Grosskreutz regrets not emptying his magazine into Rittenhouse

[Noodlegawd]

Meanwhile, there are also reports that Wisconsin law allows juveniles 16 (15?) to 18 open carry of long rifles and shotguns. If both of these turn out to be true, then the assertions of "illegal possession" etc. do not come into play.

There is such a provision in the Wisconsin Code that that they charged him with violating. It all seems to come down to whether he was "not in compliance with" sec. 29.593 of the Wisconsin code. That statement is practically nonsensical, however, because all that section 29.593 essentially says is that certain people may not get a hunting license if they haven't obtained a certificate of hunting accomplishment. It doesn't say that anyone can't possess a firearm without a hunting license. In fact, it doesn't even say that you can't HUNT without a hunting license. So the only way someone could literally be "not in compliance with" that section is if they somehow obtained a hunting license without actually getting the certification.

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1) 
(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
(b) A certificate of accomplishment issued to a person for successfully completing the course under the bow hunter education program only authorizes the person to obtain a resident archer hunting license, a nonresident archer hunting license, a resident crossbow hunting license, or a nonresident crossbow hunting license.
(2) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(2m) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a bow hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an archer hunting license or crossbow hunting license.
(3) A person who successfully completes basic training in the U.S. armed forces, reserves or national guard may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(4) A person who is subject to sub. (1) may prove compliance with sub. (1) when submitting an application for an approval authorizing hunting by presenting any of the following:
(a) His or her certificate of accomplishment issued under s. 29.591.
(b) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter within 365 days before submitting the application.
(c) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter for a hunting season that ended within 365 days before submitting the application.

Now, I'm sure that some people will say that it really just means that he wasn't allowed to carry a rifle if he didn't have a hunting license, or something like that. But that's not even close to what it says, and it certainly would have been a lot easier to say that in the statute if that's what the legislature meant when they drafted it.

 

[braindrain]

Now that we know there's a determined rightwing militia effort to commit political murders and a coordinated effort to dismiss that.....certainly. As the saying goes, you don't bring a knife to gun fight.

You do know this is not the CT section right. You probably should take that garbage down there where it belongs.

 

[PNW Guy]

allegedly told a friend he regrets "not killing the kid" accused of shooting him and "emptying the entire mag."



"allegedly" means that someone said he said that.

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't say that.

Have you read this guy's posts before? If it says, what he wants it to say, "allegedly" means he watched it happen, but unfortunately um his "dog ate his phone" or he'd prove it....

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Meanwhile, there are also reports that Wisconsin law allows juveniles 16 (15?) to 18 open carry of long rifles and shotguns. If both of these turn out to be true, then the assertions of "illegal possession" etc. do not come into

Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under 18 to open carry any firearm.

“The minimum age to open carry in Wisconsin is 18.”
Wisconsin Open Carry - USA Carry

 

[Captain Adverse]

Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under 18 to open carry any firearm.

“The minimum age to open carry in Wisconsin is 18.”
Wisconsin Open Carry - USA Carry

Well, according to this:

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor...

...(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.

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

941.28: Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

Wisconsin Legislature: 941.28

So there may ne some issue with the fact that the prohibition applies to short-barreled shotguns and rifles.

I think we can let the Wisconsin legal experts argue it.

NOTE: No police officer Kyle spoke to while armed over the course of the day ever told him he could not carry that weapon openly.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under 18 to open carry any firearm.

“The minimum age to open carry in Wisconsin is 18.”
Wisconsin Open Carry - USA Carry

It is always best to cite the actual law.

Now, according to this:

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor...

...(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.

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

941.28: Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

Wisconsin Legislature: 941.28

So there may be some issue (of exception) with the fact that the prohibition applies to short-barreled shotguns and rifles.

I think we can let the Wisconsin legal experts argue/explain it.

NOTE: No police officer Kyle spoke to while armed over the course of the day ever told him he could not carry that weapon openly.

 

[digitusmedius]

You do know this is not the CT section right. You probably should take that garbage down there where it belongs.

You had nothing to say and you said it. So, your work is done, right?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It is always best to cite the actual law.

Now, according to this:

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

Wisconsin Legislature: 941.28

So there may be some issue (of exception) with the fact that the prohibition applies to short-barreled shotguns and rifles.

I think we can let the Wisconsin legal experts argue/explain it.

NOTE: No police officer Kyle spoke to while armed over the course of the day ever told him he could not carry that weapon openly.

Sorry, CA, you’re wrong. The prohibition of SBR’s is a whole other unrelated prohibition.

Wisconsin law specifically forbids minors (under age 18) from open carrying firearms.

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60(2)(a)

Rittenhouse charges;
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access

And the fact that no police officer questioned (that we know of at this point) Rittenhouse to determine if he was in violation of the law means absolutely nothing.

Frankly, your attempt at using that as some sort of evidence/proof is an embarrassingly amateur maneuver even for you.

 

[digitusmedius]

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't say that.

So, let's hang him now, boys!!!!

 

[Captain Adverse]

Sorry, CA, you’re wrong. The prohibition of SBR’s is a whole other unrelated prohibition.

