Rittenhouse case

even though I think the boys parents are negligent , I struggle charging them if Alec isn't negligent charged . let his peers decide his fate
I assume the Wisconsin and Michigan law is different
 
There's a whole section in the industry guidelines (adopted by the Screen Actor's Guild, which I'm sure Baldwin is a member of), that deals with the handling of weapons on the set. He's been a member for a long time I'd presume and been in a lot of movies with guns. Has he always ignored those rules or just for this filming?
I guess we’ll find out.
 
Mental illness is very hard to understand. The kid was clearly troubled.

I thought mom's text was after she knew about the shooting? I may have that wrong, but if so, maybe she was telling him not to kill himself?

That father though, must be a real POS. To sit there at the school with all of that troubling information, and knowing that he had just bought a handgun that his kid may have, and then to tell the school that they did not want him to go home with them. Presumably he knew that his kid was troubled, but maybe not.
Just think what POS the school administrators are...they saw no reason to report the kid to authorities or make him leave the school. It was they that allowed him back into class that day. Just some food for thought.
 
km1125. If that shooting doesn't qualify as an act of domestic terrorism I'm not sure what would. Keep in mind though, that if they stack on every charge that fits, or that they think might fit, those can always be dealt away when they get down to plea bargaining.
How about a black guy that mows down about 60 people with his car, would that do?:rolleyes:
 
Just think what POS the school administrators are...they saw no reason to report the kid to authorities or make him leave the school. It was they that allowed him back into class that day. Just some food for thought.
My wife works at a vocational technical school and they get paid per student. The director there has taken kids in from juvenile detention centers that have criminal records just to get that $12,000 or so per year. A couple of years ago they had a kid stab another kid in the neck with a fork. The kid walked to the nurses office with the fork sticking out of his neck. The other kid only got a 2 day suspension because he had an IEP so the police were not notified. Teachers have been threatened. My wife was threatened by a kid that said he was gonna stab her. Nothing is done cause then the director will lose that $12,000. Wife said it's a matter of time before something bad happens there.
 
Since we're kind of bouncing around in this thread, I felt like this earlier thought on Baldwin's "oopsie" should be addressed. While I'm not trying to sell myself as an expert, I do have a far amount of experience with the Single-Six revolver's action. @Woody summed it up well in the following, with one clarification (in quotations, added by me):
If you fully cock the gun, the trigger must be squeezed to let the hammer down. If thumb slips off, ka-boom.
If Baldwin 'let go of the hammer' at any point before full cock "the following" is what should happen as long as he wasn't depressing the trigger:
release the hammer just before full cock, the hammer should stop in the half cock position, no ka-boom.
release the hammer just before half cock, the hammer should stop in the safe position, no ka-boom.
Correct on all points.
release the hammer just before safe position, gun can go ka-boom.
Unless I misunderstand what you're saying here, the gun cannot fire with the hammer pulled back in any position short of fully cocked, not because of how the hammer locks, but, more importantly, the cylinder does not fully rotate into battery position until the hammer is pulled fully back. Anything short of this would find the hammer dropping on a blank area between cartridges.


Baldwin described for Stephanopoulos how he pulled the revolver’s hammer back as far as he could “without cocking the actual gun.”
If that's true, meaning that he pulled it "almost" all of the way back, then my prior explanation holds true, and the hammer would fall on a non-lethal area.


“I let go of the hammer. Bang! The gun goes off,” Baldwin told Stephanopoulos.
Again, can't happen without fully cocking the gun and his finger has to have the trigger pulled back.

I hope that guns condition is being examined by an expert gunsmith.
Likewise! However, as someone pointed out later in the thread, I'll bet Baldwin would have checked things a bit more had he needed to point the gun at his own head for the scene! Just as I taught my kids and wife, do not point the gun at anything that you don't intend to shoot. Were it me in his place, I would have insisted anyone immediately downwind of the gun step aside as I pulled the trigger. You don't have to have your face against the back of the camera to have it rolling. That, and I'd be pointing that pistol at the ground as a number of rounds were touched off just to see what happens. Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the person holding the gun. It's no different than the captain of a boat is responsible for making sure his ship has all the safety protocols in place.
Please understand I hold no ill will towards Baldwin. I can't imagine what someone in that situation would be going through, but don't try to pawn it off on someone else.
 
