Wisconsin and age of exercising rights

[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...re-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]

Originally Posted by Gary L. Griffeths

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]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

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 .

[raimius]

From some of their statements, I think his lawyers are trying to build time and allow the emotional environment to cool off a bit, so he isn't sacrificed on the alter if angry public opinion.

[WeedWacker]

Been listening to Robert Barnes who is cynically insinuating Kyle's lawyers are intent on taking as much of the GoFundMe donations as legal fees and paying as little in actual bail. Considering the legal and financial history of at least one of them, it's a plausible theory, although I disagree. I think they're fighting this from the perspective that Kyle stands a better chance in his state of residence since he's being held there as a minor and I believe Wisconsin might put him in with adults. IANAL so that might be wrong and I'm misunderstanding what I've read.

[Metal god]

Weedwacker , interesting , yeah I've seen Barnes talk about this as well .

That would be a semi good reason to fight the extradition but we/he already knows there will be bail available to him so he's not likely going to spend very long with the big dogs if that's true .

I mean really , What's the likelihood if your facing murder charges in one state . The state you reside in is going to just release you after aresting you for that crime , especially when there's video of you commuting the so called murder . My crystal ball has not been working as of late because I said ACB would not be confirmed before the election but I'm going to look inside it one more time and say " no way he doesn't get sent back to Wisconsin " so why wait ?

[WeedWacker]

Yeah, he's got the money. He should go over to Wisconsin, request some sort of isolation if he needs to be in the gen pop and make bail at the first possible opportunity. His legal team is doing him disfavor by keeping him in Illinois at this point.

[Metal god]

His extradition has been ordered . Not sure the timeline of how everything works now .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

His extradition has been ordered . Not sure the timeline of how everything works now .

Link?

[Edit]Never mind ... https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/30/us/ky...ing/index.html

[Metal god]

I was just thinking about something. How likely is it that one the conditions of his bail/release is that he cannot leave the state of Wisconsin ? Interesting right , but Illinois has already shown that they are willing to arrest him and extradite him . This Leads me to believe they will allow him to go back to Illinois but who knows I guess , any thoughts ?

[WyMark]

Wouldn't this qualify as a strawman purchase?

Police also spoke to Black’s stepfather, who lives in Kenosha. According to the Antioch Police reports, the stepfather told police Black purchased the AR-15 for Rittenhouse in Ladysmith, Wis., using Rittenhouse’s money but putting the gun in his own name.

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/loc...ea87de66c.html

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by WyMark

Wouldn't this qualify as a strawman purchase?

Yes, and apparently Black has now been arrested.

[Metal god]

They did not reduce his bail and it is still $2 million so he needs to come up with $200,000 correct ?

I'd like to know more about that straw purchase . It had been reported Black gave him the gun in Wisconsin , interestingly enough they never said when . It was assumed Black gave him the gun that same night but if he gave him the gun days or months earlier that's a whole different ball game . This also brings up , keeping your mouth shut including you DAD . I knew when I saw at the end of the indictment that Kyle talked with investigators the day of his arrest or shortly after that was going to be a big issue moving forward .

Yes, and apparently Black has now been arrested.

and the Glock yielding felon that chased Kyle down the street has yet to be charged with anything . He may not have been charged yet but he sure has paid a price with half his bicep being blown off .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

I'd like to know more about that straw purchase . It had been reported Black gave him the gun in Wisconsin , interestingly enough they never said when . It was assumed Black gave him the gun that same night but if he gave him the gun days or months earlier that's a whole different ball game .

How is it a whole different ball game?

IF the reports now coming out are correct, the gun was purchased in Wisconsin, which is not Rittenhouse's home state. Rittenhouse is 17, which is too young to puchase a firearm in Wisconsin. According to the reports, Rittenhouse provided the money for Black to purchase the gun, which was then stored at Black's step-father's house.

If that's true, it was a classic straw purchase, regardless of when Black handed the gun to Rittenhouse.

[Metal god]

Right now that’s hear say , dad said Kyle paid for it . How does he know ? Because he was told that ? Doesn’t mean it happened. If the gun was bought and kept at the buyers house I don’t think it matters where the buyer got the money . If I buy a car with money you gave me , put it in my name and the car is always at my house . How is it your car in a court of law ? Even if I let you drive it once in a while doesn’t make it yours .

I will add the optics of this is not good. If these accusations turn out to be true this will be a perfect talking point for universal background checks

[zxcvbob]

Isn't "straw purchase" a federal crime rather than state? Why does Wisconsin care so much all of the sudden, and is charging Black rather than just referring it to the FBI?

Doesn't make the alleged straw purchase right, but it's still a political prosecution.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

Isn't "straw purchase" a federal crime rather than state?

It can be both. I don't know about Wisconsin but I know that my home state has a raft of gun laws that are the same as or very similar to federal gun laws. And I don't think we know exactly what Black was charged with. The federal law doesn't prohibit "straw purchases" by that name, the actual law uses other terminology. "Straw purchase" is just the slang we use to describe the act. Wisconsin law may do likewise.

It IS (apparently) unlawful for a 17-year old to purchase a firearm in Wisconsin. If it's a crime, Black could be charged with something as simple as aiding and abetting the commission of a felony.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Right now that’s hear say , dad said Kyle paid for it . How does he know ? Because he was told that ? Doesn’t mean it happened.

I believe Black himself has told the police that he bought the gun using Kyle's money.

If the gun was bought and kept at the buyers house I don’t think it matters where the buyer got the money . If I buy a car with money you gave me , put it in my name and the car is always at my house .

That's a false analogy. I don't think there are any laws prohibiting the purchase of a motor vehicle by one person on behalf of a second person who is prohibited from purchasing a motor vehicle. But there are laws prohibiting the purchase of firearms on behalf of persons who are not eligible to purchase firearms on their own. So it very much does matter where Black got the money.

It also matters what his intent was. The reports are that Black also had a similar AR-15, so it's not like he needed the one that Rittenhouse was using that night. Certainly, lots and lots of people own multiple AR-15s. But most of them own multiple ARs that they bought with their own money, for their own use. If Black had bought the second AR with his own money, for his own use, and once in awhile he allowed Rittenhouse to shoot it -- that's one thing. It should be obvious that using Rittenhouse's money to buy an AR-15 for Rittenhouse and then agreeing to store Rittenhouse's gun at Black's step-father's house is a different matter entirely.