This was my YouTube comment and email. Easily discovered by anyone willing to look…
**Kyle Rittenhouse had EVERY LEGAL RIGHT TO CARRY THAT AR -15. IT WASN’T A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE OR SHORT-BARRELED SHOTGUN as defined by Section 941.28 of the Wisconsin state code.** The minimum barrel length of an AR-15 is 16 inches…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15
941.28(1)(b) “Short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/iii/28
=====
**Section 948.60 does say that…**
948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
=====
**However, that is overridden by the following part of the same Section 948.60…**
948.60(3)(c) (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 (must be at least 16 years of age) and 29.593 (must complete a hunter education course in Wisconsin or another jurisdiction like Illinois that meets official IHEA-USA requirements)…
=====
**Assuming Kyle’s gun was not a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, he was not in violation of 941.28. Since he is at least 16 years old with a hunting license, he was not in violation of the other two requirements either. Therefore, he had a right to open carry the rifle assuming it was at least 26 inches long and at least 16 inches from the closed breech or bolt face to the muzzle.**
=====
**29.304 doesn’t apply to Kyle since he’s at least 16 years of age…**
29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/304
=====
**29.593 is satisfied assuming Kyle has completed his hunter education course in Illinois. Wisconsin does have reciprocity with Illinois:**
“All U.S. states, provinces, and countries that have mandatory hunter education requirements will accept the Wisconsin Hunter Education Safety Certificate. Likewise, Wisconsin will accept Hunter Education certifications that are issued by other jurisdictions that meet official IHEA-USA requirements. (This is known as “reciprocity.”)”
https://www.hunter-ed.com/wisconsin/hunting_law/
“All U.S. states, provinces, and countries that have mandatory hunter education requirements will accept the Illinois Hunter Education Certificate. Likewise, Illinois will accept Hunter Education certifications that are issued by other jurisdictions that meet official IHEA-USA requirements. (This is known as “reciprocity.”)”
https://www.hunter-ed.com/illinois/hunting_law/
29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/viii/593
29.593(2) (2) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is 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 may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
22 replies on “Kyle Rittenhouse Had Every Right To Carry the AR-15…Did This 9/4/20 After Seeing the Politifact Error…As Tucker Reported, the Fake News Media Has Lied and Is Now Ignoring Being Disproven in Open Court”
I just watched Tucker Carlson’s bit on this subject and am now more informed than I was previously. It turns out …
According to the PROSECUTORS it was not illegal for Kyle to have that gun and to be carrying it. Apparently there’s some provision in the law that allows 17 year olds to do that with a rifle. The Judge asked them point blank about that and they had to admit that Kyle’s actions were not unlawful and the charge was bogus. In open court. On national TV.
Major sheepfaces at the Prosecution table.
BRILLIANT! This is what we get when we have a Judge who is more interested in the practical, correct application of the law, true justice, and not so much interested in the Court of Public Opinion.
Yes. The provisions in the law to which the judge and everyone is referring, Politifact ignored and Tucker pointed out are the ones I highlight above which no one reviewed before leaping to conclusions as Politifact did or, rightfully so, reserved judgment until they or some expert they trusted could review the law.
My biggest problem is that it’s been over a year. Honest people would have figured it out, but the Marxist media are complicit in the globalist agenda to disarm us. They can’t attack the Second Amendment (Supreme Court is about to affirm the right to concealed carry in New York), so they’re going after our right to defend ourselves. As the only truly free nation left with no hate speech laws, we’re the last man standing.
Basically, anyone 16 years of age or more with a Wisconsin hunting license (or a reciprocal license from a neighboring state) can carry a long-barreled rifle as defined by the law. It’s clear, but the Marxist propaganda machine states that it’s “ambiguous.”
P.S. Appreciate the truce. I’m sure we’ll work together well going forward as friends. Sorry for the combative nature. You took fire as a result of my disdain for the Washington elite, and you didn’t deserve it.
Apology accepted. It’s OK to be passionate, it’s good to be invested in and excited about fixing the problems this country is facing. It’s not good to bring allies under friendly fire. Yes, I really do try to avoid doing that and I’m willing to drop a difference and move on if I’m allowed the option. I’ll even do that first just to see if it’s going to work or not. If you knew me, you’d know this isn’t an ego issue for me.