Just tried it.
My Vaquero will either stop half way between cylinders or right on a cylinder.
It could be sitting on a loaded cylinder and pull the hammer back slightly to make it fall back on that cylinder.
Slightly more and let it go, it will land half way between cylinders and all the way back it will lock and wait for the trigger to be pulled.
 
Since we're kind of bouncing around in this thread, I felt like this earlier thought on Baldwin's "oopsie" should be addressed. While I'm not trying to sell myself as an expert, I do have a far amount of experience with the Single-Six revolver's action. @Woody summed it up well in the following, with one clarification (in quotations, added by me):

Correct on all points.

Unless I misunderstand what you're saying here, the gun cannot fire with the hammer pulled back in any position short of fully cocked, not because of how the hammer locks, but, more importantly, the cylinder does not fully rotate into battery position until the hammer is pulled fully back. Anything short of this would find the hammer dropping on a blank area between cartridges.


If that's true, meaning that he pulled it "almost" all of the way back, then my prior explanation holds true, and the hammer would fall on a non-lethal area.


Again, can't happen without fully cocking the gun and his finger has to have the trigger pulled back.

Likewise! However, as someone pointed out later in the thread, I'll bet Baldwin would have checked things a bit more had he needed to point the gun at his own head for the scene! Just as I taught my kids and wife, do not point the gun at anything that you don't intend to shoot. Were it me in his place, I would have insisted anyone immediately downwind of the gun step aside as I pulled the trigger. You don't have to have your face against the back of the camera to have it rolling. That, and I'd be pointing that pistol at the ground as a number of rounds were touched off just to see what happens. Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the person holding the gun. It's no different than the captain of a boat is responsible for making sure his ship has all the safety protocols in place.
Please understand I hold no ill will towards Baldwin. I can't imagine what someone in that situation would be going through, but don't try to pawn it off on someone else.
I think in response to your comments I'd have to say 'it depends'. The cyl locking dog disengages somewhere between the safe position and half cock, drop the hammer before that and it will hit the primer, the hammer's force would be light but it might go off. At half cock the cyl free wheels for loading. The cyl locking dog re-engages just before full cock. It is possible Baldwin could have dropped the hammer after the cyl lock dog engaged but before he click into the full cocked position. In any case he would have had to squeeze the trigger in order for it to get by half cock or safe position...unless the gun was worn out, damage, or modified.

It is the safe position and halfcock position that are the true safety features to prevent the hammer from dropping on a round without the trigger being pulled. There's a good chance he had just squeezed the trigger so he could let it down after having cocked it and his thumb slipped off. De-cocking the gun would have been a logical thing to try to do after he just cocked it for the camera. Maybe all Baldwin had to do was fess up...'my thump slipped off the hammer'.
 
How does any of baldy’s excuses impact the lawsuits coming his way? What about criminal charges for negligent homicide?

How does him trying to muddy the waters impact those definitions of these coming charges?

I don’t see it changes much.
 
km1125. If that shooting doesn't qualify as an act of domestic terrorism I'm not sure what would. Keep in mind though, that if they stack on every charge that fits, or that they think might fit, those can always be dealt away when they get down to plea bargaining.
Depends on what your definition of 'terrorism' is. (or what 'is' is? :) )

FEMA defines it as "Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom. "

Was he trying to coerce anyone? Was there any ransom involved? Nope. So that would leave intimidation. Just who was he trying to intimidate? I would speculate if anything was a motive it was to avenge some 'wrong' that he felt, and it was against fellow students, not the student body as a whole or students in general. Sure, some folks might now feel intimidated to attend school, but if that was not his intent, then it doesn't apply.

