Federal charges being looked into for Rittenhouse...

[pbmus]

Link to tweet

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[Baitball Blogger]

2. The judge made this necessary.

[Bluethroughu]

3. +1

[Stuart G]

4. k and r for exposure..I sure hope that he is charged & somehow serves time.

[onenote]

5. Would view this more optimistically if someone could cite a specific federal law

under which he could be charged.

[madville]

7. Not sure what he could be charged with by DOJ

At this point anything would look politically motivated due to all the politicians’ partisan public statements, DOJ will most likely decline to open that can of worms.

[WestIndianArchie]

19. Weapons charges.

[onenote]

21. Specific federal statute, please?

[brush]

29. That's what Nadler asked the DOJ to look into. Give them a minute.

[onenote]

37. I'll give them more than a minute. But it won't matter.

As we all know, the federal gun laws in this country are particularly toothless. Not sure why anyone would think they could provide a viable avenue for prosecuting Rittenhouse.

[kelly1mm]

28. He did not transport a weapon across state

Lines and ‘straw purchase’ charges are only against the actual purchaser, not the ‘actual’ intended recipient.

[WestIndianArchie]

33. I guess we will see

[Hoyt]

6. Don't see any chance of that. What government should do is pass tough gun laws.

But, no one has the guts.

How can anybody support laws that allow gunz at a protest?

[Aussie105]

60. Cumulative conclusions:

Who allows heavy armed teenagers to roam the streets?

- Sure, we see it in videos on the news. In third world countries.

What police force turns a blind eye to armed teenagers roaming the streets?

- Sure, we see it in videos on the news. In third world countries.

Where do you see someone executing others during times of turmoil?

- Sure, we see it in videos on the news. In third world countries.

Where do you see murder go unpunished?

- Sure, we see it in videos on the news. In third world countries.

BUT . . . This is America!

Cumulative effect of lax gun laws, teenage bravado, and a few other factors.
Who could have predicted this? (Most of the rest of the world, actually.)

I guess one conclusion is . . . America is becoming a lawless country, where violence and murder are ok, ie a type of third world country.

Rest of the world will slap an unofficial 'Do not go there!' label on America.

[NickB79]

8. Asking for a DOJ review isn't the same as what the title implies

But time will tell.

[regnaD kciN]

9. Hard to see it...

…after Biden declared that the system worked.

[connecticut yankee]

10. Wouldn't that constitute Double Jeopardy?

and doesn't the Constitution prohibit it?

[Polybius]

12. They did it with the cops who beat Rodney King

In that case, they used a workaround.

[FBaggins]

32. A "workaround" that doesn't apply

He isn’t law enforcement (as much as he might have been play-acting as one). So he can’t violate someone’s civil rights under color of law.

[CrackityJones75]

47. He DID claim to beacting as a security guard tho.

Although even that isn't law enforcement.

[Calista241]

65. That doesn't mean shit.

Can’t even charge him with fraud for that.

[onenote]

13. Not necessarily

For example, a case brought for violation of 18 USC 242 (Civil Rights law) would be sufficiently different as to not constitutes double jeopardy. But that law has no application to Rittenhouse because it requires that the defendant be operating "under color of law" and to have deprived someone of their rights based on race, gender, etc.

If there was a readily applicable statutory basis for federal criminal charges against Rittenhouse, I would have expected Tribe to cite it. He didn't, which is pretty telling in and of itself.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Federal charges aren't typically counted with state charges re: double jeopardy

And the federal charges aren’t likely to be for the same crimes.

[Polybius]

11. Jerry Nadler...

Isn't the final say up to Garland?

[Deuxcents]

14. I think this whole case

Was somehow very strange from the beginning..no words of victim n then it got more bizarre.i hope their conversations n doing some due diligence will come to provable case and put this self defense abuse unlawful. I hope there are a few ways to make it happen soon.

[James48]

15. Just wait.

You think it’s bad now?

Just wait until the Supreme Court rules on those 2nd amendment cases it has coming up. Every single ton, sick and Karen will be carrying concealed weapons to every event, and blowing away the public left and right. And getting away with it.

Just a matter of time till they rule.

[UTUSN]

16. K&R for, *my* problem with TRIBE is that he tells us what we want to hear

[hlthe2b]

35. Because the most preeminent constitutional lawyer in this country could not possibly have a clue

right?

[onenote]

36. Well, his pre-eminence might have pointed to a specific statute

if there was one.

[hlthe2b]

39. That he believes it worth looking into is worth far more than your derisive, dismissive and

contemptuous comment towards him. Perhaps those who are joining you in doing so would like to show your/their credentials for saying he doesn't know what he's talking about. ? Hmmm? His very long history of SUCCESS in the Supreme Court on constitutional issues speaks for itself and he deserves better. No one--or at least no one competent-- is going to make a determination without investigating all the issues and THAT is what he is calling for.