I’ve been all over the world and done some astonishing things, they astonish the hell out of me when I think about them now. I never expected to, nor had any good reason to believe I’d live this long and that is the most astonishing thing of all to me. I’ve got nothing to prove to anyone. I’m not trying to prove anything about me to anyone. I. Just. Simply. Do. Not. Care. What. Strangers. Think. Of. Me.
I’m trying to present rational, informed, fair-minded points of view. Mostly that’s working if the PMs I get are any indication. But …
People are not going to agree with each other all the time. Most people might have a hard time agreeing with me on many things. I have thought out my opinions carefully and deeply and I can explain them if I’m given that option too. You don’t have to agree with everything I say and it’s not likely I’m going to agree with every thing you say either. That’s OK, it’s not something to take personally.
I’m not looking for a fight, at least not here on Bill’s website. If I want that I know where to go to get it. Sometimes I do and go, I enjoy a good fight with the deserving from time to time.
I roasted some Leftist chestnuts to a golden crispy toasty brown on YouTube earlier today 🙂
I’d prefer to keep this as a safe haven if I can though. That doesn’t mean I won’t fight back if I’m attacked. Barbara Hanson, whose comment started all this, had no business and no right calling me the things she did and I’ve demonstrated my good faith and why that is so many, many times in here.
Taking the whole of my participation on this site in view, it should be clear that my reasoning is sound, or at the very least sound enough, to be treated with the same respect anyone else would demand.
So please bear these things in mind the next time we do not see eye-to-eye on something. I’m not picking on you, I’m not trying to destroy you, I just don’t agree with you and I’m laying the reasons why out there for everyone to judge if they’re valid or not. It’s not personal, I don’t know you enough to want to make it personal and I never will. Such is the world we find ourselves in today.
If not then not. As I said very clearly, the opinion of others towards me is irrelevant. I don’t care. I’ve stated my preferences here, you can honor them or not. I am fully aware that while I’m free to state my preferences I have no reasonable expectation that anyone will give that to me. So be it. This is a rational, realistic approach even so.
Well I’m not apologizing as I’ve done nothing wrong, but if you want to work together, that’s fine with me.
Here we go again. Will you please knock that crap off and just move on. In anyone’s book except apparently yours “sorry” is an apology. It doesn’t mean you did anything “wrong” it means you regret the way things went. Because you realize you have a combative nature and fired on me mistakenly in your “disdain for the Washington elite”.
Which is what you said, unless you were lying or speaking a language that looks exactly like American English but means something else entirely.
If an apology meant you did something wrong then saying “I’m very sorry for your loss” to a grieving widow would mean you killed her husband.
I very graciously accepted your apology like a man but that doesn’t mean I think you widowed any poor woman.
Please stop doing this. I’m being reasonable and civil because I thought you were too. Then I proceeded to treat you like a mature adult and forget about this drek. I’m not going to go on with this stupid shit if you insist on acting this way. It’s beneath you and if it’s not it should be.
You don’t have to answer, you don’t have to apologize, you don’t have to do a damn thing but just drop it.
Dude I was throwing you a bone. To be perfectly honest, I wasn’t that sorry for the way I was treated. YOU were the aggressor. YOU were the one citing Dunning-Kruger. YOU were the one insisting I didn’t understand while FAILING THE CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEANT BY ANSWERING MY DIRECT QUESTIONS. YOU were the one who insisted on carrying it from thread to thread. YOU are the one failing to read down the page. YOU are the one failing to acknowledge ERRORS WHICH I POINTED OUT. YOU are the one whose arrogance is insufferable, and AGAIN, IF ANYONE IS TO BE FRUSTRATED HERE IT IS ME. Yet another detail that is entirely lost on you as you start this post with “Here we go again” as if I never had a legitimate beef.
And now you are here, ONCE AGAIN, cherry-picking and nitpicking ONE LITTLE THING to try to characterize my existence as I am the one who is unaware. Just like you focused…incorrectly I might add…on my pointing out that the deep water temperature was the key factor and…arguably upon analysis…made Ms. Thomas’s comment of “stupid” very understandable and then used my “error” to insist I suffered from Dunning-Kruger as my analysis didn’t go deep enough when, in fact, it did.
