That's their logic. If someone points a gun at you then you can shoot them.
The persons Rittenhouse shot were all criminal felons with records...
- Thread starter T. A. Gardner
- Start date
I didn't mean to imply that he is.
I did imply that he is likely to prosecute the case vigorously and aggressively, given his past prosecutorial conduct.
I believe he has overcharged the defendant in this case, and that may bite him in the ass at trial.
Seems reasonable.
Hunting is not the issue. The quote by John Monroe was given to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and is speculative in the extreme, IMO.
I in no way believe the defense will try to argue that defendant should be excused from the misdemeanor charge with a hunting exception as the exculpatory factor.
The statutes are clear.
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/948/55
The owner of the rifle might be in trouble, though.
True.
I'd be interested to know where Fowl claims to have allegedly seen "Rittenhouse and company brandishing their weapons at people and taunting them", but I doubt I'll ever see any evidence to support that claim.
The video evidence does not appear to support that contention.
jacksonsprat22
Verified User
Yes it is
Into the Night
Contributor
Fair enough.
Quite probably. He is required, as the DA, to fight for his side of the case.
I agree completely. Another trial may bite him in the ass as well. Trump is looking into these DA's, that prosecute political witch hunts like this, as well as those that don't prosecute criminal activity from the rioters.
What, specifically, are the lies that caught your attention the most? I'm genuinely curious since most of what has been posted on this forum is a lot of conjecture, half truths and a shitpot full of opinions. I didn't see the Senior Chief lie, but confess I haven't read all the posts here due to the massive bullshit factor on this thread.
BTW, Ian Miles Cheong is still Tweeting: https://twitter.com/stillgray
Cheong caught my eye first. Cheong writes click bait for right wingnuts, so I assume somehow they mistakenly switched his name as the writer, with the name of one of the victims. It is hard to tell. Then we move on to Grosskreutz. Grosskreutz had no felony convictions, and had a legal concealed carry permit. Gardner claims he has felony convictions, and no concealed carry permit.
Grosskreutz's self defense claim is much stronger than Rittenhouse's. Grosskreutz was legally carrying a gun that he legally owned. Rittenhouse was illegally carrying a gun he was "borrowing". Grosskreutz was a real student. Rittenhouse was expelled from school for violence.
I would not allow Grosskreutz to have a concealed carry permit, but the law definitely did.
Into the Night
Contributor
You are only quoting part of that statute. You are forgetting exceptions to that statute. Read the entire statute. One of the exceptions talks about those less than 18 and holding a long arm.
No misdemeanor charge will stick. It is legal for a 17 year old to openly carry a long arm, such as the AR-15 style rifle, in Wisconsin. No conditions relevant to this incident are mentioned.
Into the Night
Contributor
No, it isn't. Self defense is not murder.
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.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(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.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
Did I miss something?
I think it may be the only charge that might stick.
Huber was charged with felonies involving a dispute with his mother and brother, but the charges were dropped. He has no felony convictions. There are just so many details you are getting wrong. I probably will not catch them all, which is what you are counting on.
How so? I will understand if you can't explain, of course.
Into the Night
Contributor
Grosskreutz is a felon. He is not allowed to carry a gun, openly or concealed. He pulled a concealed pistol and was chasing Rittenhouse, with intent to assault him with a deadly weapon. Rittenhouse shot him. Self defense.
Into the Night
Contributor
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.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(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.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
Did I miss something?
I think it may be the only charge that might stick.
Yup. $948.60, paragraph 3(c), $941.28, $29.304, and $29.593.
Into the Night
Contributor
Irrelevant. He was attacking Rittenhouse with a deadly weapon. That alone is sufficient for justified homicide (self defense).
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Not true. As his criminal history--which was posted--shows, he plead guilty to 2 felony charges. That means he's a convicted felon.
In Wisconsin you need a permit to conceal carry and a felon may not possess a firearm. Grosskreutz was committing two felonies by possessing and concealing a pistol. Rosenbaum was videoed committing several arsons just prior to chasing and attacking Rittenhouse before being shot. He is also a convicted felon.
That was my assessment as well. @7:15 we see the point at which Rittenhouse is down, and the thugs begin attacking.
Grosskreutz shooting is @7:45
It was the middle of a city, and Rittenhouse had not secured a hunting license. It was not meant to be used for hunting. Worse yet, Rittenhouse says he was carrying the rifle as part of a paramilitary force, so not hunting. Maybe if the facts were different, Rittenhouse could get the hunting exception, but the facts are not different.
So we lead in with a criminal weapon, which makes the rest of the crimes easier for the jury to imagine. They can play the previous films of him attacking people, losing the fight, and screaming he wished he had his gun.
The case is not perfect, he is a cute white kid, but it is reasonably good.