BREAKING: Kyle Rittenhouse’s Extradition to Wisconsin Delayed At Least Until September 25

kyle rittenhouse rifle kenosha

(Adam Rogan/The Journal Times via AP)

Much to the chagrin of some, an Illinois judge has delayed the extradition of 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse to Wisconsin to give him time to secure private legal representation. Rittenhouse allegedly shot three individuals, killing two and wounding one Tuesday night in Kenosha, Wisconsin while under attack during rioting.

The extradition hearing is now scheduled to take place on September 25th.

Waiting a few weeks will allow the public defender Rittenhouse has been assigned to hand the case over the Rittenhouse’s new legal team that will defend him against the array of charges including first degree intentional homicide, first degree reckless homicide and first degree attempted intentional homicide.

John Pierce and his Fight Back legal team (which includes Lin Wood — Nicholas Sandmann’s attorney — and Lawson Pedigo) have inked an agreement with Rittenhouse’s family to represent Rittenhouse who will almost surely be tried as an adult.

The AP has the story about the extradition.

A judge postponed a decision Friday on whether a 17-year-old should be returned to Wisconsin to face charges in the killing of two people on the streets of Kenosha during unrest following the police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake.

The Illinois judge granted Kyle Rittenhouse’s request to delay the extradition hearing to Sept. 25 during a brief hearing that was streamed online. Rittenhouse did not appear.

Blake’s shooting — which left him paralyzed and was caught on cellphone video — sparked several nights of protests in Kenosha, making it the latest focal point in a reckoning over policing and racial injustice that has gripped the country since the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police. The Wisconsin Senate will hold a special session Monday to address a package of police reform measures.

Video of both shootings shows that Rittenhouse was attacked and defended himself. If we allow mob justice against Rittenhouse, we’re all at risk of becoming victims of mob justice.

comments

  1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. “Benjamin Franklin.

    Two hundred plus years later. This is still very true.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        + more

        1. avatar arc - the annoying one says:

          infinity and greater infinity

    1. avatar Madcapp says:

      We need more lore and order.

    2. avatar Sgt Bill says:

      just made a donation to the law group that will be taking his case https://fightback.law/
      everyone send $20 and lets get this kid out

      1. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

        Done. For great justice.

        Luceat lux veritatis

      2. avatar Tim says:

        No disrespect, but how sure are you that group is legit? I’d like to drop $100 his way too, but the lawyer taking the case (Lin Wood) said it was all pro bono. Heard about some other scam groups trying to rip-off donations to this cause, as well.

        Anyone have more info?

        1. avatar Innocent Bystander says:

          Everyone that comments on this site should donate $100.00.

        2. avatar Tim says:

          “Everyone that comments on this site should donate $100.00.”

          Exactly. I just want to ensure it actually goes to Rittenhouse’s defense, and not some bolshevik azzwipe.

        3. avatar arc - the annoying one says:

          $100 is more than I have in my checking account right now, literally.

        4. Here is an article about Rittenhouse’s new legal team, and the place to donate to his defense fund is https://fightback.law/

          Yes, I just kicked in $100.

        5. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          Lin Wood isn’t the only attorney working on his case. These funds will cover those expenses. Any leftover funds are to be used for similar cases.

    3. avatar Debbie W. says:

      From what I’ve gathered the prosecuter must be related to mike nyfong. Mobs of bullies, looters and arsonist lives matter and obviously victim lives don’t matter.

      TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

      1. avatar ‘liljoe says:

        Fight backs website says they combat section 230 of the communication law. So they are more about copyright infringement on the internet?

        How did they become pro 2A?

        1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

          So the can’t do more than one thing?

        2. avatar ‘liljoe says:

          They can but they don’t seem to write they do. It’s one thing to slap on another part to the website but if they don’t actually address that they do it in their mission statement it makes it a bit suspect.

          It’s your money, donate it where you will, but it may be worth checking in to it first to make sure they are legit.

          Speaking as someone who donated to build the wall.

  2. avatar DUMPSTER says:

    it’s chess, not checkers for here on out.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Jump the queen!

  3. avatar Nanashi says:

    Look at the charging document. The prosecutor is either massively incompetent or throwing the case (to prevent others from charging him?) because her evidence alone is sufficent to establish all three as self defense. I’m leaning on incompetent because one of the weapon charges simply is not applicable under Wisconsin law even if all the evidence was against Kyle.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Indeed, it appears that the prosecutor doesn’t even know the state’s own statutes. To wit, subclause (3)(c) seems to be overlooked by every single person claiming that his possession of the rifle was unlawful:

      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.
      (b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
      (c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
      (d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
      (3) 
      (a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult’s supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult’s supervision.
      (b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
      (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.

      http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Chip, could you expand a little more on that? What are the subjects of the subsections referenced and how does that affect the weapons charges?

        From what I’ve seen, this is a clear case of self-defense, so the weapons charge would be the only legal jeopardy left, so I’m quite interested in learning more.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          941.28 defines and prohibits SBRs/SBSs. Since the AR15 is not an SBR, he was not in violation of this section.

          29.304 involves hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. Since he is 17, he was not in violation of this section.

          29.593 involves obtaining a hunting license. Since he was not engaged in hunting, he was not in violation of this section.

