Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND: You are implying that ANYONE who sings "God Bless America" is a "Trumptard".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So now you want political tests for judges, bc if they don't have the "correct" politics they can't sit on cases?

Has this judge ever given ANY indication that his rulings have been biased, and not based in law???

Has he ever overstepped his bounds as egregiously as the prosecutor did in the Rittenhouse case?

*****

Prosecutors should question Comey, Strzok, Brennan, Haspell, Lisa Page, McCabe, Steele, Sondland, Fiona Hill, Sussman (Perkins Coie lawyer), Clinesmith (FBI lawyer), Hillary Clinton, and a host of others, under oath, as to whether they engaged in a five-year campaign to bring false charges against Donald Trump.

Now THAT is an investigationn worth pursuing.
Not your gnat-catching "wrong song" peccadillo.

But, we know it will never happen because those high up in power control the process.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And the best you an come up with is more lies (libel).

Yanno, I understand Rittenhouse falling apart on the stand. He's a young man describing a fraught experience under charged circumstances. He's all keyed up. I can even understand it being staged (altho it's hard to see how someone can make their face go red, on cue.)

But you're an older man who's seen a lot. What's YOUR excuse for being a duplicitious, twisted fuck who hates everyone and who lies at the first opportunity?

You can hardly hate Rittenhouse for "lying" (as you see it) when you do the very same yourself. You're even less virtuous than he is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You should listen to this, especially the exerpts from a trial The judge (A Dem-appointed one BTW) was so pissed off at the prosecution he was spluttering.

The only thing I can think of is that the prosecution, knowing that their case has fallen apart under the weight of video evidence, is aiming at another bite of the apple by having a mistrial declared because of prosecutorial misconduct.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Since when did SECOND ever claim he was for greatest good/greatest number?

Far as I can tell he's only for his own good.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
My big old bag of Fuck You, I Told You So's is on standby for the verdict on this case.

Won't be long now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Shut up dude.

Why don't you tell everybody again how the half Latino kid who shot three white degenerate morons is a white supremacist.

Idiot. You and your treasonous Legacy Media are a bunch of idiots.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Shut up dude.

Why don't you tell everybody again how the half Latino kid who shot three white degenerate morons is a white supremacist.

Idiot. You and your treasonous Legacy Media are a bunch of idiots.

---

Kyle Rittenhouse avoided the police, got in his car, and went home after killing two people. An innocent person goes to the police and talks to them about it without a lawyer. Days later, the police arrested Kyle Rittenhouse, who was in hiding, then had to fight in court for months to extradite him, because he refused to go, same as he avoided the police after he killed two people.

Illinois authorities extradite Kyle Rittenhouse to Wisconsin
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-extradition-kenosha-4a2be2
814fe56d961a22b76943a24426

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

If the Democrats don't purge your kind out of their party, Democrats are toast.

---

Quote:

---

https://www.aol.com/news/judge-rittenhouse-trial-not-allow-164122124-2
13334189.html
KENOSHA, Wis. (Reuters) - The judge in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse said on Friday he would instruct the jury they can consider the prosecution's argument that the teenager provoked an encounter with one of two men he fatally shot during protests in Wisconsin last year.
Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney James Kraus showed grainy drone video of the Rosenbaum shooting as he argued that Rittenhouse raised his AR-15-style rifle shortly before the encounter and pointed it at some people, including another man, Joshua Ziminski, who fired a gunshot in the air.
"The simple argument is there's plenty of evidence that the state has brought in that he raised his gun," Kraus said. "We have evidence of provocation."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
If he gets away with that, Trumptards will be executing people

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Like I said, it was a melee, with guns.

It's all a clusterfuck. I would love to see the evidence for myself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Delusional.

The only one here always talking about killing people is you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Delusional.

The only one here always talking about killing people is you.

---

I understand completely why four guys kicked the shit of you, than stabbed you, putting you in the hospital. You ran your fucking mouth and than they kicked you. Kyle Rittenhouse was pointing a rifle at people, then he and his highly paid defense team blame the people Rittenhouse shot for what happened next. Rittenhouse had no business being there, he was too young to own a gun, and he is too mentally unstable to control himself and not kill people and the people who are siding with Rittenhouse are just as mentally unstable as he is about the feeling they are threatened by Libtards and killing Libtards. If Rittenhouse is declared not guilty, it is open season on Libtards because the Trumptards in America have bought 50,000,000 guns this year and 40,000,000 last year, not for protection, but for killing Libtards.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
P.S. The biggest killer of "Libtards" is "Libtards".

