Yes, Kyle wasn't hunting.

what would that mean in legal-english. "Hunting and use" ? That would mean "hunting OR other" here.

Does it mean "Hunting and use" in the manner: "Used while hunting"?

Im still confused @Doc .... why do you believe its a problem that counsel of the victims or their families were present? All criminal proceedings are open to the public.

Owning a short-barrelled rifle is a felony already. I don't know why on earth this statute is being interpreted to suggest that this is just an extra criminal charge for someone that owns an SBR.

Yeah... I see what you are saying on the "other use issue" seems to imply something other than hunting. Oddly worded law

@JD~Jordan Scroll up, it was very well explained by @Neph (Nec) / Krystaps (War)

It is in conflict with the presumption of innocence.

I dont see it but whatever

And you commonly see in court cases here council for the presumed victim to act as co-prosecutor.

Now, not being in compliance with hunting laws (which requires you to be, you know, hunting) means that the under 18 rule applies.

What is in conflict with the presumption of innocence?

@Maw Ya, I saw that now. The entire law is a hunting law.

This is the argument, and it's a very persuasive argument, far more persuasive that (2)(a) means literally nothing in the statute.

@JD~Jordan Claiming a victim.

These things have to be public. Speedy and PUBLIC trial is what our Constitution says. So long as they did not participate there is no issue.

The STATE - the prosecutor is claiming there are victims

The other attorneys are just there to witness a public hearing

Not true.

I would be way way more concerned if they were not present

The task of victims council, at least here, is to look after the legal interests of the victim.

Of course

Not to merely witness.

But if they did not participate what is the problem?

Were they allowed to ask questions? (if so that is problematic)

The state claims a victim. That victim has council. This validates the victim`s status and effects jury and witnesses.

Just a simple question did they participate or not? I didnt watch after it froze on me

That is a problem. Not to say that it is wrong to have them there, victims do need legal assistance. Just that it is a situation where you have to weigh two principles against eachother.

OMG... did they participate?

@JD~Jordan I dont know. I didnt watch the whole thing. The principle was what we were discussing, not that exact case.

Principle versus occurrence.

Ok. Well unless they participated there is no issue. As if not for covid this hearing would have been in a court room open to the public and those lawyers could sit and watch like anyone else. The transcript to the hearing is also available

Just like we did

I wrote a very short brief of the hearing.

Thankies

Did you include the faceplant and Kyles dive?

Motions to dismiss charges 6 and 2 (Minor in possession of a firearm - Wis. Statute § 948.60 (2)(a)) & (Reckless endangerment in the first degree of Richie McGinniss - Wis. Statute § 941.30 (1)) were denied, but the arguments were heard due to the state accepting argument at this time.

Defense claimed that Rittenhouse was not wielding an SBR (short barreled rifle) nor a short-barreled shotgun, and therefore was exempt from liability to 948.60(2)(a), by referring to 948.60(3)(c) exemption. The defense was heard and prosecution countered that this defense was heard and denied prior to appealing this again. The state concurred that Mr. Rittenhouse was not hunting (as defense stated in their argument, specifically that the defendant was not hunting) and therefore the motion to dismiss charge 6 was considered moot as the 948.60(3)(c) exemption is specifically in reference to compliance to hunting regulations (compliance requires you to be hunting, if you're to be compliant of hunting regulations). The court concurred with the state, and the motion to dismiss was denied.

Defense claimed that Mr. McGinniss was not provably in danger, and made the mistaken claim that there wasn't any suggestion nor inference that McGinnis was ever in the line of fire from the complaint itself. The state countered that there was in fact language in the complaint that said explicitly that Mr. McGinnis was in the line of fire, and this was proven to be accurate upon reciting the paragraph in question within the original complaint. I believe the state at this point suggested to the defense that this is a preliminary hearing and not a trial, and the bringing of affirmative defenses were not appropriate to the standard of probable cause at this time. The court agreed, and charge 2's motion to dismiss was denied.

The state brought on their one and only witness, Detective Antaramian of the Kenosha Police department.
The defense had extra witnesses, but were willing to use the state's witness as long as they proved to be reliable upon cross-examination.
Cross-examination took place and the witness was questioned on 12 exhibits of screenshots of publicly available video evidence.
Upon completing cross-examination the defense was satisfied with the state's witness, and required bringing forth no other witnesses.

State claimed probable cause was established and requested bind over of the defendant, the defense disagreed.
Court ruled in favor of the state, and concluded that the case should go to trial.

Defense did not request a substitution of the trial judge.

@Maw awesome. Can I hire you? 😄

Yeppers... probable cause is such a low standard. And since he is out on bail he probably should want probable cause found.

The way it works in this state is crazy. If a person is arrested on a felony and they have a preliminary hearing and the judge finds NO Probable Cause, thus dismissing the case - The Prosecutor could choose to get an indictment and since the other case was dismissed the defendant would be arrested again and have to post another bond.

@Doc Maybe!