You’re not that good and certainly a victim of Dunning-Kruger. I’ve met you plenty of times in one form or another, and you’re all the same.
You are EXACTLY like the intellectual “elites” on the left. You’re think you’re hot shit, and you’re too arrogant to acknowledge any better. You even resorted to their “fragile ego” / thin-skinned b.s. they tried with Trump. Well excuse us all if we don’t just fully accept your barbs and criticisms as the fountains of wisdom you believe yourself to be. You all seem to think the rest of us are stupid and beneath you and therefore should just sit at your feet all day and wait for the next intellectual gem to come out of your mouth.
This nuance is lost on you as it is lost on most lefties / never Trumpers. So is the nuance that people who respond to a barb are entirely different from actual thin-skinned people who dwell on something bringing it up over and over again (say, bringing it up in multiple threads in comments to other people) until you finally agree with them that they and/or their point of view are perfect and awesome. You fall victim to the very same logical fallacy you cite for others…You think that since a radio has a knob so everything with a knob must be radio. You suck at recognizing nuance, which is one of the things that makes you a horrible analyst.
You carry the same arrogance as Rick Wilson and the rest of the lying scum at the Lincoln Project…an analogy not a comparison, so don’t get your tighty whities in a bunch. You think we’re all a bunch of rubes and hayseeds who can’t find Ukraine on a map and therefore yuck it up with Don Lemon and his other guest on air.
These are the same people who insisted that…the fake news wasn’t biased, YouTube never had any obligation to be a platform but is a “private company,” President Trump was a “tyrant” and climate change is ending the earth in 12 years (or at least that’s the point of no return as some claim).
They COMPLETELY MISSED the fact that they are being conned by lying, Marxist globalists using systemic racism, climate change, this stupid shamdemic and a couple other things to establish the New World Order through the Great Reset which they all called a “conspiracy theory.” Now they literally have a commercial.
Being “reasonable and civil” would mean acknowledging your aggression and OBVIOUS ERRORS, but your ego won’t allow it just like it won’t allow you to entertain the idea that maybe just maybe you might be the one in the wrong and should be the one issuing the apology.
You also are the one who is the real snowflake with the fragile ego completely unable to let anything go.
Instead you result to making me out to be the bad guy, the polemic for daring to respond.
As if.
I WAS trying to be “reasonable and civil” by taking the high road, but you still wouldn’t let it go.
You’re overly verbose, long-winded, and overly analytical to the point where you address details completely irrelevant to the point. You bear all the marks of a government employee with all the time and resources in the world to accomplish whatever task at hand. Efficiency is not your thing as it takes you forever to get to the point and, therefore, neither is accuracy, even though you want things to be just so. Unlimited resources don’t lend themselves to quick, efficient and accurate solutions. They result in…oh I don’t know…steel that requires a -100F testing spec.
It’s not their tax dollars after all.
Even your post on CRT fails to acknowledge that North Dakota’s definition of CRT is an application of CRT and, in order for it to be a true “golden bullet” when dismantling the left, it needs to be put IN CONTEXT as originating in Marxism and what we REALLY need Americans and others to realize is that we are in a war with Marxist globalists.
So take all that for whatever it’s worth to you. I’m willing to drop this if you are. We need to focus on the iceberg ahead. The left is going down fast and hard, possibly faster than any of us imagined, and when that happens, they will try to destroy the country rather than acting honorably in defeat and allowing us as the victors to have it. It will make their attacks on Trump…how dare we ruin their plans and elect a president we prefer…look like a day at the beach.
Have no idea what that’s going to look like yet. Let’s hope they don’t attempt a military coup.
Yeah … I don’t need your bones. They’re weak, condescending, useless and obviously insincere.
If “sorry” doesn’t mean “sorry” to you then that’s all I or anyone else needs to know about you. If you don’t mean what you say then there’s no point in heeding anything you spew. It’s just hogwash that you’ll try to walk back when convenient anyway. You’ve provided your own solid, irrefutable, obvious proof of that clear fact.
