Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

The request is called a change of venue request. Our laws in Canada are the same. If the defence lawyer can show reasonable grounds to believe the choice of venue (geographic site of trial) would prevent an impartial trial, the court has the discretion to change the venue. Whether that venue must be to another city, another state, depends on the degree and extent of the possible spread of the prejudice.

One of the counter arguments the District Attorney could make is that during jury selection, the Defence has the opportunity to screen out who they think would be bias. The Defence then would argue the prejudice is so high that it could not possibly even with the right of refusals, be sufficient to guarantee a non bias jury.

The District Attorney could also argue why would anyone in any other state or city be less prejudice given the wide spread media presentation of the case.

This request is not clear cut. If its not handled properly it means the case can be appealed on that ground if not others.

I think the change of venue could easily be achieved moving to another city in the state. I am not sure leaving the state entirely is necessary.

I can also say this, its a publicity stunt. 95% of cases like this would have been plea bargained by now. The defence lawyer is creating contraversy that is needless. He could have easily got a change of venue to another city or even plea bargained the case by now.

I am a tad suspicious of his tactics. I say that having been on both sides of the table.

This is a manslaughter case. The evidence speaks for itself. Someone died. The person doing the killing was not authorized to do so. He can plea down homicide to unintentional murder. The gun, the diring, the death, its all there.

No your right to bare firearms does NOT give you the right to shoot people rioting. It only gives you the right to self defence and even then in this case there was no self defence because had the young man not been there he would not have needed to defend himself. He deliberately placed himself in a known conflict zone with a gun with the intent to act as a peace officer. I do believe he can argue he panicked when he shot which reduces homicide to manslaughter, i.e., unintentional homicide but it can not justify his shooting.

He can not show he had no other choice but to shoot. He had choices. The first was not be there. The second was not get close to the conflict. He chose to be there visibly with a gun as a peace officer.

The police did not request citizens to act as vigilantes that day. They did not ask for any help. In fact he could have accidentally killed an officer just as much as an innocent participant.

WIth due respect to this mentality your right to own a weapon means you can act as peace officers is bull ****. This boy shows what happens when you insist on having the right to own a loaded weapon but are not psychologically trained to use one.

This notion you are all Rambos is dangerous and its irresponsible. Allow police to do their job. You want to help, stay off the streets during riots and disturbances.

 

You make a bunch of valid points, well done.
This kid made a stupid decision that lead to the situation he finds himself in the first place. He should have never packed a AR up to where there were protests/riots going on. That was just asking for trouble, since he was there in no official law enforcement capacity at all.

I just find fault in your argument that there isn’t a self defense case to be made by his legal team.
But, then again all the prosecutors have to do is point out what you pointed out, that he chose to bring a weapon across state lines, so that might null any argument of self defense with a jury.

Legal council may make the argument regardless of the bad situation that he put himself in, self defense might apply in the last two shootings, where he is being mobbed up on, and where he shot the man who struck him with a skateboard, and the other individual who he shot, who also had a firearm that was clearly visible.
The first man he shot which started this sequence of events, doesn’t really fall into the realm of self defense, in my opinion. When the first individual advanced on him, he was in a open parking lot, so there were multiple avenues of egress for him to flea. I’m pretty sure Wisconsin doesn’t have a “stand your ground law”. So I’m pretty sure the first charge is definitely a slam dunk for manslaughter. The other two events are a little more murky.

 

Uhhh he was being shot at lol

Asserting someone doesn’t have the right to defend themselves because they put themselves in the situation is tantamount to arguing that a woman doesn’t have the right to fight off a rapist if she’s wearing skimpy clothes and is in a bad part of town she chose to go to where rapes are a common occurrence

In short, your entire argument is preposterous and is predicated upon blaming the victim.

The lawyer didn’t take a plea deal because his client did NOTHING illegal. He’s going to walk free and clear.

 

He’s an American citizen and has EVERY right to be in the area of the protests just like the protestors. And he had EVERY right to bear his firearm in the process.

You can’t just deny people their rights because there is a protest going on lol are you serious right now?

 

I think this more of a opinion, than anything grounded in legal basis, with all do respect.

 

Really? On what grounds did he not have the right to be there?

On what grounds did he not have the right to carry his firearm?

On what grounds did he not have the right to defend himself when he’s being shot at and chased by a mob?

Don’t worry. I’ll wait.

Maybe you’re reading a different constitution than I am homie.

 

A he was a minor at the time.
B: he brought a weapon across state lines.
C: I should have clarified, I never meant to imply he didn’t have the right to be there, That’s on me.
D: The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to posses firearms is not unlimited.

 

A: Being a minor does not take away your right to bear arms. He legally obtained and possessed his firearm.
B: There is no law that says he can’t take his weapon across state lines.
D: Nothing the Supreme Court has ruled would prohibit him from carrying his firearm where he did.

 

You are literally wrong on all three accounts.

 

Would you like to bet on that?

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60/3/c

948.60 section 3 -a b and c.

 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150101/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation

A provision of the federal law known as the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, protects those who are transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which would otherwise prohibit passage.

Under FOPA, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Ammunition that is either locked out of reach in the trunk or in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console is also covered.

 

Realize none if those apply to this case, right?

 

A: the suspect was a minor at the time this event took place. He is a resident of Illinois, not Wisconsin. The legal age to purchase a rife in Illinois is 18, so there is now way he legally purchased, and obtained that AR-15.

 

And provide any source that shows the scotus has ruled that he wouldn’t have been able to carry his firearm.

 

I don’t believe any of them had the right to be there as a riot had been declared, an order to disperse had been called and there was a curfew in effect.

It will be an interesting case to watch unfold but ultimately I believe they will be able to show intent for one with the other two reduced or dismissed entirely.

 

Of course they do. He obtained his firearm legally as that statute shows.

And as I showed with the second link BECAUSE he obtained his firearm legally he has a legal right to transport that firearm across state lines.

 

That is a good point.

 

Uh I suggest you read up some more bro

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...never-left-the-state-of-wisconsin/ar-BB1a1q3G

Prosecutors announced Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen facing charges in Wisconsin in the shooting deaths of two men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, will not face gun charges in his home state of Illinois.

Authorities determined the AR-15 rifle that was used during the shootings was “purchased, stored, and used in Wisconsin," never crossing the border into the state of Illinois.

 

The only way they can legally own a firearm if it is only used for hunting.

Do you think that a jury will buy that he crossed state lines to hunt game?

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-in-wisconsin/

 

How do you legally obtain a At 15 when Illinois law states that the minimum age to purchase a rifle is 18.
If you dive more into this case, you’ll have learn that he obtained this rife from a third party buyer.

 

That’s nowhere in the law. If it is. Provide it. Now that may have been the INTENTION behind the law. But the law does NOT state that.

 

He purchased it in Wisconsin. Which makes it legal.

And he was 17 not 15

 

I edited my post to include it

Here ya go:
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-in-wisconsin/

 

You are right about the crossing state lines. I was wrong. But, he was 17, and the age to purchase a rifle in Wisconsin is 18, bro.
So, we are back at square one agin that Rittenhouse didn’t legally obtain a AR-15.

 

That’s incorrect:


(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. 938unless 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.

Notice section 3c... Section 2 ONLY applies if the individual is under 18 AND in violation of 29.304 or 29.593.

Neither of which was he in violation of. Which makes him LEGAL to purchase and carry the firearm.