Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

[allegro]

Oh, and although we in Chicago have been totally inundated with this case for ... what? Over a year?

I just found out today that Rittenhouse's DAD lives in Kenosha.

[Jinsai]

[allegro]

I was REALLY pleasantly surprised today when the prosecution showed video evidence of the KPD offering Rittenhouse and another guy water and thanking them for being there, “we really appreciate you.”

Assholes.

Oh and this was awesome:

[allegro]

Here are more prosecutorial highlights from today:

[sweeterthan]

thanks for the recaps @allegro
i’ve been avoiding the trial because the whole thing makes me sick but you’re right about the prosecutor. he is good. fingers crossed justice is served.

[allegate]

I haven't been on twitter for two weeks and I only saw this on another message board. it's made life* better for sure.

*Spoiler: you know, that head-in-the-sand life where you pay attention only to the things around you. it's kind of great, I recommend it.

[Volband]

From the videos and photos presented, it's obvious this kid thought he was playing in a real life version of Tour of Duty. Backpack medical supply and everything.

People on Twitter trying to discount this, but it is what it is.

It was interesting reading the reddit thread. I liked the comment which argued that while he absolutely should not have been there, if he was being attacked (and he was) then self-defense is justified. It's actually similar to the argument that it doesn't matter that Rosenbaum (edited because accidentally wrote Rittenhaus) was a piece of shit, that alone (without the self-defense case) doesn't justify killing him. It actually makes a lot of sense from the law's perspective, so he should probably be acquitted from the murder charges, otherwise you just send the message that if you are an annoying piece of shit, then self-defense laws are not applicable to you and you should just (potentially) die if you get into trouble.

IF the self-defense can be proved (and there's plenty of video evidence), why would you want him to be found guilty on murder charges?

[Jinsai]

If I were on the jury I would ask to be removed. I can’t be impartial. I want to punch him in the face.

[allegro]

It was interesting reading the reddit thread. I liked the comment which argued that while he absolutely should not have been there, if he was being attacked (and he was) then self-defense is justified. It's actually similar to the argument that it doesn't matter that Rittenhaus was a piece of shit, that alone (without the self-defense case) doesn't justify killing him. It actually makes a lot of sense from the law's perspective, so he should probably be acquitted from the murder charges, otherwise you just send the message that if you are an annoying piece of shit, then self-defense laws are not applicable to you and you should just (potentially) die if you get into trouble.

IF the self-defense can be proved (and there's plenty of video evidence), why would you want him to be found guilty on murder charges?

Here's the other set of facts:

A few seconds before Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum, Joshua Ziminski fired shots into the air.

This caused massive confusion, as nobody seemed to know where the shots were coming from, etc.

After Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum (there's a serious question, there, as to whether use of deadly force is warranted for Rosenbaum throwing a bag of clothes at Rosenbaum etc.), Rittenhouse took off running down the street.

At this point, to everyone who was now RUNNING DOWN THE STREET BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ACTIVE SHOOTER SITUATION HAPPENING, Rittenhouse was the only guy with a GIANT GUN strapped to his body.

So, he looked like AN ACTIVE SHOOTER.

Look up "Active Shooter" in this country, see the drills that school children do regularly for Active Shooters, see the NRA members' assertions that the "good guys with guns" etc. can disarm the Active Shooters and save lives, etc.

In any OTHER active shooter situation, anybody attempting to disarm an active shooter would be deemed a HERO.

Instead, we have Rittenhouse - who's just shot a guy 4 times and killed him for swearing at him and "chasing him" and throwing a bag of clothes at him - shooting a guy (Huber) point blank for hitting him with a skateboard.

Instead of people being heralded for stopping an active shooter, people are wondering why it's bad for the active shooter to "defend himself."

(So the next time anyone shoots at an active shooter, this should be REALLY fucking interesting, as it will set precedent.)

