Kyle Rittenhouse, Kenosha, Wisconsin update thread.

[Walleye Hunter]

How is it non-criminal?

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tutes/948/45/1



In Wisconsin a Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to 9 months in jail and/or up to a $10,000 fine. AFAIK that's not a disqualification for gun rights.

Since Kyle's actions which are the alleged basis for this contributing to the delinquency of a child conviction, resulted in two deaths, that would make this specific conviction a Class D felony, punishable in WI by up to 25 years in prison and most definitely a disqualifier for gun rights.


EDIT: The scanned paper in the linked tweet has a checked box stating he'll be convicted of violating a Kenosha County Ordinance, §9-948-40:



Kinda weird to plead to that since technically, because death was a consequence, this specific statute cannot be applied as it would be a felony under the state law to which the county statute refers.

It looks to me like you are missing the asterixes, which would then make the bolded sections apply if the child is under 10 years old.

[General Geoff]

Kyle's trial determined that the deaths were not wrongful, so not felonies.

The statute makes no stipulation that the consequential death must be unlawful.

Besides, plea deals can exist outside reality. You can burn a house down and plead to speeding, if the parties all agree.

Fair enough, the justice system has plenty of legal fiction already. What's one more?

[GunLawyer001]

The statute makes no stipulation that the consequential death must be unlawful.

. . .

I haven't put the work into comprehending the entire scheme of Wisconsin's criminal statutes (why would I?), but it looks like your statute requires a "delinquent act" by a juvenile; that means a wrongful act which would be criminal if committed by an adult. Kyle was exonerated. So the threshold requirement in (1) for the "contributing" to a delinquent act, isn't there. So you never get to the enhancement in (4).

You could try to argue that (3) nullifies (1), except that it's hard to argue that supplying a rifle to a 17 year old with a spotless record of public service, will "naturally and probably" lead to multiple deaths during "fiery but mostly peaceful" protests.

948.40* Contributing to the delinquency of a child.
(1)* No person may intentionally encourage or contribute to the delinquency of a child. This subsection includes intentionally encouraging or contributing to an act by a child under the age of 10 which would be a delinquent act if committed by a child 10 years of age or older.
(2)*No person responsible for the child's welfare may, by disregard of the welfare of the child, contribute to the delinquency of the child. This subsection includes disregard that contributes to an act by a child under the age of 10 that would be a delinquent act if committed by a child 10 years of age or older.
(3)*Under this section, a person encourages or contributes to the delinquency of a child although the child does not actually become delinquent if the natural and probable consequences of the person's actions or failure to take action would be to cause the child to become delinquent.
(4)*A person who violates this section is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, except:
(a) If death is a consequence, the person is guilty of a Class D felony; or
(b) If the child's act which is encouraged or contributed to is a violation of a state or federal criminal law which is punishable as a felony, the person is guilty of a Class H felony.

[General Geoff]

I haven't put the work into comprehending the entire scheme of Wisconsin's criminal statutes (why would I?), but it looks like your statute requires a "delinquent act" by a juvenile; that means a wrongful act which would be criminal if committed by an adult. Kyle was exonerated. So the threshold requirement in (1) for the "contributing" to a delinquent act, isn't there. So you never get to the enhancement in (4).

Fair enough, I was unaware that juvenile delinquency required actual unlawful activity.

You could try to argue that (3) nullifies (1), except that it's hard to argue that supplying a rifle to a 17 year old with a spotless record of public service, will "naturally and probably" lead to multiple deaths during "fiery but mostly peaceful" protests.

If you polled a hundred random adults living in the US, I wager a majority of them would agree that supplying an AR-15 to a 17 year old to carry out in public would naturally and probably lead to multiple deaths during any kind of civil unrest. Not saying it's the correct conclusion but guns in the hands of unsupervised minors of any age is not a well-regarded concept these days among the general public.

[bigandy1966]

so thats why we give them to 18yo soldiers?

[SgtRecon]

so thats why we give them to 18yo soldiers?

Slight correction, I joined the Marine Corps at 17, so technically a minor that can't drink, vote,or purchase a firearm

[oldengineer]

Slight correction, I joined the Marine Corps at 17, so technically a minor that can't drink, vote,or purchase a firearm

One of them Kitty Cruisers, eh?

[Bang]

guns in the hands of unsupervised minors of any age is not a well-regarded concept these days among the general public.

These days and general public pretty much skews the leap to deaths, unless media has steered them there.

[TonyF]

So Kyle is making good on his desire to melt down "Excalibur". Who'd have thunk it? I love irony.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/kyle-ritt...ourt-documents

[Rosco the Iroc]

Kind of disappointed he would do it but I get why he wants to.