[onenote]

40. Apparently you don't realize that this isn't a "constitutional" issue

It's a statutory issue. Is there an existing statute under which the DOJ could prosecute Rittenhouse? No one has yet pointed to one -- and there are people with greater expertise than Tribe when it comes to statutory criminal law.

[hlthe2b]

41. State laws can be in violation of the consitution. Do you not realize THAT? This goes beyond Kyle R.

They can also be in conflict with Federal laws. Honestly, how did so many fail to even take basic civics classes?

[onenote]

42. Goalposts moved.

The question is whether the DOJ can bring charges against Rittenhouse.

And what state law relevant to this case might violate the Constitution: Wisconsin's gun laws? Really? Wisconsin's criminal statute allowing a defendant to claim self-defense?

What did you learn in basic civics class that would suggest that there is anything in the Constitution relevant to Rittenhouse's acquittal?

[hlthe2b]

43. NO, not at ALL. The issues around this case are major.

Maybe if you'd had any civics training (or obviously any broad constitutional law education) you'd appreciate that.

The favorite excuse for a few here caught not knowing what they are talking about appears to be accusing others of "moving the goalposts." So obvious.

Psst.. don't aggressively denounce a renowned constitutional scholar calling for examination/investigation of the issues surrounding this incident without being able to defend your position. It just makes you look silly. Consider following Tribe or Kayal or Chemerinsky or Vladek or any number of constitutional lawyers commenting on current cases and issues. You'd learn a lot.

[onenote]

44. I've thoroughly defended my position.

And I've got four decades of experience as an attorney, with two Supreme Court cases under my belt. I've explained how there are no federal statutes that provide any basis for prosecuting Rittenhouse, citing the relevant provisions of the law (e.g., 18 USC 242). No one -- not you, Tribe, Katyal, Chemerinsky, or Vladeck or anyone else -- has cited anything in the US Code that could support a criminal prosecution of Rittenhouse by DOJ. And no one has cited any constitutional provision violated by the Wisconsin statutes relevant to Rittenhouse's trial.

So please educate me: if there are "major" federal legal issues surrounding this case, what are they, specifically?

Yes, there has been a call by on DOJ to see if there is anything. That's what one would expect Nadler to do. And I fully expect that when nothing comes of that request, folks will, without describing any legal basis for DOJ to act, blame Garland.


On Edit: Tribe's tweet about the verdict in which he suggests a civil action should be brought, and says nothing about a federal prosecution. "Even though he was found not guilty of all charges, what Rittenhouse did should be seen as clearly, horribly, tragically wrong." And he should be held civilly culpable, the way OJ Simpson was. Not to extract lots of money from him but to send a message."

[CrackityJones75]

49. Been reading this thead

Been reading this thead and the most I have seen from you is telling everyone else why they are wrong. It's weak. Additionally I agree that when you have people like Tribe saying it should be looked into, that iss worth listening to. Tribe isnt saying that there is anything that CAN be done. Just that it should be looked into. At the very least looking into it is ALWAYS a good iea when we are concerned with passing gun legislation at a fedeeral level. Idenifying areas that can be advanced is a good thing. Telling everyone else to forget it is kind of rude. No, not kind of. It is in fact rude. There may not be anything that can come of it but when peple of his ilk are iplying that it should be looked at, a rando on a forum telling people to forget it is laughable unless you have credentials that you'd like to share that lends some weight to your opinion.

[onenote]

56. Please take another look at the thread

My first post noted that I would be more optimistic about the DOJ looking into this if someone could cite to a specific statute that could provide the basis for prosecution. One poster responded by saying they were "not sure" what he could be charged with by DOJ. That elicited a suggestion that it could be "weapons charges" to which, consistent with my original post, I asked for a citation to something specific. I subsequently noted that given the toothlessness of federal gun laws in this country (a proposition with which I expect most DUers agree), that didn't seem like a likely way to go.


I then answered a question about whether it would be double jeopardy by noting that it wouldn't be if he could be charged with a civil rights offense under 18 USC 242, but then explained why that provision has no application. I also noted that Tribe had not cited to any possible theory, which given his expertise and reputation, was telling to me. I didn't attack Tribe. But in response to another poster's comment throwing shade at Tribe, someone snarkily replied that Tribe, as the most preeminent constitutional lawyer couldn't have a clue. To which I replied, matching snark for snark, pointing out again that Tribe hadn't suggested any specific way for DOJ to go after Rittenhouse, which one would expect him to be able to do if there was one. That comment was met with a post characterizing me as "contemptuous" which seems rather over-the-top. At that point, my original comments -- which had to do with the absence of anyone offering any specific suggestions as to how the DOJ could go after Rittenhouse (and my analysis of federal Civil Rights law) shifted into a discussion of some unspecific Constitutional issue. From that point, the criticisms of my comments had nothing to do with my simple, initial comment that I would be more optimistic about the outcome of DOJ investigation if someone could suggest what statutory basis there might be for prosecuting Rittenhouse. And as for my "credentials" -- I have forty years of experience as an attorney, graduating from an Ivy League law school as an editor on the Law Review. I've participated in two Supreme Court cases and in numerous appellate cases including several involving constitutional issues. I've also represented, on a pro-bono basis, clients in bringing claims under the Civil Rights laws.

