rittenhouse trial judge schroeder
(Sean Krajacic/The Kenosha News via AP, Pool)

Ahead of the prosecution and defense presenting their closing arguments to the jury in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, Judge Bruce Schroeder has dismissed one of the charges against the defendant. Rittenhouse was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. Judge Schroeder, however, ruled that the Wisconsin law is poorly written.

From wsoctv.com . . .

The charge is only a misdemeanor, but it had appeared to be among the likeliest to net a conviction for prosecutors. There’s no dispute that Rittenhouse was 17 when he carried an AR-style semi-automatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha in August 2020 and used it to kill two men and wound a third.

But the defense argued that Wisconsin’s statute had an exception that could be read to clear Rittenhouse. That exception involves whether or not a rifle or shotgun is short-barreled.

The prosecution conceded that Rittenhouse’s rifle is not a short-barrel rifle under the law and the judge dismissed the charge. Schroeder had earlier dismissed a charge of failing to comply with a curfew order when the prosecution presented no evidence that a curfew order was in force.

That means that on the night of the shooting in Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse was legally armed with a legal firearm in a town in which he worked and where his father lived.

Rittenhouse still faces charges of first degree intentional homicide, first degree reckless homicide, attempted first degree intentional homicide, and two counts of first degree recklessly endangering safety.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

180 COMMENTS

      • As said before…The age, license silliness should never have been on the table. Too many took it and ran with it to nowhere.

        Now all that remains is the waiting to see if the jury was stacked with known biased azzhats or not.

        • If I’m on the jury this biased asshat makes sure Rittenhouse walks. It’s all about fooling the prosecutor during selection. Nice to see the prosecutor getting his ass handed to him. I hope it continues.

        • Prosecutor only read the first opening paragraph of Wisocnsin lw concerning who can possess what in the way of firearms. Had he troubled himself to ctually READ the later chapters and sectioins he’d have realised there was no offoense.

          On the other hand, after seeing this freak in actio during the trial, how likely is it t at he did indeed raed the entire law, KNEW Kyle was not guilty or chargeable with this section, and charged him anyway hopeing Kyle would plead guitly to athat section and be tossed into the pokey for a while.

          This would be a maliscious and false prosecution, chargeable to this Binger dirtbag. That would make all this worth it, to see him hoist upon his own petard, caught by the very trap he set for an innocent man. Dare I hope?

        • Tionico,
          I’d say it’s extremely likely that he read that and understood it. From the parts of the trial I’ve listened to, it sounds like he’s just trying to make Kyle look bad instead of proving murder.

          The prosecutor just had the audacity to say that Kyle provoked the encounter by carrying the rifle. That would mean no one could ever carry because they would always be responsible for murder when defending themselves. It makes no sense.

          He’s trying to lock someone up that didn’t murder anyone and he knows it. Pure evil.

    • 2:19 PM –

      The judge just polled the jury to ask them, if they were presented the case by 4 PM, would they like to stay to start jury deliberations that night?

      The judge counted 8 jurors who wanted to stay that night. That could be good news for our side…

        • “the longer this takes the more likely outcome is a hung jury….”

          read on some news feed that two jurors requested information about the charges because they were afraid they would be attacked, and “outted”.

  2. Hmmmm….that was one of the “lesser included charges” that I referred to in my comment on Alan Dershowitz. Makes acquittal more likely. Hope so.

  3. “…two counts of first degree recklessly endangering safety.”

    A win/win? Rittenhouse free on murder charges (all of them), and the prosecution gets a conviction?

    • Such a ruling would imply that ANYONE defending themselves with a firearm would, by definition, be guilty of reckless endangerment (because bullets travel) unless the circumstances of the shoot and the surroundings are absolutely perfect. I hope the jury sees right through this ploy. Not a win/win at all.

      • “Such a ruling would imply that ANYONE defending themselves with a firearm would, by definition, be guilty of reckless endangerment…”

        Beware the jury of “reasonable” persons who would consider Kyle’s presence unreasonable from the git-go. Those “reasonable” jurors are looking for a way to support their thinking that they represent what a “reasonable” person would do, in the circumstance…such as not being there.

    • The prosecution would need to pierce his “pure” self-defense defense.

      Let’s if the Judge sanctions the prosecution after the trial.

