, prior to the initial victim turning on him and Rittenhouse killing him. I know I read that somewhere.

[andersweinstein]

There is a fair bit of video of Rittenhouse that night. As far as I know, there is no video evidence of Kyle ever raising his rifle or behaving in a threatening way to protestors before he came under attack.

My understanding is that there exists video of Rittenhouse following and engaging the initial victim, prior to the initial victim turning on him and Rittenhouse killing him. I know I read that somewhere.

The ADA claimed to have aerial surveillance video shows this. But the facts he cited are facts we already know from other video: that Rittenhouse walked south on Sheridan Road with a fire extinguisher, that Rosenbaum was walking south about 20 feet ahead of him, that at some point Rosenbaum broke into a run to the curb and ran behind a parked car, that a bit later Rittenhouse started running to the lot, and that as Rittenhouse passed Rosenbaum's position, there was some sort of confrontation between them.

The defense story is that they had no interactions during the walk, they were just independently walking in the same direction (lots of people were heading that way, toward the car lot where the action -- smashing cars and trying to set fires -- was) and Rosenbaum, who could have heard and recognized Rittenhouse from him chanting "anyone need medical", ran ahead first to take up a hiding place from which to accost -- really ambush -- Kyle in an unprovoked attack as Kyle went past. Also that Rosenbaum was in cahoots with Ziminski, who took up a position on the other side of a car and of course fired that shot as Rosenbaum chased. Their shouts were "Let's get him", "You ain't gonna do shit, motherfucker" and "Fuck you", while Kyle shouted "Friendly, Friendly, Friendly".

Binger was spinning the facts about their movements in the surveillance video as suggesting that Rittenhouse was following Rosenbaum, perhaps in unjustified suspicion, and Rosenbaum ran from him, and Rittenhouse chased. I expect that is entirely an interpretation put on facts about their movements that we already know.

I expect the aerial video without sound is not going to establish one rather than the other. The defense is claiming the video is exculpatory and supports their ambush narrative. I expect at worst for the defense it will be ambiguous, consistent with both narratives. All it is going to show is these agreed facts about their positions and movements.

The reason I think that is that in ground video it really looks to me like Rittenhouse has no idea Rosenbaum is ahead of him. He just seems to be obliviously bopping along. And the eyewitness testimony from Richie McGinnis which was in the criminal complaint says that Rosenbaum was the one who initiated the confrontation and tried to get closer.

So I view Binger as playing a weak hand and making a very ballsy bluff in describing this video to the court. Of course I haven't seen it, but I can't believe silent footage from the air will show anything other than those already known movements, which was all Binger really appealed to if you look at his carefully chosen words. But his spin could still work with jurors predisposed to believe Kyle must have been the aggressor in some way.

Obviously we won't know until the video comes out. But that's the way I'd bet now.