Rittenhouse situation

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
24,787
Reaction score
2,877
Points
113
Dominick Black, a 20-year-old friend who was dating Rittenhouse's sister, testified Tuesday as the first witness in the trial and said he had previously purchased an AR-15 firearm for Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse was too young to purchase and possess a gun, but he agreed to pay for the firearm, Black testified. Black also had his own firearm, and they had fired the weapons in target practice in a rural area.



And, the rest is interpretation by you. I actually aided the police with testimony during the riots here, and provided some video. You can stop that insinuation now.

No doubt the allegation by Black will have to be looked into. Does Black have some sort of paper trail to prove this conversation and/or transaction actually happened?
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
11,381
Reaction score
5,724
Points
113
No doubt the allegation by Black will have to be looked into. Does Black have some sort of paper trail to prove this conversation and/or transaction actually happened?
In the context of the trial, he is under oath, and the jury will have to determine whether or not he is believable. If he was lying, I'd hope Kyle's attorney would address that.
 


Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
24,787
Reaction score
2,877
Points
113
In the context of the trial, he is under oath, and the jury will have to determine whether or not he is believable. If he was lying, I'd hope Kyle's attorney would address that.

Which law/statute specifically do you believe KR broke regarding him carrying the rifle? I'm reading through them right now. I was unaware until this morning that there is an exemption in Wisconsin for 16 & 17 y/o's to carry rifles and shotguns (but not hand guns).
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
11,381
Reaction score
5,724
Points
113
Which law/statute specifically do you believe KR broke regarding him carrying the rifle? I'm reading through them right now. I was unaware until this morning that there is an exemption in Wisconsin for 16 & 17 y/o's to carry rifles and shotguns (but not hand guns).
 


Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
51,330
Reaction score
5,063
Points
113
According to that, it’s a misdemeanor. And I’m fine with charging and convicting him on that charge. We obviously don’t want 17 year olds involved. But it’s really not important to the much bigger issues at stake. This situation would not be different if he was 6 months older.
 

FormerFatOL

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
1,308
Points
113
The strawman purchase would be on the man who purchased it, not on KR, so let's set that aside.

That leaves carrying it as a minor. I'm reading the statutes on that right now (as you know there's plenty of debate), as Wisconsin allows exemptions for minors to carry a rifle or shotgun as long as they're 16, or 17 years old. KR was a couple months shy of his 18th bday. My point here is that there's no proof he broke any law regarding carrying the AR-15 as a 17 y/o. It may be determined he did, but there appears to be a very strong argument he did not. Worst case scenario though is a Class A misdemeanor for that charge, and as a minor with no prior criminal record that likely gets dropped if he doesn't have another similar issue for 12 mos.


Rittenhouse acquaintance(s) already testified that Rittenhouse gave them money to purchase the rifle, they agreed to hold it until he was 18, and then they would do a private sale back. The defense requested the firearm charge be dropped but the judge refused. The judge indicated he will be instructing the jury on firearm laws before they deliberate, so I'm assuming the firearm charge will be decided by them.
 


Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
24,787
Reaction score
2,877
Points
113

I asked you specifically which law, or statute do you believe he broke?

I'm really not interested in politifact, or wikipedia, but since you haven't read the statutes yourself, and appear to just be getting your info from politifact, I'll ask you to clarify politifact's position. They cite the following:

"Wisconsin law stipulates that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." On Aug. 27, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse with a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18, according to court records."

Please provide Wisconsin's legal definition of "dangerous weapon", because it's my understanding that term appplies to a very specific class of weapons.
 



saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
11,381
Reaction score
5,724
Points
113
I asked you specifically which law, or statute do you believe he broke?

I'm really not interested in politifact, or wikipedia, but since you haven't read the statutes yourself, and appear to just be getting your info from politifact, I'll ask you to clarify politifact's position. They cite the following:

"Wisconsin law stipulates that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." On Aug. 27, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse with a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18, according to court records."