Now, if we check wikipedia, they would start by saying "Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the unlawful use of intentional violence to achieve political aims." None of that would apply, but they go further to suggest " It is often used with the connotation of something that is "morally wrong" ". Then all bets are off and it could be used for shoplifting too.
 
km, I think an argument could be made that this kid was so f'd up that among his goals was to achieve media fame which could imply a political aim that could only be gained by doing something truly horrible.

I doubt that splitting hairs like that would be done in a court. If the prosecutor called his actions "terroristic" it's unlikely the defense would counter that. They would likely just let the use of the term quietly go away rather than draw attention to it.
 
Overreach by the prosecution loses more cases than it wins. Juries don't do well when they find someone Not Guilty on one count and Guilty on another. The Terrorism charge is media catnip. Focus on proving murder in the First degree and trying the kid as an adult and forget about the catnip.

Also charging the parents when you don't have them in custody is just a publicity whore move especially when you lay out the text messages they sent their son as your "evidence".
I've now watched the School Superintendents video. He said yes the school had met with the student and the parents. The school felt 'discipline was not warranted'. They allowed the kid to go back to class.

I've now watch a 20min press briefing by the Prosecutor, she's a joke. Those parents are facing a potential 60yrs plus big $penalties each. One of the things she spoke of as a reason to charge was the fact the parents did not search the kids backpack while they where at the meeting at the school.

Given the outcome of the meeting... 'discipline was not warranted', authorities were not notified, the kid was allowed to go back to class, it's clear the adults in the meeting thought the danger level was virtually non existent. Should we be surprised it didn't dawn on any of them to look in the kids backpack? But the Prosecutor wants to give each parent 60yrs in the hoosegow because they didn't.:rolleyes:

I wonder how many folks think these parents broke a bunch of laws?
 
I've now watched the School Superintendents video. He said yes the school had met with the student and the parents. The school felt 'discipline was not warranted'. They allowed the kid to go back to class.

I've now watch a 20min press briefing by the Prosecutor, she's a joke. Those parents are facing a potential 60yrs plus big $penalties each. One of the things she spoke of as a reason to charge was the fact the parents did not search the kids backpack while they where at the meeting at the school.

Given the outcome of the meeting... 'discipline was not warranted', authorities were not notified, the kid was allowed to go back to class, it's clear the adults in the meeting thought the danger level was virtually non existent. Should we be surprised it didn't dawn on any of them to look in the kids backpack? But the Prosecutor wants to give each parent 60yrs in the hoosegow because they didn't.:rolleyes:

I wonder how many folks think these parents broke a bunch of laws?

Which laws? And, whatever the parents are charged with the school officials should be charged with.
 
Which laws? And, whatever the parents are charged with the school officials should be charged with.
That's the interesting part. In MI you can gift a gun to your minor kid. In MI the minor kid can possess the gun in some circumstances although the parents are the true possessors overall of the kids gun. In MI a person can own and possess some firearms before they are legally able to buy them from a licensed dealer. In MI there is no requirement for guns to be kept under lock and key.

The parents said the gun was in their room, their lawyer said the gun was locked up. Importantly it wasn't in the kids room, the parents had possession. The Prosecutor said that makes no difference, the kid had access. Think about what that means for anyone who has their guns secured but the kid figures out how to defeat those measures.

The media likes to tell that the kid was with the parent when the gun was purchased, that's not illegal. The Prosecutor cites some emails and social media post as evidence, none of the contents are illegal. The kid and mother talked about the Xmas present and the first time going together to try it out.

The Prosecutor said the parents should have known. At this point nothing has come out that the kid has a history of mental problems and the kid had a clean record at school...so should have known what?

We've got to remember this unfolded in two days. A point was made that he was searching for ammo on his phone while in school. Maybe his parents told him they wouldn't be going to the range every weekend because ammo was expensive and he was trying to find the cheapest. He shouldn't have been playing with his phone during school time, looking for ammo, or looking at the picture a girl friend just sexted of her titties either.

