Kyle Rittenhouse Could Face Federal Charges As Rep. Nadler Calls For DOJ Review

[LetMyPeopleVote]

I hope that the DOJ brings some civil rights charges against this asshole

Link to tweet

Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jerry Nadler is calling on the DOJ to review the Kyle Rittenhouse shootings for potential federal charges.

Link to tweet

There are a wide variety of federal charges that Kyle Rittenhouse could potentially face that include civil rights violations and potential hate crimes. The Rittenhouse trial was so tainted by the judge’s behavior that the case deserves a federal review.

The idea that a person can show up at a protest with a loaded assault weapon, killing two people, and then claim self-defense flies in the face of logic and common sense.

[Sympthsical]

1. He won't

This is performative.

"I am mad with you, and we will do something!"

*spoiler - they won't*

Also, it'd be nice if this call didn't have a falsehood in it. "Armed persons crossing state lines."

I think I need to have a new rule for this stuff. If it becomes obvious in the first paragraph someone doesn't know the facts of the trial and could never bother to know or understand them, I don't read the rest of what they have to say.

Thing is, that eliminates a whole mess of what's been said and written the past two days.

[msfiddlestix]

51. I haven't followed much at all. But agree with your response in terms of what will be actually done.

And instinctively felt as you described: this is performative.

My initial reaction to Nadler's statement can be described as frustrating at best. I feel this is a side show, we have so much more to the point matters that need to be "investigated" whether by committee or the DOJ.

As to what is factual about the case I cannot weight in Just my feelings of the story being deliberately spiked to overshadow other matters of huge consequences and which congress must take action on.

Why is Nadler dancing to the media's tune? as you suggest, it's performative, but I feel with very diminishing return for the buck.

[FBaggins]

2. Missing from all of these stories - are federal crimes that he could actually be charged with.

These are all variants of "I disagree with the trial results and want Biden to do something about it!"

That isn't how the law works.

[FarPoint]

3. This is just slow motion misery ..

Take the step sure prosecute but there will predicably be many more such murders...

[onenote]

10. Thank you.

I've been criticized for pointing out the obvious: the relevant Civil Rights laws, such as 18 USC 242, only apply where the injured person was targeted based on their race, religion, gender, etc.

I expect we'll eventually see posts criticizing Garland for not prosecuting Rittenhouse (although those posts will likewise fail to explain what federal law would provide the basis of a prosecution.

[maxsolomon]

4. He'll face a Civil Suit from Huber's parents

No Federal Charges.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

5. Federal charges are harder to defend against.

Than in a Civil courtroom. The Constitution comes into play here. Does this punk have the funds to pay Constitutional law experts to defend him?

We will have to see what comes next.

[onenote]

11. What claim under the constitution do you think can be brought?

Murder is generally not a federal crime except in limited circumstances not applicable here.

[Colgate 64]

21. Deprivation of Rosenbaum's civil rights

[Calista241]

28. Rittenhouse is not in law enforcement or an employee of the government

And as such, he cannot deprive anyone of their civil rights.

He can / could have committed a hate crime, but that's an even harder case to win that the one we just lost. Unless of course they can prove Rittenhouse killed anyone because of their "race, color, religion or national origin."

[onenote]

37. Yep.

See 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[Hoyt]

6. There won't be any federal charges. Hopefully we'll look at gun laws, though.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

8. Yes. More looking will be good....

[jcmaine72]

9. One would hope that if anything good came out of this tragedy, that would

Then again, that's what I was naive enough to hope for after Sandy Hook as well, and we got....

...nuttin'

[Alexander Of Assyria]

7. Personally been saying this can/could/should be done. I am in excellent company with the

Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, I think.

And also concur with policusa.com:

Kyle Rittenhouse Crossed State Lines Which Means That He Can Be Federally Charged

There are a wide variety of federal charges that Kyle Rittenhouse could potentially face that include civil rights violations and potential hate crimes. The Rittenhouse trial was so tainted by the judge’s behavior that the case deserves a federal review.

………

To the title I would add…crossed…with a vile AK 47 murder weapon.

[Ace Rothstein]

12. That didn't happen.

How is this falsehood still being spread here?

[janterry]

14. journalists have failed us in this case

it's really infuriating.

[Igel]

19. And saying the truth

doesn't really seem to matter.

Hard to unlearn a truth.

[EX500rider]

13. I don't think there are Federal laws against driving 30 miles to a neighboring state.

He also did not bring the AR-15 with him.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

23. Anyone who crosses state lines armed with intent to commit a hate crime triggers the

thé federal hate crimes laws. It’s a precondition met in this case, having a weapon in possession before crossing to another stste is irrelevant.

Think the Chair already thought of most everything we ever will when releasing this statement.

[EX500rider]

24. How is white people shooting other white people a hate crime?

[NYC Liberal]

27. I've spoken to more than one person (IRL) who did not know

that the victims were white. Baffling.

[Hav]

25. And yet the chair revealed his ignorance of basic facts of this case

and propagated misinformation instead.

It would help if Nadler explained what the miscarriage of justice is (besides the not guilty verdict) that could be reviewed by the DOJ.
And what is the hate crime you are talking about?

[Calista241]

29. He crossed state lines unarmed.

He met his friends at their house, in Wisconsin, and picked up his rifle there.

It's why nobody in Illinois has charged him with a crime. He admitted on the stand that he didn't have a FOID card, and possessing a weapons in Illinois without a FOID card is a crime.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

40. Yes. I stand corrected. However crossing the state line triggers federal jurisdiction, armed

or not, was my main legal point.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

41. Only if a crime has been committed

of which there was no crime committed by him crossing state lines to go to the protest.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

15. Why does this keep coming up?

To the title I would add…crossed…with a vile AK 47 murder weapon.