They are the vast majority and almost complete makeup of criminal possession of firearms and those who regularly use illegally purchased and owned firearms on each other.

More people died in Chicago yesterday than Kyle killed in self-defense over a year ago.

Which one are you still talking about?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've got people I've got to help out today. No more time to waste on scum like you, shitbag.

Enjoy your weekend full of doing nothing for anybody but yourself.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:
Like I said, it was a melee, with guns.

It's all a clusterfuck. I would love to see the evidence for myself.

SECONDRATE: This case is easy to understand, unless you don't want to understand that guns are NOT for protection, but for killing. An AR-15 is NOT a Star Wars lightsaber, which can deflect bullets. The AR-15 is only for killing people, except some people who are incompetent it is only for making noises. How many people were shot? 3. How many shooters? 1. Is the jury going to hold the shooter responsible? Is the jury going to believe that Rittenhouse was there to protect himself?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

It doesn't matter what he was there "for". What matters, at least as far as I understand, are the circumstances immediately before Rittenhouse fired his weapon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You should listen to this, especially the exerpts from a trial The judge (A Dem-appointed one BTW) was so pissed off at the prosecution he was spluttering.

The only thing I can think of is that the prosecution, knowing that their case has fallen apart under the weight of video evidence, is aiming at another bite of the apple by having a mistrial declared because of prosecutorial misconduct.

---

Excellent video.
Is that how Tucker is all the time?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As usual, you avoid reality, SECOND.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
P.S. The biggest killer of "Libtards" is "Libtards".

They are the vast majority and almost complete makeup of criminal possession of firearms and those who regularly use illegally purchased and owned firearms on each other.

More people died in Chicago yesterday than Kyle killed in self-defense over a year ago.

Which one are you still talking about?

---

Libtards are not sending money to Chicago to defend drive-by shooters who kill people, but Trumptards are sending money to defend Rittenhouse because the Trumptards approve of Rittenhouse killing people that Trumptards hate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
I see that the Trumptards are harassing the only survivor of Rittenhouse's murder spree because the survivor is their political enemy:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:
Like I said, it was a melee, with guns.

It's all a clusterfuck. I would love to see the evidence for myself.

SECONDRATE: This case is easy to understand, unless you don't want to understand that guns are NOT for protection, but for killing. An AR-15 is NOT a Star Wars lightsaber, which can deflect bullets. The AR-15 is only for killing people, except some people who are incompetent it is only for making noises. How many people were shot? 3. How many shooters? 1. Is the jury going to hold the shooter responsible? Is the jury going to believe that Rittenhouse was there to protect himself?

---

It doesn't matterwhat he was there "for". What matters, at least as far as I understand, are the circumstances immediately before Rittenhouse fired his weapon.

It's one thing to shoot gooks running away from a helicopter ... you can take time to pick your targets and aim.

It's another to shoot when a mob is chasing you and one is pointing a weapon at you.

I know there are various legal limits on self defense in various states. Not sure of the applicable law in this state, but IMHO some of the limits that I've seen require far more cool-headedness than I would expect of the average civilian.

When faced with - literally- an enraged mob (a mob which, apparently, mistakenly believes that you just shot somebody) there is no hope of self defense unless you have a gun.

If Rittenhouse REALLY wanted to kill libtards, he would have positioned himself on a tall building, and started picking people off, like any sensible mass shooter. Yanno, like you shooting from a helicopter.

So instead of grinding on and on with your obsession about Rittenhouse's supposed motives ... and you have a consistent history of being wrong with your "mind reading" ... you should look at his actions.

The evidence. There's a lot of it. What does it say?


I don't know. I've only seen bits and pieces. You've prolly seen even less than I have.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I'm not sure if you are serious or not.

Plenty of lies posted elsewhere on this board on this topic.

There are no Assault Weapons in WI, not even the ugly mugs of Libtard women.

