To Acquit or Not Acquit?

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by EZM

I wasn't responding to a statement or question if this was self defense or not or if the kid is guilty or not ... I made my perspective clear on that - I was talking about him being 17 and being permitted to open carry.

Let's focus on what I asked/commented about ....

He's 17 and a minor and is somehow allowed to open carry? Open carry permits are not issued to minors in states were permits are required.

Does than mean any minor is permitted to carry an AR-15 in the street? How about a 14 year old, or a 6 year old?

That was my point really.

ALSO - I realize that minor are permitted to use firearms under the supervision of an Adult - but in his case there seems to be no responsible adult here.

That was my question - nothing more or less than that. I was (and am) quite confused how this seems to be "no big deal"

I certainly would not support minor walking around anywhere they want with AR15's until they are adults. Adults (assumingly) would/should be able to exercise better judgement.

This is more of a question for discussion from me - that part makes NO SENSE to me. I would NEVER support a child being allowed to carry without adult supervision in a situation like that.

This is WAY WAY different compared to handing you 13-14 year old (which you have properly safety trained) a 22 and letting him go out in the field and shoot a few gophers.

I believe in Wisconsin it is a misdemeanour for a 17 year old. I only quickly glazed over some of the laws.

[elkhunter11]

To the people going on about him being 17 with a firearm, the judge dropped the firearms charge, because his interpretation as a judge for that state, concluded that it was legal for him to be in possession of that particular firearm, at that location. None of us are legal experts in that state, let alone a judge in that state, so I will accept the judge's expert interpretation , rather than any other interpretation.

https://www.newsweek.com/judge-drops...-twice-1649322

He said that the law could be interpreted to mean that 17-year-olds—Rittenhouse's age on the night of the 2020 shootings—could legally openly carry firearms as long as they're not short-barrel rifles.

For the charge to stand, Schroeder maintained, the prosecution had to prove that Rittenhouse's rifle had an overall length shorter than 26 inches and that the barrel was less than 16 inches.
Newsweek subscription offers >

Rittenhouse's rifle was 35 inches long and had a 16-inch barrel.

[nitro]

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

It then says, "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

The law goes on to lay out exceptions for people under 18 who are in the military or using weapons during target practice.

Then, it says the prohibition "applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person" has one with a short barrel or if the person doesn't have a hunting certificate and isn't complying with other hunting-related restrictions.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ge/8640342002/

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by EZM

I wasn't responding to a statement or question if this was self defense or not or if the kid is guilty or not ... I made my perspective clear on that - I was talking about him being 17 and being permitted to open carry.

Let's focus on what I asked/commented about ....

He's 17 and a minor and is somehow allowed to open carry? Open carry permits are not issued to minors in states were permits are required.

Does than mean any minor is permitted to carry an AR-15 in the street? How about a 14 year old, or a 6 year old?

That was my point really.

ALSO - I realize that minor are permitted to use firearms under the supervision of an Adult - but in his case there seems to be no responsible adult here.

That was my question - nothing more or less than that. I was (and am) quite confused how this seems to be "no big deal"

I certainly would not support minor walking around anywhere they want with AR15's until they are adults. Adults (assumingly) would/should be able to exercise better judgement.

This is more of a question for discussion from me - that part makes NO SENSE to me. I would NEVER support a child being allowed to carry without adult supervision in a situation like that.

This is WAY WAY different compared to handing you 13-14 year old (which you have properly safety trained) a 22 and letting him go out in the field and shoot a few gophers.

Thats the whole thing.. This court case is ONLY about self defence. Its conversations like this that are clouding the issue and making people want to hang this guy. The only question on the table at this point in the court case is Did he act in self defence.. Anything else is pure smoke. The Gov was throwing the entire book at this kid and couldn't make one simple misdemeanour stick to the jury phase of all this. He was obviously in the good for everything. Moral judgments and parenting skills aside.. Did he shoot in self defence. Thats all that counts. Just because we don't agree with how he was raised or how he ended up where he did that night or what can he is allowed to carry or weather it was made of wood or plastic or if it was a 22 or 50 Cal.. All that doesn't matter. Did he think his life was endanger is the way I look at it.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

To the people going on about him being 17 with a firearm, the judge dropped the firearms charge, because his interpretation as a judge for that state, concluded that it was legal for him to be in possession of that particular firearm, at that location. None of us are legal experts in that state, let alone a judge in that state, so I will accept the judge's expert interpretation , rather than any other interpretation.

https://www.newsweek.com/judge-drops...-twice-1649322

And really who overly cares.. Its a ticket, its a few months behind bars.. It's not murder. People are getting so distracted here. I 100% agree with you about the judge.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I think some of you guys are all having the wool pulled over your head.