      Free Kyle

      • You are not fooling me. You are just trying to fit in. Previously you were against kids even learning about guns and having rifle teams in schools. Or having them open carry when supervised by an adult family member.

        • The 2A allows for all that Chris.

          And within the 2A the phrase “well regulated” means to be kept in good working order.

          Free Kyle

    • don’t see reckless endangerment…his fire was very disciplined and directed…and somebody really needs to tell that prosecutor what really happens when a bullet from that gun strikes somebody…full metal jacket or no…..

      • “…don’t see reckless endangerment…”

        Would argue that Kyle brought a firearm to an event easily foreseeable to become volatile, and dangerous. Add to the fact that there were others armed who did not press their recklessness beyond prudence in that only Kyle actually caused death and grievous bodily harm. Anything to show that Kyle was not acting the way a “reasonable” person (juror) would normally act in the same circumstances.

        Remember, this is a criminal trial. The truth does not matter, only what the prosecution can “prove”. (same for the defense)

        • Ah–but a reasonable person (juror) was assumed to have been in a bar fight before…per the douche canoe prosecutor. Perhaps one of these reasonable people would LIKE to have an AR-15 rather than get their teeth kicked in during a Road House event?

    • i’ve always felt this case hinges on the first shooting…shooting once to stop someone who is advancing on you in maniacal fashion is self-defense…but 4 times?….two from an elevated position…and one of those in the back?..the jury may feel this was excessive

      • “and one of those in the back”

        The nation has long held that all persons shot in the back were ambushed, or trying to flee. actually, there are numerous reasons for shots entering the back: turning away from danger (but not fleeing); action vs. reaction timing; reaching for a weapon, and more….

      • 4 shots in 0.76 seconds, while the attacker was running and lunging toward him.

        If you think you would have processed the changing nature of the threat any faster than 0.76 seconds, you’re full of it. Or maybe you play too many video games.

      • frank speaking, You continue to shoot until the threat is stopped. As to the shot that went into the back, that could well be due to the perpetrator turning due to being hit by one of the first three.

  4. The remaining charges include “intentional homicide” and such. In light of the abundance of exculpatory video evidence suggesting pure self defense, as well as the clownplay from the prosecution, I foresee Kyle being acquitted from all charges and walking free, as should be outcome anyhow.

    Once that happens, expect more “mostly peaceful protests” in Wisconsin and surrounds, as well as elitist heads exploding in the MSM. Grab your popcorn.

        • “We really need 12 people with strong moral character.”

          Leftist Scum are doing everything they can to make sure that never happens…

        • “need 12 people with strong moral character”

          may not be possible anymore. they’d certainly be called racist sexist bigoted pedophobes.

        • rant the MAP is the latest rebrand to try to make pedos accepted Minor Attracted Person. Somehow I think that will not go over as well as the people pushing it are hoping.

        • “I think that will not go over as well as”

          the fact that we’re where we are at all is completely appalling. the founding fathers would have rebelled decades ago. if you’d told people even just five years ago that we’d be where we are now, they’d have laughed at you.

          when this snaps back the destruction will be near universal.

          if it ever snaps back. kinda don’t think it will.

        • The more visible the agenda becomes the less support it attains. Not to say it won’t crash the country but I have hope the majority will reject the commie/fascist/whatever brand of degenerate totalitarianism that has been pushed on us since the council of foreign relations became a thing. And if I am wrong about it I just need to take off the tin foil and go for a nice hike in the woods.

        • rant7, Do us a favor and take your Leftist-Socialist propaganda and put it where the sun don’t shine?

      • Yup, both of us. Still remains to be seen as to the moral fiber of the jury on the rest. Denial in the face of fact is always a possibility, and one that’s widespread in the MSM and the sheep that follow them.

        • Before the court recessed for lunch, the judge polled the jury to see if they were interested in beginning jury deliberations immediately after closing arguments concluded. The judge counted 8 votes for ‘yes’.

          If that’s for a 12-member jury, it sounds like they have made their minds up already on the outcome…

      • the case really hinges on the rosenbaum shooting…and the way he shot him four times…but the prosecution failed to stress that….

  11. “Judge Dismisses Illegal Possession Charge Against Kyle Rittenhouse Before Closing Arguments”

    Uh Oh

  12. Enough of this bullshit trial already. Cut him loose as not guilty and let him go so we can be done with this corrupted trial. Lock and load for the idiots hell-bent on rioting.

