Wisconsin and age of exercising rights

[Aguila Blanca]

I believe towards the end of the criminal complaint it states that the defendant spoke with the detective . That’s never good for the defendant . What he said during that interview could very well be why he was charged with first-degree homicide . This case Just got a whole lot more interesting imo .

If he's 17 and legally a minor, and the detective interviewed him without a parent or an attorney present -- the entire interview may be non-admissible.

 

[stinkeypete]

I like to think that my friends that carry do so to protect their families and themselves when all other options have been exhausted. If involved in a shooting, I expect these responsible folks would contact law enforcement and medical help as soon as safely possible.

Traveling armed to a trouble spot is for professional law enforcement or the National Guard (as our governor did well before any media call for it.) At the minimum, deputized civilians- and that might be a fuzzy area.

A civilians traveling Significant distance to defend others... that’s a vigilante, and although it’s glorified in the movies and comic books, it’s criminal. Throughout history, vigilantes have committed crimes and violated the civil rights of others. A country with laws prosecutes them.

A minor is someone with less rights than an older person because society has set forth that they are have weaker judgement and decision making capability than an older adult. We also believe children deserve special treatment for rehabilitation. Particularly violent crimes by older minors have been waived in to adult court.

An adult arming a minor Or otherwise aiding them, knowing their intention to act as a vigilante is in serious trouble too.

My opinion is that to protect a less restrictive interpretation of the second amendment, the public must see that violations of our laws by armed individuals will be prosecuted vigorously and a just verdict handed down. Should the public learn that simple loopholes allow an individual to violate our standing laws with impunity- I believe laws will be made more restrictive.

I live in Wisconsin. Kids used to drive over the border to drink beer. Vigilantes are not welcome.

 

[zxcvbob]

I like to think that my friends that carry do so to protect their families and themselves when all other options have been exhausted. If involved in a shooting, I expect these responsible folks would contact law enforcement and medical help as soon as safely possible.

Traveling armed to a trouble spot is for professional law enforcement or the National Guard (as our governor did well before any media call for it.) At the minimum, deputized civilians- and that might be a fuzzy area.

A civilians traveling Significant distance to defend others... that’s a vigilante, and although it’s glorified in the movies and comic books, it’s criminal. Throughout history, vigilantes have committed crimes and violated the civil rights of others. A country with laws prosecutes them.

A minor is someone with less rights than an older person because society has set forth that they are have weaker judgement and decision making capability than an older adult. We also believe children deserve special treatment for rehabilitation. Particularly violent crimes by older minors have been waived in to adult court.

An adult arming a minor Or otherwise aiding them, knowing their intention to act as a vigilante is in serious trouble too.

My opinion is that to protect a less restrictive interpretation of the second amendment, the public must see that violations of our laws by armed individuals will be prosecuted vigorously and a just verdict handed down. Should the public learn that simple loopholes allow an individual to violate our standing laws with impunity- I believe laws will be made more restrictive.

I live in Wisconsin. Kids used to drive over the border to drink beer. Vigilantes are not welcome.

Who are you talking about? The kid works in Kenosha.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

A civilians traveling Significant distance to defend others... that’s a vigilante, and although it’s glorified in the movies and comic books, it’s criminal. Throughout history, vigilantes have committed crimes and violated the civil rights of others. A country with laws prosecutes them.

Irrespective of travel distance, how is a civilian defending another civilian criminal? The laws that address when a "civilian" can employ deadly force in defense of a third party do not -- insofar as I know -- impose any restrictions on where the defender can come from or how far he/she is allowed to travel.

Defending an innocent third party is a very different matter (IMHO) than joining a lynch mob. It's the lynch mob history that has given vigilantes a bad name, but the Kenosha incident hardly fits that general category.

 

[stinkeypete]

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2020CF000983&countyNo=30&index=0&mode=details
According to Wisconsin Circuit Court Access, he is a resident of Antioch, Ill.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

According to Wisconsin Circuit Court Access, he is a resident of Antioch, Ill.

That's not in dispute. He lives where he lives, and he works (or worked) in Kenosha, WI.

So ... what's your point?

 

[WyMark]

I did a lot of really stupid, and in hindsight embarrassingly idiotic, things when I was 17. Fortunately none of them were as stupid as murdering people on the street because I didn't agree with them.

 

[mehavey]

....none of them were as stupid as murdering people
on the street because I didn't agree with them.

You might want to wait until all facts & circumstances are presented before such a proclamation.
By all accounts, Rittenhouse did not start the sequence of events, and certainly did not
shoot "...because [he] didn't agree with them.

Read below as to the events that will play out in trial.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...nse-argument-gets-help-from-twisted-gun-logic

Know also that of the two dead "...arrest records show Huber was arrested several times on battery,
drugs and other charges. Rosenbaum had an open criminal case on battery, disorderly conduct and
domestic abuse charges, according to the Wisconsin Circuit Court website."

Snopes, as usual, provides additional insight both confirming and disapproving multiple accusation flying back & forth against all involved.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/

The only thing I do know, is that nobody here/involved could be considered squeaky clean as to character, intent, action, and least of all- - judgement.

It's a mess. The only people I have absolutely no doubt as to blame, are the "leaders" who have allowed this spreading rioting to get out of control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-JA1ffd5Ms

But for now, wait for the facts.... both sides.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I did a lot of really stupid, and in hindsight embarrassingly idiotic, things when I was 17. Fortunately none of them were as stupid as murdering people on the street because I didn't agree with them.

