Stupid question but: was he not charged on carrying a weapon across state line?

[question everything]

why not? What am I missing?

[Decoy of Fenris]

1. Because he didn't carry the weapon across state lines.

ON EDIT: That's a bit of misinformation oft-quoted, like how his mother transported him there (She didn't).

A lot of the buildup to this trial was gross misinformation that people seized on and treated as gospel.

[question everything]

3. How did he get that gun, then? Purchased it in Wisconsin?

[Sympthsical]

4. His friend who was of age purchased and held it in Wisconsin.

That friend is currently charged with weapons crimes.

[ForgedCrank]

12. I'm not sure if I really understand this one fully.

What was submitted in court as sworn witness testimony, was that his buddy bought the rifle for him and the agreement was he couldn't have it until he turned 18, and could only shoot it under approval by the purchaser. The testimony was that the gun was loaned to him, but always stored in WI and he never really owned it yet.
Ok, beside the fact that I don't really believe that story, let's pretend for a moment that is all 100% true.
If so, is this really a straw purchase? (Which is a federal law, not WI law by the way). I just have no experience in this and have never known anyone to get caught up in it. I'd like to know what the true interpretation of the rule is.
We know that it is NOT illegal for a 17 year old to own a rifle, it is only illegal for him to purchase one.

"The ATF has a single exemption that allows buying a gun for another person, and that is when it is a bona fide, actual gift.
If the gun is purchased with the buyer’s own money, and given to another person is not a prohibited person without an exchange of money, goods, services or other tangible items or things of value, then it is a real gift."

It seems to me like it will come down to the truth about whether or not any money exchanged hands, and I haven't heard that mentioned yet.

[Sympthsical]

19. Rittenhouse's money was used

In testimony, it was stated Rittenhouse gave his friend money he received from his $1200 stimulus check to purchase the gun. They both admitted it.

The friend is charged with two counts of providing a minor with a deadly weapon causing death. He's charged under a Wisconsin law not a federal one.

I think - and really don't quote me on this, because I am not familiar with gun laws, but tried looking it all up at the time - that the reason you don't see the federal charge is because Rittenhouse never had full legal possession. The gun was purchased and stored in a gun safe in Wisconsin, and Rittenhouse had only ever used it under the "owner's" supervision. It is legal in Wisconsin to provide a minor with a gun as long as the owner has legal possession of it. That's how the hunting exemptions work.

So this could either be a technicality or an interpretation. I could be so very wrong on this.

If someone familiar with the law has clear, definitive answers, I'm all ears. I tried finding the answer to this and never found anything that made me feel like I fully understood. But that is my fuzzy understanding of why we never saw federal charges come from it. It was always a "loaned" weapon, and storing it in the safe and not Rittenhouse's residence is how they skirted around it. But once Rittenhouse started wandering the streets with it without his friend present, then it became a crime.

I *think*

[Horse with no Name]

36. How did a 17 year old receive a stimulus check because

My 17 year old didn’t

[Sympthsical]

38. He was confusing it with unemployment

I could've been clearer. He just kept calling it stimulus, and somewhere my brain thought it was the $1200 check. He was lifeguard and was furloughed when Covid shutdowns started.

So he got the money when everyone started getting that extra $600 a week of unemployment.

[Horse with no Name]

40. So how did a part time seasonal job qualify for unemployment?

It was winter and he wasn’t a lifeguard when Covid hit?
Story stinks completely

[Sympthsical]

41. There are indoor pools

Certainly in the Midwest. He worked for the YMCA.

[Decoy of Fenris]

5. Had it purchased for him in Wisconsin.

His accomplish, a Mr. Black I think, will undoubtedly pay a hefty price for the straw-purchase. As it stands however, and I don't know Wisconsin straw-purchase law or punishment so take this with a grain of salt, I don't think Rittenhouse did anything illegal re. obtaining the firearm.

[sarisataka]

9. Making a straw purchase is a Federal offense

With a penalty of upto 10 years. I've heard with enhancements due to someone being killed he may be facing 25 years

[Decoy of Fenris]

10. Well that guy's fucked for a good chunk of his life, and you know the DA will be out for blood.

The Rittenhouse trial is a hell of a bloody nose, so you can be sure Black will pay for it, and rightfully so.

[FBaggins]

23. Not much that the DA can do about it

He isn’t empowered to prosecute federal crimes.