    • Absolutely. He will most certainly be sued. I was a so-called expert witness at quite a few civil suits like this. The standard for guilt and culpability is different. Government employees are mostly off the hook on the taxpayer’s dole. Big cities like Chicago pay out multi-millions annually in pre-trial settlelments. But the private or self-employed average worker are screwed for life. The proof can be based on a preponderance of evidence which can be mostly circumstantial which pragmatically means it can be subjectively tilted by the court. Things like negligence come into play.

      If he gets a liberal judge the severity of monetary damages and judgments can affect his entire future. That’s why Alex Jones refused to reveal his assets on that court order for his Sandy Hook suit. He’d rather try to disburse and hide his assets before they find out all that he has otherwise they’ll take every penny he has, and everything he can ever make in the future for the rest of his life. Facing a few months in jail for contempt is better than being dead broke the rest of your life. They move very fast to find and nail down every single thing you have. There is a special court-appointed team that does this even before the trial actually begins so they know everything to take from you even before you’re convicted.

      • “Absolutely. He will most certainly be sued. I was a so-called expert witness at quite a few civil suits like this. ”

        Wisconsin law does not provide protection from civil suit if a person is acquitted of a criminal charge?

        • “protection from civil suit if a person is acquitted of a criminal charge?”

          is there such a thing? criminal and civil courts are entirely separate worlds.

        • can loe biden be sued for labeling him a white supremacist?….

          Braindead made that statement as a private citizen and possible Presidential Candidate… Yes he can be sued, A private citizen may sue the President over alleged actions undertaken before or independently of the Presidential office. When the President acts on the authority of his office in any way, he is shielded by the doctrines of immunity. Four sitting Presidents have been sued or private actions. Trump (of course) and suits against Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman were dismissed while one involving President John F. Kennedy was settled.

    • The disposition of any criminal charges usually has a bearing on civil suits. That is, Groskreutz rushed out to file a ten million dollar lawsuit against Kenosha (I think the city and the county, not certain) but he has testified, in court, and under oath, that Kyle never shot until Grosskreutz first stuck a pistol in Kyle’s face. If he insists on pursuing that civil suit, that evidence will weigh heavily against Grosskreutz – meaning has has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.

      I’m no lawyer, but I’ve seen that sort of thing play out in the past.

  14. “That means that on the night of the shooting in Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse was legally armed with a legal firearm in a town in which he worked and where his father lived.”

    This is false.

    All a dismissal of a charge means, in effect, a denial of the relief sought by the prosecution – in other words it means it will not be prosecuted. A dismissal in a criminal prosecution is a decision of a courts discretion prior to a trial or before a verdict is reached, and terminates the proceedings of the dismissed charge against the defendant – in other words it will not be prosecuted.

    A dismissal does not “legalize” what ever the dismissal was for.

    • What an absurd response. Due process: innocent until proven guilty. His actions were lawful until proven otherwise. The State failed to prove otherwise. Therefore, his actions remain as before: lawful.

      • “innocent until proven guilty”

        in a legitimate trial, sure. but this is a political show trial. “first the verdict, then the trial.”

        • “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”
          -CNN Anchors, Editorial Staff and Management

          (yeh, I know that Lavrentiy Beria is credited with the saying…but with CNN and blatant cultural appropriation by the Progressives it should be attributed to them).

        • Oh, no doubt. This was a political show trial from the very moment Rittenhouse was charged. You’re just mad that the State had no evidence to prove their case and the judge is insisting on respecting the rights of the accused.

          Cope harder.

      • Not this myth again.

        No, he is ASSUMED innocent of the charge until until proven guilty of the charge. It does not mean his actions were lawful until he is proven guilty, or became lawful if not proven guilty.

        A dismissal does not mean any of that.

        • more fully, commonly held often incorrectly due to the mixture of terms “presumption” and “assumed”, its : A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. “assumed” used here is incorrect because it means “to suppose” in this usage. But this is the common public usage so here we are.

          More correctly its: presumed innocent until they have been proven guilty – which means the court has a confidently held belief that the defendant is innocent at the beginning of the trial.

          Neither one has a bearing on if what the defendant did was legal or not – only that they were charged with violating a law and either did or did not violate the law – it does not mean that their actions were legal if found innocent, only that their actions were illegal if found guilty. The “innocent before guilty” concept is a two edge sword.