I didn’t read past that bone headed absurdity, you just wasted all the rest of that bloviation on nothing. Hogwash is a waste of my attention.
This isn’t my first rodeo. I know you can’t see what you’re doing. I know you’ll never admit to yourself that by trying to reframe “sorry” as “throwing me a bone” you’ve stuck your foot in your mouth in the most obvious possible way. I know that if you’re truly sorry about anything at all it’s that you used the word “sorry”. I know it’s doubtful that you’ll even realize you backed yourself into a corner where the only way out was to prove you don’t mean what you say and say what you mean.
Thanks anyway, even though I know you can’t see why thanks are in order.
You can’t edit that out like you’ve done previously because I’ve locked your text by replying. I’m happy to leave it at that and let other people decide for themselves regarding your meretricious hog slop.
Like I said, I don’t care and in your case that’s exactly the correct perspective so …
Fine, have it your way and go screw your silly little pathetic petty unctuous self.
Vigorously.
End transmission.
Your strawmen are a waste of time and attention. Just as you took this one little thing to paint my overall credibility with a broad brush after I cited example after example of your errors, now you’re trying to claim that throwing you a bone…which you do need as someone who won’t let anything go as a snowflake with a fragile ego..is something which defines all of my speech as insincere.
Grow up.
P.S. To be clear, this time I didn’t read down the page as you are a waste of my time.
One other thing to note which IS worth my time…I NEVER RETURNED TO A POST TO EDIT ANYTHING OUT. Once again, a baseless accusation to attack my credibility and bolster your case. I made exactly ONE significant edit which was to correct the name of one of the founders of the Lincoln Project from “Steve Wilson” to “Rick Wilson.” I don’t and don’t need to resort to editing my posts retroactively to appear correct as the fake news does all the time.
Hilarious that you’re the one who still believes he’s not the petty one after literally continuing this across multiple threads in replies to other people. That’s right up there with talking behind someone’s back or running to mommy and daddy.
Your problem, dumbass, is you think you know everything and are offended when everyone doesn’t swallow everything you say. Your belief that people can hold a different opinion doesn’t include the possibility that other people might be right.
Here’s ANOTHER error on your part. People can retract apologies genius. It’s a THIRD OPTION to the false dilemma you created by claiming my apology was either sincere or insincere, and, in the case of the latter, nothing I said could be believed.
Then with the insults. Again, very mature and entirely consistent with the intellectual “elite” who run this country thinking that we should all thank God for their infinite wisdom.
So let us all know when you can use such infinite wisdom to describe exactly how Trump modifying his behavior would have resulted in recruiting the never Trumper vote or the suburban moms on which the left based their absurd claim of 81 million votes after a stolen election.
Then you can enlighten us as to how and why you flipped your position after claiming the Navy wasn’t really talking about the structural integrity of the subs and deep water depths might be the most relevant to the discussion to providing us with an in-depth look at submarine hull construction which, originally, in your words, wasn’t the issue at hand.n
You’re the one with the foot in your mouth, and your ego prevents you from realizing that and extracting it.
Thank God justice will prevail due to this justice and a jury with a spine. I’m shocked they’re not sequestered. Should never have gotten this far. Glad you brought up Tucker’s piece. Saw it last night and was going to add it. He also points out that they’ve been intentionally lying about the legality of Kyle’s presence and gun possession from the jump…
Tucker: Rittenhouse trial taught us this
https://youtu.be/e2AbfDlhOyc
Once you accept the framework that America is under attack from Marxist globalists as represented primarily by the Democrat Party and that such globalists are using the “pandemic” (self-created, I believe) and climate change along with systemic racism as distractions while their corporate allies fleece America and they all establish a New World Order, everything makes a lot more sense. They could care less about black people or the climate or their own lies and hypocrisy as long as they’re getting what they need by any means necessary. They are Marxists…Curtis Bowers, Agenda videos and deep state video with Alex Newman frames the picture.
While it’s important to preserve our right to self-defense by arguing for Kyle’s innocence and also protecting it by crushing any mob justice to the contrary, it’s just a piece of the overall puzzle. We’re winning an important battle but not the war.
