The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: What Will Be the Outcome?

Big blow for Rittenhouse today as judge rules drone footage admissible--his defense team did not want that. The dropped charge for illegal firearm is not much of a gain for him since it specifically did not meet the conditions of Wisconsin state law ...would not have held up anyway.
 

It's not at all clear that Huber and Grosskreutz were heroes. Both were there because -- remember? -- they were rioters, participants in a violent uprising. Huber was a felon, druggie, domestic abuser, mental patient and all-around loser who tried to brain Rittenhouse with a skateboard. Grosskreutz was carrying an illegal Glock, which he pointed at Rittenhouse.

A pox on all their houses.

The only people who should've been there were on-the-clock first responders and property owners on their premises. I don't have much sympathy for bad things that happen to anyone else who shows up at this sort of action whether they're injured, killed or go to prison for injuring or killing.

.
 
Last edited:
The judge threw out the charge for illegal possession of a firearm this morning. I watched the videos of the attacks again last night and it seems like the claims of self-defense are perfectly valid. Rittenhouse was attacked by the people he shot and laws allow the use of deadly force if you feel like your life is in danger.

I'm betting on full acquittal in this case. Like Rittenhouse said, according to the laws in our country and in Wisconsin, he didn't do anything wrong.
 

The judge threw out the charge for illegal possession of a firearm this morning.

It was a misdemeanor charge and wouldn't have held up since the barrel of his rifle was over 26 inches. I read the law and it's legalese gone off the rails. It's a good thing that the jury doesn't have to grapple with this bizarre law on top of the more serious charges.

.
 
Last edited:
Also failed to mention that Grosskreutz was a convicted felon carrying a gun, and that Rittenhouse was there originally to help protect his employers business from the (ahem) peaceful protesters before getting separated from his group.


Grosskreutz was carrying a weapon despite an expired carry permit. He had a misdemeanor weapons charge but no felony convictions. Both of the men killed (Huber and Rosenbaum) were felons. That, of course, does not mean they "deserved" what they got or anything of the sort.

Everybody's actions are on tape. It's up to the jury now.
 
941.28 Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

Universal Citation: WI Stat § 941.28 (2012 through Act 45)
941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

(1) In this section:

(a) "Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.

(b) "Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.

(c) "Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.

(d) "Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.

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

(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.

(4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968.

(5) Any firearm seized under this section is subject to s. 968.20 (3) and is presumed to be contraband.

History: 1979 c. 115; 2001 a. 109.

The intent in sub. (1) (d) is that of the fabricator; that the gun is incapable of being fired or not intended to be fired by the possessor is immaterial. State v. Johnson, 171 Wis. 2d 175, 491 N.W.2d 110 (Ct. App. 1992).

"Firearm" means a weapon that acts by force of gunpowder to fire a projectile, regardless of whether it is inoperable due to disassembly. State v. Rardon, 185 Wis. 2d 701, 518 N.W.2d 330 (Ct. App. 1994)
 
Last edited:
Wisconsin statutes 939.32: (3)

Case law citations/definition of what constitutes the crime of ATTEMPT. If someone wants to read of copy and paste here.
Requirements. An attempt to commit a crime requires that the actor have an intent to perform acts and attain a result which, if accomplished, would constitute such crime and that the actor does acts toward the commission of the crime which demonstrate unequivocally, under all the circumstances, that the actor for
There is no crime of “attempted homicide by reckless conduct" since the completed offense does not require intent while any attempt must demonstrate intent. State v. Melvin, 49 Wis. 2d 246, 181 N.W.2d 490 (1970).
Attempted 1st-degree murder was shown when only the fact of the gun misfiring and the action of the intended victim prevented completion of the crime. Austin v. State, 52 Wis. 2d 716, 190 N.W.2d 887 (1971).
The victim's kicking of the defendant in the mouth and other resistance was a valid extraneous factor preventing the completion of a crime, an essential requirement for the crime of attempted rape. Adams v. State, 57 Wis. 2d 515, 204 N.W.2d 657 (1973).
The screams and struggles of an intended rape victim were an effective intervening extrinsic force not under the defendant's control. Leach v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 199, 265 N.W.2d 495 (1978).
The failure to consummate the crime is not an essential element of criminal attempt under sub. (2). Berry v. State, 90 Wis. 2d 316, 280 N.W.2d 204 (1979).
The intervention of an extraneous factor is not an essential element of criminal attempt. Hamiel v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 656, 285 N.W.2d 639 (1979).
To prove attempt, the state must prove intent to commit a specific crime accompanied by sufficient acts to demonstrate unequivocally that it was improbable that the accused would have desisted of his or her own free will. State v. Stewart, 143 Wis. 2d 28, 420 N.W.2d 44 (1988).
 
