When you start manufacturing facts to support false accusations, you get into trouble under the law of defamation. Kyle did not carry a gun across state lines. The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident. The gun never left the State of Wisconsin.
— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) August 28, 2020
Truth always prevails. https://t.co/iDbsykaVvY
The thing is, I don't believe that there is any such thing as "loaning" or "borrowing" a firearm when it comes to the residents of two different states. That's a "transfer", so far as I know, and I'm pretty certain that what the shooter and his friend did is a violation of Federal firearms law.
18 USC 922(a)(5)
Both the LARPer and his buddy violated Federal firearms law. There is an exception for sporting purposes that sort of implicitly OKs loaning a gun, but standing around outside of a car dealership and playing security guard isn't a sporting purpose.
42 comments:
I have a lot of conflicts with this one. First, the kid should not have been in the area at all. First rule of avoiding a dangerous conflict, is do not be in the area.
The other side, is that like all of this type of event, the facts are not all out yet. He has been charged, and will most likely face trial. That he has a high power lawyer willing to take his case pro bono is a good thing. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, especially for a set of charges of such consequence.
All of that being said, everyone is also entitled to defend themselves against death or severe injury.
Like I first said, this 17 year old should not have been in this area, armed or not. But from the video that I have seen, he was defending himself when he fired the gun. A charge of misdemeanor possession of a firearm is certainly possible, and much different than murder charges.
I do suspect that things will get much, much worse, before they get better, if they ever do.
pigpen51
I suspect that his parents will be sued. So will his friend and, if his friend is also a minor, his parents.
This one violated the "Triple Stupid Rule"-- stay away from stupid places where there are stupid people doing stupid things. A 17 year-old kid LARPing in the middle of a bad situation eminently qualifies.
I don't think we're watching the same video. No way self-defense. The closest I'll give it is when he fell he panicked and fired wildly behind him, not unsurprising for a 17 yr old's first fire-fight. The initial exchange no way was he threatened, he was carrying the loaded gun for fuck sakes.
Wrong place wrong time is bullshit too, he went there to shoot someone.
Misguided or not, he likely went there to protect the property and livelihood of an innocent party, from being burned to the ground, by people who think that will gain them justice.
The law almost everywhere is pretty clear about the fact that it is not legal to use deadly force to protect property. The opening premise of the LARP Militia was fallacious. The kid was acting in a role in which he was not privileged to perform.
I don't know how this will play out, in court. But he was a stupid kid who was where he had no right to be. I suspect that will have a bearing on the matter.
His defense will clearly show that he was not in the act of defending property when the shots were fired, but rather defending his person. Self defense is still legal ‘almost’ everywhere.
His defense will try to make that point. The state will probably argue that he was placed in that position by his unprivileged actions.
There’s really no point in debating it here. It’s ultimately going to be up to the judge and the jury. And that doesn’t even take into account the possibility of federal charges for the illegal firearms transfer.
I suspect that the federal charges will end up being moot. The feds have their hands full with so very many other things, that they will leave it up to the states. The statutes that I have read, are at best ambiguous. The intent seems to be that minors can carry guns, mostly with the idea of sport and hunting, not just as a means of self defense. That doesn't actually say it, so it would be a stretch.
As for his age, don't forget that on Guadalcanal and many of the other islands of the south pacific, there were a great number of young men who were younger than this kid. Plus the invasion on D Day had people as young as 15, who lied about their age, fighting, as well as Iwo Jima.
Like I have said, more than once, nobody, no matter their age, should go looking to become involved in a riot/protest. I myself have been on television a few times, in my youth, at 17 years old, doing community service type things, and once while spending a week as a student trooper at Michigan State Police Academy, doing what the troopers do for a week. One thing that I never want to get on television again for, is due to my being involved in one of these protests, where many bad choices are made.