The firearms charge getting dismissed, combined with the not guilty verdict, likely weakens any remaining state charges against Black for giving him the gun.

[question everything]

6. Thank you. So it seems.

[Decoy of Fenris]

8. Of course. Truth should always take priority. n/t

[yardwork]

27. I wouldn't call it gross misinformation.

Rittenhouse showed up in a town in another state with an AR-15 and shot three people, two of them fatally.

The rest of the details - like the fact that he now claims that he didn't bring the weapon with him, but arranged for it to be waiting for him - were used by a skillful team of defense attorneys to distract and blame others. The fact remains that Rittenhouse killed two people and maimed a third while acting under no legal authority whatsoever. The Illinois law is written so poorly, he wasn't tried for being in possession of a semi-automatic weapon that most reasonable people would not want in the hands of a 17 year old.

Distraction and blame is legal in a courtroom but the rest of us aren't impressed.

[Devil Child]

2. Because that never occurred

[sarisataka]

7. Because he never did

And is there a law against doing so?

[Zeitghost]

11. Even if he did

Carrying a weapon across state lines is not a crime. People do it all the time.

[thatdemguy]

13. Two things

As was stated its legal to bring guns across state lines.

Next, they will have a tough time convicting Black on the straw purchase. The law states you cant buy a gun meant for some one else and transfer it to him. The rifle never got transfered to rittenhouse, it was in the ownership of the purchaser. The transfer never happened, as rittenhouse never had ownership. Also living in the different states and they where going to transfer it to him when he was old enough, it would have to go thru a gun store anyway. We will never know if they where going to follow the law and there will be no way to prove it if they where not.

The one sticky part is rittenhouse giving black the money for it, but the transfer never happened even if they where going to do it illegally.

[question everything]

14. Thank you. As we see from other threads, a lot of misinformation.

No, I did not follow the trial, just relied on news stories.

I think that the most shocking to me is that someone can just go about and shoot people in the streets and claim self defense and it is legal.

Welcome to DU! You are going to make interesting comments.

[Decoy of Fenris]

16. A current post-trial theory is Rosenbaum was trying to "Suicide By Protest".

He'd just gotten out of the hospital for attempted suicide and he was caught on camera several times attempting to provoke reactions. He's also the one that shouting "Shoot me" and "If I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I'm going to f—- kill you!" That's a clear and obvious threat, and when Rosenbaum dove at Rittenhouse, there's a clear and present, actionable danger to Rittenhouse, an (almost) ironclad case of "Self defense".

Unfortunately for the other two people shot afterwards, Rosenbaum's actions directly caused every following event; if Rosenbaum hadn't charged Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse wouldn't have shot him. If Rittenhouse didn't shoot, the other two would have no reason to believe that there was an active shooter and a need to "Take down" Rittenhouse. Skateboard Guy, Jump Kick guy, the guy with his -definitely- illegal gun that, by his own admission, threatened Rittenhouse first and was shot for doing so.

Like it or not, everything that happened is pretty clearly 'Self Defense' and was demonstrably proven in a court of law by testimony, video, and forensic evidence, even if the notion might not sit well to your palette.

[yardwork]

28. So the next 17 year old who walks into a high school with an automatic weapon can be acquitted?

Doesn't matter if the student kills a dozen people, if the first person he encounters gets hysterical and lunges at him, everybody else he kills is legitimate self-defense?

What happened to the idea that "good guys with guns" are supposed to take out active shooters?

[Decoy of Fenris]

29. "Good guys with guns" has always been a myth.

I mean, sure, it happens, but as the Gun Control side of things so eloquently states, it -almost never- happens. At least not in appreciable numbers.

Let me phrase you an equally implausible scenario: A black man shoots up a (insert public space here), but then runs. Puts up his hands, turns tail and tries to flee. Are the police (Or Gods forbid a random citizen) "Good" to just shoot him in the back and gun him down when he's no active threat? How many times have we seen of "Innocent" (Read; Caught in the act of committing a crime/felony) people being shot in the back, and we endure days if not weeks of moaning and breastbeating about the "Injustice" of it all?

C'mon. Let's at least be honest here. No, that'd cause a MASSIVE outcry, rightfully so. Attacking a fleeing person is dishonorable, gross cowardice, and unworthy of civilized conversation.