Especially as this has been debunked numerous times here.
KR did not cross state lines with the firearm, it was stored in WI at his friend's dad's house, and it wasn't an AK-47, it was an AR-15, and his mother didn't drive him to the protest with the rifle, that's been debunked also.

[sarisataka]

17. At this point one can only assume 3 possibilities

1- the person only read the incorrect reports in the immediate aftermath and has not followed the trial or subsequent news and is speaking from ignorance

2- the person is aware it is incorrect but is simply spreading false information, doing so maliciously

3- the person is aware it is incorrect but wishes it was otherwise so is promoting a fantasy

[MarineCombatEngineer]

18. +100. nt

[Igel]

20. I figure there's a fourth.

I make a reasonable number of posts, but go back and look at very few replies. Most replies are quips or snarls and not really pithy or requiring an answer (perhaps a retort, but that's a waste of keystrokes).

Some posts I make I want to see what the reply is because I think I can learn something or am missing something in my post. Sometimes the replies I get are worth responding to, sometimes they're not.

[greenjar_01]

16. He's not going to face Federal charges, y'all need to stop

He's Casey Anthony now, but, like, popular with stupid assholes.

[ForgedCrank]

22. FFS, can our own representatives

even get this right?
It's starting to get embarrassing.

[ripcord]

26. Who neeeds facts when you have outrage? nt

[wnylib]

44. Is it possible that Nadler did not mean

looking into Rittenhouse, but into the police behavior at the protest, or the support that Rittenhouse has received from RW politicians, or the conduct of the judge?

I have to think that Nadler knows tbe law and Constitution well enough not to suggest something that is imposdible to follow through on.

[Meowmee]

30. According to a family member

He did carry the gun back from Wisconsin to Illinois after the killings according to what he read about the charges of the KR friend who purchased the gun for him. KR then surrendered it there to police. So we wonder why he was not charged with that and if he still can be. This may be a federal crime. Maybe now that he has been acquitted of two murders and a maiming he can no longer be charged on that.

[Hav]

31. I was wondering about that as well

If there's anything illegal about that, wouldn't it be another charge that the actual owner of the gun has to deal with? At that time, he was with his mother, the gun was in the trunk and the police took care of that gun shortly after.

[Meowmee]

32. I don't think it matters

He still carried it across state lines. If he had surrendered it there it wouldn’t be able to be charged I think. I am not sure about his mother etc. and what would apply to her if she was with him at that time.

[Hav]

33. At worst for them, I bet the mother would take the bullet

as she drove the car back with the gun in the trunk. But if the friend who drove with them was also the one who owned the gun, I don't know if there's even a crime that Rittenhouse could be charged with.

[Meowmee]

34. Yes you may be right

I don’t know all of the details of that.

[forthemiddle]

35. It's not against the law to cross a State border with a gun

It is against the law to cross State lines and commit a crime. He didn’t commit any additional crime in Illinois.
When he went into Illinois with the gun he maybe broke the law of possession, so theoretically he could be charged in Illinois with that, but the crime of murder isn’t in play. But since the gun was in his Moms car, he could argue that he wasn’t possessing it, his adult Mom was.
I just don’t see Illinois charging him with anything.

[Meowmee]

36. family member says it is a federal crime

To transport a gun you don’t have a right to own across state lines. But he could claim mom was then in possession.

[manicdem]

38. From the ATF

A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any state for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law.

[Meowmee]

45. When they say a person I assume they mean the person using it

He was not legally allowed to have the gun, which is why he had a friend purchase it for him, and therefore it was not legal for him to carry it across state lines after the killings.

[Sympthsical]

46. The friend was with him after the shooting

So the owner was with the weapon.

[Meowmee]

47. How curious

[Sympthsical]

48. Not really, it was his best friend

They went to the protests together.

The friend was also with him when he turned himself in, so the police questioned them both at the time.

[Meowmee]

49. Interesting

So the friend knew he had taken possession of the gun illegally? Even more curious. He was not with him when he gunned down his victims though.

[Sympthsical]

50. Correct

The friend was there when Rittenhouse took the weapon from the safe. He said he wasn't happy about it in testimony.

He also said he was testifying in the hopes of his own charges being treated more lightly.

He was a prosecution witness fairly early on.

[manicdem]

39. Kyle be charged with hate crime?

Kyle is supposedly hispanic, so if he shot 3 white guys it could be seen as a hate crime.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

42. No offense,

but that is really stretching and the DoJ isn't in the business of trying cases that aren't usually a slam dunk for them.

[Hugin]

43. This whole sad event was kangaroo from one end to the other.

If it hadn't been Rittenhouse, it would've been some other dumbass just like him.

The extreme right wing in this country had been trying to stir up an event like what happened (even though, I sincerely believe, much worse) since at least Ferguson. They wanted it bad and since it occurred while TFG was out and about, they got it bad.

However, not to let a tragedy go wasted, they went all in on it.

So, they had their show trial which predictably resulted in the acquittal which was in the mix all along.

It was meant to be the hail mary which pulled the Tangeranus and their rabid ideology back from the brink and into the WH... Permanently. It also was supposed to happen much faster.

Like all things Trump, it was a day late and a dollar short. Leaving nothing, but, a foul taste with anyone involved except the most insane 'roid raged kool-ade total-lers.

Do I think it should be investigated? Sure, but, on a much wider scale to see how these show pieces can exist in a country where it's citizens are all supposedly equal and justice is blind.