Who murdered someone?

 

[rebs]

If the protesters hadn't turned violent I doubt anyone would have been shot. But they did and from my point of view some politicians condone this behavior, some want to defund police dept's etc. You have to right to assemble for a peaceful protest, but you do not have the right to be rioting, looting and doing harm to other citizens. This young man should never have been charged. I hope he goes completely free. Lets put the blame on the politicians that condone rioting.

 

[Metal god]

In general I agree with you rebs . My concern about this whole thing now is what his statement to the detective was and if he was advised of his rights at the time which I have to assume he was . My hope is that his statement was simply , I feared for my life and I want to cooperate but I feel I need a lawyer present and I respectfully have nothing further to say at this time .

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Regarding whether it was legal for Rittenhouse to possess or carry a rifle in WI, the statute that appears to prohibit this, upon closer inspection, appears to apply only in the case of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun. Dean Weingarten makes a pretty cogent argument here: http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2020/09/kenosha-kyle-rittenhouse-are-people.html

 

[Blue Duck]

I think the kid showed some poor judgement by being there to start with. But once he became targeted by the mob, what choice did he have? He didn't do nothing I wouldn't have done at that point. As far as I am concerned the rioters escalated the situation, and he was justified in shooting in self defense.

 

[jimbob86]

I did a lot of really stupid, and in hindsight embarrassingly idiotic, things when I was 17. Fortunately none of them were as stupid as murdering people on the street because I didn't agree with them.

Who "murdered" anybody? I saw 3 shootings in self defense .... what? should the kid just let them beat im to death, with anything handy? Skateboard? His own gun? Hands/Feet? .... He took the best of bad options, and was more restrained than I would have been.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Regarding whether it was legal for Rittenhouse to possess or carry a rifle in WI, the statute that appears to prohibit this, upon closer inspection, appears to apply only in the case of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun. Dean Weingarten makes a pretty cogent argument here: http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2020/09...re-people.html

What a novel idea -- read the law before acting on it or pontificating about it.

A few decades ago there was a perfect example of this in my state. Not firearms related, but it illustrates the point well, IMHO.

Seems there was a woman -- an executive for a large corporation in the state's capitol city -- who had fun going to parties to be the resident fortune teller/psychic. She used a pseudonym for these gigs, and she never advertised -- it was all word of mouth.

Back then, the state had an anti-fortunetelling law on the books. It had been there for 80 years and, in 80 years, nobody had ever been convicted under it. Nobody, in fact, could even remember if/when anyone had ever been arrested under it. Until one fine day when the police department in the town where she lived got wind of her nefarious sideline and set up a sting. They sent two young officers -- a male and a female -- posing as a couple, to get a private reading from "Marushka." She did the reading, they paid her -- and then they slapped the cuffs on her. She was charged under this 80-year old anti-fortunetelling law.

The case went to trial. The prosecution had both officers testify. They thought they had a slam dunk case. When the prosecution rested, the defense attorney didn't call any witnesses, he immediately moved to dismiss. Both the judge and the prosecutor looked at him in amazement. "On what grounds?"

So the defense attorney read them the law. The law said two things: (1) it was illegal to advertise to foretell the future. [The defendant didn't advertise.] (2) it was illegal to accept money for fraudulently foretelling the future. [The prosecution had entered no evidence or testimony alleging or suggesting fraud.]

That's all the law said. The judge thought about it for a minute, then dismissed the case. A few months later, the legislature quietly repealed the statute.

As we frequently mention when people have questions about carry laws or use of force laws, there is no substitute for reading and understanding the laws in effect in the particular state or jurisdiction. Words have meaning, and in laws those words are usually fairly specific and precise. (If they aren't, the law may be tossed out as "unconstitutionally vague.") So here's another example. Everyone jumped on that law without reading the fine print and concluded that the kid was breaking the law by having that rifle.

And then someone actually read the law ...

 

[jimbob86]

I think the kid showed some poor judgement by being there to start with.

Did the minutemen show poor judgement by being on the Lexington Commons? If you continually give ground, the mob will run you out of the country.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Did the minutemen show poor judgement by being on the Lexington Commons?

Are you seriously comparing this kid to the minutemen?

 

[Metal god]

It's been awhile since we talked about this case and I've got a question . Why are his lawyers fighting extradition ? The judge in Wisconsin has already set bail at 2mil which I've heard will almost certainly be lowered if asked based on the defendants history and lack of criminal record . His has this HUGE fund to fight the charges and yet there he still sits in jail . This is a 17yr old kid that need not see any more jail time then need be . Why not let the extradition go through , fight to lower the bail and pay to get him out of jail ? I've read his lawyers are fighting the extradition as if it was to another country rather then to another state . It's my understanding the way you fight each is quite different and it's unlikely he will win this fight .

Can someone please give me a theory of the defendant lawyers strategy here ? Get the darn kid out of jail already !

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Possibly they think he's safer in jail rather than out?

Dunno, but it's a thought.

 

[Metal god]

My thinking is every day he is in jail is day of development that will be with him for ever . 17 year olds need not that environment to Influence their development . He needs to get out of there . It’s one thing if he’s Charles Manson but I believe it’s clear he’s not that , And very possible He is a completely innocent 17-year-old Who truly only wanted to help .