        2. avatar That Jason says:

          As a Wisconsin resident, what Chip and many other barstool pundits from other states fail to realize is that the requisite hunting certificate is for a program focused primarily on safe firearm handling. It’s not about hunting but safety.

          As the shooter is a resident of Illinois, it’s extremely unlikely he has such a Wisconsin certification.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          What That Jason fails to recognize is that he wasn’t hunting, and therefore having a hunting certificate, or not, is a moot point.

        4. avatar That Jason says:

          Chip, let me walk you through this really slowly.

          The Wisconsin DNR’s Hunter Education program is a long-standing effort to reduce firearm accidents during the state gun deer season.

          It has been very successful.

          That’s because it has virtually NOTHING to say about hunting, and TONS to teach about safe firearm handling in the field. Which is its focus.

          I have spent my entire life in Wisconsin, and took this course when I was 12, just like many others.

          Now, do you think having taken a course focused on safe firearms handling, proven to have dramatically reduced accidents in the field, might have something to do whether a child should be allowed to walk around with a firearm? Hmm?

          You should limit yourself to things you understand.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          That Jason, you should probably spend less time condescending and more time reading your own state’s statutes.

          Nothing in 29.593 requires a hunting permit as a prerequisite for generally carrying a long gun. It could be the greatest statute in the history of statutes, and be the single greatest statute for minimizing accidental gun deaths due to unsafe firearm handling. It still doesn’t include anything in its wording that requires having a hunting permit – or the training course required to obtain that hunting permit – in order to carry a long gun outside the context of hunting.

          If you’re going to step through something slowly, perhaps it should be the actual wording of the statute in question: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/VIII/593

        6. avatar Tim says:

          “….do you think having taken a course focused on safe firearms handling, proven to have dramatically reduced accidents in the field, might have something to do whether a child should be allowed to walk around with a firearm?”

          I think the young man handled himself quite well and did our society a great favor the other night.

        7. avatar strych9 says:

          I recall that WI has somewhat similar laws to MI on this topic. Or at least they did 20 years ago when I lived in the U.P. and had reason to know both.

          I would argue that a Hunter’s Safety cert MAY apply depending on details and how they choose to apply them. Generally underage people can’t possess a firearm without the cert except under certain circumstances such as being under the supervision of an adult, legal guardian etc or on private property which they are legally allowed (have been invited on to).

          Without knowing the details of why and exactly where this kid was it’s possible that he didn’t need the cert because he wasn’t hunting and was on private property to which he was invited and was under the supervision of an adult approved by his parents.

          Now, obviously he left that property. The question is why. If he left of his free will that may be an issue. OTOH if he was chased off of it because he tried to avoid shooting someone by retreating then he might not be.

          Of course it’s possible that he regularly does deer season in WI or something and has a cert.

          Realistically, we don’t know enough about the circumstances under which he went to WI, was in WI or what happened that night to say one way or another. So arguing vociferously in either direction is pointless since it’s based on speculation.

          From what I’ve seen the only thing that’s absolutely clear to me about this is that the prosecutor has a serious uphill battle here, particularly after I’ve read the charging document. Now there’s a bunch of inferences that could be drawn from that part of this but realistically we don’t know enough about the overall situation to really say much about prosecutorial intent or competence here either.

        8. avatar Miner49er says:

          “ …was on private property to which he was invited and was under the supervision of an adult approved by his parents.”

          Interesting, the investigation will most likely reveal the truth of it.

          If his parents knew he was there with that weapon doing what he was doing, then they’re guilty of at the very least child neglect leading to death or injury.

          And why did his teammates abandon him then?

          And why no public statements from the teammates regarding Kyle’s actions?

          And why no statements from any of the property owners involved, such as the used car dealer?

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          If his parents knew he was there with that weapon doing what he was doing, then they’re guilty of at the very least child neglect leading to death or injury.

          [Statutory Citation Needed]

          Please point out in the Wisconsin statutes where this could even possibly be an applicable charge.

        10. avatar Miner49er says:

          Chip, here it is in federal law. And I imagine WI has similar language in their statue.

          “Both Federal and State laws provide basic definitions of child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, defines child abuse and neglect as the following, at minimum:
          ƒ Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation
          ƒ An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”

          If they knew about the trip and did not act, they would be allowing their child into a situation which clearly presented an imminent risk of serious harm. That would come under the ‘failure to act’ charge.

          And the questions still remain, why did his teammates abandon him? Why have the teammates not come forward to express support for the so-called ‘righteous shoot’?

          Why has the property owner not come forward to support Kyle’s defense of his property with lethal force?

          Why has the weapon owner not come forward, to explain why he was providing a semi automatic rifle to a 17-year-old from another state?

        11. avatar That Jason says:

          OK little Choppy, no one is talking about a hunting permit.

          Go read the statute you linked to. Note it allows for military basic training to suffice.

          Did you think learning where to shoot a deer is part of Basic? If you weren’t so hell bent on being obtuse about it, you might get the idea.

          It’s a safety course.

          It’s not a hunting permit.

          You have to pass the safety course if you want to get a hunting permit or under-age carry. You can’t really be obstinate and illiterate enough not to get this, can you?

        12. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          That Jason, I’m going to quote the statute for you. Point out where the statute states that the training course/cert is a prerequisite to carry a long gun (as opposed to a prerequisite to obtaining a hunting permit).

          http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/VIII/593

          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.