In Michigan they held a couple early in the covid shutdowns. I was considering attending, until I caught rumor of people planning on bringing guns. That told me that I would not attend. Even law abiding citizens, when bringing guns to a peaceful protest, are setting themselves up to get on television, as a bad example, not to mention the mere fact of their safety. So no, I avoid protests, and if I know that there will be one in any area that I must go through, I will change my plans, as much as possible. For Kyle, it is one thing to be brave, but a much different thing to be stupid. I still don't know if he was guilty of murder yet, although at this point, from just the things that I have seen, I don't buy that. But I don't have access to much of the real evidence, which is why we have the right to due process, one of our most important freedoms.
I hope that everyone can wait, and see how this plays out. Even eyewitness accounts tend to be unreliable. So it may take some time to find out all the facts.
pigpen51
I’m not really sure what “unprivileged actions” means.
Pigpen, do we believe the video evidence, or do we make up shit because we don’t like 2+2=4?
PigPen, although your statement that kids younger than Kyle participated during WWII may be accurate, realize that those young soldiers underwent many months, possibly years, of training before being thrust into combat. That this 17 year 'militia' man inserted himself into a situation requiring crowd control with zero training for the mission is central to the events that ensued. In his underdeveloped mind (as any parent of teenagers can attest) what was he expecting to happen? That angry protesters would cower and run at the sight of him and his rifle? As Comrade stated earlier, stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things.
Dale
For everyone claiming he has a valid "self-defense" case, let me point out that he was a minor in illegal possession of the firearm, because as a minor, he COULDN'T legally possess or carry (yes, there exceptions for hunting, etc). He also went out looking for trouble; when you find it, you can't suddenly claim you were defending yourself.
In almost any state, any individual legally carrying a weapon has a series of higher standards to meet to exercise their use of the weapon. A person who picks a fight and then whips out their handgun and shoots someone is often not allowed to claim self-defense because they escalated the action. Here we have an individual who was likely not even legally carrying a weapon, so there is that hurdle to begin with. After that we have discharging a firearm in an unsafe manner, different states handle that different ways, but almost all make it a felony if a person is injured or killed.
The interesting bit is that the police let this kid down, they egged him on rather than recognizing the threat to some of the other people they are supposed to be protecting too. He looks young, quite possibly too young to be waving that long gun around, so he should have been looked into. I suspect the City is gonna get dragged into this too.
Antibubba,
First, it will be one for the lawyers as to deciding if his possession of the rifle was legal or not. There is a provision that allows for a minor to possess a rifle. The wording and background of the statute will be discussed by lawyer types, who love to argue wording, and we certainly cannot begin to understand which way that will go. As for his being there, bad idea. But he is still free to go anywhere he wishes, and to expect that he is not to be attacked. And if he is attacked, he has the right to defend himself. I have watched the video tape of the incident a few times, and I have heard people threatening him, with things like "there he is, get him!" one of the men he shot hit him while he was on his back with a skateboard, the last man he shot had a gun in his hand, trying to point it at the kid.
If you are in a place that you are lawfully allowed to be in, you do not have to attempt to retreat, in most states. Yet he was actually running away, before firing the first time. Self defense is very likely the decision, with possible misdemeanor charges sticking for either breaking curfew, which I think was 8pm, or for the possession of a rifle, which as I said, will be a test of lawyers and experts.
But the evidence is not all out there yet.
The case reminds me of Zimmerman, and Treyvon Martin,in some respects. Zimmerman had no business following Treyvon. Yet, when Treyvon started beating him senseless Zimmerman had a legal right to defend himself. But the entire thing never came out until many months later. And pictures of Zimmerman's face all busted up were even later than that. Zimmerman has been in and out of trouble since,and I don't consider him a hero. Like I said,he should not have been there, when the 911 dispatcher told him to go home,that is what he should have done. But he didn't, and as a result, a young man was killed. But the young man shares the blame, for he could have gone home, or waited for the police to come,as well.
When anyone is killed at one of these so called peaceful protests, nobody wins, except for those who sit in the background pulling the strings.
pigpen51
The person who wins is Fergus, who is trying to sell the idea that cities are all a violent hellscape that only he can protect you from.
There is no chance of federal charges as long as Barr is AG.