Until 2017, people needed to be 12 years old to carry a shotgun or rifle in WI, but then Gov Walker signed the Law eliminating the minimum age requirement. Handguns possession is a bit more murky. Cannon are legal in MI, but I don't think so in WI.

The rifle Kyle had was purchased in WI, owned by a WI resident, never left the State on the day of the attacks upon Kyle, and was never subject to IL Laws.

Many IL residents venture to WI to hunt and partake in celebration of 2nd Amendment Rights (which are much curtailed in IL). There is a popular bumper sticker which says "WISCONSIN: Illinois' Largest State Park"


Also, Trump had to call Gov Skeletor Evers and plead him to call out the National Guard (which Evers controls, as Gov) - because Evers didn't want to restore any civilized environment in WI (rioting in both Kenosha and WI, and this weekend in Green Bay)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The Young Turks comes out and issues a correction after one and a half years of falsely slamming Kyle with lies.

The "journalists" there with their journalist degrees couldn't be bothered to watch any of the videos of the incident until it went to trial. Either that, or they fucking lied about everything knowing full well they were lying up until they couldn't lie about it anymore.

Even TYT disagrees with you now, Second. You racist little bitch.





Ana Kasparian and Fat Fuck are too stupid to have jobs.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Drops Rittenhouse Gun Charge, Finds He Legally Carried AR-15 In Kenosha

---

Quote:

---

Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful?
Johnathan Turley

In covering the motions hearing last week in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, I noted a surprising comment from Judge Bruce Schroeder that he had “spent hours” with the Wisconsin gun law and could not state with certainty what it means in this case. The statement could effectively knock out the misdemeanor gun possession count — the one count that could still be in play for the jury after the prosecution’s case on the more serious offense appeared to collapse in court. A close examination of that provision reveals ample reason to question not just its meaning but its application to this case.

The unlawful possession of the gun has been a prominent fact cited not only by the prosecutors but the press.

At trial, however, prosecutor Thomas Binger at points seemed to be learning the governing law from Rittenhouse. For example, he pressed Rittenhouse on why he did not just purchase a handgun rather than an AR-15. Rittenhouse replied he could not possess a hand gun at his age. Binger then asked in apparent disbelief that the law allowed him to have an AR-15 but not a handgun and Rittenhouse said yes. Binger then moved on after seemingly drawing out a point for the defense.

The exchange was all the more baffling because it drew attention to the fact that one of Binger’s alleged “victims” was an adult named Gaige Grosskreutz who also decided to bring a handgun to the protests and pointed his .40 caliber Glock at the head of Rittenhouse when he was shot in the arm.

However, the most damaging moment came outside of the presence of the jury when the judge drilled down on the law. He told the prosecutors “I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education.” He added that he failed to understand how an “ordinary citizen” could understand what is illegal.

It is hard to understand how the count could be given to the jury without a clear understanding of what it means. It is also hard to instruct a jury on an ambiguous statute. Criminal laws are supposed to be interpreted narrowly. It is called the “rule of lenity” and has been around in the English system for centuries. For example, in 1547, the court was faced with a law making it a felony to steal “Horses, Geldings or Mares.” Given the use of plural nouns, the court ruled that it did not apply to stealing just one horse.

The problem with the Wisconsin statute is not a problem of pluralization but definition. It is not clear that the statute actually bars possession by Rittenhouse. Indeed, it may come down to the length of Rittenhouse’s weapon and the prosecutors never bothered to measure it and place it into evidence.

In Wisconsin, minors cannot possess short-barreled rifles under Section 941.28. Putting aside the failure to put evidence into the record to claim such a short length, it does not appear to be the case here. Rittenhouse used a Smith & Wesson MP-15 with an advertised barrel length of 16 inches and the overall length is 36.9 inches. That is not a short barrel.

Then there is the rest of the statute and ultimately the word “and.” Under Section 948.60(2)(a) (“Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18”), “[a]ny person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” That makes Rittenhouse guilty, right?

Well, you then have to look at the subsection (c), which states that “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.”