        • Jeopardy has attached; dismissal of the charge at this point is a directed verdict of acquittal.

          From the standpoint of criminal law, he has been found not guilty; ergo, as far as the State of Wisconsin is concerned, that he did not violate that law is now res judicata (unless overturned on appeal, which is exceedingly unlikely).

          Of course, none of that has any impact on any civil case (civil litigants suing Rittenhouse are not going to be bound by the res judicata effect of the criminal case).

        • yes, not guilty in effect by not continuing prosecution.

          also, maybe, Wisconsin 939.48 “Self-defense and defense of others”

          A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one’s self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other.

          — Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975)

      • would be preferable if the prosecutor actually read the law in its entirety…which he apparently didn’t do…appears the gun was legally possessed if it was not an SBR…and it wasn’t….

    • “That means that on the night of the shooting in Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse was legally armed with a legal firearm in a town in which he worked and where his father lived.”

      This is false. ????

      THOSE are EXACTLY the facts… Kyle was LEGALLY armed with a LEGAL firearm in Kenosha Wisconsin where, in fact his father DOES live and where he actually DID work as a Lifeguard… What part of that statement is false?

      939.49 might be used against Kyle as he is not related to nor was employed by the owner of the car lot but no one asked the question, “Did you shoot in defense of the business or did you shoot AFTER you were attacked?” Seems to me if he was defending the business he would have fired long before he was physically assaulted and only one shooting was actually on the car lot property… Kyle walks after a short deliberation…

      • Its false because a dismissal does not mean that. The statement is talking about the dismissal meaning that. A dismissal does not mean anything of the sort. A dismissal does not make something legal or illegal, it only (basically) stops prosecution of the charge by dismissing it. A dismissal has nothing to do with where his father lives.

        I was talking about 939.48, that specific part I cited, in terms of civil liability.

        • You’re still making a pointless argument. Innocence is presumed until proven otherwise. No trial in the history of the United States has ever resulted in a verdict of “innocent”. Verdicts are “guilty” and “not guilty”. If that is difficult to grasp, refer back to the presumption of innocence.

        • @ Chip

          you still miss the point. But now you change your argument to use presumed after I pointed it out but originally you said

          “Due process: innocent until proven guilty. His actions were lawful until proven otherwise. The State failed to prove otherwise. Therefore, his actions remain as before: lawful.”

          which is simply not true. His actions are not lawful because the state “failed to prove otherwise”. His actions are presumed lawful because the law is not written in such a manner as to make his actions specifically illegal which is why the prosecution could not prove its case.

          “No trial in the history of the United States has ever resulted in a verdict of “innocent”. Verdicts are “guilty” and “not guilty”.”

          now you’re just making stuff up. I never said anything of the sort, I was just addressing your untrue comments.

          “presumption of innocence” does not mean something was legal or illegal – it only means the court has a confidently held belief that the defendant is innocent at the beginning of the trial.

          “Innocence is presumed until proven otherwise.”

          Ok, simply put; the concepts of innocent guilty are only judgments as to if the person violated the law or not. It does not make what they did legal or illegal as those are already defined or not defined in written law, its a matter of if the person violated the law or not.

        • This is some rather leafy word salad:

          Ok, simply put; the concepts of innocent guilty are only judgments as to if the person violated the law or not. It does not make what they did legal or illegal as those are already defined or not defined in written law, its a matter of if the person violated the law or not.

          Does this go best with oil and vinegar dressing?

          You are claiming that legal determinations of “guilty” and “not guilty”, based on application of law to evidence presented, are not judgements regarding the lawfulness of one’s actions with respect to the law in question? Really? That’s what you’re going with?

          That someone’s actions were deemed to be lawful is exactly what a “not guilty” verdict means. That is the only way a society can function under the Rule of Law.

        • Does this go best with oil and vinegar dressing

          I prefer a nice Raspberry Vinaigrette made with Balsamic (not Red Wine) vinegar…

        • @Chip Bennett

          “You are claiming that legal determinations of “guilty” and “not guilty”, based on application of law to evidence presented, are not judgements regarding the lawfulness of one’s actions with respect to the law in question? Really? That’s what you’re going with?

          That someone’s actions were deemed to be lawful is exactly what a “not guilty” verdict means. That is the only way a society can function under the Rule of Law.”

