General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRittenhouse's lawyers are arguing he was engaging in "legal hunting" on the streets of Kenosha.
Link to tweet
Scott Hechinger
@ScottHech
My god. Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers are arguing he was engaging in "legal hunting" on the streets of Kenosha. His attorneys should make every good faith argument in service of zealous advocacy. This is neither good faith nor zealous. It's vile & ineffective.
Hunting laws allowed Kyle Rittenhouse to carry weapon, lawyers say
Prosecutor Thomas Binger dismissed the defense argument and said Rittenhouse's attorneys should tell a jury he was "hunting on the streets" in Kenosha.
nbcnews.com
10:11 AM · Oct 8, 2021
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hunting-laws-allowed-kyle-rittenhouse-carry-weapon-during-fatal-shootings-n1280950?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
Attorneys for Kyle Rittenhouse, who is charged with fatally shooting two people during a protest in Wisconsin last year, argued that hunting laws allowed him to carry the assault-style weapon used during the shootings.
Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under age 18 from being armed, but Rittenhouses attorneys argued that state laws only forbid minors to carry short-barreled rifles and shotguns. The other prohibitions pertaining to children fall under hunting laws, which say children under age 12 cant hunt with guns, Rittenhouses attorneys said at a hearing Tuesday.
Rittenhouse, of Antioch, Illinois, was 17 on Aug. 25, 2020, when he fatally shot two men and wounded another man while carrying an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle at a protest prompted by a police shooting of a Black man, prosecutors have said.
There appears to be an exception for 17-year-olds, defense attorney Corey Chirafisi said, the Chicago Tribune reported.
Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger responded that if the defense wants to tell a jury that Rittenhouse was only hunting, it should do so.
*snip*
BlueJac
(7,838 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)If, in Wisconsin, (a) "hunting" is legal and if (b) "hunting" is defined as "walking around with a gun", then you end up with things like this.
They are not arguing that it is legal to hunt people. They are arguing that he wasn't committing some other offense up to the point of shooting people, which might have an impact on the degree of criminal homicide with which he is charged.
Or, to put it simply, if "walking around with a gun" is otherwise an offense, and if he killed someone in the process of already committing an offense, then, in some states, that kind of thing can bump a lower level of criminal homicide up to a relatively high one.
But if "walking around with a gun" is otherwise legal "hunting" in Wisconsin, then you end up with arguments that, yeah, sound bizarre in the context of just what he was up to that night.
Jim__
(14,074 posts)IIRC, he got the gun specifically to take it to the protest. What was he hunting?
Retired Engineer Bob
(759 posts)Dark skinned and liberal folks of course. Thats legal in Trumplandia, aint it?
Response to Jim__ (Reply #3)
sl8 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vinca
(50,255 posts)what he - and his lawyer, think are animals
yonder
(9,663 posts)Sneederbunk
(14,289 posts)Iggo
(47,547 posts)Lars39
(26,109 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 8, 2021, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)
Kyle General Zaroff Rittenhouse was just a-hunting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Dangerous_Game
unblock
(52,182 posts)My problem with this is that my impression is that it's not just a bad look; I think hunting humans is exactly what he intended to do and exactly what he did.
H2O Man
(73,528 posts)I recently watched film of one of the pre-trial hearings. The defense has an "expert witness" who seeks to testify that Rittenhouse was justified in killing his victim. What I found most important is that this fellow "trains" people -- from military to law enforcement to militias -- on "self defense." The significance is extreme.
Self-defense defined by the killer. How convenient.
jpak
(41,757 posts)In Wisconsin.
Also did have WI hunting license?
His lawyers are morans
Yup
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,915 posts)underpants
(182,736 posts)Out of state licenses can be expensive.
I guess getting him on a hunting violation is their goal. Seems almost insulting to the court.
Response to jpak (Reply #11)
sl8 This message was self-deleted by its author.
sdfernando
(4,929 posts)that murderous kid knew he couldn't buy that gun legally so he had a friend buy it for him...straw purchase...illegal gun. He even predicated life behind bars after his murderous rampage. I'm all for that!
I don't know what the laws are there but I'm sure you still cannot go "hunting" with an illegal gun.
jpak
(41,757 posts)A 30 round magazine is illegal in most if not all states
On edit you can use a 30 round magazine to hunt deer on WI
Yikes
ret5hd
(20,489 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,698 posts)localroger
(3,625 posts)I seem to remember that from some documentary called The Purge.
Baitball Blogger
(46,698 posts)At least our school kids and innocent bystanders would have a chance -- assuming home invasions were forbidden.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)orleans
(34,043 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,698 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,856 posts)nuxvomica
(12,419 posts)In that story, the villain was hunting people so if they want to portray their client as the villain maybe it's a Hail-Mary attempt to establish grounds for appeal based on incompetence of counsel.
Lars39
(26,109 posts)Russian aristocrat. Irony in there somehow.
femmedem
(8,201 posts)Yes, his attorney is arguing that the illegal weapons charge should be dismissed because hunting laws allow him to carry.
But it was the prosecutors who pointed out the ridiculousness of that argument by pointing out what it really means.
Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger responded that if the defense wants to tell a jury that Rittenhouse was only hunting, it should do so.
They can submit evidence that the defendant had a certificate to hunt and he was engaged in legal hunting on the streets of Kenosha that night, Binger said, according to the newspaper.
GoCubsGo
(32,078 posts)But, very little shocks me at this point, this included. Sadly, it won't shock me if the jury buys this bullshit, too.
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)...but the only legal weapons are bows and crossbows.
I can see ADA Binger's thoughts on this: Rittenhouse has exactly zero defense on this one. He was underage, he came in from out of state, he was carrying an illegally purchased gun AND he killed two people. So if the defense wants to completely destroy itself by claiming Rittenhouse was just a hunter, he's going to let them go for it.
sarisataka
(18,570 posts)Because if he was "hunting" with a gun, the goal is to shoot and kill whatever you are hunting. Since he was there 'to protect property' the particular varmint that would cause damage was homo sapiens.
Therefore the logical conclusion is that he was there to hunt people which in legalese is termed premeditated murder.
Response to sarisataka (Reply #27)
sl8 This message was self-deleted by its author.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)spanone
(135,815 posts)milestogo
(16,829 posts)A sport for Wisconsin teenagers...
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)DFW
(54,330 posts)They saw that old Western spoof from 1967, where rape was justified as "assault with a friendly weapon."
Republicans are very creative when excusing felonies committed by Republicans.
RANDYWILDMAN
(2,667 posts)You paid for this idiot to walk free the last few months and his defense is basically that he is a white free man and has every right to defend himself from scary brown people.....fuck you, you fucking fucks !
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)Might not be the most effective argument to use.
Therefore, I hope they persist in using it.
keithbvadu2
(36,738 posts)What was he hunting in the city that required such a weapon?
Bears? Boars? Wolves? Mountain lions?
Takket
(21,552 posts)if you use a gun to murder someone why does it matter if you were allowed to carry it or not? the moment you kill someone a crime has been committed.