Since there is no evidence that Rittenhouse violated Section 941.28, he presumably must be in violation of both sections 29.304 and 29.593.. The defense conceded Rittenhouse was in violation of Section 29.593, which requires certification for weapons. However, he is not in violation of section 29.304, entitled “Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.” As the title indicates, the section makes it illegal for persons under 16 to use firearms. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time and the prosecution has not challenged that fact.

If Rittenhouse were convicted on that count, it could face a serious challenge on appeal. Indeed, it is curious is why Schroeder would even submit the count to the jury if it is uncontested that Rittenhouse was 17. If that is the correct interpretation of the statute, there would be no way for a jury to reasonably convict Rittenhouse. It is akin to giving the jury a criminal count based on his use of force as a police officer when there is no evidence that he was a police officer.

The defense also offered legislative history to support the narrower interpretation but the prosecution opposed such reliance on material beyond of the language itself. However, that language is difficult to square with the charge and the evidence in this case.

Rittenhouse is obviously facing other counts. However, on that count, the question comes down to the “and.” To paraphrase Johnnie Cochran from the O.J. Simpson trial, if that clause “doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors crash and burn in Kyle Rittenhouse case, but polarized America doesn't see it
Rittenhouse is not on trial for American society's historical racism, and such history does not change the underlying facts of his case.
Jonathan Turley


The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse increasingly seems like a legal version of the parable of the blind men and the elephant. By only touching discrete parts of the animal, the men describe vastly different animals. In coverage of this trial, one would think that there were parallel trials occurring in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

One consensus however is emerging: Things are not going well for the prosecution.

But the reason for this developing failure depends greatly on what media you are watching other than the trial itself. It is either the product of systemic errors or systemic racism.

Rittenhouse is facing six charges that range from first-degree homicide to a misdemeanor of being a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon. At this stage, the prosecution may celebrate even a misdemeanor conviction.
Prosecution's bumpy start, and finish

The prosecution stumbled out of the gate in the trial. Gaige Grosskreutz was the third person to be shot by Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz admitted under cross-examination that Rittenhouse did not shoot him when he had his hands up after their confrontation. He admitted that it was only after he pointed his handgun at Rittenhouse and moved toward him that Rittenhouse fired.

Likewise, a prosecution witness, Ryan Balch, testified that one of the other people shot, Joseph Rosenbaum, said that he intended to kill Kyle Rittenhouse. Other witnesses described Rosenbaum as "belligerent" or "hyperaggressive."

USA TODAY's Carli Pierson:Kyle Rittenhouse deserves an award for his melodramatic performance on the witness stand.

Later, the prosecution called Richard McGinniss, a journalist with The Daily Caller who was reporting from Kenosha that night. He was near Rittenhouse when Joseph Rosenbaum was shot. The prosecutor told McGinniss, “I mean you have no idea what Mr. Rosenbaum was ever thinking at any point of his life. You have never been inside his head, you never met him before.”

McGinnis said, “I never exchanged words with him, if that’s what your question is.”

The prosecutor then pressed McGinnis on how he had no idea what Rosenbaum was thinking because it “is complete guesswork, isn’t it?”

That is when McGinnis delivered a haymaker, noting, “Well he said (expletive) you, and then he reached for the weapon.”

Opinions in your inbox: Get a digest of our takes on current events every day

The prosecution's own medical expert, Dr. Doug Kelly, appeared to confirm that the forensic evidence of soot injuries on Rosenbaum's hand could be consistent with Rosenbaum trying to grab the barrel of Rittenhouse's rifle when the gun was fired.

It got worse from there, including a glaring constitutional violation by the prosecution when Binger began his cross examination of Rittenhouse by commenting on his decision to remain silent.

The judge correctly tore into the prosecutor. Any first-year law student knows that you cannot comment on the silence of a Mirandized defendant after an arrest under the Fifth Amendment – let alone ignore a court order.
Biased media viewers

Even without the unforced errors by the prosecution, this was always a difficult case. Wisconsin has a strong self-defense standard. After a defendant claims to have acted to repel a threat, the burden is on the prosecution to rebut that claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instead, the prosecution prompted its own witnesses to create layers of doubt in the case. In doing so, it seems to have reduced the range of possibilities to somewhere between a hung jury and outright acquittal on the major charges.
Kyle Rittenhouse testifies about fatally shooting two people

The problem is that many people may be unaware that the case is collapsing due to such evidentiary or tactical failures. Any hung jury or acquittal will come as a shock, and the level of outrage is likely to be greater. This case began with violent rioting in Kenosha, and the news coverage is fueling the danger of renewed violence.