          The statute deals only with hunting and obtaining a hunting permit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any activity outside of hunting.

          Prove me wrong. Point out in the statute where it states that it applies to carry in general, rather than to obtaining a hunting permit.

        13. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          P.S. That Jason you should probably learn to read your own state’s statute before accusing others of being illiterate.

        14. avatar Miner49er says:

          Chip is correct in that the statute is vague and doesn’t clearly state that you need the safety course in order to open carry.

          What we will have is a conflict of two important doctrines, legislative intent versus liberal interpretation.

          Clearly, the legislature intended to require the safety course before allowing open carry.

          On the other hand, because the statute is vague, the doctrine of liberal interpretation or construing any ambiguity in favor of the individual, may apply.

          I also think the doctrine of compelling public interest may play here, the legislative intent did indeed involve the compelling public interest of maintaining a safe environment even with open carry of lethal weapons so the safety course requirement is a reasonable accommodation.

        15. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I think you’re making a common misinterpretation, Miner. Here’s 3c: ‘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.”

          Note the logical structure. The way you (and most others) are interpreting it is: “If A or not B or not C.” But that is not how it is written.

          It is written as: “If A or not [B and C].”

          The safety cert is specifically in the context of hunting. I suspect that the legislative intent was also specifically around hunting, not general carry. Otherwise, why carve out a long gun exception at all? They could instead have written 3c explicitly as a hunting exception, as they did for training and national guard service.

          To clarify: 3c applies to general carry, and the “not [B or C]” violation applies to hunting specifically.

    2. avatar Juice says:

      All I can think of is that they’re planning to go with “well, he started it.” Which isn’t supported in any of the videos I’ve seen, which show the shooter attempting to walk or jog away from his apparent attackers. The whole thing has me scratching my head.

    3. avatar d says:

      The prosecutor is NOT incompetent, he’s corrupt. He should be disbarred and jailed for malicious prosecution .

      1. avatar gus says:

        yep. all these charges are bogus. and first degree intentional homicide?? wtf????

        malicious prosecution

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Nanashi,

      With respect to the firearm possession charge, here is the relevant section of Wisconsin statute:

      This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice …

      Since the accused was engaged in target practice (the targets were ANTIFA/communists) he should be in the clear!

    5. avatar Hannibal says:

      I don’t know why everyone thinks the only choices are incompetence or ‘throwing’ the case.

      It’s a political prosecution. The case can’ t be ‘thrown’ because there is no case. The prosecutor probably knows this. They wanted to lock him up to make a statement. And probably in the hopes that there would be no more riots.

      It’ll be months or probably years before the final disposition of the case. By then, they figure the furor will have died down. Meanwhile the kid’s life is completely turned upside down despite being clearly justified. Too bad there’s no stand your ground law there. Not because he didn’t retreat (he did) but because such laws often offer an early termination of the case if the defense can meet a burden before going to trial.

    6. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

      Not incompetent. Political. Overcharge, force the defendant to work for his innocence. Get points from the mob.

      If the prosecutor no bills the guy for acting in self-defense, the mob will march on his/her house.

      Prosecutor may be corrupt, but not stupid.

  4. avatar Miner49er says:

    “FightBack Foundation, Inc. website is now online. Go to http://fightback.law to donate to the 501(c)(4) Foundation.

    Very good, I understand Stephen Bannon will be a senior advisor to the foundation, managing the legal defense funds from a Chinese billionaires yacht just off the coast.

    1. avatar Void says:

      Your comments can damn near be used as a pickling solution.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        You say that but I am very hesitant to donate to a site that has basically no accountability or actual terms when it went up. Maybe it’s better now.

        Not for a second do I trust that there aren’t people who would be happy to make a huge paycheck off of this.

        1. avatar Void says:

          That is a fair point that uses reason instead of hyperbole. To your credit you focus the scope of your criticism on likely issues instead of emotional crybullying. To the original post it wouldn’t matter who the donation site was run by it is that it exists and may help someone who the commenter does not seem to think should exist.

  5. avatar American Patriot says:

    So this kid wasn’t even from Wisconsin? Let me get this straight
    1. He’s underage
    2. Crossed state lines armed
    3. Shot 3 rioters
    Is this right???? All I seen was a video.

    1. avatar Silentbrick says:

      He lived less than 20 miles from there and worked in the city. So him being there isn’t as odd as the wackjobs who drove from Washington state to ‘help’ the rioters.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      He crossed the state line unarmed. The firearm in question was always, and only, in Wisconsin.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “He crossed the state line unarmed. The firearm in question was always, and only, in Wisconsin.“

        The shooter REPORTED the rifle belonged to a friend in WI.

        On the other hand, there are many pictures on his social media of him posing with a rifle that looks identical in appearance to the one he employed in Kenosha.

        Even taken at face value, the question becomes; is it lawful for a person to give a 17-year-old individual a rifle in Wisconsin?

        Is it lawful for a 17-year-old to open carry a rifle in Wisconsin?

        Again, there are many unanswered questions.

        Did the individual have the permission of the property owner to stand guard over his inventory? If he did, there is a veritable liability bonanza just waiting for the right attorney.

        If not, was the individual then an armed trespasser?

        Just what occurred there and what happened to his teammates? Where are they and why haven’t they made statements about this incident? If Kyle’s actions were righteous, every armed citizen who was there should step forward and bear witness.