          Once again you missed the point entirely.

          1. “”You are claiming that legal determinations of “guilty” and “not guilty”, based on application of law to evidence presented, are not judgements regarding the lawfulness of one’s actions with respect to the law in question? Really? That’s what you’re going with?”

          I never claimed that. Stop reading with a confirmation biased eye.

          2. “That someone’s actions were deemed to be lawful is exactly what a “not guilty” verdict means.”

          False

          “not guilty
          [not guilty]
          DEFINITION

          innocent, especially of a formal charge.”

          The legal definition of not guilty is: not guilty the verdict of a court that a person is not, in law or in fact, responsible for the crime charged against him.

          Key phrase there is “responsible for the crime charged against him” – not that their actions were legal or illegal.

          The concept of legal and illegal, in relation to charges, only applies in the written law. For there, if charged and tried, a verdict of “not guilty” only means they were not “responsible for the crime charged against” them, in other words they did not violate the law.

          Not violating the law does not mean you are/were acting either legally or illegally, it just mean you were not acting contrary to the law in the eyes of the law as adjudicated by a court. It does not mean what you did was legal, only that the state failed to prove that you violated the law. A not guilty verdict does not say (deem) a persons actions to be lawful, only that the accused is deemed to not be responsible for the law violation because the state either failed to prove its case or it was otherwise adjudicated the person was not responsible for the law violation.

          The very concept of “not guilty” in our legal system says a violation of law happened (or was thought/believed to happen), its just a matter of if the person was responsible or not for violating the law.

          You are using the misguided common layman understanding.

        • So once again,

          “That means that on the night of the shooting in Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse was legally armed with a legal firearm in a town in which he worked and where his father lived.”

          This is false.

          All a dismissal of a charge means, in effect, a denial of the relief sought by the prosecution – in other words it means it will not be prosecuted. A dismissal in a criminal prosecution is a decision of a courts discretion prior to a trial or before a verdict is reached, and terminates the proceedings of the dismissed charge against the defendant – in other words it will not be prosecuted.

          A dismissal does not “legalize” what ever the dismissal was for.

        • Hung jury, some dumb ass paid more attention to the “provocation” BS laid out by the prosecutor and just can’t get a grip on self defense…

        • Turns out the protests outside can be heard by the jury and several individuals, including George Floyds brother, have been caught secretly photographing jurors and Rittenhouse supporters have been assaulted in the street… Those jurors must fear for their own safety as well as the safety of their families… Judge just gave them the hi-def version of the FBI drone video, clearly shows Rittenhouse being pursued and attacked before he shot… I think at this point the best we can hope for is deadlock and Prosecution declines to retry…

    • You may parse words, and decide that the dismissal does or does not mean any particular thing. However, Kyle Rittenhouse was indeed legally carrying a legal weapon on the night in question. Because he was 100% legal, the charges were dropped.

      • Kyle Rittenhouse was indeed legally carrying a legal weapon on the night in question. Because he was 100% legal, the charges were dropped.”

        false

        1. The weapon its self being legal is still up in the air. The feds are waiting out there for this case to conclude, they will probably at some point move to prosecute him for a “straw purchase” and have already arrested his friend that did the purchase for him.

        all this dismissal did was dismiss the possession by a minor, not if the weapon its self was legal or not legal.

        2. No, the charge was not dropped “Because he was 100% legal” – the charge was dismissed because in the courts discretion prior to a verdict the judge decided to dismiss the charge based upon the state not proving their case.

  16. I predict conviction, on something, anything. the ones behind this won’t tolerate a citizen defending himself from their political thugs and kgb.

    • I’m predicting the opposite. The jurors all are from, or live close to Kenosha. The riots affected their lives, personally in most cases. There has been no breakdown offered by MSM, but each of them probably finds it convenient to shop in Kenosha, at least sometimes. Some of them may be friends, or even related to, those business owners and managers whose businesses were destroyed. Every one of them has driven through Kenosha to see first hand what the rioters did to their city.

      I’m expecting acquittal on all serious charges, and perhaps a little quibling on minor charges. Since the illegal possession charge has been tossed – there aren’t many minor charges to quibble over.

      Let’s remember that the prosecution wouldn’t even consider a curfew violation charge, which might have been their most-likely-to-succeed charge.

