Names of the three people shot by Kyle Rittenhouse have been made available.
The “beloved skateboarder” who was killed is one Anthony Huber, a 26-year-old from Silver Lake, Wisconsin.
His record from Kenosha County, and the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Department show that he has one conviction for felony disorderly conduct, two felony convictions for strangulation and suffocation, and misdemeanor convictions for battery and resisting an officer.
Here is some Wisconsin state law:
940.235 Strangulation and suffocation.
(1) Whoever intentionally impedes the normal breathing or circulation of blood by applying pressure on the throat or neck or by blocking the nose or mouth of another person is guilty of a Class H felony.
(2) Whoever violates sub. (1) is guilty of a Class G felony if the actor has a previous conviction under this section or a previous conviction for a violent crime, as defined in s. 939.632 (1) (e) 1.
That’s three different felonies.
Next is Joseph “Jo-Jo” Rosenbaum, 36-years-old, and recently moved to Kenosha, Wisconson.
He is a convicted and registered sex offender for sex with a minor in Arizona. He was awaiting trial for two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence when he was shot.
How about Lefty?
He would be Gaige Paul Grosskreutz, also 26-years-old, form West Allis, Wisconsin. He is a member of the People’s Revolution Movement of Milwaukee. His family set up a GoFundMe which has been taken down.
He is a Paramedic and has a single misdemeanor conviction for 941.20(1)(b) Go Armed with Firearm While Intoxicated.
Kyle here was defending himself from attack by two convicted felons and a guy with a weapons violation – who was carrying a weapon at the time.
Strike two domestic abusers and a pedo from the earth.
The media hasn’t covered this because they have a narrative to push, but given the violent and predatory nature of the two dead assailants, this is going to make the case against Kyle even more interesting.
As they say in the legal field “discovery is going to be fun.”
I hope none of the three have written songs about raising flags and marching with steady steps.
IANAL but it is my understanding that unless the shooter knew the history of his attackers PRIOR to shooting that it is not admissable in court for the defense. As always I could be wrong.
Generally that would be correct. The history of the attacker is only relevant as a defense if it was part of the calculation of the defender. If he doesn’t know, it cannot be part of what he considered when he made the decision to use force.
The shooter has one major problem: he went TO the fight, armed, looking for trouble. He is not a local caught up in circumstances, he was an outsider who went looking for trouble. It’s hard to claim self-defense when you go to the fight.
and yes, I am a lawyer. Thought not in Wisconsin.
I am not a lawyer and am directing my question to GMC70 for correction if incorrect.
1: The second amendment permits the open carrying of a long rifle.
2: the constitution permits protection from domestic tyranny.
3: just because a person has a weapon does not automatically make them considered a direct threat and therefore not there to cause problems.
4: the individual did not attack any person directly until after physically attacked himself so therefore not directly there to cause problems but responding directly to immediate imminent threats to his wellbeing.
Are any of these incorrect assumptions and not all legally protected? As far as i know he did not make any previous statements of intended aggression. Therefore not there to cause problems but simply there to exercise his right to defend his countrymen against domestic terrorism and tyranny.
(Again i am NOT a lawyer and am simply looking for your educated opinion)
A lawyer who is dismissing all the evidence easily found where he was HELPING protesters and business owners? Shame on you.
Your point about “…going to…” is outside the scope of the prosecution.
As I understand America laws, anybody can travel anyplace without notifying you… or waiting for your permission.
It’s a good thing he doesn’t need to know their history… All he needed to know is that they were trying to harm him
Irrelevant as the videos showed that all three were attacking the boy in such a manner as to justify use of deadly force to protect his life and limb.
Hmmm.. IANAL, but it has been my understanding that despite the fact he went “to” the fight, he was clearly attempting to disengage when the violence started… He was running away from his assailants.
Just like anyone else, he can travel to a protest to have his voice heard.
Just like everyone else, he can be armed when he does so.
And just like anyone else, he can defend himself if others decide to become violent over his free speech.
Exactly. GMC, do you have supporting evidence for the statement that “…he went TO the fight, armed, looking for trouble.” ?
The fact that he happened to be at a location where trouble occurred does not mean he went there for the purpose of finding trouble, no more than wearing a seat belt is evidence that you’re planning to run your car into a tree.
In fact, a video made by another person who talked to the boy prior to the start of hostilities proves that he was NOT there to cause problems. He was there to protect a gas station and to render aid to those injured during the riot.
Sigh.
OK. First, this isn’t about “terrorists,” or the 2nd Amendment, or “domestic tyranny.” This is a legal matter re: a shooting, nothing more.
Second, I made no comment as to whether this is or is not justified self defense. I made the observation that going to the fight, here, a riot in a town some 20 min. or so from home, which this 17 year old kid did, makes it more difficult to claim self-defense. It was incredibly stupid (at best) to be there in the first place, and prosecutors will use his traveling to the riot as evidence of intent. That’s just a fact.
As to the case itself, I’ll wait for the facts to come out in a court, and not try this case in the court of public opinion, thank you. I will say however that I would NEVER advise someone arm up and go TO a riot, There is no good outcome that can come from this. Even if this young man is ultimately acquitted, his life as how he imagined it is probably over. At 17.
At most he might be found guilty of one count of a minor in possession of a weapon (not a felony) which will not prevent him from getting on with his life as he wishes it to be. And unless the jury is stacked with blm/antifa supporters he will be found innocent of any murder charge, especially after the video of him stating his intentions of protecting property and rendering aid to injured people at the riot is shown to the jury (if it even gets that far).