        But I haven’t seen this yet. Why?

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Even taken at face value, the question becomes; is it lawful for a person to give a 17-year-old individual a rifle in Wisconsin?

          That would be a matter that could potentially imperil the owner of the rifle, and would not be germane to charges against this defendant.

          Is it lawful for a 17-year-old to open carry a rifle in Wisconsin?

          Yes, it is lawful. I have posted, quoted, and cited the applicable statute elsewhere in these comments.

        2. avatar BennyRose says:

          Yes.
          Yes.
          Answered your questions, you big baby.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Chip, you know politifact has looked at this open carry issue and they have reached a conclusion that Kyle could not legally carry the deadly weapon at age 17. And the local prosecutor has charged him with a misdemeanor related to the open carry under 18 statute.

          While I understand you may think that politifact is biased, I would suggest that their legal counsel has looked at this issue and provided sources to back up to conclusion.

          Could you explain a little more clearly why you believe Kyle was authorized to open carry a deadly weapon in Wisconsin at age 17, thanks!

          https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/#sources

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Could you explain a little more clearly why you believe Kyle was authorized to open carry a deadly weapon in Wisconsin at age 17, thanks!

          Simple: it is lawful, because there is nothing in the statutes that makes it unlawful. Refer to 948.60(3)(c). The “minor in possession of a deadly weapon” statute, per (3)(c), does not apply to someone under 18 who possesses a long gun, provided that the long gun is not an SBR/SBS, and that the possessor is neither hunting while under 16 or hunting without a permit.

          I have linked and quoted the applicable statutes already, so won’t do so again here.

    3. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

      He traveled ten to fifteen miles from his home.

      Didn’t cross state lines armed.

      He shot 3 people who were assaulting him. He never initiated anything and tried to flee repeatedly. He also reported the initial shooting immediately to 911 who told him to go to the police lines. The police there ignored him and waved him off

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “He also reported the initial shooting immediately to 911 who told him to go to the police lines.”

        Interesting assertion, do you have a source or citation regarding this 911 call? Has the 911 tape been made available?

      2. avatar Paul says:

        I would also appreciate a citation for that claim. It has been claimed that Kyle called a friend, rather than 911 after the first shoot. It will all come out at the eventual trial, of course, but at this point, I’m not sure whether Kyle dialed 911, or speed dialed his mom, or a friend, or a lawyer.

      3. avatar gus says:

        on video: after he shot the short guy in the parking lot, he circles back to look at what happened, makes a phone call, and walks/runs away talking on the phone. some think they hear him saying “I just shot someone” or something like that.

        maybe that is when he called 911? or someone else, told them he shot someone, then called 911 next?

        if he called 911 it’s probably at that point.

    4. avatar BennyRose says:

      Shill confirmed.

    5. avatar Hannibal says:

      1. He’s underage
      -Immaterial and breaks no laws (requires reading the whole statute and not just one section to find this out)
      2. Crossed state lines armed
      -Immaterial and breaks no laws. I cross a state line every damn day. Who cares.
      3. Shot 3 rioters
      -Yes

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        At this point, we’re not sure where the weapon came from.

        Federal law states you can only transfer a weapon across state lines for ‘lawful purposes’.

        If he had brought the weapon from Illinois for the purpose of violating Wisconsin’s minimum 18-year-old open carry statute, that would remove the federal protection.

        Also, Wisconsin statute states it is unreasonable to use lethal force in defense of property:

        “It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one’s property.”
        https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/49

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          “If he had brought the weapon from Illinois for the purpose of violating Wisconsin’s minimum 18-year-old open carry statute, that would remove the federal protection.”

          Let’s take a look at that law.

          “948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
          ( In this section, “dangerous weapon” means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;)
          (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.”

          Sounds simple, right? Nope! Gotta read the later portions.
          “(3) 
          (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…”

          -941.28 is SBRs or SBSs. Ritterhouse had neither from the video.
          -29.304 is hunting restrictions for people under 16. He cannot be “out of compliance” as it does not apply to his age bracket.
          29.593 regards the process for obtaining a hunting license. Ritterhouse may or may not have a license, but it’s a stretch to say he is ‘out of compliance’ if he doesn’t because it doesn’t say that anywhere in the statute.

          Some people are now saying the law is ‘poorly drafted.’ That’s what we call a technicality. But when you’re trying to prosecute someone for something that isn’t in the law, well, technicalities matter.

          Every single charge that has been drawn up, including the gun charge, is bogus.

      2. avatar American Patriot says:

        Just asking….Not all the facts are known!

  6. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    The murder 1 charge is grossly overkill.
    This kid was charged so fast, it makes little sense at all. I am guessing it was done to appease the mob.
    The video evidence alone shows he was clearly defending himself.
    Yes from a 2A standpoint we have a right to defend ourselves.
    He was trying to retreat.
    All three attackers had some form of weapon. A Molotov cocktail, skateboard and a pistol.
    He was never charged with illegal possession.
    He is underage, so if they try lesser charges later, there is a good chance he will be tried as a minor.
    Despite the media narrative, he had a med kit and was filmed cleaning up graffiti earlier in the day.
    I have not seen the proposed footage of him assisting a BLM protester who was injured, but that rumor is out there.
    He deserves a legal dream team, and like Sandman they need to not stop until the DA in the case has been drained financially, and committed political suicide.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “This kid was charged so fast, it makes little sense at all. I am guessing it was done to appease the mob.”