Here. Listen to this…https://taibbi.substack.com/p/listen-to-this-article-as-america?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNDM1NjUxNiwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDQwMzc1NjIsIl8iOiJrRmFEUSIsImlhdCI6MTYzNzExODcwOCwiZXhwIjoxNjM3MTIyMzA4LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTA0MiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.DPiR8lBXbv2MmIRlLbFwMGvJytV7cfaKw3lMI0lUlfM
Ok, I did you the courtesy of following your link and listening to the content. Be sure that you read this carefully, it contains no insults or disparagements towards you personally but if you don’t follow my points step by step you might get that misimpression. As usual, this is going to run kind of long so buckle up.
Before I address that content …
Be advised, I do not generally consider posting links in lieu of argument (by which I mean discussion, not conflict) to be a valid way to express a point of view. Usually I would consider whether or not the person I’m talking to understands and can articulate the points of that video well enough to express an opinion without the video.
If you can’t make such views your own and support them, then you don’t understand them either. I can’t discuss a damn thing with the person on that video, I’m discussing it with you. If you don’t have a full grasp of your position that’s just wasting both our time.
Bear in mind that I’m using the generic “you” here. I’m not addressing YOU, Jeremy, I’m addressing the generic person who posts a link with little or no commentary about it.
There are people that just drop links all over the place like rabbit turds. They think I’m going to go watch a six hour presentation trying to convince me of of something like all the thousands of reasons why Lizard People secretly rule the Earth or some such hogwash. They believe that if I just watched the video I’d join their side in the fight against the Lizard People. They think the video proves their point, justifies the rightness of their position and presents a killer, irrefutable argument. They think being as it convinced them it will convince me too. You see where I’m going with this, don’t you?
They also know that if I have to refute and debunk every single point in a six hour video they can dance around the issue and harry me to death. So I won’t do them the courtesy of falling into that trap.
If that kind of thing worked, we all might as well just drop links and never discuss anything.
I’m not saying that’s what you did. I’m telling you why I’m not generally likely to go off and watch a video someone dropped a link to.
Ok, now that I hope I’ve made that clear, on to the link you posted.
I did watch/listen to that video. It’s has several interesting points that brought up something in my own mind I’ve been trying to articulate for a while now.
I’m always suspicious of anyone who uses terms like “gigantic wealth gap” because that smacks of class warfare and violent envy manifested in civil unrest and political manipulation.
Because it’s not the wealth gap that is the real problem.
It’s the power and influence which wealth brings. Allow me to explain.
In a world of fabulous wealth beyond our imagination it would not matter if one person held 99% of the wealth if there was so much wealth that the rest of us were also so wealthy that we lived great lives in spite of that gap. This is the “rising tide floats all boats” position.
(It’s also a fair description of Heaven. Where the Holy Trinity holds all the “wealth” in the form of ultimate virtues and authority but the rest of us are happy to be there and doing pretty well too. I’m happy with the mansion I’m promised and have no jealousy if it’s not as grand as the Throne Room of God Almighty.)
I don’t care about any sort of wealth gap. So I’m suspicious of anyone who does.
What I care a lot about is the power gap. It’s the power, not the wealth, that’s important.
If that hypothetically wealthy person had no more power than anyone else and everyone else was wealthy enough to live very well even so … If his one vote were all he had and counted exactly the same as your vote or my vote … Then wealth becomes irrelevant.
Some might say that power and wealth are the same thing. They’re not. Howard Hughes was a fabulously wealthy man who lived the solitary life of a more or less depraved hermit. He exercised no disproportionate personal political power over the rest of us due to his wealth. He kept his toenails in a jar and his political power to himself. He didn’t care any more about political power than you care what the ants in a colony 100 miles from your home are doing.
Wealth and power are not the same things. Wealth can be used as a tool to gain personal political power but it doesn’t automatically have to be. It’s just money, like a gun is just a gun. It’s how it’s used that makes the difference. The hand that wields the wealth or the gun is the hand that is responsible. Saying that wealth is power is like saying all gun owners are murderers. Wealth is only a temporal thing, it is amoral, neither virtuous nor evil of it’s own volition.
The problem is power not wealth. Wealth is just a means to achieve power, so is being dictator or a king a means to power.