It is even worse in that some coverage has dismissed the trial as an exhibition of raw racism. Some have criticized Judge Bruce Schroeder after he enforced long-standing constitutional principles and defended the core constitutional right of the defendant against self-incrimination.

USA TODAY's Suzette Hackney:Kyle Rittenhouse shot his victims, but we can't call them that? What kind of justice system is this?

MSNBC host Tiffany Cross advocated for Schroeder’s removal and called on columnist Elie Mystal to discuss the matter. Mystal, who stated earlier this month that white, non-college-educated voters supported Republicans in the 2021 races in part because they care about "using their guns on Black people and getting away with it," not surprisingly, has written that this trial is a sham.
One man – not society – is on trial

MSNBC’s host Joy Reid also attacked the trial and suggested that Rittenhouse’s emotional breakdown on the stand was fraudulent. Her guest, MSNBC legal analyst and Georgetown law professor Paul Butler, concurred and called it “the greatest performance of (his) life.”

Butler declared Rittenhouse “was well-prepared by his defense attorneys to disrupt his image as a trigger-happy vigilante who went on a shooting rampage at a Black Lives Matter protest.”

Butler, who has written that Black jurors should use “jury nullification” to refuse to convict Black defendants in drug cases, insisted in a previous appearance that an acquittal would fuelfuture violence by white people.

Reid added Wednesday, “If you want to know why critical race theory exists, the actual law school theory that emphasizes that supposedly colorblind laws in America often still have racially discriminatory outcomes, then look no further than the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.”

However, Rittenhouse is not to be judged for society’s historical racism, and such history does not change the underlying facts.

Either Grosskreutz (who is white) was pointing the gun at Rittenhouse’s head or he was not. Either Rosenbaum (who was white) was grabbing the barrel of Rittenhouse’s gun or he was not. Such facts do not change through CRT translations.

Many in the media rightly criticized those who encouraged riots on Jan. 6 with unsupported claims of electoral fraud. However, some of the same media figures offer distorted accounts of this trial. The narrative can overwhelm the facts.

Moreover, if left uninformed of the real legal deficiencies in the case, that narrative is likely to control the response to any failure to convict.

These protests are part of a larger debate on racism in our country. However, this trial is about the actions of one individual – not society – in 2020. Those actions are increasingly favoring acquittal on the most serious charges.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is also a legal analyst for Fox News.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

What are the facts? That's what I want to know.

Is there video? What are the facts?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I'm not sure if you are serious or not.

Plenty of lies posted elsewhere on this board on this topic.

There are no Assault Weapons in WI, not even the ugly mugs of Libtard women.

Until 2017, people needed to be 12 years old to carry a shotgun or rifle in WI, but then Gov Walker signed the Law eliminating the minimum age requirement. Handguns possession is a bit more murky. Cannon are legal in MI, but I don't think so in WI.

The rifle Kyle had was purchased in WI, owned by a WI resident, never left the State on the day of the attacks upon Kyle, and was never subject to IL Laws.

Many IL residents venture to WI to hunt and partake in celebration of 2nd Amendment Rights (which are much curtailed in IL). There is a popular bumper sticker which says "WISCONSIN: Illinois' Largest State Park"


Also, Trump had to call Gov Skeletor Evers and plead him to call out the National Guard (which Evers controls, as Gov) - because Evers didn't want to restore any civilized environment in WI (rioting in both Kenosha and WI, and this weekend in Green Bay)

---

Some have posted that Kyle is obviously guilty of some of the 6 charges filed against him.
Which charge(s)?

Libtard out-of-Staters and citislickers have blathered on about the weapons charge, carrying a dangerous weapon while under 18 years of age. They reference State Law which prohibits carrying short barrel shotgun or short barrel rifle.
Kids older than 12 can carry shotguns and rifles, and 13 year olds don't need a hunting license to do so.



Judge Schroeder stated that this law was complicated and he needed to review it.