While Rittenhouse is shooting Huber, Gaige Grosskreutz is standing next to Huber, holding a handgun, but doesn't shoot Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz is a certified EMT. Rittenhouse aims and shoots at another guy near Grosskreutz, twice, but misses. He then aims at Grosskreutz, but Rittenhouse's rifle jams, so he re-racks his rifle. Again, Grosskreutz doesn't shoot. Rittenhouse claims Grosskreutz was a threat, but in all this time, Grosskreutz hasn't shot Rittenhouse. The defense shows video of Grosskreutz aiming his gun at Rittenhouse, but Grosskreutz says that if you zoom in on that video, it's AFTER Rittenhouse has already shot Grosskreutz in that same arm with a high-caliber bullet from Rittenhouse's AR-15, totally fucking up Grosskreutz's arm and rendering his hand unusable.

"Self defense" must be in accordance with Wisconsin's written statutes, how they are written and defined, not how we perceive them.

Here are all of the charges that Rittenhouse faces:

COUNT 1: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON (re Rosenbaum)

COUNT 2: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON - "This felony charge is connected to the Rosenbaum shooting. McGinniss (Reporter) told investigators he was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. The charge is punishable by 12 1/2 years in prison. The weapons modifier carries an additional five years.

COUNT 3: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON: "Video shows an unknown man leaping at Rittenhouse and trying to kick him seconds before Anthony Huber moves his skateboard toward him. Rittenhouse appears to fire two rounds at the man but apparently misses as the man runs away."

COUNT 4: FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON (re Huber)

COUNT 5: ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON (re Gaige Grosskreutz)

COUNT 6: POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18


This wasn’t used at the trial, but here’s what Kyle’s all about. Arms for HIM and his White Supremacist friends, but not for anyone else:

[sweeterthan]

the idea that this was self defense also doesn’t work for me. minors aren’t allowed to carry. bottom line. he’s not a cop and he’s not a medic (no matter how many times he claims to be). if he’d gone there without a gun, no one would know his name. none of this would’ve happened.

[elevenism]

,I HATE this kid and what he's all about. He's all but a self avowed racist. We know he wished to kill black people. It seems obvious to ME that he went down there with an illegally obtained rifle, HOPING to shoot people.

But I understand that he could have felt that use of deadly force was necessary when Rosenbaum came running at him, when he was hit with a skateboard, and when the survivor drew on him.
BUT, that's likely the EXACT scenario that he was dreaming of, driving out there: to INSERT himself into a situation where he'd find himself in this position.
Intentional First Degree Homicide: i've not read the Wisconsin penal code, but does it require pre meditation? And, does purposely placing oneself in such an environment...can that amount to premeditation?

Then you've got the fucking cops THANKING these half price proud boys for being there and offering them water, thus emboldening them, the random handgun being fired into the air, the fact that Rosenbaum didn't seem to even know what he was DOING there, illustrated by him screaming the n word, what, three times that we know of? (That last part doesn't have a lot of bearing on the case, but is just another crazy thing in all of this.)

I've watched SO much of this. It's making my brain hurt.

I guess the bottom line for me is this: can you claim self defense for use of deadly force when you purposely insert yourself into an environment where you DO NOT belong, ostensibly HOPING to have the chance to exert said force?

[sweeterthan]

I guess the bottom line for me is this: can you claim self defense for use of deadly force when you purposely insert yourself into an environment where you DO NOT belong, ostensibly HOPING to have the chance to exert said force?

*while openly and illegally carrying a high powered weapon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Volband]

I guess the bottom line for me is this: can you claim self defense for use of deadly force when you purposely insert yourself into an environment where you DO NOT belong, ostensibly HOPING to have the chance to exert said force?

It should come down to how much you've done to actively provoke being attacked. If I start hitting your face like 5 times, you push me away then I shoot you, that should not be self-defense. But being an obnoxious asshole should not warrant being attacked by someone. The "problem" with a proper legal system is that it will defend people whom you'd like to see rotting away in a cell. But if it will be proved that all Kyle did was walking there with a gun, then it should not be ground for anyone to jump at him the way he got jumped. It wasn't his fault someone else fired a shot and it wasn't his fault that an idiot assumed it was him. I don't know how much the laws say about things you wish to happen but do not actively try to make it happen (ie. you don't ask your friend to shoot in the air and you don't purposefully follow a mentally deranged man who may misinterpret where the shots came from), but I don't think "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" hold up as law.


I don't want to comment on the biggest fucking issue here, which is guns, because you'd get the same, boring European insight on it, but it's so surreal that none of this could ever happen with proper gun laws and enforcement. That's one thing that a racist teenager is dreaming about playing call of duty, it's another that he actually have all the tools to do so.