The Founding Fathers tried to compensate for that by creating a government of The People under the Rule of Law. Wherein the President is subject to the same laws and penalties of law that a child molesting gutter wino is. Wherein even the President does not and cannot seize ultimate, unlimited power.
That’s the ideal, people like Hillary Clinton and the Left are threatening that ideal. That is their great social sin. They are trying to alter the balance of power shifting it away from The People to themselves. That is their great political sin.
This is a common historical issue going back to the dawn of civilization.
We are trying to stop them and take back that power, power which is rightfully ours to begin with. That is our great secular virtue. We are the ones actually speaking for and defending the power of The People.
We may need to explore means of taking power from the very wealthy. Not their money, they earned it and that’s theirs. Rather their power, which they did not earn and is ours. Being as it’s ours, we have every right to take that power away from them and we clearly ought to exercise that right.
I’m not sure how to go about achieving that.
That video ignores power as being the problem completely. It does not present anything useful thereby. I’m not saying it doesn’t present anything valuable, I’m saying useful. It’s interesting and informative. It’s good to keep tabs on what’s actually going on so as to gauge events correctly in perspective. Information like that is vital to the goal of finding means to take back the power that is rightfully ours to begin with. The video does not address that power gap issue.
It was a 15 minute podcast outlining that the wealthy are getting richer while distracting us. Not revolutionary, but I appreciated the bit of historical context provided.
As far as your concern about power, it’s derived from access to wealth which fuels power. The easier the access the easier the power.
The problem for the rich with the wealth gap is that one of their own will compete with them to bridge that gap and become wealthier than the rest of them in the process. That’s what makes the free market and capitalism so important. The possibility is eliminated if all of the peasants are receiving the same allotment of resources regardless of what opportunity arises.
This is why I have full faith in the free market even should the highest of heights for the wealthy be their own planet. At some level, there will be another guy wanting two planet willing to finance the acquisition of a planet by a non-planet guy as long as the financier is getting half of the deal to put toward his second planet.
Again, you seem to think you have something to teach me and therefore lecture. Don’t. I don’t need it.
Short barreled rifles and shotguns are Class C (Title VI) firearms. They have the same restrictions and requirements as real, fully automatic weapons (“machine guns”), certain kinds of explosive devices, suppressors and all other dangerous weapons or devices covered under Class C designation. They are not in common use among the gun owning public.
I don’t think I’ve heard anyone, even the Leftist nuts on TV, claim that the weapon Rittenhouse carried met that description.
Further, Wisconsin State Statute 941.28.1(a) clearly and distinctly includes the definition of a standard rifle …
(a) “Rifle” means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.
Followed by the descriptions of Class C short barreled rifles in (b) and short barreled shotguns in (c) then standard shotguns in (d).
The law applying to a minor in possession of a firearm applies to all those definitions. Not just the short barreled rifles and shotguns.
Regular, everyday, street legal, over-the-counter AR-15 pattern rifles are clearly covered under 941.28. You can’t just cherry pick the parts of the law that fit an argument. Well, you can but that won’t work for even a second in a courtroom.
For God’s sake, don’t get all pissed off at me for pointing this out either. I’m just reading the law, all of it, that you should have read too. I’m not a lawyer and clearly you’re not either so this is just a friendly discussion. Let’s keep it that way.
I think Kyle Rittenhouse is a good kid who meant well and only used a firearm to defend himself as a last resort in gravest extreme. I don’t think he should be convicted of murder or any other crime such as manslaughter related directly to the deaths that occurred in the incident in question.
Being as the press and the prosecution/State have made such a big deal out of this I think it would be chickenshit and petty to then convict him of a silly misdemeanor for being too young to have a gun when he’s not even that much too young. That would just be clearly vengeful spite not justice.
I think it was stupid of him to go where he did and do what he did that led to this situation in the first place. Situational awareness is not a trivial thing. It may not be right but it is easy to point out that had he stayed at home and kept out of an obvious bad situation none of this would have happened. So Kyle’s stupidity is at least in part at fault for two dead Americans, POS’s that they were. The fact that he was underage just adds to that perception.
Not everyone is going to see it that way and I’m aware of that, that’s fine if someone doesn’t agree. So don’t get all pissed off about that either. Being stupid is not a crime or we’d have more people in jail than out by a wide margin.
