On Monday, November 15th, 2021 Judge Bruce Schroeder ruling in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse has thrown out the charges for “possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18”. This ruling was arrived at due to a peculiarity in Wisconsin’s firearms statute which prohibits minors under 18 from carrying a firearm under certain conditions but allows them as long as they aren’t violating certain preconditions. Because Rittenhouse wasn’t in violation of those conditions, his possession of the rifle was not expressly illegal. The defense argued that since Rittenhouse’s weapon was a long-barreled rifle as opposed to a pistol or a short-barreled rifle which are prohibited completely. The Judge, however, did note according to Business Insider that the law is “poorly written”. Initially facing seven charges, with curfew and possession of a dangerous weapon removed, Rittenhouse now faces five charges as the case moves into final arguments. These charges include, “first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide, and attempted first-degree intentional homicide.”
The only remaining arguments that the prosecution and defense have left to determine are those of the reasonability of Kyle Rittenhouse’s claims of self-defense in shooting and killing Joseph Rosenbaum, 36 as he chased, cornered, and then lunged at Kyle, shooting and killing Anthony Huber, 26, after he bludgeoned a prone Kyle Rittenhouse twice in the neck and head with a skateboard and shot 28-year-old Gaige Grosskreutz, wounding him, as he lunged toward Kyle pointing a pistol at his head.
The Most Likely Conviction For Rittenhouse Is Off The Table
The misdemeanor charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor of all the charges had arguably the most stable case and the most likely conviction of any count in the case. The prosecution could easily argue that Rittenhouse’s possession of a rifle which he did not in point of fact own. Given that Rittenhouse’s ownership of the weapon was forbidden by law (arguing purely as a matter of law and NOT constitutionality, because there is no constitutionally acceptable limit on the right to keep and bear arms) and that he knowingly circumvented this by having a friend purchase it for him and store it, (known as a strawman purchase) the prosecution could’ve argued that Kyle was in violation of the spirit of the law if not its letter. But that charge having been thrown out by Judge Schroeder renders that all moot.
Indeed the jury’s deliberations are far more simple now: it comes down to three decisions: Did Kyle reasonably defend himself from Rosenbaum? From Huber? And from Grosskreutz? The intricacies, constitutionality, and applicability of Wisconsin gun laws are no longer a factor. It comes down to one question: Was Kyle Rittenhouse defending himself? Or did he intentionally murder two men and injure a third without justification? Period.