*while openly and illegally carrying a high powered weapon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But here's the problem: once you are in a situation where you are allowed to use self-defense, even by a deadly force, are you not allowed to use those weapons? It would be such a weird judgement to say that while he had the right to defend himself, but because he shouldn't be allowed to have those guns, he should've let himself to be potentially killed.

[elevenism]

*while openly and illegally carrying a high powered weapon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Precisely. Damnit I wish I'd included that at the end, but if I do it now, it will make your post confusing. :/

But hell yes, while openly and illegally carrying a fucking AR-15.

Edit: @Volband , BUT, I believe that in this case, his very PRESENCE while holding the AR-15 was INTENDED to provoke an attack.

[sweeterthan]

But here's the problem: once you are in a situation where you are allowed to use self-defense, even by a deadly force, are you not allowed to use those weapons? It would be such a weird judgement to say that while he had the right to defend himself, but because he shouldn't be allowed to have those guns, he should've let himself to be potentially killed.

no one would’ve viewed him as the shooter if he didn’t have the big gun. he brought it on himself. possessing the gun put him in danger.

[allegro]

@Volband , here’s the Wisconsin self defense statute that jurors must use, below.

Note that it is MOSTLY intended for use as a "castle" doctrine, in protecting one's self in the event a dangerous intruder enters one's home, vehicle or business.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/939/iii/48

See (2), which is important. Prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse provoked the situation by aiming his gun at Rosenbaum, prompting Rosenbaum to respond.

Also, Rittenhouse had JUST SHOT AT the unknown “leaping man” - twice (and missed) - provoking Huber to RESPOND and defend HIMSELF and others by hitting Rittenhouse with the skateboard.

The defense tried to remove the “provoke” segment of the statute from the jury instructions, but the judge wouldn’t allow it.

(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, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

See 6:

When a defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot or use force, he could not claim self-defense. Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 198 N.W.2d 577 (1972).

When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801 informs the jury that it “should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, [his] conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another." This instruction implies that the defendant must satisfy the jury that the defendant was acting in self-defense and removes the burden of proof from the state to show that the defendant was engaged in criminally reckless conduct. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.

The primary issue in this case is whether or not Rittenhouse FELT threatened.

But, it’s also an issue of if Rittenhouse made OTHERS feel threatened (provocation).

There IS a heavily-argued matter as to the legality of Rittenhouse’s weapon. He might walk for THAT, because of the LENGTH of the rifle and a technicality.

The jury may also have “lesser charges” to consider re the deaths of Rosenbaum and Huber.

That kid has some VERY expensive defense attorneys, not paid for by him.

Gov. Evers has already called in the National Guard.

[allegro]

no one would’ve viewed him as the shooter if he didn’t have the big gun.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, a black guy without any gun at all, who was out jogging, as he did nearly every day, was followed by three "Confederate" white supremacist racist armed assholes who deemed themselves "volunteer" law enforcement, and followed Ahmaud Arbery in vehicles as Arbery checked out a house that was under construction (something I've done COUNTLESS TIMES).

As they chased him down, Arbery, not knowing why these big armed men were chasing him and DEMANDING that he stop, ran from the men. They finally shot Arbery POINT BLANK with shotguns. One shot, near his armpit, pretty much tore his arm clean off. Another, at his torso, tore completely through his torso. His mother saw the videos shown to the jury last week.

Those three pieces of excrement are claiming self-defense.

[elevenism]

I missed this horrifying case in Chicago last month, where five men were NOT charged for a deadly gang shootout; the prosecutors deemed it "Mutual Combat." The cops were expecting 5 homicide charges, but the prosecutors didn't charge them with ANYTHING.

From what I've read, including some in the linked article, "mutual combat" is intended for like, a bar fight where no-one can determine the aggressor. It sounds sort of like a "boys will be boys" type of thing.
But NOW? It sounds like "meh. Gangs are going to shoot and kill each other in public; whattaya gonna do?"

This sends a HORRIFYING signal to gangs in Chicago: Public shootouts where people get killed aren't being prosecuted.

