Kyle Rittenhouse Kills Protesters

Discussion in 'In the News' started by gunsmoker, Aug 28, 2020.

  1. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,608
    639
    113
    Good for him. One unusual feature of WI law is that bail (bail bonding is illegal so there are never bail bondsmen involved) can be used to pay fines or restitution. So assuming some benefactor(s) put up the money, even if Kyle never violates his bail conditions, the benefactor(s) could lose some of their money at the end for fines or restitution.
     

  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
  3. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    13,146
    1,963
    113
    Rittenhouse to be arraigned on Jan. 5, 2021.

    https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-has-preliminary-hearing-on-wisconsin-charges
     
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    [Defense attorney] Richards argued that a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 isn’t supported by the law — an argument the court rejected before.

    "It wasn’t hunting season. This wasn’t a kid who went up north with his dad and a shotgun and went hunting for deer," [prosecutor] Binger said.

    "We’re not arguing that he was ‘hunter safety,’ that’s not what it says. He’s not hunting -- so that subsection doesn’t apply. He’s over 16. That subsection applies," Richards said.
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    Rittenhouse’s legal team tried to have the judge dismiss the charge of possession of a deadly weapon by a minor by noting that subsets of the statute are related to hunting and involve short-barrel weaponry. Rittenhouse was seen carrying an AR-15, which is a long gun.

    Binger said the point was moot because he wasn’t alleging that Rittenhouse was not complying with hunting regulations. “This was hunting humans, not deer,” he said.

    “It wasn’t hunting season. This wasn’t a case where a kid went up north with his dad to hunt deer,” Binger said. “This was a situation in which a teenager went running around the streets of Kenosha after curfew with a very dangerous weapon. This is exactly why we have this law, because teenagers shouldn’t be allowed to run around with dangerous weapons, because bad things happen.”
     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    I am baffled that the judge let the charge on minor in possession of a weapon stand against a motion to dismiss.
     
    TimBob likes this.
  8. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,608
    639
    113
    Well, it was a court commissioner, not a judge. In WI, court commissioner is kind of like magistrate judge. But they are not judges. They are not called judges. This particular court commissioner has been serving for 2 years. Before that he was s DUI lawyer and before that he was a cop (city of Kenosha). As commissioner, he's the guy you see when you first get arrested. He does not decide cases. It is not surprising that he did not dismiss the case, even though he probably should have. That is more likely to happen when the case gets to circuit court and a real judge.
     
  9. 45_Fan

    45_Fan Well-Known Member

    8,226
    119
    63
    I’m starting to wonder if this is something that will have to be settled in an appeal.
     
  10. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,608
    639
    113
    Probably so. If it doesn't get dismissed, presumably it will be appealed by the defendant. If it does get dismissed, the state might wait to see whether he gets convicted of the homicide charges. If he does, and gets a life sentence, then the state would perhaps not bother to appeal. If he does not get a significant sentence, the state probably would appeal the dismissal.
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    Well, I know nothing about Wisconsin, and I understand you are a member of the bar there, but this at least tells me that the commissioner is literate and can read the statute for himself. Was this not the right step in the process for a motion to dismiss in Wisconsin? I find it odd that a judge found sufficient evidence to go forward on a charge of violating a statute that says Rittenhouse could do what he was doing.
     
  12. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,608
    639
    113
    I don't think it's odd, but it is disappointing.

    I know you have attended some bond hearings that were very perfunctory. The kind where they act like it's a hearing but in reality the purpose is for the judge to announce to you what your (pre-determined) bond amount is (I'm talking about you, Clayton County State Court when a poor slob without a GWL gets caught with a gun at the airport). Can you imagine what would happen if you tried to talk about probable cause at one of those "hearings"?

    Knowing what the WI court commissioner does and how long he's been at it, my guess is that he has NEVER dismissed a case over the state's objection.
     
    atlsrt44 likes this.
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    :lol: Don't get me started on that abuse of power - everybody stays the night in jail at least once, even though . . .

    :mad:

    There is just something sad when "disappointing" is the new and expected standard in judicial performance, to the point that disappointing is not odd.
     
  14. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,608
    639
    113
    MP for Judge!
     
  15. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    :lol:

    On a more serious note, though, this entire argument by the prosecutor bothers me. It is like winning at all costs is more important than justice and the truth. Anybody can read that statute and easily conclude that Rittenhouse is actually authorized by the statute to possess a rifle, or at least exempt from the statute, unless he is committing some other violations that he was not committing.

    So what does the prosecutor argue? This is not a hunting situation, except he was hunting humans?

    What?

    The judge ought to have leaned over and gave the prosecutor a "show cause" order to put in evidence of "hunting humans" to support such a statement made in his court. Attorneys have a duty of candor to the court.

    Binger said the point was moot because he wasn’t alleging that Rittenhouse was not complying with hunting regulations. “This was hunting humans, not deer,” he said.
    So long as there is no consequence for such blatant misrepresentations, then such blatant misrepresentations will continue to occur.

    The judge cannot read a simple statute. The prosecutor cannot read a simple statute. We have to either believe that or believe that they can read and understand English but choose to pervert justice to score political points. Which is it? I do not see an alternative.
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    By "not alleging that Rittenhouse was not complying with hunting regulations," the prosecutor is admitting that Rittenhouse's possession of a rifle was perfectly legal under Wisconsin law.
     
  17. Bkite

    Bkite PawPaw x 3

    8,220
    480
    83
    Hillary has faced no charges for destroying evidence.
    No charges from the Durham investigation.
    Disappointing is an understatement.
    I have come to realize that there is no justice in these once great US of A.
    There is punishment and prosecution for everyday folk and their is a life of privilege and prosperity for the political and social elite

    J Epstein did not kill himself!
    The 2nd Amendment continues to be infringed upon.
     
  18. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    13,146
    1,963
    113
    I'll choose door #2, Monty.
     
    Malum Prohibitum likes this.