Get a free Kyle Rittenhouse at Culver's

Lithose said:

Does the law stipulate the exemption exists for those reasons?

Click to expand...

I'd 100% rather have all or nothing. Too easy for jurors to see going for lesser charges as a responsible compromise. I also don't see how you could agree that it was legitimate self defense and not murder, but somehow still a crime

Would smaller charges affect enlisting or firefighter / police stuff down the road?

Kharzette said:

Would smaller charges affect enlisting or firefighter / police stuff down the road?

Click to expand...

If they don't land much of anything on him he can try and have his record expunged but yeah, it could blow all that up forever.

Kharzette said:

Would smaller charges affect enlisting or firefighter / police stuff down the road?

Click to expand...

I believe a misdemeanor conviction would limit his MOS options in the military and cut off law enforcement entirely. I would guess that a fire station would be more concerned about the publicity of hiring him than the conviction.

Any felony conviction would pretty much ruin his life.

GuardianX said:

In today's political climate with "OPTICS" I doubt too many places around the nation would employ him as police, MAYBE fire fighter.

Like can you imagine the blowback if he shoots anyone during his time as a police officer?

Even if his legal record can be sealed / expunged, the internet is forever.

Click to expand...

Change your name, change your gender, move one county over.

Gavinmad said:

2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations :: 948. Crimes against children. :: 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

law.justia.com

Click to expand...

"948.60(3)(c) (c) 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."

Not in violation, this is about short-barreled weapons.

Not out of compliance, as this only refers to those younger than 16.

This has to do with obtaining permission to hunt, which Kyle wasn't doing. Doesn't apply to him/not out of compliance.


Basically, there is an unspoken carve-out for 16-17 yo's to have a gun as long as they are otherwise following the rules. This could have been written seriously better, but here we are.

Gavinmad said:

2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations :: 948. Crimes against children. :: 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

law.justia.com

Click to expand...

Doesn't it say in there for rifles and shotguns it only applies if the person under 18 isn't in compliance with the law regarding short barrels (941.28) which isn't in question. Or not in compliance with hunting permit laws and under 16, which isn't in question.

948.60(3)(c) (c) 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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Click to expand...

The deadly weapon section only applies to someone under 18 possessing a rifle if they're violating short barrel laws or violating under 16 or hunting permit laws?

Maybe just not seeing what you're intending to cite.

The way I read it short barreled rifles and shotguns are illegal in WI for everyone and that law supersedes 948.60

OneofOne said:

Basically, there is an unspoken carve-out for 16-17 yo's to have a gun as long as they are otherwise following the rules. This could have been written seriously better, but here we are.

Click to expand...

Jinx! But yeah, reads to me 16-17 can possess a rifle or shotgun as long as it's not prohibited short barrel and/or they aren't illegally hunting.

And it doesn't even seem like an unspoken carve out. Seems pretty clear and intentional unless there is some other section I'm not seeing.

Gavinmad said:

The way I read it short barreled rifles and shotguns are illegal in WI for everyone and that law supersedes 948.60

Click to expand...

You'd think the prosecutor would have mentioned if he had an, umm, sawed off AR-15?

from 941.28

(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

"short-barreled" shotguns and rifles are all illegal in Wisconsin and violation of that law takes precedence over 948.60. It's not a carve-out, it's clarifying which statute to be charged with if someone is in violation of both laws since you (theoretically) can't convict someone with two crimes for the exact same act.

popsicledeath said:

Jinx! But yeah, reads to me 16-17 can possess a rifle or shotgun as long as it's not prohibited short barrel and/or they aren't illegally hunting.

And it doesn't even seem like an unspoken carve out. Seems pretty clear and intentional unless there is some other section I'm not seeing.

Click to expand...

Right it's 100% intentional. I say it's "unspoken" because they could have clearly said "16 and 17 yo's are able to posses shotguns and rifles as long as they follow all other laws" (in legalese of course), but they didn't say that. Instead they made it all complicated so people like Gavinmad can get confused.

Gavinmad said:

from 941.28

(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

"short-barreled" shotguns and rifles are all illegal in Wisconsin and violation of that law takes precedence over 948.60. It's not a carve-out, it's clarifying which statute to be charged with if someone is in violation of both laws since you (theoretically) can't convict someone with two crimes for the exact same act.

Click to expand...

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Kyle had nothing to do with possessing a short-barreled weapon so... who cares if it's illegal.

Gavinmad said:

"short-barreled" shotguns and rifles are all illegal in Wisconsin and violation of that law takes precedence over 948.60. It's not a carve-out, it's clarifying which statute to be charged with if someone is in violation of both laws since you (theoretically) can't convict someone with two crimes for the exact same act.

Click to expand...

Laws are needlessly complicated and can be interpreted oddly, but I have no clue how you came to this conclusion.

How was he in violation of the law regarding short barrels? Why are you fixating on that? Amy evidence that has been presented it was a short barrel rifle?

It doesn't read to me that the other laws should be applied to the minor, but that 948.60 doesn't apply unless those other laws are being broken, and if they are then 948.60 takes precedent, not the others.

Meaning IF a minor is in violation then they're charged with the minor in possession provision. If the minor (16-17 since it specifies differences for under 16) isn't violating the other laws then for rifles and shotguns 948.60 doesn't apply.

I'm not the one confused/mis-reading. My entire point is that 948.60(3)(c) is entirely irrelevant to Kyle's situation because he was neither armed with a short-barreled weapon, nor was he hunting which is what 29.304 and 29.593 are referring to. 948.60(2)(a) is crystal clear with zero ambiguity.

Now if his lawyer has come up with some cockamamie argument about how the law doesn't apply because of grammar (someone earlier described his argument as being largely based on a semi-colon) I'm all for it because I'd love to see a full acquittal. Realistically I think he's getting the weapons charge, and hopefully a slap on the wrist because the Judge seems pretty hostile to the prosecution.

Gavinmad said:

I'm not the one confused/mis-reading. My entire point is that 948.60(3)(c) is entirely irrelevant to Kyle's situation because he was neither armed with a short-barreled weapon, nor was he hunting which is what 29.304 and 29.593 are referring to. 948.60(2)(a) is crystal clear with zero ambiguity.

Now if his lawyer has come up with some cockamamie argument about how the law doesn't apply because of grammar (someone earlier described his argument as being largely based on a semi-colon) I'm all for it because I'd love to see a full acquittal. Realistically I think he's getting the weapons charge, and hopefully a slap on the wrist because the Judge seems pretty hostile to the prosecution.

Click to expand...

I'm open to arguments. I just find it strange you're unable to articulate your point other than saying it's crystal clear over and over when multiple people seem confused by what you're even saying.

The fact you don't seem to recognize the importance of grammar in law makes me further doubt your confidence.

I think I understand the point you think you're making, and could articulate it, but still find it interesting you can't so hope you keep trying.