Regardless of the outcome of this case, I am dumbfounded by the lack of sympathy for the victims, and the apparent support for this sick, violent perpetrator. Was it the crocodile tears he shed on the witness stand?
That's because your judgement is clouded by your unwillingness to see how the "victims" contributed to their deaths.
 
@ohioboy You can't read--or post--the law and make it make sense ...that's the problem.

Here's an attempt at an explanation by a UCLA law professor. It and the subsequent discussion in the comments show how unclear it is.

A comment made at 3:18 by username Kazenski explains better than I can why I think dropping the charge is a bad thing for Rittenhouse.

The defense preserved the issue for appeal so then they could have appealed the class A misdemeanor if he was cleared on all the other charges.

Taking the lesser and potentially very confusing misdemeanor charge out of play is helpful for the jury in considering the more serious charges and removes a loophole for his lawyers.

.
 
Last edited:
That's because your judgement is clouded by your unwillingness to see how the "victims" contributed to their deaths.
You accuse others of "clouded judgement" and reject any notion of morality as being relevant, what a hoot!
It appears that you support having some sick bastard bringing an assault rifle to a demonstration because the protest was over the murder of a black man by the police. And, because some of the victims are not upstanding citizens you feel their killing was their fault.

You value system is dead, I would feel sorry for you but somehow I think such energy would be a waste.
 
You accuse others of "clouded judgement" and reject any notion of morality as being relevant, what a hoot!
It appears that you support having some sick bastard bringing an assault rifle to a demonstration because the protest was over the murder of a black man by the police. And, because some of the victims are not upstanding citizens you feel their killing was their fault.

You value system is dead, I would feel sorry for you but somehow I think such energy would be a waste.
Your legal knowledge is dead.
 
Regardless of the outcome of this case, I am dumbfounded by the lack of sympathy for the victims, and the apparent support for this sick, violent perpetrator. Was it the crocodile tears he shed on the witness stand?

I don't have a bit of sympathy for any of them. Not a single one of them should've been there (all violated curfew in a time of violence) and had Rittenhouse been shot and killed that night as well, it would've been no great loss.

.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Annie, except for a little bit of general sympathy for stupid people.

All four of those boys thought they were going to be heroes that day. Kyle thought he was going to protect businesses, Rosenbaum, the skate board guy and the medic all saw Kyle's gun and thought they were stopping an "active shooter."

Kyle's mother drove him to the protest with his gun. I'm just shaking my head.
 
You can bet money that some relative will crawl out of the woodwork to file a wrongful death suit.
Regardless of the outcome of this case, I am dumbfounded by the lack of sympathy for the victims, and the apparent support for this sick, violent perpetrator. Was it the crocodile tears he shed on the witness stand?


Why exactly do the "victims" deserve sympathy? They had congregated to riot and burn. Grosskreutz, like Rittenhouse, was carrying a loaded weapon and was pointing it at Rittenhouse when he was shot. The other two were violent felons, one a rapist of children. I don't have any sympathy for Rittenhouse, either.
 
I agree with Annie, except for a little bit of general sympathy for stupid people.

All four of those boys thought they were going to be heroes that day. Kyle thought he was going to protect businesses, Rosenbaum, the skate board guy and the medic all saw Kyle's gun and thought they were stopping an "active shooter."

Kyle's mother drove him to the protest with his gun. I'm just shaking my head.
That one of the guys would use a skateboard to bonk a dude carrying a rifle gives you a good idea of the level of ...erm... sophistication we're dealing with here. Seems to me that everyone involved thought he was a superhero.
 
Kyle's mother drove him to the protest with his gun. I'm just shaking my head.

I just looked that one up. Rittenhouse's mom didn't drive him to the protest and he never had the gun at her home. He was staying with the older friend who bought the gun for him and where he kept it. After the killing/maiming, Kyle went to his mother's home and she drove him to the police station.
 
Last edited:
Why exactly do the "victims" deserve sympathy? They had congregated to riot and burn. Grosskreutz, like Rittenhouse, was carrying a loaded weapon and was pointing it at Rittenhouse when he was shot. The other two were violent felons, one a rapist of children. I don't have any sympathy for Rittenhouse, either.
@JimBob1952 , I could explain this to you, but I think I'd be wasting my time.
 


Back
Top