Wisconsin law specifically forbids minors (under age 18) from open carrying firearms.
View attachment 67293441
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60(2)(a)

Rittenhouse charges;
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access

And the fact that no police officer questioned (that we know of at this point) Rittenhouse to determine if he was in violation of the law means absolutely nothing.

Frankly, your attempt at using that as some sort of evidence/proof is an embarrassingly amateur maneuver even for you.

I put that forward as a possible exception. Mainly because it appears IN the statute section you cite, which often occurs when outlining an exception to the section/code.

Still, I'll let the actual Attorney's argue it out in Wisconsin Court. I don't reside in Wisconsin, so I do not claim any expertise in their law.

Frankly, your resort to ad hominem to "punctuate" your personal disdain is another reason I seldom respond to you. :shrug:

Tagline time. :coffeepap:

 

[SkyFox76]

Statement from Rittenhouse's legal team:

Funny he just finished work at a job the spokesperson had already said he had been furloughed from since March. Such a sweet helpful boy. Who beats women.

Now whoever loaned that weapon is going to have a crap load of explaining to do and may get to share a cell.

As far as the killer, I don't even think the prosecutor will waste time with the weapons charge which only carries $25000 fine, 90 days or both and will instead focus on shooting an unarmed person and fleeing back to Illinois.

Whatever the surviving victim allegedly said has zero to do with the killers actions. Not one shot was fired toward him.

 

[SkyFox76]

That is some highly fragrant lawyerly bull****. They will need a lot more than that to get this punk assassin off.

I thought it was dripping with so much sweetness they should have served it with pancakes!

 

[SkyFox76]

According to the criminal complaint,

"When the defendant shot Huber, Grosskreutz freezes and ducks and takes a step back. Grosskreutz puts his hands in the air. Grosskreutz then moves towards the defendant who aims his gun at Grosskreutz and shoots him, firing 1 shot. Grosskreutz was shot in the right arm. Grosskreutz appears to be holding a handgun in his right hand when he was shot."

So, how does any of that indicate that Grosskruetz planned on shooting Rittenhouse? Why bother chasing him down the street? You don't need to chase someone to shoot them.

He had time.

 

[SkyFox76]

Seriously? Rittenhouse was out-numbered and the target of an armed mob.

Why is that?

 

[Luckyone]

Gaige Grosskreutz, who was illegally carrying a weapon, just sealed Rittenhouse's self-defense argument. They night get him for the possession charge, but the murder charge is toast; burnt toast.

Armed leftist badly wounded in Kenosha shooting allegedly regrets 'not killing the kid' accused of firing at him - TheBlaze

This says it all:

TheBlaze.com Media Bias | AllSides

 

[SkyFox76]

How did he get bullet wounds with no bullets? Bullet woulds in multiple different locations, including his back, did not happen from 1 round.

The graze to the head is likely 1 shot. The graze to the thigh could be tied to the shot to the hand, so 2. Shot to the groin 3. Shot to the back 4. And that was likely the kill shot unless he bled from the groin shot.

 

[digitusmedius]

Seriously? Rittenhouse was out-numbered and the target of an armed mob.

Might the fact that he was shooting people had something to do with him becoming a "target" to stop?

 

[SkyFox76]

Gunfighter Ballads - Kenosha Kid - YouTube

They write songs about hero’s!

Cool!! Have they written one yet about him beating on girls? Can't wait to hear it.

 

[digitusmedius]

Hearsay is an out of court declaration introduced during a hearing to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally they’re inadmissible but there are a lot of exceptions (like statement against interest or prior inconsistent statement if he were to claim in trial he never wanted t hurt Rittenhouse). Take this alleged statement about this guy saying he wished he’d emptied his gun on Rittenhouse. If the defense wanted to prove that this guy was really out for Rittenhouse’s blood, trying to introduce this statement would be hearsay because it’s being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted which is that he wished he’d killed Rittenhouse.

That's quite a knot you tied yourself into. It sure would make for a good laugh if you tried to use that in a courtroom.

 

[Bullseye]

Might the fact that he was shooting people had something to do with him becoming a "target" to stop?

He wasn't shooting people until that attacked him. the "people" he shot were pursuing him with violent intent - shooting back is called "self defense".

 

[Bullseye]

Why is that?

Ask the people that were chasing him.

 

[digitusmedius]

He wasn't shooting people until that attacked him. the "people" he shot were pursuing him with violent intent - shooting back is called "self defense".

Well, that was a lie the first time and the dozens of times it's been repeated but we know the rightwing champions of murderers will stick to any and every lie no matter how blatant and disgusting.

 

[digitusmedius]

Ask the people that were chasing him.

After he committed the first murder and the second when he was caught.

 

[Bullseye]

After he committed the first murder and the second when he was caught.

I'm not going to debate time lines or sequences of events. That will come out at the trial.

 

[Bullseye]

Well, that was a lie the first time and the dozens of times it's been repeated but we know the rightwing champions of murderers will stick to any and every lie no matter how blatant and disgusting.

And your position is in no way affected by your progressive poppycock? Sorry, I don't believe you.