      • and stops pretty quickly when it hits something….tried one at ten feet on a concrete block…smashed one side, left the other side intact…

    • It was never inadequate for self-defense. Even “target” 5.56 XM193 55 grain FMJ will be perfectly fine for self/home defense ranges. If you get out to about 250 yards and further, may need to fire a few more rounds.

      yes, now someone is going to say “but but but look at this-that-other …”

      okidokee

      • “Even “target” 5.56 XM193 55 grain FMJ will be perfectly fine for self/home defense ranges. If you get out to about 250 yards and further, may need to fire a few more rounds.”

        the m193 was the original milspec load.

        after wwii a survey of infantry action demonstrated that the average infantry combat encounter distance was 21 feet.

        • We’ve got a ton of that stuff, haven’t weighed it but just knowing what we do have and the approximate weight per container we literally have a ton of that stuff at a minimum. We got storage units full of all sorts of ammo in a bunch of different calibers.

      • tried it on the range…will not knock down a steel silhouette beyond 200 metres…and full-metal jacket was actually designed to make a round more humane

        • …but not in this case…we all know about the “tumbling” effect…which was actually lauded when it was first introduced…sort of an end run around the Hague Compact….

    • Depends on the purpose.
      For a self defense round at ranges inside of 300 yards, yes. A similar assertion can be made for shotguns depending on ammunition. In a riot situation where one is confronted by a densely packed mob of assailants, #4 buckshot fired through a rifled choke tube is awesome.

    • “which reminds me. anyone still think 5.56 nato is inadequate?”

      “at 21 feet”

      Yes, adequate for closer engagement.

        • I’ve actually read multiple articles for the past year plus answering that question. They said minorities were arming themselves against the threat of white supremacy. As the Puppet says, no joke!

        • If by white supremacy they mean massively funded pseudo anarchy groups that focused on destroying small businesses that disproportionately impacted minorities then yes that is true. And the minorities up this way are still pissed and very prepared for round 2.

        • There are a million reasons why. If you interview all the millions who have bought their first weapon in the past two years, you can run them through a database program, and tabulate the top 100 reasons with ease.

          Bottom line, a lot of people are waking up to the fact that they are their own first responders. No one can arrive on the scene of a crime faster than the perpetrator(s), and the victim(s).

      • …except for the town’s pocketbook…damages total about half their annual budget…arguing for a more forceful response from law enforcement….

      • fires can spread…perhaps to occupied buildings…remember Mrs Oleary?…and she didn’t even do it on purpose!…..

  19. Judge did not dismiss. Mr. Rittenhouse did not meet all 3 criteria to be in violation of the law. It should not have been brought forward. In this case the prosecution had been given a lot of leeway, even discussing details which were not to be brought up per the judge’s instructions. The prosecution even brought up Mr. Rittenhouse’s 5th amendment rights. This trial has been a joke. There are too many laws and prosecutors are given too many options, no matter how ridiculous.

  20. Judge did not dismiss. Mr. Rittenhouse did not meet all 3 criteria to be in violation of the law. It should not have been brought forward. In this case the prosecution had been given a lot of leeway, even discussing details which were not to be brought up per the judge’s instructions. The prosecution even brought up Mr. Rittenhouse’s 5th amendment rights. This trial has been a joke. There are too many laws and prosecutors are given too many options, no matter how ridiculous. Let’s not forget the charges, way too many for my liking.

  22. @Chip Bennett
    “That someone’s actions were deemed to be lawful is exactly what a “not guilty” verdict means.”

    OK, let me get into the legal/language war, here.

    “Not guilty” seems more akin to “Not Proven”. Don’t we see this quite often? Where a defendant is “obviously” guilty, but managed to arrange things so that proving guilt is impossible? Or situations where juries decide to send a message that they agree with the actions of the defendant, even though the direct evidence plainly supports a “guilty” verdict?

    We do have a legal theory of “innocent until proven guilty”, or “assumption of innocence until proven guilty”. Note, however, both statements use the term “proven guilty”. Thus, the better wording for verdicts should be understood as “proven”, or “not proven”. Trying to overturn a popular phrase/understanding is a Quixotic quest.

    • “‘Not guilty’ seems more akin to ‘Not Proven’. Don’t we see this quite often?”

      only in scotland. and I believe they did away with the “not proven” option.