      Yup. Most assuredly a calculated attempt to quell the violence and avoid more burning car dealerships. We’ll see how it works out, though I have a feeling that even the bozos that were in the mob that night have seen all the videos for themselves and are realizing they might (cough cough) have been on the wrong side of the altercation. With the evidence mounting in defense of Kyle, it would be foolish for anyone to publicly announce on social media (which LE most assuredly is scouring nowadays) that they were part of that mob. They’re laying low out of their own self preservation.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Speaking of laying low, why haven’t we had any public statements out of the armed citizen team that Kyle was a part of?

        Why haven’t those individuals come forward and made public statements regarding Kyle’s actions that night?

        1. avatar Paul says:

          Good questions. And, I still want to know why the elder members of the team or squad didn’t establish some kind of control and responsibility over Kyle. It appears that Kyle was abandoned by his team mates. Something happened to separate Kyle from the rest of the team, and I really want to know what that “something” was. The midget pedo should never have been able to isolate Kyle from the squad.

        2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          No need to and why stir up issues with an unfriendly media.

        3. avatar BennyRose says:

          “And, I still want to know why the elder members of the team or squad didn’t establish some kind of control and responsibility over Kyle. It appears that Kyle was abandoned by his team mates. ”

          They are jackals. Have you ever watched lions or wolves hunt? They circle their prey until they separate the youngest or weakest from the herd, then they attack.

        4. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

          Probably staying quiet because the first rule in these situations is “lawyer up and dummy up”.

      2. avatar diksum says:

        Or even lying low.

      3. avatar NJ2AZ says:

        “I have a feeling that even the bozos that were in the mob that night have seen all the videos for themselves and are realizing they might (cough cough) have been on the wrong side of the altercation.”

        i assure you the people who want/need to believe Rittenhouse was the bad guy here are somehow only having that belief ‘confirmed’ by the videos. i’ve made the mistake of engaging some of them the last day or two. i can’t possibly understand how they can watch videos that constantly and consistently show the kid trying to run away and interpret that as him wanting to shoot people.

        1. avatar TonyT says:

          I suspect a large part hinges on the perspective of a firearm to those who despise/villainous the objects. I have family friends talk about the horrors of one of their patients “owning hollow bullets” for a pistol, believing them to tumble upon entry, travel nonlinear routes through the body, and cause assured death. Different set of family friends speak of the horror they felt the day a disturbed patient walked into a secure area with a belt of ammunition (no firearm or even an edged device, just some loose linked ammo).

          For us who are versed in firearms, we can look at a situation like this, see someone armed, and say “yes, and what were they doing?” In order to assess the person’s dangerousness level. For those on the other side, speaking and believing something so foreignly different from our own, open possession alone is enough to categorize someone as evil.

    2. avatar Jim Bob says:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if they charge him as an adult for underage possession of a firearm…

      1. avatar Joel says:

        Oh the irony………

  7. avatar Alexander says:

    So the police can shoot a person because he is a potential threat, with impunity, but a citizen, who is attacked by a mob, is charged with murder for defending himself from an imminent threat. It seems that the police has chosen to be on the side of the enemies of the Republic.

    1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

      In this case not the police but the scumbag prosecutor who appears to also be a moron

      1. avatar Alexander says:

        But the arrest was made by the police. We know that the prosecutor is a scumbag, but that is an elected position – elected by the scumbags that vote (or who’s votes are duplicated). An honest police officer, from the chief to the patrolman, should have refused an un-Constitutional order. But, the paycheck is obviously more important.

        1. avatar BennyRose says:

          Cops do what they’re told. Back the blue.

  8. avatar Cale15 says:

    So the da and the cops need made an example of for messing with people that are protecting their life!

  9. avatar KRP says:

    I probably already know the answer but of what political persuasion is the prosecutor? And by the way, has there been an arrest of the individual who got shot while attempting to shoot the boy? I bet not even though it is very evident he is holding the gun even after being shot!!!

    1. avatar n64456 says:

      She’s a woman, from between Milwaukee and Chiraq…. My guess is she’s a garbage Democrat

      1. avatar BennyRose says:

        We are wrong to give women power.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Domineering mother, too many adverse childhood experiences?

        2. avatar BennyRose says:

          Brain in my head.

          Ain’t no Christian but them smart fellers that wrote the Bible had a thing or two to say about Men who follow women.

  10. avatar Warlocc says:

    I’m starting to think this was an appeasement charge so they could let him walk but still say “See, we tried!”

    There’s no way you get murder one when you have video of the “murderer” on the ground, being beaten by the person he shot.

    1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      Depends… if someone comes after me with a gun and I am unarmed, I am still going to make them earn it so without context the video could look really similar to what we’ve seen.

      The key difference here is that we dont just have video of when he shot these people, we also have the part where they are chasing him down the street shouting “get him” and then pouncing when he tripped and fell. That will be important.

      I agree with most others that this was overcharging to try and appease the mob. That said, I doubt they will be sad if it somehow sticks… so its a win win for them.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      warlocc,

      I think it is even better than that: all his defense attorneys have to do is show the video segment where the “suspect” is swinging his rifle into position to point at the last aggressor, who then stops his forward motion and puts his hands up in the air, at which point the “suspect” refrains from shooting and lowers his rifle.

