Prosecutors want a video of Kyle Rittenhouse accepted into evidence that they say shows him talking about wanting to shoot people, footage taken about two weeks before Rittenhouse fatally shot two protesters in Wisconsin and wounded a third.
The funny thing is that Facebook messages that said more or less the same thing weren’t allowed to be introduced in the trial. My guess is it wouldn’t have mattered. Considering the judge was such a fucking asshole through the whole trial.
Prosecutors wanted to charge Rittenhouse with possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 or some similar charge but the judge waited until the last day to say that he interpreted the law differently and prosecutors wouldn’t be allowed to charge him.
“Prosecutors should have appealed to [Some court I forgot] before the trial was on it’s last day, well I just told you so I guess that one is on me.” - Judge who knew exactly what he was doing.
IIRC there was some law clearly written on bring your kid to work day that said like 15/16+ can carry rifles under the supervision of an adult which he technically was, and then theres also like an additional part about how if you do it while hunting you need a license.
So there was a big debate over if the spirit of the law was to only apply when hunting or if it applied in any situation, and thats what the judge interpreted.
Also it probably wouldnt have mattered either way cause they ruled that bringing a rifle to a protest was valid political expression, and IIRC didnt have any recording or testimony that showed him threatening/provoking people beyond the presence of a rifle, so the text messages/video would be ignored.
948.60 is the “ambiguous” law, but it’s absolutely not ambiguous. I looked into the legislative history on this a while back:
- Current: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60/2/a
- 2005: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/related/acts/163
- 1991: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1991/related/acts/18
The historical intent was to allow people under 18 to possess a firearm if they were hunting. I don’t remember what the weasel word nuance was and don’t care. The prosecutor didn’t even argue that it applied, just declined to even try.
There are a non-zero number of people from this exact situation currently in Wisconsin prison.
https://www.google.com/search?q=948.60+site%3Awicourts.gov
Here’s a quote from one such individuals appeal:
After independently reviewing the records and the no-merit report, we conclude there are no issues of arguable merit that could be raised on appeal and summarily affirm the judgments of conviction. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21. https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=108193
The court assigned lawyer argued that another court assigned lawyer did nothing wrong during the initial trial/plea agreement by having his assigned “criminal” plea to a law that doesn’t apply to white fascists. :lenin-rage:
It’s selective enforcement by design.
yeah idk why they didn’t go after him separately for the possession/straw purchase with a hopefully different judge since that explicitly wasn’t one of the charges on trial.
that judge needs to be disbarred and thrown in a pit
Apparently the guy that did the straw purchase got a plea deal for a 2000 dollar fine cause he waived his fifth amendment rights or something, I dont get exactly all the technicalities behind why Rittenhouse was not charged but it seems like its cause his cousin or whatever was the one who lied on the forms to say he bought it for himself, and it isnt clear if it was illegal for Rittenhouse to actually own a rifle and bullshit like that.
Edit: Best explanation I found is that the main illegal thing done was that his cousin friend whatever lied on the proper forms, but the straw purchase in itself would only be illegal if done for someone who is not permitted to own guns because of a crime or something. Also Rittenhouse didnt technically take possession of the rifle he just used it while it was owned by his friend still? Possibly.
it was illegal for him to possess it in wisconsin, i’m not sure what “technically take possession” would mean in this context, but roaming the streets with it sure sounds like what that’s supposed to mean