      • “only in scotland. and I believe they did away with the “not proven” option.”

        Was not aware of that. Disappointing.

      • Sam is correct at the root of it, only here in the U.S. our ‘Not Proven’ is expressed as ‘not responsible’ which is what “not guilty” is.

        The legal definition of not guilty is: the verdict of a court that a person is not, in law or in fact, responsible for the crime charged against him.

        That verdict is based upon the ability of the state to either prove its case or not prove its case. Or in other words ‘Not Proven’ or “Proven”

        A verdict of “Not Guilty” does not mean a persons actions were legal or illegal, only that the person was not responsible for a violation of the law because the state failed to prove its case or it was otherwise adjudicated the person was not guilty.

  23. If it is true that the AR was bought with Kyle’s money by a friend because Kyle was under age, that is potentially a Straw Purchase. A Federal crime that the state has no jurisdiction over, but the DoJ does.

    The state legal actions are not the end of this thing.

    Ignorant youngster is innocent of shooting people, that was clear-cut self defense. But it is not clear he is free of criminal liability for other crimes in other courts.

    • As it was explained earlier Kyle gave the money as a “gift” which was used by the friend to purchase the AR which was then to be “gifted” to Kyle when he turned 18… It’s a word game the Left uses all the time so why can’t we… It’s only a straw purchase (a crime) if the firearm is purchased for a person who is by law deemed ineligible to possess the firearm, Kyle Rittenhouse was not prohibited from possession of a rifle at the time… The firearm never left the state and was still the legal property of the friend who legally allowed Kyle to borrow the firearm that night… Kyle will be acquitted, charges against the friend will be dropped and there will be no further charges filed against either of them unless the DOJ wants to drag up some Civil Rights crap which never existed in this case… Any civil action against Kyle will also fail… Lefty by his own admission had pointed his weapon at Kyle twice before he was shot so he’s done and the other two were actually assaulting Kyle when they were shot while participating in a violent (mostly peaceful) unlawful act of rioting and destroying private property…

      • Yeah, word salad. They were flirting with that strawman purchase law. If the circumstances were slightly changed to a number of slightly different scenarios, they would be burnt by the ATF. I questioned from the beginning why no one was being charged with a straw purchase.

        They skated on thin ice, but I think the ice held – this time.

      • Doesn’t matter how they try to spin it. It was a Straw Purchase. The kid violated Federal law and should be charged as should the friend that made the buy. I agree with everyone else that he is innocent of murder by right of self defense, but he was illegally in possession of the gun no matter how much spin you put on it.

    • straw purchase usually defines as an immediate transfer to someone who can’t legally purchase…not a delayed transfer once that person’s status has changed…weak case…he may have bought it for him but he retained possession…until the night of the shooting when he, in effect…loaned it to him….

      • This is not a straw purchase. Kyle was legally prohibited by age at the time of purchase, not because he had a disqualifying reason as stated in the questions of a 4473 form. Since it was presumed that Kyle would turn 18 and at such time meet the legal requirements, his friend was helping him in good faith and acting as a responsible citizen. If Kyle had been adjucated mentally defective, renounced his citizenship, discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions, et cetera, then this would have met the criteria. I realize that the first question is ‘Are you the ACTUAL purchaser…’ however that doesn’t apply, as the person who signed the form and was submitted to a NICS check WASTHE ACTUAL PURCHASER at the time of the sale. That’s a trick question to trap morons.

      • “[can’t use a gun for self-defense???]”

        Probably trying to claim a disproportionate use of force. Gun against, rock, skateboard, hammer, knife, screwdriver, etc, is unfair, and proof of intent to kill; not defend against being killed.

        • think he’s saying the presence of a gun will provoke a response…thereby making you the aggressor and not entitled to the protection of a claim of self-defense…pretty convoluted logic…

  25. And then there is always jury nullification. Only one juror has to say not guilty even if the defendant is guilty of breaking the law in question. Juries not only judge the defendant but they also judge the law. I wonder if the federal government will be bold enough to charge him for anything after he’s acquitted in this case?

    • “And then there is always jury nullification.”

      I think that “nullification” is quite different from a “hung” jury. A single juror refusing to join all the others in agreeing with a verdict, doesn’t “nullify” a law. A “nullification” appears to be a situation where a jury acquits the defendant despite violation of published law. A “hung” jury only leads to the question of whether to re-try the defendant.

