Posted on 11/03/2021 1:25:22 PM PDT by Enterprise
Kenosha detectives are testifying now that Kyle Rittenhouse was shot at! This entire case is a miscarriage of justice
(Excerpt) Read more at citizenfreepress.com ...
None of your assertions imply it was anything but self defense. It is legal for a 17 year old kid to be 20 miles from his house. Whether he shot his assailants or just found a brick and crushed the skulls of his assailants, it is still self defense. The legality of carrying a weapon has nothing to do with self defense. And to go after him for something petty like illegally carrying a weapon openly, looks stupid when the person being charged would be dead or beaten to a pulp had he not had the weapon. This is why the leftwingnuts really need to convict him on a homicide charge, and not a technicality that he was a few months shy of carrying legally there.
I’ll go with “mislead”. Common jury will not intuit the difference between “minor illegally possessing a firearm” and “firearm as limited to NFA short-barreled firearms”.
Took me rather a while to realize NY defines a rifle as not a firearm, unless it is illegally “short barreled” - and that was as a well-trained owner spending lots of time perusing NY gun laws.
How much more is needed to show self defense and dismiss the trial with prejudice?
Judge knows what kind of $#!^-storm will follow acquittal, so he has to indulge the most thorough analysis possible from both sides to assuage at least some of those demanding severe sentencing. The sooner Rittenhouse is deemed “not guilty”, the greater the cost of subsequent rioting.
Though were I judge, at this point I’d be inclined to ask the prosecutor “in one breath, articulate what evidence in this case could conceivably result in a unanimous ‘guilty’ from the jury.”
This post is a catch all for a lot of FR’s.
Read the laws:
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon” means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(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.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
Class A misdemeanors, the most serious misdemeanor crimes in Wisconsin, are punishable by up to 9 months in jail, a fine of up to $10,000, or both jail and a fine.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/wisconsin-misdemeanor-crimes-class-and-sentences.htm
2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48
Wisconsin does not have a stand your ground law. The state’s case law allows juries to consider a failure to retreat when evaluating the necessity of a person’s use of force in public.
Wisconsin does, however, allow for the use of deadly force without a duty to retreat in defense of an occupied vehicle or business.
He went to a place he knew was going to be a problem. He brandished a weapon he illegally obtained, and by having it caused a person to be provoked and challenge him and he ultimately shot and killed him. He had no business trying to be a vigilante, he had no business carrying the gun he knew was illegal to obtain, he shot an unarmed person that he didn’t even have to meet who was stupid enough to challenge the use of the gun, unarmed.
I’m, not going to do everyone’s research on court decisions concerning Wisconsin law. I don’t write the laws, I find them when they pertain and voice an opinion on this board if I see something that interests me. Take it for what it is or ignore it. So long.
Wy69
From your link: The section only applies to a person under 18 years of age with an illegally shortened rifle or shotgun (941.28), or is engaged in hunting without a license (29.304), or engaged in hunting without sufficient certifications for the license they possess (29.593).
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
[...]
(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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
I thought that the Wisconsin Supreme Court some time back ruled that possessing a gun was not "disorderly conduct". How could such conduct constitute provocation?
Such utter BS! Newbie BS’er … You had to include the 69 in your screen name you vile b-turd! Do not understand why crap like you spread is not automatically zotted on FR!
there is no law against brandishing a weapon in wisconsin..and in other states what he did was not brandishing nor illegal.are you going to stand there and let someone take your weapon away from you or shoot you or hit you in the head with a skate board and not defend yourself? i think you are on the wrong forum...remind me not to go in public with you..i think you would just stand there while a mob attacked me.
Is this the “warning shot”they keep referring to?
Wasn’t that by the guy behind him with the big mouthed wife?
I missed that. I thought the objection was when defense asked the detective what he’d do if someone grabbed at his gun.... or what was he trained to do? Our connection was severed for a few minutes during that exchange, so I missed some of that.
I understand an objection about firearm safety, as most police just simply aren’t experts.
But I didn’t understand why he couldn’t be asked what he’d do in that situation or what he had been trained to do.
I believe you are correct about the scenario. Thanks for clarifying the details.
What makes you think a LEO is an “expert” in firearm safety”?
Trained to safely handle his weapons and generally to make safe( unload/ clear) weapons encountered during duty, but certainly not an “expert”.
In the headline it says “preps” but your headline read “victims” why the difference?
What are the minimum requirements for a human to be an “expert” in firearm safety?
Just like most any technical field of interest, there are training and certification agencies that provide “expert” credentials.
For example, the NRA certifies instructors, coaches, range safety officers and other positions for firearms and range operation.
Other entities do so as well. Firearms training and safety certification is a professional activity.
I hold several credentials from private and federal agencies for such purposes.
Being trained to carry and use a firearm is not the same as being credentialed as an expert in the same. Usually a rigorous curriculum and performance oriented practical is involved.
Kinda like other technical and professional skill sets.
Boot camp or POST completion and duty employment is not an expert credential.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.