      Of course anyone who watches the entire video can see that the last aggressor, after stopping and putting his hands up in the air, proceeds to advance on the “suspect” again while starting the process to point his handgun at the “suspect”. It is only at that time that the “suspect” once again swings his rifle up and shoots that last aggressor in the arm (just above the elbow).

      That video sequence clearly demonstrates that the “suspect” was NOT acting on bloodlust or some desire to kill people. Instead, it shows that he acted with considerable restraint.

  11. avatar DoublePlusGreat says:

    Meanwhile the felon Gaige Grosskreutz who took a 5.56 in the arm before he was about to shoot The Greatest Hero Of Our Generation Kyle Rittenhouse with a Glock 26, has not been charged for a felon in possession of a firearm.

    Since this shootout the felon Gaige Grosskreutz has stated he “wished he had emptied his gun into the fascist killer Kyle Rittenhouse.”

    Whelp, holding my breath for when AG Barr charges this Pantyfa warrior with Felon In Possession Of A Firearm, Aggravated Assault With A Firearm, Riotous Conduct.

    1. avatar BennyRose says:

      Barr is too busy investing the civil rights violation of the criminal Jacob Blake.

      1. avatar Roger Johnson says:

        And hoping all this FBI DOJ unpleasantness from 4 years ago could just die a quiet death.

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I am wondering if the judge in Illinois saw the video evidence (which clearly indicates the “suspect” acted in self-defense) and wants to help the “suspect” oppose extradition for a bogus prosecution.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      I don’t get that from anything I’ve read. The judge seems to be cooperating, so that when Kyle is extradited, his legal team is all properly set up. No one is going to allow some meathead to come get Kyle, and drive him to some secluded location, for example, so that Kyle can be shot in the back while trying to escape. The judge is doing Kyle a favor, but he can’t prevent Kyle being extradited.

      The only chance of that happening, is if the Feds step in and assume responsibility for everything. Highly unlikely, because Kyle didn’t deprive anyone of their civil rights.

      1. avatar The Huscarl says:

        I don’t know about the powers of this judge in particular, but I do know that extraditions can be refused. It’s extremely rare, but it does happen.

        Back when the History Channel had good programming they aired a documentary about a guy who was horrifically abused by the Georgian justice system. Lived a large chunk of his life as a fugitive. Eventually landed in New Jersey (I think? Not 100% on that) and the state government refused to send him back when Georgia asked. This was in the 1920’s and 30’s I think.

        1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          But remained in custody in NJ?

          I suppose life in a low-security NJ prison was better than life in a maximum security Georgia prison?

        2. avatar The Huscarl says:

          @Geoff he was able to live a normal life in New Jersey. Let me see if I can find the story.

          Here we are! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Elliott_Burns

        3. avatar BennyRose says:

          The History Channel has always been enemy propaganda.

    2. avatar The Huscarl says:

      Perhaps. But I’m that case, he would never be able to enter into Wisconsin again. For that matter, would he even be able to leave the state of Illinois? This every time he enters a new jurisdiction would be a new opportunity for arrest and extradition. If I were the judge, I’d leave it to the kid himself to decide as beating the charges would be the only way to regain freedom of travel.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      Doubt it. It’s the sort of common procedural motion that generally isn’t an issue.

    4. avatar Roger Johnson says:

      I think the Judge is doing the kid a favor. He’s not allowing that boy to go back until such time as he is properly lawyered up.

  13. avatar n64456 says:

    Fucked Around…

    Found out…

    One dead felon pedophile, one dead felon wife beater, and one felon that will be weak-hand masterbating the rest of his life…

    They chose poorly

    1. avatar Tim says:

      Exactly. And got their asses smoked by a kid, no less.
      Give that young man a medal.

  14. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    His extradition should be delayed to Never.

  15. avatar Floyds' Casper-TFG....NILKA says:

    OR….. This could be a CIA psy-op to show what will happen if you RESIST THE NWO!!!!!

    🙂

    1. avatar arc - the annoying one says:

      Any people just volunteered to get shot, mhmm.

  16. avatar gus says:

    “Please visit http://fightback.law & consider donating. Foundation funds will be used for Kyle & in time, to defend others & to support conservative causes”.

    so, how much of your donation goes to Kyle and how much gets, um, set aside for “others”?

    1. avatar gene says:

      It should be https. Anyway, it was set up by Lin Wood, his attorney. Lin Wood was Richard Jewel and Nick Sandmann’s lawyer. See his announcement at https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1299366416026677248 It’s good to be suspicious of fundraising sites. Like BLM donation money goes through ActBlue which then funnels it to various Democrat efforts. Check it out and see the target URL for the donate button.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Yeah when I checked yesterday it was not in a state to take donations as far as I’m concerned. It had a “click here for more details about donations” that went nowhere. I’ll be checking back in a few days and see what it looks like- because this is a defense I think needs to be made.

  17. avatar jwm says:

    In the old fascist Germany it was common practice to let violent criminals out of prisons and mental institutions so they could commit the crimes for the Nazi’s.

    The 3 people who were shot by Kyle fit that bill to a T. All were violent criminals. All were serving fascism.

    I know that folks want to call these people leftist and commies. But by their actions they are nothing but old school fascists.

