4 ms·

He’ll walk for the self defense, but he still showed up to a protest with an illegally-acquired weapon. This was also following him shooting two other people at

He’ll walk for the self defense, but he still showed up to a protest with an illegally-acquired weapon. This was also following him shooting two other people at the protest. It’s not like Rittenhouse is innocent.

hunterb123 5y ago
Those people attacked him prior. His weapon was not illegally acquired. @jachee: You don't have to "transfer" a gun to carry it across state lines, only when you first buy it through the FFL. @croes: being armed by itself is not a threat, if you point a gun at someone you are the aggressor and that person can defend themselves. just because you "see" someone with a gun doesn't mean you can shoot them, if they aim it at you that's another story. the first aggressor matters. @happytoexplain: no you would be wrong to try to restrain the man who is simply armed. if that state had a open carry law you would be in the wrong trying to confront him if he was not pointing it at you or others. there are plenty examples of both sides openly carrying at protests.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  [flagged]
- MaxLeiter 5y ago
  The man who sold him the gun was charged for selling it. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-reveals-how-gun-was-paid-for-in-first-interview-since-arrest/2366751/ https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-revea...
  - Grieving 5y ago
    First, Black didn't sell the gun to Rittenhouse. He bought it with Rittenhouse's money and allowed Rittenhouse to use it. Second, Black has been charged but not convicted, and I don't think the charge will stick: the argument is that while this was technically legal according to the letter of the law, the law in question was written with only underage hunters in mind, and should not apply in this case. Since the law itself makes no such distinctions, I don't see this as anything more than an empty gesture. Maybe I'm wrong.
- jachee 5y ago
  It wasn’t legally acquired in or transferred to the state in which it was fired.
  - DamnYuppie 5y ago
    I am not quite sure what you are referring to for the transfer. You only have to transfer a fire arm if you are selling it across state lines. In that case you basically ship it to an FFL dealer in that state and the person who is buying it goes and picks it up from that FFL. Usually the buyer will direct you to the FFL of their choice. If you buy a firearm in your home state and then take it to another state you don't have to transfer or register it.
- croes 5y ago
  What would you do if you see a man with a M&P15? If two sides are armed each side sees the other as a threat. So both can claim self defense and both are wrong.
leereeves 5y ago
Rittenhouse doesn't face any charges for illegally acquiring the weapon. He does face a possession charge, but according to NBC, that charge, "possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18", is only a misdemeanor. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kyle-rittenhouse-s-possession-gun-protected-second-amendment-n1238918 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kyle-rittenhouse-s-...
- MaxLeiter 5y ago
  See my link below. He acquired the weapon from someone else because he couldn’t buy it himself. The seller was charged.
- vitus 5y ago
  I'm frankly surprised that the misdemeanor charge isn't being used to counter the self-defense argument. From Wisconsin state law: > A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. > In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant. > The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48/2# https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/4... Maybe it was justified in the case where Rosenbaum chased down the kid, but certainly not in the other two cases. Either way, I'm skeptical that there was "adequate notice".
  - pseudo0 5y ago
    Open carrying isn't "conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack". If you see someone simply walking down the street with a rifle in Wisconsin, you can't just whip out your own gun and start blasting. Even if they turn out to be a felon or underage, the conduct itself isn't a provocation, and generally it's perfectly legal.

hunterb123 5y ago

Those people attacked him prior. His weapon was not illegally acquired. @jachee: You don't have to "transfer" a gun to carry it across state lines, only when you first buy it through the FFL. @croes: being armed by itself is not a threat, if you point a gun at someone you are the aggressor and that person can defend themselves. just because you "see" someone with a gun doesn't mean you can shoot them, if they aim it at you that's another story. the first aggressor matters. @happytoexplain: no you would be wrong to try to restrain the man who is simply armed. if that state had a open carry law you would be in the wrong trying to confront him if he was not pointing it at you or others. there are plenty examples of both sides openly carrying at protests.

happytoexplain 5y ago
[flagged]
MaxLeiter 5y ago
The man who sold him the gun was charged for selling it. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-reveals-how-gun-was-paid-for-in-first-interview-since-arrest/2366751/ https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-revea...
- Grieving 5y ago
  First, Black didn't sell the gun to Rittenhouse. He bought it with Rittenhouse's money and allowed Rittenhouse to use it. Second, Black has been charged but not convicted, and I don't think the charge will stick: the argument is that while this was technically legal according to the letter of the law, the law in question was written with only underage hunters in mind, and should not apply in this case. Since the law itself makes no such distinctions, I don't see this as anything more than an empty gesture. Maybe I'm wrong.
jachee 5y ago
It wasn’t legally acquired in or transferred to the state in which it was fired.
- DamnYuppie 5y ago
  I am not quite sure what you are referring to for the transfer. You only have to transfer a fire arm if you are selling it across state lines. In that case you basically ship it to an FFL dealer in that state and the person who is buying it goes and picks it up from that FFL. Usually the buyer will direct you to the FFL of their choice. If you buy a firearm in your home state and then take it to another state you don't have to transfer or register it.
croes 5y ago
What would you do if you see a man with a M&P15? If two sides are armed each side sees the other as a threat. So both can claim self defense and both are wrong.

leereeves 5y ago

Rittenhouse doesn't face any charges for illegally acquiring the weapon. He does face a possession charge, but according to NBC, that charge, "possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18", is only a misdemeanor. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kyle-rittenhouse-s-possession-gun-protected-second-amendment-n1238918 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kyle-rittenhouse-s-...

MaxLeiter 5y ago
See my link below. He acquired the weapon from someone else because he couldn’t buy it himself. The seller was charged.
vitus 5y ago
I'm frankly surprised that the misdemeanor charge isn't being used to counter the self-defense argument. From Wisconsin state law: > A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. > In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant. > The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48/2# https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/4... Maybe it was justified in the case where Rosenbaum chased down the kid, but certainly not in the other two cases. Either way, I'm skeptical that there was "adequate notice".
- pseudo0 5y ago
  Open carrying isn't "conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack". If you see someone simply walking down the street with a rifle in Wisconsin, you can't just whip out your own gun and start blasting. Even if they turn out to be a felon or underage, the conduct itself isn't a provocation, and generally it's perfectly legal.