      • Very true. Lawyers and judges positively HATE the idea of nullification. If I may, I’ll define nullification as the jury deciding that application of law will result in an injustice. They’re saying, “We don’t care that the defendant broke this or that law, the law is unjust.”

  26. “I’ll define nullification as the jury deciding that application of law will result in an injustice…”

    Nicely done

  27. @frank speak
    “perhaps a “reasonable”[person wouldn’t be there torching buildings?”

    Perhaps, however….

    A “reasonable” person would know the rioters were only justifiably evening the score, seeking equity. And of course, the riots were mostly peaceful, and Kyle’s incident was clearly not mostly “peaceful”.

    Lotsa room for legal mischief by the prosecutors.

      • “mostly peaceful”?…you could read a newspaper by the glow of all those fires….”

        Hence the media use of the term “mostly peaceful”. Kinda like a former mayor of New Orleans who declared that if one ignores all the crime, New Orleans is a safe place to visit.

        • it usually is…just stay off of those backstreets…especially after dark…even Vegas can get “lonely” when you venture off the strip

  28. Dang, we’ve got some real “experts” who are putting their paralegal associate degree to work here 🤣

  29. The Illustrious Prosecutor actually stood up in a court of law today and pointed an AR15 AT the jury with his finger on the trigger while explaining how the child rapist (Newly released documents obtained by Wisconsin Right Now from the Pima County (Arizona) Clerk of Courts confirm Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity with children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old. He was convicted of two amended counts as part of a plea deal) and the habitual Domestic Abuse offender (at least 8 convictions of felony and misdemeanor assault and Domestic Violence) were actually heroes reacting to an “active shooter” but failed to explain how Rosenbaum could react to a “shooter” that had not yet fired a shot…

  30. “The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old.”

    Now I understand why the MSM has been avoiding talking about this “happy” rapist. They tried really hard to not talk about a crossdressing rapist in a Virginia elementary school.

    • Yeah well it turns out that “Lefty Grosskreutz” is NOT the squeaky clean anarchist the MSM has tried to picture him as either… Seems he had a DUI case dismissed just a week before his illustrious appearance and has multiple DUI arrest/convictions also possession of a concealed firearm while intoxicated (x2), burglary, assault AND the common POS hit his Grandmother in the face with a lamp… A truly stellar group of “heroes”…

        • Anarchists advocating for anarchy… Grosskreutz was even caught at a Police Station videotaping cops private vehicles at 1 AM just a few days before he encountered Kyle…

        • It gets better, the fourth guy (aka Jumpkick Guy) the one that jumped and kicked Kyle in the head while he was on the ground, is ALSO a convicted felon whose latest contact pending with the judicial system involves an assault on his girlfriend after he threw her to the ground and beat her, indeed “true American heroes” one and all.. OBTW: Rosenbaum had just been released from a mental institution THAT DAY… Just normal everyday citizens doing their moral duty…

    • can’t call them pedophiles anymore…believe the new term is “minor attracted individuals”…strong push on to legalize or at least gain acceptance for these detestable people

  31. @Julio
    “Ah–but a reasonable person (juror) was assumed to have been in a bar fight before….”

    Ah, but I, as the reasonable person sitting on that jury, would know that I have never been in a bar fight, would flee a bar fight, never enter a bar in a sketchy location, never be in a sketchy location if at all possible, and assess a person who knowingly entered a sketchy bar in a sketchy location with some amount of blame for the circumstances resulting from the bar fight.

    It is quite difficult for perhaps most non-2A defenders to overlook prejudice, and focus solely on “rights”. The possibility that someone exercising their “right” to possess, and legally use a firearm, is frightful because that person might not act reasonably (prudently) under all circumstances…thus make me an innocent victim of that person’s exercise of a natural, human and civil right. People are not as we wish them to be, but merely what they are.

    • Sam I Am If you want to call that “reasonable” so be it. But there is an old adage. “Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.”

        • frank speaking It is a very important case. The Left wants to take away our RIGHT to SELF DEFENSE. We cannot let that happen.

  32. “think he’s saying the presence of a gun will provoke a response…thereby making you the aggressor and not entitled to the protection of a claim of self-defense…pretty convoluted logic…”

    Fits the narrative of people being triggered by simply viewing someone with a gun.

Comments are closed.