    1. avatar John Bryan says:

      Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Progressivism…all different flavors of the same Kool-aid. All malignant outgrowths of the worst ideas that came to fruition during the Enlightenment and expounded upon by the worst of the Romantics. So much misery originating from the myopic self-loathing of Western European “thinkers”.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Atheism is a hell of a drug.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      Jaybird, with all due respect, where do you get this drivel?

      Do you really believe that the Nazis release the denizens of the insane asylum to commit crimes in Germany? Are you serious, I thought you had studied the history more closely.

      I have two terms for you, ‘life unworthy of life’ and ‘useless eaters’.

      “The physically and mentally handicapped were viewed as “useless” to society, a threat to Aryan genetic purity, and, ultimately, unworthy of life. At the beginning of World War II, individuals with mental or physical disabilities were targeted for murder in what the Nazis called the “T-4,” or “euthanasia,” program.

      The Euthanasia Program required the cooperation of many German doctors, who reviewed the medical files of patients in institutions to determine which handicapped or mentally ill individuals should be killed. The doctors also supervised the actual killings. Doomed patients were transferred to six institutions in Germany and Austria, where they were killed in specially constructed gas chambers. Handicapped infants and small children were also killed by injection with a deadly dose of drugs or by starvation. The bodies of the victims were burned in large ovens called crematoria.

      Despite public protests in 1941, the Nazi leadership continued this program in secret throughout the war. About 200,000 handicapped people were murdered between 1940 and 1945.”

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Sorry, miner, but like yourself the nazis were good at saying one thing and doing another. They did in fact release inmates from prison and asylums and use them as tools.

        How about you? You supposedly support red flag laws, ubc’s and all the rest of that garbage for gun control. But you yet have to say anything about the arm shot felon that had a Glock in his hand when he was shot by Kyle.

        Your Nazi leanings are shining through, miner. But it’s cool. You help Trump get re-elected with every comment you make here.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        So instead of trying to provide evidence for your claim you decide to call me a Nazi?

        Well, I guess that’s about all we need to know about you.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Your actions call you a nazi, miner. You still haven’t addressed the obvious. 3 felons, one of which had a firearm and all you’re prattling on about is a 17yo that defended himself. Are you afraid to criticize the felons running rampage on our streets? Fear that you party overlords will deem you not committed to the cause enough?

          What we need to know about you was established by your second or third comment here on ttag.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          At least two of the ‘felons’ are dead and beyond the reach of justice.

          And I’m sure the wheels of justice will deal with many individuals that engaged in mayhem that evening.

          Among those individuals, will be Carl’s teammates, who abandon him early in the engagement.

          So Jay, the matter at hand is the Kenosha shooting. Why haven’t Kyle’s teammates come forward to defend his actions?

          For that matter, why didn’t his teammates defend him instead of running off into the night like a bunch of keyboard commandos?

          Do you think maybe they saw Kyle kill the protester in cold blood and they decided they didn’t want to get any of that on them and unassed the AO?

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Legal counsel has likely told them to shut it. As for keyboard commandos. Combat is chaotic. Kyle was in combat against a team of experience fascist thugs. But he prevailed.

          Only those with a dishonest agenda, such as you, are calling him a murderer. You and your fascist buddies are giving this election and quite possibly the next to Trump. Now if your overlords figure out what you’ve accomplished on Trumps behalf I doubt it will go good for you.

          A crew of these ‘peaceful’ protesters may show up at your place.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          “you, are calling him a murderer”

          Nope, I have never called Kyle’s a murderer.

          But the district attorney in Kenosha has, they are the ones who charged him with murder, take it up with them.

          The armed citizen team was under attack by a crack group of fascist thugs?

          Too bad nobody seemed to get video of the assault and routing of the armed citizen team, that would be interesting.

  18. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    In response to more than a couple of cop haters posting here about the knee jerk murder charge against Kyle Rittenhouse BEFORE it was possible for detectives to conduct any semblance of a thorough investigation, you are exactly right. Rittenhouse was charged before a legitimate investigation got past the preliminary stage because that’s what the liberal Democrat prosecutor demanded in order to counter any possibility of an honest homicide detective conducting an honest investigation that would likely have determined the use of deadly force was justified. The corrupt prosecutor had to make sure he beat an honest cop to the punch. Rittenhouse is the victim of a politically driven decision to force through murder charge just as many LEO’s across the country have recently become political targets after the justified use of deadly force.

  19. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    The play I believe, I may be wrong, will be that Kyle murdered the ‘Bald Guy’ first and his actions afterwards do not grant self-defense since he (Kyle) was the instigator. Everyone else involved was trying to stop him (Kyle) the active shooter from shooting more people. Additionally, I believe that disparity of force will be brought up. Fists and a skateboard against an EBR. Will the average juror have the knowledge to understand that Fists, feet, and skateboards are all lethal? Kyle is going to need some super expert witnesses to get this concept across to them. Many think a weapon can not be used to defend against someone without a weapon..which is a crock..But as I said, expert witnesses to instruct the jury.

    Skateboard guy is becoming a sympathetic hero in many circles under this narrative, heck all three are. The important thing is not to let the MSM forget about their criminal past, not even for a second. Their convictions must be brought up again and again. The crying girlfriend has put herself out on the stage and so she needs to be scrutinized as well. Sorry, not sorry..She asked for it.