I don't believe why he was there should have any play in this
I don't believe his age or his choice of defence weapons have any play in this..
I don't believe his choices or his family choice are on trial here..

The question is this.. Did he kill these people in self defence? Thats the question.
Why he was there was his business. He was legally entitled to be in the area and he was legally entitled to be carrying that gun.

Everything else is just a smoke show. To think otherwise is really off TBH..

This is what you want so in your mind by only looking at the letter of the law- which you have failed to do. Long and short, no matter how you sway it, he was there with a firearm illegally.

You are wrong. You will never admit it.


https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state...-in-wisconsin/
Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.
The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.

THIS is the law!

He also faces two felony charges of recklessly endangering safety and a misdemeanor charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Which part of this do you not understand?

In Wisconsin, lawful gun owners can generally open carry without a permit. But a person must be 18 or older to carry a “dangerous weapon.” Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shootings.

Criminal defense attorneys who specialize in Wisconsin firearm law say it will be hard for the defense to beat that back at trial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...use-trial-faq/

In the clip, first published by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, prosecutors say Rittenhouse can be heard saying he wished he could shoot people, whom he believed to be looters, fleeing a nearby CVS store.

“Bro, I wish I had my [expletive] AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them,” Rittenhouse is heard saying.

There is something wrong in this kids head.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

To the people going on about him being 17 with a firearm, the judge dropped the firearms charge, because his interpretation as a judge for that state, concluded that it was legal for him to be in possession of that particular firearm, at that location. None of us are legal experts in that state, let alone a judge in that state, so I will accept the judge's expert interpretation , rather than any other interpretation.

https://www.newsweek.com/judge-drops...-twice-1649322

You do know why he dropped that, right?

He can not then pleade guilty to the misdemeanor as a lesser offense. The Judge took away that opportunity.

[Ken07AOVette]

And it doesn't matter anyway.

#BREAKING: Wisconsin jury finds Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges. The verdict was unanimous. https://on.wcvb.com/30IS9A5 #RittenhouseVerdict

https://twitter.com/WCVB/status/1461...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[silver lab]

To all you people that think you shouldn’t be able to protect yourself, others and property…. Eat that!!!

[Twisted Canuck]

Not guilty on all charges.

[elkhunter11]

The jury has spoken, so much for all of the speculation.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by silver lab

To all you people that think you shouldn’t be able to protect yourself, others and property…. Eat that!!!

Yeah! Drop your underaged kid off half an hour from home in another city with a rifle who is not in the proper mind already, and tell him to have at it! Make sure you get the right zombie killing ammunition for junior!

Get him a playstation 5 so he can practise headshots!

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Thats the whole thing.. This court case is ONLY about self defence. Its conversations like this that are clouding the issue and making people want to hang this guy. The only question on the table at this point in the court case is Did he act in self defence.. Anything else is pure smoke. The Gov was throwing the entire book at this kid and couldn't make one simple misdemeanour stick to the jury phase of all this. He was obviously in the good for everything. Moral judgments and parenting skills aside.. Did he shoot in self defence. Thats all that counts. Just because we don't agree with how he was raised or how he ended up where he did that night or what can he is allowed to carry or weather it was made of wood or plastic or if it was a 22 or 50 Cal.. All that doesn't matter. Did he think his life was endanger is the way I look at it.

Right On Target Jamie~

[guysmiley]

Not guilty on all counts as expected.