The self defense argument is bullshit. Nobody else was killed besides the people he shot, out of everyone there, suggesting that had he not shot anyone, nobody would have died, him included.
I feel that firearm murder is a bad thing generally, and will endeavor to refrain from endorsing or defending it, mostly because of having seen it up close and personal too many times already.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
After reading some of the commentary I have a question. I would like to know if it is ok for me to conceal carry into a bar,then start a fight and when I am getting the worse of it is it ok to draw my weapon and shoot the person pummeling me because I fear for my life?
Treyvon beating Zimmerman senseless is not what happened, pigpen, that is a lie.
Chances are, Dan, if you pull a stunt like that it'll get taken away from, and possibly used on, you.
I should have caveated my earlier observation of course based on my lifelong experience as an Outsider, an outlaw: outside the protection of the law, punctuated by a stint in the service almost fifty years ago. I'm not a lawyer though I have worked for several, I have no doubt most of the observations here are exactly what the weasels will pull out of their asses to cover his.
Nope. But that’s not what happened in Kenosha.
pigpen51, Zimmerman’s “beating” left one small ouchie on this head, which was treated by a paramedic with a bandaid. There is photographic documentation of this fact, if you care about more than pushing the Republican Party line than actual evidence.
"Unprivileged" means that Rittenhouse had no right to be where he was, doing what he did. Wisconsin, as far as I know, is not a "stand your ground" state. The "castle doctrine" does not apply to standing around outside of a business owned by a third party with no kind of relationship between Rittenhouse and the business owner. Wisconsin law apparently does not allow minors to parade around in public with firearms. And finally, standing around outside of a business with a gun is not a "sporting purpose", so that limited carve-out with regard to the laws for illegal transfer don't apply.
Illegal transfer of a firearm. Possession of a firearm by a minor. Walking around, in public, with a firearm by a minor. At every step of the process, Rittenhouse broke the law. Castle doctrine-- not applicable. Stand your ground-- not applicable.
In every step of the process, Rittenhouse broke the law. But in order to glorify this kid as a Trumpist hero, Trump's Horst Wessel, it's necessary to overlook the point that if Rittenhouse had obeyed the law, he wouldn't have been there to shoot anybody.
This is your Trumpist hero? A kid who has the same fine disregard for the law as does Trump?
Rittenhouse had no standing in Wisconsin. He was not a resident, he
was not an employee of the business. He had no business being there.
He was a minor out after curfew.
Ignoring the remote to me self defense case it was clear several activities
led to that. The prosecutors will use that including illegal possession
of a firearm by a minor, open carry loaded by a minor, and likely federal
and state laws regarding transfer.
If I were prosecuting I'd work all the angles leading to the shooting and
establish a chain of events that could only end up bad.
Further he has no training as military or police.
He will have to prove self defense. But the standard for that is very
high.
In the end he will loose treasure and this will follow him around
like a dead albatross no matter how the criminal cases go and then
the civil cases that grow from it may be worse. There is no win for
him.
The rule of threes, stupid people, doing stupid things, in stupid places.
That and nothing good happens in a riot. There is no a defense in that,
only a reason why things go badly.
Eck!
You’re confused if you think I either support Trump or think Rittenhouse is some “hero”. He was absolutely in violation of the law while open carrying under the age of 18, though standing outside of a business is absolutely legal (there doesn’t appear to be any “sporting purpose” clause to Wisconsin’s open carry laws.
“No Right to be where he was”? Really? No Right to be in a public place?
You’re correct that Stand Your Ground is not applicable, as he was “retreating” when (allegedly) attacked.
None of the violations of law listed above abrogate the Right of self defense.
But alternatively, we as the Citizenry could simply allow “protestors” to continue to burn down businesses......because that’s cool I guess.....see, problem solved.
The "protestors" looting and burning the place down are the ones shooting the place up, CI, so I'm afraid I'll have to agree with you on this, blind boars and acorns, simply allow the "protestors" to continue looting and burning businesses and homes, shooting people, running them down with cars. It's like VietNam, it's all on teevee, all in the court of public opinion. Operation Just Let Them Speak is working perfectly.