Kyle Rittenhouse is not on trial for not being a genius. He’s on trial because he killed two people for what seems to me to be obvious and clear cut self defense.
That’s the heart of the matter, that’s what’s important.
That’s what he should be tried for if a trial is insisted upon because that’s the real issue here. Anything else is just noise.
Slapping him with the same charge any kid shooting rats at the dump without adult supervision would get is just petty and venal. Especially after calling him a murdering crazed MAGA white supremacist monster.
I think he can beat a charge relating to his age and possession of a firearm on appeal if it comes to that because that is NOT the primary violations he was arrested and charged with. If they do convict him for that and leave it as a misdemeanor with time served so he doesn’t have a prohibitive felony conviction on his record I think that may be the best he can hope for and he should go for it. Personally I’d like to see him walk clean but that may not be possible, legally.
Edit:
As stated by “furball321 below, the judge has dismissed this charge so it’s all moot now.
After I posted the above it dawned on me that they couldn’t make that charge of gun possession by a minor stick anyway. They’re trying him as an adult.
That means that no matter what physical age he is, he’s subject to the rules, regulations, and laws the same as any other adult would be. Essentially the State has decided that he’s an adult for legal purposes and so must treat him that way. He cannot be charged as an adult on one hand then treated as a minor on the other. That’s a clear conflict.
They can’t make a charge regarding him being a minor stick because of that. The State ruled that out de facto when they decided he was enough of an adult to try him as one when he committed his supposed crime. All other charges related to this event must be dealt with equally as an adult.
They basically admitted that the liabilities and protections of a minor do not apply to Kyle Rittenhouse. If they’re going to try him as an adult they cannot simultaneously deal with him as a minor.
They tied their own hands in doing so and the Judge appears to simply be acknowledging that fact.
Finally, the idea that if he were actually facing the charge of a minor in possession of a gun but that gun somehow magically had to be only a Class C (or Title VI, same thing) weapon, the same legal category as a machine gun and treated exactly the same under the law, or it was not a valid legal charge … Is on the face of it absurd. If Kyle Rittenhouse had the legal equivalent of a machine gun he’d be in a lot more trouble than just a kid that shouldn’t have a gun. He’d be facing up to 10 years in a Federal Penitentiary and THAT is what they would have charged him with. That would have stuck no matter how old he was. This “had to be a short barreled rifle or the charge isn’t valid” thing is the kind of nonsense people come up with when they have no idea what they’re talking about.
It’s OK if you don’t know something. It’s not your fault if you repeat something that you took as reasonable on good faith. I’m not saying it’s Jeremy’s fault that this idea is absurd, it’s where ever he got the information that is at fault.
Given that logical progression, it astounds me that the judge has not summarily dismissed the charges. Perhaps he doesn’t know the law as well as he should?
The judge didmissed the possession charge yesterday.
Yeah. My statement was more generally referring to all charges. I acknowledge that I made a leap based upon the ridiculousness of the possession charges — it should be obvious to all that the murder charge is equally absurd. If the prosecutor is so stupid to ignore the law as you detailed above, then it is apparent that he is stupid enough to think that a murder charge is valid in an obvious self-defense case. I know … it was a leap.
Ah, ok.
As far as the prosecutor goes, I watched Binger all week and particularly during the summation. I swore a lot. But he knew what he was doing. Without facts, he went right to feelings and offered plenty of soundbites for a biased media to use to excite the proles.
P.S. I didn’t write the original post.
Yeah, only that’s not actually the whole law either. I went and looked for myself to see what the Wisconsin law said. I knew I had checked it out when this happened and thought at the time that if they wanted to get him, that’s what they could actually make stick if they were very, very lucky.
It’s all moot now if the judge has already dismissed the charge so that part at least is over. I doubt the judge dismissed it because it didn’t apply. He probably dismissed it in the interest seeing justice served and to take that gambit away from a badly misbehaving prosecution.
He didn’t yet rule on the motion of mistrial with prejudice. He can do it after the verdict comes out.
Apparently he sees good chance to just get the verdict the “normal’ way, that would restore some hope on at least that part of the system.