TexasCHLforum.com

Flightmare wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:00 am Does anyone know if Wisconsin has similar laws to Texas regarding civil immunity if found not-guilty in a criminal case?

Kyle Rittenhouse has been acquitted of all the criminal charges against him, the only possible verdict consistent with justice in a case with this evidence and law. Having been acquitted in criminal court, he is now free of any possible criminal liability for his actions in lawfully defending himself on August 25, 2020.

Now, however, there remains the possibility that he might be sued in a civil suit, either by survivor Gaige Grosskreutz for the vaporization of his bicep when Kyle shot him in self-defense, or by the families of Joseph Rosenbaum or Anthony Huber in wrongful death actions for Kyle’s killing of those two men, again in self-defense.

In particular, I’m getting a lot of inquiries as to whether Kyle Rittenhouse might find protection from any such civil suits under Wisconsin’s self-defense immunity statute. So, that will be the focus of today’s content.

Just sharing my brief appearance, post-Rittenhouse acquittal, on the Fox News television show "Ingraham Angle" hosted by Laura Ingraham. Robert Barnes, an outstanding attorney, was also making a guest appearance in the segment.

Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all five counts. Legal Insurrection covered the trial as intensively as anyone. At this online event Attorney Andrew Branca of The Law of Self-Defense, and Prof. William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection Foundation and Cornell Law School, will go over the good, the bad, and the ugly of the case, and give you their perspectives. The event will be moderated by Kemberlee Kaye, Director of Operations and Editorial Development for the Legal Insurrection Foundation. There will be opportunity for Q&A.

Space is limited, so register now to reserve your spot!

In late-breaking news the night of November 16, 2021, the defense filed a motion for a mistrial with prejudice on grounds that the State failed to provide the defense with the high-definition drone video in its possession, insteady merely providing the defense with a low-resolution version of that video, as well as on other grounds.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 10:53 pm

Flightmare wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 8:15 pm

rtschl wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:56 pm So I just finished watching testimony of his friend that bought the AR. On direct examination he stated he bought the rifle in his name with Kyle's money and would keep it until Kyle was 18. In his testimony it was revealed that he is being charged with two felonies by the Kenosha DA for providing firearm to someone under 18 in possession of a firearm. The DA i n his question didn't state what the exact two charges are. No mention of Federal charges against either of them.

So my question, does this constitute a straw purchase since he is intending to keep it until Kyle turns 18? Reading the FAQ at http://www.dontlie.org/faq.cfm I'm thinking it could because at the time of the purchase Kyle is a prohibited person. But with his intention of not giving it to him until he was not a prohibited person (i.e. 18), does that change it?

The main reason I am asking is I follow several 3 gun shooters on social media including some teens who are now adults, some who I have met at a NRA convention. Could their parents be charged with a straw purchase if their intent is to give them possession once they are no longer a minor?

The difference in your example is whose money is being used. I believe person can gift a firearm to another person and it not be a straw purchase. At least, that's what the "NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS, AND DEFINITIONS" section of 4473 say for Question 21.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473- ... 9/download

Now I am wondering about something. I buy a shotgun for my son in law for christmas. I have no intention of keeping the shotgun for myself. What would this be classified as?

Tomorrow begins jury selection in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who on August 25, 2020 shot three men in riot-ravaged Kenosha WI, killing two of them and grievously wounding the third.

Kyle is being tried on a variety of charges, including the felonies of intentional homicide, reckless homicide, attempted intentional homicide, two counts of reckless endangerment, as well as a misdemeanor charge of weapons possession by a minor.

The legal defense to the felony charges will be the legal justification of self-defense. The legal defense to the misdemeanor weapons charge will be inapplicability on the facts, as well as unconstitutional vagueness.

rtschl wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 9:36 pm He probably doesn't believe it's lawful to shoot an armed attacker either.

More Bad Law from Rittenhouse Prosecutor: “Shooting An Unarmed Man Is NEVER Lawful”

Today I’d like to share with you my perspective on the most recent pre-trial hearing for the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. That hearing took place this last Monday, October 25, and lasted about two and half hours. As the headline to today’s contents suggest, the hearing was a very good day for the defense—with one glaring exception—and yet another poor day for the prosecution.

• Painfully Embarrassing Day for Prosecutor in Kyle Rittenhouse Hearing

• Harris County DA calls for public pressure on judges releasing violent offenders

• Security guard at Kroger gas station charged with killing man is former police officer

• US records highest increase in nation’s homicide rate in modern history, CDC says