Please provide Wisconsin's legal definition of "dangerous weapon", because it's my understanding that term appplies to a very specific class of weapons.
(10) “Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
24,787
Reaction score
2,877
Points
113
Rittenhouse acquaintance(s) already testified that Rittenhouse gave them money to purchase the rifle, they agreed to hold it until he was 18, and then they would do a private sale back. The defense requested the firearm charge be dropped but the judge refused. The judge indicated he will be instructing the jury on firearm laws before they deliberate, so I'm assuming the firearm charge will be decided by them.

Seems fair.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
28,159
Reaction score
9,641
Points
113
The video of the shooting is clear. Rosenbaum is sprinting at KR. KR fires 4 times in .75 seconds. It’s not obvious on the video how he could have been shot in the back, but assume he twisted as he fell and the last bullet entered his back. That’s the only explanation.
you obviously haven’t watched a second of the trial. One guy owned a car dealer, and he owned three separate lots that stored cars. Several people testified that he DID ask for help defending his lots. Owner didn’t testify. It’s pretty obvious why he’d deny to the media that he asked for defense. He gave rides to people and showed them where hoses were located and ladders to get on the roof.

you’ve been told lies stocker. Your hate for Trump makes you susceptible to them. We feel sorry for you.

The video is dark and grainy. Where is the .75 second coming from? Did you time it? Do you know how fast the body moves in comparison to bullets? Clearly not.....because it's such a stupid thing to say.

Owner denies asking for help. And why exactly was Rittenhouse asked if that was the case? Sounds like you are being pumped full of BS.....and your MAGA self is compelled to. Rittenhouse wasn't even "defending" a lot when he shot these people. lol. He was out wandering around. Prosecution nailed him on it.

Compared to the three people Kyle shot, yes he’s an upstanding citizen. There has been no evidence or video showing him adding to the chaos. There’s really only one point to make here: had no one showed up to defend property, no one would have died. Sure, a lot more property damage, but no deaths. Just let rioters do what they want and no one gets hurt. If that’s your position, state it.

Yes.....we know. Punches women, shoots people, hangs out with proud boys, flashes white supremacy signs. All the types of things that makes someone a really fine individual according to you right wingers.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
24,787
Reaction score
2,877
Points
113
(10) “Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

(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.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
 



saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
11,381
Reaction score
5,724
Points
113
(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.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
Was he hunting grouse at the car lot?
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
24,787
Reaction score
2,877
Points
113
941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

(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.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/iii/28
 



Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
24,787
Reaction score
2,877
Points
113
Not at all. Read the links to your own post.

I asked you to list specifically which statute or law you claim he broke, and you would not do that. Instead you linked to lol...politifact.

You claim via proxy that the specific statute KR broke was:

"any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

You/politifact conveniently leave out the following part:

(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.

So....which part of 941.28 did KR violate?

941.28  "Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1)  In this section:
(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.
(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.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon 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 fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
941.28(2) (2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.
(4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968.
(5) Any firearm seized under this section is subject to s. 968.20 (3) and is presumed to be contraband."
 

FormerFatOL

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
1,308
Points
113
(10) “Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

The dangerous weapon clause in WI (for those under 18) does not apply to long guns. That's why the defense has confirmed over and over in trial the AR15 is a long gun. Politifact is garbage.

edit add: the post above details it.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
51,330
Reaction score
5,063
Points
113
The video is dark and grainy. Where is the .75 second coming from? Did you time it? Do you know how fast the body moves in comparison to bullets? Clearly not.....because it's such a stupid thing to say.

Owner denies asking for help. And why exactly was Rittenhouse asked if that was the case? Sounds like you are being pumped full of BS.....and your MAGA self is compelled to. Rittenhouse wasn't even "defending" a lot when he shot these people. lol. He was out wandering around. Prosecution nailed him on it.