So what charge did Kyle obviously violate?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Judge Drops Rittenhouse Gun Charge, Finds He Legally Carried AR-15 In Kenosha

---

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/judge-drops-rittenhouse-gun-charge-f
inds-he-legally-carried-ar-15-kenosha

Or, for those who bother to follow the embedded link...

Quote:

---

Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful?
Johnathan Turley

In covering the motions hearing last week in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, I noted a surprising comment from Judge Bruce Schroeder that he had “spent hours” with the Wisconsin gun law and could not state with certainty what it means in this case. The statement could effectively knock out the misdemeanor gun possession count — the one count that could still be in play for the jury after the prosecution’s case on the more serious offense appeared to collapse in court. A close examination of that provision reveals ample reason to question not just its meaning but its application to this case.

The unlawful possession of the gun has been a prominent fact cited not only by the prosecutors but the press.

At trial, however, prosecutor Thomas Binger at points seemed to be learning the governing law from Rittenhouse. For example, he pressed Rittenhouse on why he did not just purchase a handgun rather than an AR-15. Rittenhouse replied he could not possess a hand gun at his age. Binger then asked in apparent disbelief that the law allowed him to have an AR-15 but not a handgun and Rittenhouse said yes. Binger then moved on after seemingly drawing out a point for the defense.

The exchange was all the more baffling because it drew attention to the fact that one of Binger’s alleged “victims” was an adult named Gaige Grosskreutz who also decided to bring a handgun to the protests and pointed his .40 caliber Glock at the head of Rittenhouse when he was shot in the arm.

However, the most damaging moment came outside of the presence of the jury when the judge drilled down on the law. He told the prosecutors “I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education.” He added that he failed to understand how an “ordinary citizen” could understand what is illegal.

It is hard to understand how the count could be given to the jury without a clear understanding of what it means. It is also hard to instruct a jury on an ambiguous statute. Criminal laws are supposed to be interpreted narrowly. It is called the “rule of lenity” and has been around in the English system for centuries. For example, in 1547, the court was faced with a law making it a felony to steal “Horses, Geldings or Mares.” Given the use of plural nouns, the court ruled that it did not apply to stealing just one horse.

The problem with the Wisconsin statute is not a problem of pluralization but definition. It is not clear that the statute actually bars possession by Rittenhouse. Indeed, it may come down to the length of Rittenhouse’s weapon and the prosecutors never bothered to measure it and place it into evidence.

In Wisconsin, minors cannot possess short-barreled rifles under Section 941.28. Putting aside the failure to put evidence into the record to claim such a short length, it does not appear to be the case here. Rittenhouse used a Smith & Wesson MP-15 with an advertised barrel length of 16 inches and the overall length is 36.9 inches. That is not a short barrel.

Then there is the rest of the statute and ultimately the word “and.” Under Section 948.60(2)(a) (“Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18”), “[a]ny person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” That makes Rittenhouse guilty, right?

Well, you then have to look at the subsection (c), which states that “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.”

Since there is no evidence that Rittenhouse violated Section 941.28, he presumably must be in violation of both sections 29.304 and 29.593.. The defense conceded Rittenhouse was in violation of Section 29.593, which requires certification for weapons. However, he is not in violation of section 29.304, entitled “Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.” As the title indicates, the section makes it illegal for persons under 16 to use firearms. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time and the prosecution has not challenged that fact.

If Rittenhouse were convicted on that count, it could face a serious challenge on appeal. Indeed, it is curious is why Schroeder would even submit the count to the jury if it is uncontested that Rittenhouse was 17. If that is the correct interpretation of the statute, there would be no way for a jury to reasonably convict Rittenhouse. It is akin to giving the jury a criminal count based on his use of force as a police officer when there is no evidence that he was a police officer.

The defense also offered legislative history to support the narrower interpretation but the prosecution opposed such reliance on material beyond of the language itself. However, that language is difficult to square with the charge and the evidence in this case.

Rittenhouse is obviously facing other counts. However, on that count, the question comes down to the “and.” To paraphrase Johnnie Cochran from the O.J. Simpson trial, if that clause “doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

---

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/14/was-rittenhouses-possession-of-t
he-ar-15-unlawful/

---