[allegro]

I missed this horrifying case in Chicago last month, where five men were NOT charged for a deadly gang shootout; the prosecutors deemed it "Mutual Combat." The cops were expecting 5 homicide charges, but the prosecutors didn't charge them with ANYTHING.

From what I've read, including some in the linked article, "mutual combat" is intended for like, a bar fight where no-one can determine the aggressor. It sounds sort of like a "boys will be boys" type of thing.
But NOW? It sounds like "meh. Gangs are going to shoot and kill each other in public; whattaya gonna do?"

This sends a HORRIFYING signal to gangs in Chicago: Public shootouts where people get killed aren't being prosecuted.

It’s more complicated than that.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...outputType=amp

[allegate]

Infowars’ Alex Jones Guilty by Default in Sandy Hook Defamation Suits

[allegro]

Rittenhouse’s Ticktock handle was “4DoorsMoreWhores”

Per the prosecution.

[allegro]

Infowars’ Alex Jones Guilty by Default in Sandy Hook Defamation Suits

BY DEFAULT!!!! What a WIMP!!!

[Jinsai]

4 doors more whores? I… don’t get it.

the judge throwing out the charge for underage possession of a rifle… because there’s a provision allowing for hunting… jesus

[allegro]

4 doors more whores? I… don’t get it.

the judge throwing out the charge for underage possession of a rifle… because there’s a provision allowing for hunting… jesus

No it’s due to the wording of the statute and the length of the gun and his age. The AR-15 is not short-barreled, they measured it.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/948/60/3/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.

See 941.28 referenced above:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/941/iii/28

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.

29.304
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...utes/29/iv/304

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
(1)  Persons under 12 years of age.
(a) Prohibition on hunting. No person under 12 years of age may hunt with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person under 12 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and he or she is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class under the supervision of his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.
(c) Restrictions on obtaining hunting approval. Except as provided under par. (d), no person under 12 years of age may obtain any approval authorizing hunting.
(d) Restrictions on validity of certificate of accomplishment. A person under 12 years of age may obtain a certificate of accomplishment if he or she complies with the requirements of s. 29.591 (4) but that certificate is not valid for the hunting of small game until that person becomes 12 years of age.

29.593

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...es/29/viii/593

29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1) 
(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
(b) A certificate of accomplishment issued to a person for successfully completing the course under the bow hunter education program only authorizes the person to obtain a resident archer hunting license, a nonresident archer hunting license, a resident crossbow hunting license, or a nonresident crossbow hunting license.
(2) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(2m) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a bow hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an archer hunting license or crossbow hunting license.
(3) A person who successfully completes basic training in the U.S. armed forces, reserves or national guard may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(4) A person who is subject to sub. (1) may prove compliance with sub. (1) when submitting an application for an approval authorizing hunting by presenting any of the following:
(a) His or her certificate of accomplishment issued under s. 29.591.
(b) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter within 365 days before submitting the application.
(c) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter for a hunting season that ended within 365 days before submitting the application.
History: 1983 a. 420; 1991 a. 254; 1997 a. 27, 197; 1997 a. 248 ss. 427 to 430; Stats. 1997 s. 29.593; 1999 a. 32; 2005 a. 289; 2009 a. 39; 2013 a. 61.

[allegro]

4 doors more whores

I assume this means if you have a car …

[Jinsai]

Is this new video of him talking about how he wished he had his AR to fire at black people open carrying being shown to the jury?

this whole thing sickens me

[allegro]

Is this new video of him talking about how he wished he had his AR to fire at black people open carrying being shown to the jury?

Nope.

Only the events that day.

[elevenism]

I didn't watch ALL of the trial, but I saw more than I care to admit.

Were i on that jury, think I'd be leaning towards a homicide charge because of THIS language in the provocation bit of the statute @allegro so kindly posted.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

​

[Jinsai]

I didn't watch ALL of the trial, but I saw more than I care to admit.

Were i on that jury, think I'd be leaning towards a homicide charge because of THIS language in the provocation bit of the statute @allegro so kindly posted.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

​

Yep. Also,

[Pillfred]

I didn't watch ALL of the trial, but I saw more than I care to admit.

Were i on that jury, think I'd be leaning towards a homicide charge because of THIS language in the provocation bit of the statute @allegro so kindly posted.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

​

Same but it was on Fox. A special kind of hell.