"“No Right to be where he was”? Really? No Right to be in a public place?"
Considering the fact that the police in armored vehicles were clearing the streets of protesters when they drove by the militia meatheads and gave them a bottle of water, I'd say no.
The disparity between how the protesters were treated and how the militia meatheads were treated is at the heart of this story. The meatheads contend that they were defending property, while the protesters contend that they were defending their lives from out of control police.
The police's behavior here sort of puts an exclamation point on that disparity.
We were warned ten years ago about the infiltration of right wing racist meatheads into police and the military, but the findings were pretty much buried after the epic hissy fit thrown by the goddamn Republicans.
Now we can just add it to the list of ongoing catastrophes caused by the goddamn Republicans' denial of reality whenever they encounter it.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
I'd add unless he had the owner permission to be on that property it
could easily be trespass as it was not a functioning business being
already burnt.
It was civil action until it wasn't, then its criminal.
We aren't discussing the riot and loot crowd. It is not protest
at that point, its criminal action. I feel there were criminal
opportunists on both sides and both vying for a shooting outcome.
People have a right to speak. Burn and loot other people property,
nope!
Eck!
The disparity between how the protesters were treated and how the militia meatheads were treated is at the heart of this story. The meatheads contend that they were defending property, while the protesters contend that they were defending their lives from out of control police.
The police's behavior here sort of puts an exclamation point on that disparity.
And that's why the City of Kenosha is also going to be sued over this. The treatment of the White LARPers with guns by the cops could be viewed as ratification of the LARPers' behavior by the City itself.
The disparity is indeed the heart of the issue, in every way.
Eck!
The disparity is indeed the heart of the issue, in every way.
Indeed. History supports the argument that when Black people carry guns, you lose the right to carry them.
"Come in to the Agency, come in from the cold, turn in your guns. We'll take care of you."
That turned out well.
Dark Avenger,
You say that Zimmerman only had a small cut on the head that was just a bandaid fix. I suspect that if that was the case, then the shooting would not have been justified.
Here is what the man's doctor found, upon closer examination. ABC News reported that a medical report compiled by Zimmerman's family physician showed that, following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, a minor back injury, and bruising in his upper lip and cheek.
As to the legalities of this Kyle kid and his actions on the night in question, first, he was out after the 8pm curfew. So were the massive numbers of protesters who were there. He was filmed before the events saying that he was there to help treat protesters who were injured, which he was also filmed doing. He also helped put out a fire near a gas station.
Later, when he saw people chasing him, he attempted to leave, but was caught by the first guy, who attempted to grab his gun, and when he tried again, was shot. Kyle then saw a huge crowd coming at him, with shouts of " get him" heard clearly. So he again tried to withdraw, but fell down, where he was hit by a skateboard, and shot the guy who was trying to hurt him with the potentially lethal weapon. Then, the third guy came at him with a gun,and he shot him in the arm, and then left, heading towards the police with his hands overhead, not trying to escape into the night, but to just escape the gang.
Again, I wish that people could wait until the actual lawyers and the prosecutors figure out the events, and the legalities of Kyle's actions in being where he was, and having a weapon on his person, etc., before deciding the verdict. For a verdict often has nothing to do with whether or not the person actually did a thing, but whether or not the state can PROOVE that they did something, to the satisfaction of a jury.
pigpen51
pigpen, +1
PP, because the protesters were out after 8 pm, it makes it okay for the 17 year old kid to be out too? Two wrongs don’t make a right.
So now we play the “Good Samaritan” card. How would he ‘treat’ the wounded protesters with his AR15? What type of first aid training did he have? To that extent, what type of firefighting training did he have that would require a long rifle? Was he gonna shoot the flames away? (Kinda like Donnie wanting to nuke a hurricane)
So now, in a situation that he immersed himself into, he gets scared and wants to run away. Understandable. Also understandable is that protesters see a young someone with a rifle and that they want to ‘protect’ others by confiscating the weapon. See? I can make up a story to fit the situation.