[yardwork]

30. I can't see that your post has any relevance to my question or the Rittenhouse case.

Police shoot fleeing black men in the back all the time. All the time. Google it.

In any case, Rittenhouse wasn't fleeing.

[Decoy of Fenris]

31. Rittenhouse was -CLEARLY- fleeing. You'd have to have a lobotomy to think otherwise.

And when police shoot fleeing black, white, asian and latino men in the back, is it right? Of course not.

[yardwork]

34. When he unloaded a second semiautomatic round into a wounded person on the ground?

Interesting definition of fleeing. Here's how I see it:

Radicalized right wing 17 year old arranges for semi-automatic weapon to be waiting for him in another town so that he can "help police patrol" the neighborhood - which nobody asked him to do, despite his lies on the stand.

Shows up at a protest against police brutality against Black people brandishing his AR-15.

As planned and hoped for, catches the attention of a "lefty protester" who lunges at him. Shoots and kills him.

Starts running in a 17-year old panic and in turn panics other people - who saw a person running with an AR-15 who had already shot and killed somebody - and who tried to stop him. Shoots more of them.

My overall feeling is contempt and disgust. I've raised three sons. They make mistakes, sure, but this? No excuse. No justification.

[yardwork]

37. Oh bullshit. Rittenhouse didn't know who he was shooting.

Watch the interview with Rittenhouse before he waded into a protest against police brutality. All he knew was that it was "his job" (self-appointed) to protect private businesses from looters and rioters. He arrived at a protest armed and intent on causing trouble, which he did.

The only person who shot anybody that night was Kyle Rittenhouse. He didn't know the backgrounds of his victims beyond the fact that they were on the wrong side of a protest.

Edited to add that I wasn't the one who alerted on your post.

[Bev54]

20. It came out at trial that he had a friend buy him a gun in Wisconsin and that he

was either staying with a relative in Kenosha that weekend or longer, never got that straight so nobody drove him across state lines to Kenosha that day. I missed that but it was talked about at other times.

[getemjoe]

24. His father

lives in Kenosha. He spent time at his father’s

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Used To Live In Kenosha

He moved to Brookfield, which as I recall, is about 20 miles from Kenosha.
Still in the general area, but if he was staying with his dad, he wasn't staying in Kenosha.

[Jose Garcia]

15. Probably for the same reason the Germans weren't charged with bombing Pearl Harbor

[PDT69]

18. The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[littlemissmartypants]

22. You know the answer to your question is "No." That's exactly the poster's point.

The Germans weren't responsible for Pearl Harbor just like KR wasn't responsible for carrying a weapon across state lines.

[Chili]

33. Animal House reference

[Meowmee]

17. No he was not charged on that, the so obviously biased judge ruled in favor

Of the defense request to throw it out right before closing arguments. And based on Wisconsin’s crazy gun laws it was supposedly legal, it is not clear due to the fact that he had no intention of hunting and at some point lied about it.

The older friend who purchased the gun with KR money I believe was charged with purchasing the gun for a minor and will perhaps face actual consequences. The gun was not brought across state lines. The friend purchased it for him there and he somehow traveled there to get it with the plan of what was to happen already in mind.

But this sociopath, the actual killer, will likely never face any consequence now. He gunned down two and injured another, he has shown no remorse and at the time he was allowed to walk out of there by the police, after they gave him a drink and told him to go home, even though other people were yelling that he had shot 3 people. And after he told them that as well.

He was perfectly calm and collected, maybe even smiling when he walks away. He was not questioned or detained at all. And now like dumpster, as expected, he is walking free. Look up the pic of him wearing a t shirt that says “free as fuck”, smiling away, when his parents took him out to a bar to drink beer after his 2 million $ bail was posted.

[Raine]

21. He couldn't be charged with a something he didn't do and he didn't carry a weapon across

state lines.

[Busterscruggs]

25. Hopefully

His friend will be charged with negligent homicide for allowing this 'child' to run loose with a deadly assault rifle with intent to kill black people. He just settled on some allies so I guess that was close enough for him. Just sickening.

[Bettie]

32. He used a straw buyer to get it for him in Wisconsin

he still couldn't legally carry it, but laws don't matter if you're a right wing white boy.

[Beartracks]

39. A 17-yr-old with an AR-15 goes to a volatile situation.

What could possibly go wrong with his naive, self-important , inexperienced sequence of choices?

=========