0

For providing Kyle Rittenhouse a gun, Dominick Black was charged with two counts of providing a dangerous weapon to a person under 18, causing death.. The possession charge against Kyle was dismissed, as it did not apply; Kyle was old enough to carry a long rifle, and that's what the gun was. Why haven't Black's charges been dismissed for the same reason?

4
  • "The wording is hardly straightforward. Schroeder himself said he was confused about it when Richards first asked him to toss the possession charge out earlier this year. [...] When a law is so confusing, legal doctrine calls for judges to interpret it in favor of defendants" abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/…
    – Fizz
    Nov 27 '21 at 10:21
  • 1
    The more interesting point is why the judge hasn't dismissed the charges... because apparently Schroeder is also the judge in Black's case. But he set a new hearing for January in Black's case.
    – Fizz
    Nov 27 '21 at 10:46
  • "two counts of providing a dangerous weapon to a person under 18, causing death" That still happened, right? Nov 27 '21 at 11:02
  • 1
    @GregoryCurrie: maybe not. Because the gun didn't fit the def of a "dangerous weapon" in judge Schroeder's view [it's quite technical def in Wisc. law]. The real mystery is why he hasn't dismissed charges in this other case (that he is also presiding over). Maybe he's just giving the prosecution the opportunity to drop the charges themselves, or something like that. As these are the only charges in Black's case, it's somewhat more likely the prosecution might file an interlocutory appeal, which they didn't do in R.'s case. But I think the case is pretty doomed by the poorly worded law anyway.
    – Fizz
    Nov 27 '21 at 11:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.