[where's_the_Outrage?]

"Richard said. He also renewed an object as to another count — count six — which alleged Rittenhouse possessed a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18. The court previously refused to acquiesce to the defense’s objections as to count six, but Richards sought to preserve the issue for the record so that it would not be waived. "

I fail to understand how this can remain a charge as Kyle is being charged as an adult and therefore Juvenile charges should not apply IMHO.

[Gay State Conservative]

Hmmm...so the prosecution has rested.OK,now things are likely to get interesting. Also,being under 18 and in possession of a “dangerous weapon”. Where is *that* forbidden under the US Constitution???

[fwdude]

Will they finally “get” Kyle on that overdue library book? That should be good for 6 months in the pokey.

[eartick]

Kyle Rittenhouse, my hero. Dirt nap all the basturds

[Yo-Yo]

The Judge should have also directed a verdict of not guilty against the attempted murder charge involving Grosskreutz. Grosskreutz’s testimony proved a clear-cut case of self-defense.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I fail to understand how this can remain a charge as Kyle is being charged as an adult and therefore Juvenile charges should not apply IMHO.

Some twenty years ago, one of my kids was doing donuts in snow, in an empty church parking lot. A jerky rookie cop decided he would make a charge of driving to endanger, so I had to hire a lawyer to make it go away.

During the course of the conversation, I said, does it matter that he's 17? The lawyer responded that the age of maturity where adult charges can be preferred varies not only by state but by the particular alleged crime. Examples he gave were underage drinking, statutory rape, etc.

So, my boy looked at him for a minute and said, "Wait a minute. If this was about alcohol instead of snow donuts, are you telling me I'm old enough to be charged as an adult for being a minor?"

The lawyer looked at him, laughed, and nodded.

I'm not surprised that in this case, the prosecutor is trying to have it both ways.

[Valpal1]

I have a theory that the judge is preserving the charge in order to give the jury a “least bad option” to vote for that will later be overturned on appeal because the actual statute is overbroad and vague.

This gives the jury the ability to acquit on all the murder charges, guilty on the gun charge and everyone gets to go home while pretending justice was done.