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

To the people going on about him being 17 with a firearm, the judge dropped the firearms charge, because his interpretation as a judge for that state, concluded that it was legal for him to be in possession of that particular firearm, at that location. None of us are legal experts in that state, let alone a judge in that state, so I will accept the judge's expert interpretation , rather than any other interpretation.

https://www.newsweek.com/judge-drops...-twice-1649322

Yep. I agree, elk, that was settled. Personally, I think that law or exception to it is completely nuts, but that doesn't matter. I mean, he couldn’t buy cigarettes (must be 18), alcohol (must be 21), attend a nightclub where alcohol is served, can go to jail for possession of cannabis (up to 3.5 years on repeated offence), but packing an AR around is completely fine. Frankly, can’t say I care though. Their yard, their rules.

I don’t see how he can end up going to jail.

Edit: lol, I guess while I wrote this post…

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

And it doesn't matter anyway.

#BREAKING: Wisconsin jury finds Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges. The verdict was unanimous. https://on.wcvb.com/30IS9A5 #RittenhouseVerdict

https://twitter.com/WCVB/status/1461...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

The jury has spoken... Can't say it any differently.

I still think he made his first mistake even going there, but he is going to have to live the rest of his life with this hanging over his head. I hope he can come to some kind of peace with himself. No matter what we think about the law of it all, it is still a kid who took a life and as has been discussed, that will stick with him.

[silver lab]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Yeah! Drop your underaged kid off half an hour from home in another city with a rifle who is not in the proper mind already, and tell him to have at it! Make sure you get the right zombie killing ammunition for junior!

Get him a playstation 5 so he can practise headshots!

For once we finally agree…

[Twisted Canuck]

I wonder, if there are riots over this verdict, if Kyle will arm himself and get his mom to drop him off to protect property?

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by tirebob

The jury has spoken... Can't say it any differently.

I still think he made his first mistake even going there, but he is going to have to live the rest of his life with this hanging over his head. I hope he can come to some kind of peace with himself. No matter what we think about the law of it all, it is still a kid who took a life and as has been discussed, that will stick with him.

Yeah, it would be interesting to see what he himself has to say about it all a few decades from today. Most of us, won’t get that chance, even if he does talk about it then though.

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

I wonder, if there are riots over this verdict, if Kyle will arm himself and get his mom to drop him off to protect property?

Edit: Kyle probably not (though you never know), but some other Timmy surely will.

[calgarychef]

At leas this verdict shows how many armchair lawyers in here are full of bull.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

I wonder, if there are riots over this verdict, if Kyle will arm himself and get his mom to drop him off to protect property?

Originally Posted by fishnguy

Edit: Kyle probably not (though you never know), but some other Timmy surely will.

Hahaha yep! (after playstation training)

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Not guilty on all charges.

Anything else would have been a joke really. Regardless of why and how he was there, if you have people chasing after you with the intent of harming your person, you should be able to defend yourself.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by tirebob

The jury has spoken... Can't say it any differently.

I still think he made his first mistake even going there, but he is going to have to live the rest of his life with this hanging over his head. I hope he can come to some kind of peace with himself. No matter what we think about the law of it all, it is still a kid who took a life and as has been discussed, that will stick with him.

He will be watching over his shoulder, wondering when a BLM or other left wing nutcase ,will try to kill him. They may even go after the jury members.

[calgarychef]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Anything else would have been a joke really. Regardless of why and how he was there, if you have people chasing after you with the intent of harming your person, you should be able to defend yourself.

Yup. And the fire arms charges didn’t stick because he didn’t break those laws….by a thin margin but enough.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Anything else would have been a joke really. Regardless of why and how he was there, if you have people chasing after you with the intent of harming your person, you should be able to defend yourself.

I agree with the verdict.

[tri777]

So glad justice came though for Kyle!

Angels indeed in the courtroom throughout all this.
(Start vid @32:33)

Body Language: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWzZTOfwsZI

[North40Rules]

Correct Outcome, I am happy for him and my faith is restored.

Now it's time for him to Sue "Brain Dead" Biden, CNN, and MSNBC for defamation, slander, and whatever else his lawyer can come up with, hope he makes out like a Bandit and makes millions!

N40

[Battle Rat]

The liberals will lose their minds now.

[sns2]

The right decision was reached.

Justice was served.

Now we will be in for another round of BLM, Antifa, and Proud Boy riots where anarchists of color burn loot, burn down, and destroy businesses owned by... people of color.

When anarchy is allowed in the streets, don't be surprised when there are casualties. If you go out, you take your life in your own hands.