MNGunTalk.com

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-09-10/kyle-rittenhouse-self-defense-argument-gets-help-from-twisted-gun-logic
How Guns Twist the Logic of Self-Defense Laws
Wisconsin’s open-carry rule will help Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse make his case.

The trouble begins when you start applying the legal rules to someone in Rittenhouse’s situation, namely, someone who has carried an AR-15-style weapon to what is intended to be a peaceful protest. In a commonsense universe, this act itself would appear to be a provocation.

Yet under Wisconsin law, adults are entitled to carry around their licensed firearms in public places. An open-carry law means that prosecutors would have a tough time convincing a jury that simply carrying an assault rifle counts as a provocation.

The density of errors here is breathtaking.

It will get pled out

Thought the law for open carry was for adults, 18 and over?

Bearcatrp wrote:Thought the law for open carry was for adults, 18 and over?

That will be an issue for this young man.

Bearcatrp wrote:Thought the law for open carry was for adults, 18 and over?

Is there a law, in Wisconsin, making open carry legal, or is there someone no law making it illegal?

I thought it was federal law to be 18 or over to own a firearm. State law dictates the open carry. Him being 17, crossing state line with a firearm, then killing someone with it, should have more charges on him.

jdege wrote:

Bearcatrp wrote:Thought the law for open carry was for adults, 18 and over?

Is there a law, in Wisconsin, making open carry legal, or is there someone no law making it illegal?

Yes and yes.

The ruling has been that their state constitutional right Can’t be preempted

Bearcatrp wrote:I thought it was federal law to be 18 or over to own a firearm. State law dictates the open carry. Him being 17, crossing state line with a firearm, then killing someone with it, should have more charges on him.

No, there's a federal law against selling to a minor, but there's no federal law concerning possession.

There's is a states law in Wisconsin against minors carrying dangerous weapons, but there's an exception if you're 17 or older and the weapon is a rifle with a barrel length over 16 inches.

According to his attorneys, he did not cross state lines with the weapons.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4740273 ... se-8-28-20

Community Lifeguard Was Protecting Life and Community Because His State and Local Government Failed – Was Viciously Attacked by Mob and Fearing for his Life Exercised His God-given and Constitutional Right to Self-Defense

While most of us will agree with this statement, I'm not sure how far that will get him in court.

Bearcatrp wrote:...Him being 17, crossing state line with a firearm, then killing someone with it, should have more charges on him.

I've asked this question in other places and it goes unanswered. Assuming he did cross state lines with a firearm, when did that become a crime? People point it out like you can't bring a gun from Illinois into Wisconsin.

But if Grosskreutz believed that Rittenhouse was a shooter on a spree — because Rittenhouse had just killed two men — then it also defies common sense to think that Rittenhouse was entitled to shoot him in self-defense just because Grosskreutz was armed. What about Grosskreutz’s right to self-defense?

I disagree with this, but I'm curious about other opinions. The quoted argument is nuanced, but belief that a crime is being committed is not necessarily enough to engage in deadly force. The classic case is the man who sees another man on top on a woman yelling rape. He draws his gun on the suspect only to discover that they are a vice cop arresting a prostitute. Likewise, Gabby Giffords was shot and the shooter subdued prior to an armed citizen arriving. In his interview he stated that he knew someone was shot, saw a man with a gun, but he could not be certain that person was the shooter which is why he didn't engage the threat.

Most of us agree this is self-defense, but also agree that, legally, this is a complex case.

MasonK wrote:

But if Grosskreutz believed that Rittenhouse was a shooter on a spree — because Rittenhouse had just killed two men — then it also defies common sense to think that Rittenhouse was entitled to shoot him in self-defense just because Grosskreutz was armed. What about Grosskreutz’s right to self-defense?

I disagree with this, but I'm curious about other opinions. The quoted argument is nuanced, but belief that a crime is being committed is not necessarily enough to engage in deadly force. The classic case is the man who sees another man on top on a woman yelling rape. He draws his gun on the suspect only to discover that they are a vice cop arresting a prostitute. Likewise, Gabby Giffords was shot and the shooter subdued prior to an armed citizen arriving. In his interview he stated that he knew someone was shot, saw a man with a gun, but he could not be certain that person was the shooter which is why he didn't engage the threat.

Most of us agree this is self-defense, but also agree that, legally, this is a complex case.

I'm not familiar with Wis law, but MN law requires that there must be no means of escape from the dangerous situation.
I believe Rittenhouse was on the ground, and/ or being beaten when he shot. A reasonable person might well see tht as no means to eascape.
The same cannot be said of Grosskreutz

jdege wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-09-10/kyle-rittenhouse-self-defense-argument-gets-help-from-twisted-gun-logic
How Guns Twist the Logic of Self-Defense Laws
Wisconsin’s open-carry rule will help Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse make his case.

The trouble begins when you start applying the legal rules to someone in Rittenhouse’s situation, namely, someone who has carried an AR-15-style weapon to what is intended to be a peaceful protest. In a commonsense universe, this act itself would appear to be a provocation.

Yet under Wisconsin law, adults are entitled to carry around their licensed firearms in public places. An open-carry law means that prosecutors would have a tough time convincing a jury that simply carrying an assault rifle counts as a provocation.

The density of errors here is breathtaking.

....what is intended to be a peaceful protest.

Key word here is 'intended'.

MasonK wrote:

Bearcatrp wrote:...Him being 17, crossing state line with a firearm, then killing someone with it, should have more charges on him.

I've asked this question in other places and it goes unanswered. Assuming he did cross state lines with a firearm, when did that become a crime? People point it out like you can't bring a gun from Illinois into Wisconsin.

So then we have a lot of MN deer hunters committing crimes every fall.