The parents, student, and school counselor met the next day because the kid drew 'disturbing' stuff. They say the kid conducted himself well, explained the pictures were of an idea he had for a video game. The media says the parents were resistant to taking the kid home that day. After meeting with the school counselors that felt no 'discipline was warranted' and he could go back to class what would be the point. If the counselors felt there was a threat they wouldn't have allowed him in the school, they'd of had the police there, the kid would have been searched, probably the whole school would have been searched. In fact the counselors opinions might even have been comforting to the parents...because they didn't think the situation warranted any of those things.

Something was wrong with that kid, for how long who knows but he fooled everyone. The kid deserves what he gets IMHO, but what about the parents? Up to 60yrs in prison each for what their son did. Their son was not a 6yo that doesn't understand things, plays with a gun found in a drawer and shoots their little friend. Their son is charged as an adult, at 15yo he did understand things, he was capable of making his own decisions, he was capable of plotting to carry them out, he was fully aware of what the results would be....all this independently. You may tie the 6yo actions to the parents but I think the 15yo is different.

The Prosecutor said one of the reasons she decided to charge the parents was her 'feelings' as a mother, as a community member, as a prosecutor. Think about that.
 
^^ Another Rittenhouse style prosecutorial overreach.

Exactly. This isn't about self defense......it is first degree murder. I expect the charges against the parents will go away since the text messages won't be enough to establish guilt.

What this kid did was horrible. That intent had to be learned and he got it from someone.
 
That's the interesting part. In MI you can gift a gun to your minor kid. In MI the minor kid can possess the gun in some circumstances although the parents are the true possessors overall of the kids gun. In MI a person can own and possess some firearms before they are legally able to buy them from a licensed dealer. In MI there is no requirement for guns to be kept under lock and key.

The parents said the gun was in their room, their lawyer said the gun was locked up. Importantly it wasn't in the kids room, the parents had possession. The Prosecutor said that makes no difference, the kid had access. Think about what that means for anyone who has their guns secured but the kid figures out how to defeat those measures.

The media likes to tell that the kid was with the parent when the gun was purchased, that's not illegal. The Prosecutor cites some emails and social media post as evidence, none of the contents are illegal. The kid and mother talked about the Xmas present and the first time going together to try it out.

The Prosecutor said the parents should have known. At this point nothing has come out that the kid has a history of mental problems and the kid had a clean record at school...so should have known what?

We've got to remember this unfolded in two days. A point was made that he was searching for ammo on his phone while in school. Maybe his parents told him they wouldn't be going to the range every weekend because ammo was expensive and he was trying to find the cheapest. He shouldn't have been playing with his phone during school time, looking for ammo, or looking at the picture a girl friend just sexted of her titties either.

The parents, student, and school counselor met the next day because the kid drew 'disturbing' stuff. They say the kid conducted himself well, explained the pictures were of an idea he had for a video game. The media says the parents were resistant to taking the kid home that day. After meeting with the school counselors that felt no 'discipline was warranted' and he could go back to class what would be the point. If the counselors felt there was a threat they wouldn't have allowed him in the school, they'd of had the police there, the kid would have been searched, probably the whole school would have been searched. In fact the counselors opinions might even have been comforting to the parents...because they didn't think the situation warranted any of those things.

Something was wrong with that kid, for how long who knows but he fooled everyone. The kid deserves what he gets IMHO, but what about the parents? Up to 60yrs in prison each for what their son did. Their son was not a 6yo that doesn't understand things, plays with a gun found in a drawer and shoots their little friend. Their son is charged as an adult, at 15yo he did understand things, he was capable of making his own decisions, he was capable of plotting to carry them out, he was fully aware of what the results would be....all this independently. You may tie the 6yo actions to the parents but I think the 15yo is different.

The Prosecutor said one of the reasons she decided to charge the parents was her 'feelings' as a mother, as a community member, as a prosecutor. Think about that.

More BS out of Michigan. Color me surprised.

I love the state and it's natural beauty, but man it's politics and laws are ass backwards....
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,948
Messages
1,422,811
Members
60,930
Latest member
Ebrown69
Back
Top