Making excuses for the teenager’s behavior does not change the facts that he killed two people and severely injured a third. The circumstances that caused these events are what the attorneys for both sides will try to spin. The rush to judgement by both sides needs to be tempered, and speculation by the press and third parties does nothing except to confuse the facts.
Dale
Zimmerman murdered that kid in cold-blood, and to this day should be hanging from a gallows pole.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, pigpen, you could be a damned fool that actually believes that bullshit.
SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - Volunteer watchman George Zimmerman suffered “insignificant” injuries in the fight in which he shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, a medical examiner testified on Tuesday, as prosecutors attempted to undermine Zimmerman’s claim he feared for his life.
In court on Tuesday, medical examiner Rao said Zimmerman’s injuries did not involve great force and were consistent with one blow to the face and one impact with the concrete. He had a broken nose and two small cuts on the back of his head.
But later under questioning by one of Zimmerman’s lawyers, Rao said Zimmerman could have been hit more than once.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-florida-shooting/zimmermans-injuries-insignificant-medical-examiner-testifies-idUSBRE9610TY20130702
Despite Zimmerman’s claim that Martin had put his hands over his mouth and nose to smother him, prosecutors have said there was no blood and none of Zimmerman’s DNA on Martin’s hands or clothing.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trayvon-martin-shooting-new-evidence-shows-wounds-on-zimmermans-head-thc-found-in-martins-body/
Evidence supporting Zimmerman's defense includes a photo showing the former neighborhood watch volunteer with a bloody nose on the night of the shooting. A paramedic report said Zimmerman had a 1-inch laceration on his head and a forehead abrasion.
"Bleeding tenderness to his nose, and a small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding," wrote paramedic Michael Brandy.
Christopher Serino, a Sanford Police Department investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest, told prosecutors in a March 13 report that the fight could have been avoided if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and waited for authorities to arrive. He also said Zimmerman, after leaving the vehicle, could have identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and talked to him instead of confronting him.
Sounds like the “family physician” exaggerated his injuries, pigpen 51.
FAIR WARNING TO ALL
Zimmerman’s a done matter. Next mention of that case and comments will be locked.
The kid might manage to squeak out of the murder charge by claiming self defense, though the gun charge and violation of curfew charge aren't going to go away that way. All his lawyer has to do is introduce a reasonable doubt. He won't be able to squeak out of the wrongful death lawsuit though, because civil lawsuits require proof only by a preponderence of the evidence, and the preponderence of the evidence is that he deliberately (and illegally) inserted himself into a violent situation in order to perform violent acts. His life is basically over, any wages he earns for the rest of his life will be garnished to pay the judgements (which will earn interest every year that will likely far surpass any amounts garnished, meaning they'll never go away), no selective college is going to accept him and so forth.
He violated rule #1 of gun ownership: Don't go looking for trouble, because you're likely to find it.
A couple of quibbles, BadTux: As a minor, it's his parents who will be on the hook for this financially, not him. And even if he was, when the cases are over, he can declare bankruptcy and walk away.
But that doesn't change the point that he will be linked to this, forever. He'll only find work through the Wingnut Welfare Machine, such as a gofer for the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council or Liberty U.
(I'm presuming, here, that the Trump Organization will be sued out of existence.)
I read that he was being tried as an adult. Not sure if that changes the situation or not.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
I will leave this alone, after this last note. The self defense plea will be open and shut, because Kyle R. was defending his life at each time he fired his gun. As to the charges of the weapon, and breaking curfew, I seriously doubt that the AG is going to attempt to hang him on those charges, to be the legacy of his time as AG.
What I am thinking might happen, is that the AG waits until things either cool off, or something happens that takes the attention of the media and the nation elsewhere, and then they quietly drop the charges against Kyle.
As for the gun charges, from the little that I have read, it is not as cut and dried as so many would like it to be, and it is open to some interpretation.
DDWNT, as for the kids first aid knowledge, in his favor, he had a complete first aid kit, he had already performed aid to someone, and as for the possession of the rifle, it has been reported that the police had come upon him earlier, along with other civilians, and instead of confiscating his weapon, had given him a bottle of water.
