Mark Karlin: Rittenhouse Would Have Been Guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor if He Wore Brass Knuckles. He Shot Three People Instead.
AR-15 style assault firearm (Larry Blissett)
November 23, 2021
MARK KARLIN — BUZZFLASH EDITOR
Yes, it’s true. Rittenhouse would have likely been found guilty of something if he had worn brass knuckles instead of carrying an AR-15 style assault rifle. According to Wisconsin State statute:
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
A nunchaku would have also possibly done. Instead, we’ve normalized the grotesque pathology of rampant gun use that defense-friendly Kenosha County Judge Bruce Schroeder ruled that Rittenhouse did not violate the law because his military-style rifle was longer than the legal prohibition against sawed-off shotguns and rifles. Say what? The language of that exception is murky. The section in Wisconsin law is so poorly worded that even testy and defense biased Judge Schroeder admitted he was confused by it, but removed the charge nonetheless:
(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.
We have become a nation so inured to gun violence that the news media, in general, accepted this ruling as reasonable. Okay, how is it that in this nation it was okay for Rittenhouse to prowl around looking for trouble with a highly deadly long gun, but he is prohibited by Wisconsin and federal law from carrying a handgun, as the Gifford Law Center details? It may be technically legal, although that remains unclear, but it is deadly to public health.
A former prosecutor, Tom Grieve, told the Associated Press that,
the exception [is] an “extraordinarily poorly worded statute” marred by technical language and too many cross-referrals to other sections of Wisconsin weapons and hunting laws. He said that’s typical in more obscure areas of state law that get little attention.
Rittenhouse was clearly trying to create a provocation, a specific kind of incitement that is prohibited in Wisconsin law:
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others…
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:…
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
During the four days of Kenosha protests, only three people were shot. Two who had no weapons and were murdered by Rittenhouse, and one who had a pistol (Wisconsin is an open-carry state) and was grievously wounded. Rittenhouse was responsible for all the civilian shootings after Jacob Blake was shot in the back by a Kenosha police officer.
Attorney and former law professor Carlit Pierson wrote in USA TODAY after the verdict:
While much has and will be made of the prosecution's poor performance, I think the blame lies elsewhere. Even before Judge Bruce Schroeder's questionable in court behavior, in the pre-trial phase, the judge kept prosecutors from offering evidence of Rittenhouse’s association with the alt-right group the Proud Boys and his prior, and arguably relevant, statements about wanting to shoot unarmed civilians with an AR-15 over property crimes. And during trial, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger poked holes in Rittenhouse's lawful self-defense claims on cross-examination, and in his closing arguments.
Imagine if Rittenhouse were Black and had shot the three white victims (a word Judge Schroeder refused to allow being used in court). We would be talking now about a far different verdict: guilty with life imprisonment.
If only Rittenhouse had worn brass knuckles. Then the three victims would have had a fighting chance against the teenage vigilante murderer.
In May of 2000, Mark Karlin founded BuzzFlash.com, the aggressive progressive website, which quickly developed 4 million readers a month. Now, BuzzFlash is a niche site with a smaller but loyal following. BuzzFlash is the winner of four Project Censored Awards and has interviewed most of the progressive leaders over the past 20 years, as it daily offers commentaries and a curated offering of linked progressive and pro-democracy articles. Karlin is an honor's graduate of Yale University with distinction in the Department of English. He also holds a Master's Degree in English from the University of Illinois. He currently serves as the Publisher, Editor, and Chief commentator for the site.
Follow BuzzFlash on @twitter
Continue the conversation at the BuzzFlash Nation group on Facebook
If you want to be put on an occasional email newsletter list with just BuzzFlash Editor Commentaries, email to buzzflash@buzzflash.com with the words “sign me up.”