But so there is no doubt -- if and when any of the experts cited in this thread (or anyone else for that matter) offers a viable, specific suggestion as to how the DOJ could prosecute Rittenhouse, I will acknowledge that I overlooked something.

[TheRickles]

64. Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail. IANAL, so it was an educational back-and-forth

[Zeitghost]

55. State criminal laws can indeed be ruled unconstitutional

But not with regards to an acquittal, only a conviction. The Federal government can not rule that an acquittal on state charges violates the constitution. They should have gone over this in your civics class...

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. I wonder if civil rights charges are feasible?

Besides the two he killed, he deprived countless others of their first amendment rights that night.

Seems like those same charges could be applied to the Kenosha PD as well…

[onenote]

22. No it is not.

The relevant federal statute, 18 USC 242, does not apply because (i) Rittenhouse wasn't acting under "color of law" and (ii) he didn't deprive anyone of their rights based on their race, gender, etc.

[Jon King]

24. onenote said it, no civil rights violation.

Rittenhouse did not act based against anyone based on their color or religion or sexuality. So we need to stop thinking anything will happen as far as federal charges. Zero chance.

[AntiFascist]

53. It seems that an investigation is at least warranted...

particularly in light of the fact that there were Jewish victims of the shootings.

According to Hatewatch, Ryan Balch, who joined Rittenhouse in Kenosha, had a history promoting fascist ideals, even though he claims he was only trying to "infiltrate" fascist movements:

Balch, who described himself as an Iraq War veteran with an interest in militia culture that dates back to 2014, first contacted Hatewatch on Sept. 2 to clarify the intentions behind his social media presence. On Facebook and on Twitter, Balch referenced the far-right boogaloo movement, retweeted white nationalist Richard Spencer and tweeted a link to a website hosting a Nazi-propaganda video cut with Hitler speeches. Balch also used Twitter to troll Parkland mass shooting victims and a gun control-supporting rabbi, while using esoteric, antisemitic slang. Balch confirmed to Hatewatch that he operated those social media accounts.

...

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/09/15/far-right-kyle-rittenhouse-propaganda-not-factually-based-says-kenosha-militia-participant

[llashram]

20. in 2016

Last edited Sat Nov 20, 2021, 02:05 AM - Edit history (1)

when the former guy posing as POTUS started ejecting African-Americans from his rallies, I knew then what was in store., The culmination of the reactionary white movement against the 64-65 Civil, Voting and Human Rights bills/legislation/Acts. The bills outlawed murder like Violla Luizzo and sport hunting/murders/summary executions of mainly black male African-americans like the Ahmed Arbury trial. But to see the joy that racist people experienced with a low life like the former POTUS I knew it was just a matter of time before virulent lethal and open racism would become again a fact of life in this racist democracy/republic for the rich and mostly white Amerikaners of Amerika.

As decent people have experienced today and I know the Rittenhouse victims were white. Yet with this rotten POS acquitted and the Arbery trial foremost in showcasing for the world again Amerikkkan apartheid practices to the world. At 73 I say, I hope all these hateful Amerikaners chokes and die in the vomit of their racist and anti-democratic hate.

[Jon King]

23. No chance, no federal laws apply.

No basis for a hate crime based on race, gender, sexuality. Rittenhouse is not law enforcement so he can not be charged with a civil rights violation using that statute either. He did not kill or harm any federal employee or their family member. The act did not take place on federal property.

So a big nothingburger in regards to charging him using federal charges.

[LiberatedUSA]

25. This is for both family's sanity.

They know this will go nowhere.

[iemanja]

26. I don't see how this happens.

What would be the federal crime? Maybe crossing state lines with some sort of intent, but that would be hard to prove.

[Jose Garcia]

27. No they are not

The people cited in the tweet don't have the authority to do so.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

30. Not gonna hold my breath on this

I can't think of any Federal statute they could get him on.

[Sympthsical]

31. They're playing to the crowd

There is zero chance the feds get involved in this. What would be the crime? I have seen no answer to this question.

The person who purchased the gun is already facing charges.

Tribe is a law professor. He knows better. He's just playing a role, telling people what they want to hear.

He knows this goes nowhere.

But it looks really good on Twitter.

[Sunsky]

34. Karma will take care of him and his supporters.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

38. I also join Chairman Nadler in that request. nt

[pinkstarburst]

45. The problem is not Rittenhouse

We should not have guns at protests. Period.