The biggest things we should take from this is, first, unless you have a reason to be involved in these protests, such as helping to defend the business of a friend who has personally asked you to help, and you are capable of doing so, and willing to help, stay away from any such hotbed of violence. While Kyle R. may have legally been within his rights to be where he was, which will be addressed, he most definitely should NOT have been there. And secondly, know that unless you are a lawyer, with the ability to understand the law in the area that this happened in, you cannot really know for sure what the legalities are of any of the things that are in question, even just the statement that I made, which was that it was self defense, for certain. I was only giving my own opinion, which is worth just about the same as anyone else's who has given theirs here.
From what I have been able to learn, Kyle has had some firearms training, from his previous interactions with the police, and his sort of worship of the profession. I learned that he was a dropout from his high school, I think his last year. And he had been picked on to the point that his mother might have sought a restraining order from the police against some of the bullies. This last part is only fragments of things that I found posted by news paper accounts, as told to them by neighbors, and may or may not be correct. But it seems obvious to me that this Kyle kid is neither a hero nor a militia member looking to kill someone, but rather a flawed individual, in some ways. That he is now at the center of such a huge case is a shame, and should never have happened. He should not have been where he was, even if his motives were solid gold. But until things all play out, we really only can know for certain what we have seen on video. And as for that, it seems to prove that he did everything right, so far as self defense and attempting to disengage from the danger, before being forced to defend himself from the threat to his life or bodily harm. But that again, is for a jury to decide,if it comes to that.
May you all have a good fall season,and may you all be safe from any of the violence that has become the new normal.
pigpen51
1) The kid was not a relative of the person who owned the business. He was not an employee of the person who owned the business. Under Wisconsin law, those are the only people authorized to conduct a citizen's arrest of someone committing a misdemeanor on the premises of a business. (A felony is different). Rittenhouse, in other words, had no legal right under Wisconsin law to "defend" the business in question against misdemeanor vandalism.
2) The self defense charge for the initial shooting is not clear under Wisconsin law. Wisconsin is a duty to retreat state. What instigated the conflict? Did he retreat upon feeling threatened, or did he shoot? It is reported that Rittenhouse had been mingling with the protesters earlier, claiming to be a street medic and even treating a couple of protesters. What happened to change that?
3) The self defense charge for the subsequent shootings is equally not clear under Wisconsin law. Under the perspective of Wisconsin law, it is legal for citizens to exercise a citizen's arrest upon a suspected felon fleeing the scene of a crime, and the people chasing Rittenhouse, by Wisconsin law, were attempting to conduct a valid citizen's arrest of an armed suspect. Any reasonable person would suspect that someone fleeing with a gun moments after gunshots had rang out was a criminal who needed to be apprehended, because people who are not criminals would not be fleeing the scene, right? A police officer would have even been legally justified to shoot Kyle R. in the back as he fled arrest in this situation under the Garner test, nevermind the Graham test, since a suspected felon who had apparently just shot someone was fleeing the scene of the crime and representing a threat of imminent harm to the public (as indeed happened shortly after). Note that force is allowed in order to conduct an arrest (doh!), so attempts to disarm Rittenhouse in order to effect an arrest were legal under Wisconsin law. Rittenhouse may have felt that he was fleeing an unruly mob, but that is his own perspective that may or may not correspond to reality. Note that fleeing arrest is not a justification for use of deadly force by a suspect under Wisconsin law.
We don't know all the facts yet. There's still a court case that's going to happen in order to gather and present all the facts. But it's clear that the self-defense defense is not going to be as easy as some are claiming. It's not legal under Wisconsin law to shoot someone who is attempting to conduct a valid citizen's arrest of a suspected felon, and the State in this instance is going to have plenty of eyewitnesses who claim that this is in fact what the two subsequent victims were attempting to do -- conduct a valid citizen's arrest under Wisconsin law of a suspected felon.
Pigpen51, if you fight hard enough, the facts will inevitably bend to your liking.
/s.
Post a Comment