Yes.....we know. Punches women, shoots people, hangs out with proud boys, flashes white supremacy signs. All the types of things that makes someone a really fine individual according to you right wingers.
Because you can hear the shots. Covered in the trial. .75 seconds isn’t enough time to think, geez, now he’s on the ground not moving, I should stop firing. He fired 4 quick shots, that’s not an execution.

a different witness testified that the owner gave them rides and asked for help. He didn’t specifically ask Kyle, but he asked for help. He doesn’t want to be involved or targeted obviously.

you haven’t watched the trial. You’ve been spoon fed bits of info to bias you.

the one video that proves your story that Kyle chased Rosenbaum is too grainy, but your video of someone punching someone is proof. You are a joke.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
11,381
Reaction score
5,724
Points
113
I asked you to list specifically which statute or law you claim he broke, and you would not do that. Instead you linked to lol...politifact.

You claim via proxy that the specific statute KR broke was:

"any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

You/politifact conveniently leave out the following part:

(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.

So....which part of 941.28 did KR violate?

941.28  "Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1)  In this section:
(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.
(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.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon 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 fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
941.28(2) (2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.
(4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968.
(5) Any firearm seized under this section is subject to s. 968.20 (3) and is presumed to be contraband."
29.304 and 29.593. refer to HUNTING. He is not hunting. That OR is important.
 



Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
24,787
Reaction score
2,877
Points
113
Is he accused of having an illegal barrel length? I missed that if that is the case. That is what 941.28 covers.

You're accusing him of breaking an unnamed law/statute, which I've asked you to clarify, and now you're asking me to clarify what he's accused of?

Why don't you save us all some time, and just list the specific statute you claim he broke?
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
11,381
Reaction score
5,724
Points
113
You're accusing him of breaking an unnamed law/statute, which I've asked you to clarify, and now you're asking me to clarify what he's accused of?

Why don't you save us all some time, and just list the specific statute you claim he broke?
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) 
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.
(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.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
24,787
Reaction score
2,877
Points
113
Was that so hard? So you're claiming KR broke:

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Now go to paragraph 3, section 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 and 29.593.

You appear to agree KR was not in violation of 941.28, correct? Leaving us with only 29.304 & 29.593 to look at, correct?
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
11,381
Reaction score
5,724
Points
113
Was that so hard? So you're claiming KR broke:

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Now go to paragraph 3, section 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 and 29.593.

You appear to agree KR was not in violation of 941.28, correct? Leaving us with only 29.304 & 29.593 to look at, correct?
He is not carrying a short barrel. Yes. Now make your case.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
28,159
Reaction score
9,641
Points
113
Because you can hear the shots. Covered in the trial. .75 seconds isn’t enough time to think, geez, now he’s on the ground not moving, I should stop firing. He fired 4 quick shots, that’s not an execution.

a different witness testified that the owner gave them rides and asked for help. He didn’t specifically ask Kyle, but he asked for help. He doesn’t want to be involved or targeted obviously.

you haven’t watched the trial. You’ve been spoon fed bits of info to bias you.

the one video that proves your story that Kyle chased Rosenbaum is too grainy, but your video of someone punching someone is proof. You are a joke.

So he decided he needed to pump four shots into the guy? Including one in the back?

Again.....the owner states that he didn't ask for assistance. And he never asked inexperienced 17 year old from out of state to help.

Why would I watch the trial. I am not a triggered MAGA like you that needs to convince themselves that a women punching proud boy is actually an upstanding citizen.

One is a video of Rittenhouse punching a women. A video that hasn't been denied. The other is Rittenhouse shooting someone dead. A regular person realizes the stakes involved. Not you. You cling to your first instinct and claim and go down with ship in embarrassing fashion because that's who you are.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
24,787
Reaction score
2,877
Points
113
He is not carrying a short barrel. Yes. Now make your case.

Edit:

29.304 refers only to people 16 y/o and under. KR was 17 y/o at the time of the shooting. I think we can agree KR was 17 y/o at the time of the shooting?

That leaves only 29.593. 29.593 you claim KR broke refers specifically to hunting. KR was not hunting. Where's the violation?
 





Top Bottom