We should not have assault weapons in the hands of non military. Period.

We need much tougher rules around gun licensing. This isn't to say no one can own a gun, but that just like you need a license to drive a car, you should need to pass certain checks to own a gun. IMHO, you need to probably be at least 21 or in the police or military, which would have ruled Kyle right out. Criminal record should result in having guns removed, which would have ruled the three people shot right out, including Gaige Grosskreutz.

But we do not have the guts or the votes to go after guns in a serious way. And so we have people with AR-15's stalking every protest now. In Texas, we had a guy killed when he pointed his AK-47 at an uber driver who mistakenly turned into a crowd of protestors downtown. The uber driver was former military and had a gun also, and shot the guy with the AK-47. The crowd scattered and the uber driver peeled away (could have run over someone) and another Lone Ranger in the crowd pulled out their gun and began firing at him. Only by some miracle was the only person killed the one with the AK-47.

There should be no guns at protests. There should be no assault weapons period.

But until we're ready to seriously go after that, it's stupid to go after Kyle Rittenhouse.

[Bucky]

46. In my government class after the holidays we cover the judicial branch

I guess I get to update my lesson on OJ Simpson

[Wounded Bear]

48. Well, there was potentially an illegal straw purchase of the gun for Kyle-boy...

That should be explored.

(Just heard that on MSNBC)

[ripcord]

58. A straw purchase requires a transfer

Rittenhouse was never the owner of the gun.

[Calista241]

68. Rittenhouse went into this in depth during his direct testimony.

The story went, he gave his friend money, and his friend bought the rifle.

By verbal agreement, Rittenhouse stated Robert Black (his friend) would maintain ownership and storage of the weapon until Rittenhouse turned 18. Then the weapon would be transferred into Rittenhouse’s custody. Black lived in Wisconsin, Rittenhouse only used the weapon while in Wisconsin, and never used it without Black being present.

At trial, Rittenhouse said he went to Black’s house to get ready, and the weapon was there. The prosecution never challenged those facts, so i would assume them to be true. It’s an open question as to whether a legal transfer has occurred. In any case, that’s going to be Robert Black’s legal case to fight.

[JI7]

50. Bad idea and waste of time

[manicdem]

51. Move on

I don't see anything good coming out of this, no chance of winning. The distraction and more infighting would hurt the party. Administration has to move on with things they can win.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

52. What I dont understand- judge said victims were rioters and looters, in other words presumed

to be GUILTY. How is it legal for a judge to instruct the court to refer to victims as guilty of a crime (RIOTING AND LOOTING) when they werent tried and convicted?????? Even if these 3 individuals were seen "rioting" and/or "looting" (were they???) that is NOT synonymous with convicted in a court of law, and besides what difference would it make in whether a kid wanna-be was justified in parading around brandishing a weapon. On what legal grounds can a judge unilaterally decide if a deceased person was committing a crime, and should be referred to as someone committing a crime (ie a rioter or looter) and not as a "victim."

What is most troubling is that some people are allowed self defense as a motive or excuse while others are not ... based on what??? The user of the gun is the one who is in the right...??? Nope, that's not it... We all know what happened when the Black Panthers (legally) armed themselves in the 60s for self defense,

[Hoyt]

67. Judge actually said they can be called rioters, etc., IF there is evidence of that.

Apparently there was no evidence of that.

[C Moon]

54. That judge needs to be investigated.

[Captain Zero]

57. KR violated the victims' rights to peaceable assembly.

nt.

[Zeitghost]

59. That is not a crime

Or a civil action.

[jaxexpat]

61. Certainly, murder is a civil rights violation.

Trying to intimidate a lawful protest is a violation as well. Aren't vigilante actions a violation of civil rights? Rittenhouse was patently a private citizen posing as a designated leo. A crime. Picking fights, killing, maiming and claiming self defense is a crime against civilization itself. If we can't control our children we deserve neutering before the brats castrate us all.

[Joinfortmill]

62. Fingers crossed.

[Dreampuff]

63. Unbelievable!

Since I don't know a lot about the law, I won't weigh in on the federal government getting involved in this, but nbcnews had a very fascinating segment on him this evening.

They did a short interview with one of the murder victim's fathers and they have filed a civil lawsuit against Rittenhouse and the Kenosha police department and the Sheriff's Department and others. They also ran a segment on Rittenhouse's statement after the verdict and they showed him in a car saying that the jury got it right and this has been a rough time for him, but things are going to be okay now.

And The Best Is Yet To Come. Certain members of Congress are now battling each other to see which one gets him for their Congressional aide.

[jmowreader]

66. 18 USC 245 might work

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/245

This one applies regardless of if you’re operating under color of law…and if your act caused death, it allows for a life sentence.