    Our system is adversarial in nature and it’s time to go after the DA as well. He/she is in the public sphere and no expectation of privacy needs to be recognized. Had an affair 30 years ago? Too bad..It needs to be revisited. Kicked the neighbors cat? Too bad..get PETA to start marching.

    A trial is a nice way of saying warfare without shooting.

    Kyle’s team needs to declare total war.

    Make it soo painful that prosecutors across the country gain some non-political sense of fairness and morality.

    sorry, coffee this late at night wires me up.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Damn right. Those are ugly, mean, and vindictive tactics, but it’s long past time they were used in service of something good instead of the Left’s vile retrograde ideology.

      When you find yourself in a war, being kind and taking the high road only benefits the enemy. We didn’t start this; we didn’t ask for it; we only want peace; but sometimes war gets forced on you anyway.

      It’s long past time for people who are on the side of freedom and decency to start fighting like we mean it.

    2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Conveniently, there’s video of Antifa-guy clocking seated on street Portland Driver-guy with just a foot. Really, video of many “mostly peaceful” protesters, plus the medical records of their victims would nicely demonstrate the defendant’s risk at the time. Perhaps add material from Andy Ngo’s ambush(es.)

      Any of this may, or may not, be declared admissable. BUT, with funding, every exhibit can be submitted in the court of public opinion, whether the Judge lets it in, or not.

    3. avatar BennyRose says:

      Too long, didn’t read.
      The bald guy was chasing him. Threw a molotov cocktail at him. Had him cornered against a building. Only then did the young man turn and shoot. Try again.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        So you say…Is there any video of the shooting of Bald guy? Not bald guy chasing kyle or throwing something at kyle, but actual video of bald guy being shot 4 times and going down? Or does the shooting happen where it was not recorded or seen at exactly that point?

        If no visual evidence is forthcoming than both prosecutors and defense must paint a picture for the jury based on physical forensic evidence and witness testimony. Basically He said/She said with interpreted facts to back it up. This is the point of weakness, IMO, that the prosecutor will attack the hardest, but we’ll see.

        That being said, the political leaders of Wisconsin (Gov and Lt. Gov) are making statements about Kyle and the shooting. I’m betting that the prosecutions office involved is silently screaming for those two to be quiet. A defense team would be thinking “Keep running your mouth!”.

        “…..Earlier Thursday afternoon, several groups that represent law enforcement shared a letter addressed to Evers and Barnes asking them to stop making comments on the police shooting of Jacob Blake “until the facts of the investigation are known.”…” https://www.channel3000.com/completely-horrifying-gov-evers-lt-gov-barnes-condemn-killing-of-2-protesters/

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Have you read the actual charging documents?

          In addition to video evidence they have an excellent eye-witness who was feet away (a reporter). He was there from the beginning when baldy started trying to attack Rittenhouse for no reason to the point when Rittenhouse leaves after shooting him. The reporter states that bald pedo lunged right at Rittenhouse after chasing him into the parking lot and the account makes it clear that Rittenhouse was trying to get away the entire time.

        2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          “…In addition to video evidence..”

          Yes, I read the charging documents.

          Is there video evidence of the exact moment the 4 shots were fired into bald guy? The exact moment that shows both Kyle and Bald guy similar to Kyle and Glock arm guy. I’ve seen videos of Kyle being chased by bald guy and I’ve seen Kyle standing by the dark colored car afterwards, but no still photographs or video.

          Post a link if it’s on the webs, that would be awesome and allow me to form a new opinion with new information.

    4. avatar Hannibal says:

      Yes, I believe the theory of the case is that Rittenhouse murdered the first guy and then the others were trying to citizen arrest him. This is a very poor theory for a bunch of reasons but it’s the only way they can even hope to charge him with the second two shootings as he was on the ground being attacked.

      The case fails on two accounts. First, he didn’t murder the baldy pedo guy. If that was self-defense, and it was, he does not have to submit to a mob wanting to ‘arrest’ him. Second, the people chasing him were not talking about arresting him. They were shouting “beat his ass.”

  20. avatar vesa says:

    Here is a kicker:
    The pos DA Michael Graveley that laid all those charges against Kyle is the same DA that laid charges against a rape victim that shot her rapist!

    https://www.change.org/p/drop-all-charges-against-incarcerated-trafficking-survivor-chrystul-kizer

  21. avatar possum says:

    Holly shit, the comments. Hears the deal , your fucked. Your white, you used an assault weapon to protect yourself. Your fucked . Now lemme tell yah this , when u want to be left alone, get down dern n nasty, get mean, We have to do what we have to do. ,,. ,. yah can’t talk shit unless you’ve walked on fire. Kick a couple of the right people asses and presto chango ,”They” make you sergeant of of arms( skip that, unless u like to fight) yah know what there’s a whole bunch of really badasses that don’t do suckiiual media, I happen to be one, just cause I like to fck wit yah. Because damnit you’l lose my fork.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Good Lord, that almost made sense…

      I bet you made a hell of a probate.

  22. avatar Grampsguns says:

    An aside here… I think this kid handled himself very very well in this situation. He didn’t spray and pray. He kept his head and made his shots seemingly count. That’s a lot at 17, or even a multiple of 17. Ask yourself how you would do in his shoes.

    Someone should do up a “KR”-15 moral patch or something.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email