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.
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.
