Do people really believe the child rapist and felons that got shot were so about looking out for the public good by going after an active shooter unarmed (or not in the 3rd case) even before he was an active shooter and then when he was running away?
I'm honestly amazed that someone is making excuses for Kyle given the ridiculous contortions of the law that were necessary for him to have that gun that night.
No see it was legal for him to have that gun because of its length and a law that says he could have it to go hunting with parental permission or some shot despite the fact that, you know, it was an illegal straw purchase that he coordinated himself so he could have it that night, which the buyer is going to court over
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Do people really believe the child rapist and felons that got shot were so about looking out for the public good by going after an active shooter unarmed (or not in the 3rd case) even before he was an active shooter and then when he was running away?
You know a good way to not have your gun taken from you, but still carry for self defense?
Get a fucking concealed carry permit and carry it where some rando can’t easily access it from your person.
Except Rittenhhouse wouldn’t have been able to do that either, because it would have been illegal, and Just like his fucking rifle actually was until an activist judge tossed it out because he favored getting Rittenhouse acquitted from the start.
It is legal in the state of Wisconsin for a minor to carry a rifle or shotgun, provided the barrel is over 16 inches long, and the entire firearm is over 26 inches long. The judge dismissed this charge because the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the rifle was not of an illegal length.
You know a good way to not have your gun taken from you, but still carry for self defense?
Get a fucking concealed carry permit and carry it where some rando can’t easily access it from your person.
Except Rittenhouse wouldn’t have been able to do that either, because it would have been illegal, and Just like his fucking rifle actually was until an activist judge tossed it out because he favored getting Rittenhouse acquitted from the start.
His rifle was legal, the only way it would have not been legal is if it had been an SBR. It was not. The charge was "tossed out" because it did not apply.
The only person involved who was actually illegally carrying a gun was Gaige Grosskreutz, who was carrying a concealed weapon even though he did not have a active license to do so. He then aimed that weapon directly at Kyle Rittenhouse and Kyle Rittenhouse shot him.
Kyle rittenhouse planned a terrorist attack, described the plan before going to do it, did it, and y’all wanna hang your hat on barrel length making that okay, yikes bruh.
You know a good way to not have your gun taken from you, but still carry for self defense?
Get a fucking concealed carry permit and carry it where some rando can’t easily access it from your person.
Except Rittenhhouse wouldn’t have been able to do that either, because it would have been illegal, and Just like his fucking rifle actually was until an activist judge tossed it out because he favored getting Rittenhouse acquitted from the start.
It is legal in the state of Wisconsin for a minor to carry a rifle or shotgun, provided the barrel is over 16 inches long, and the entire firearm is over 26 inches long. The judge dismissed this charge because the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the rifle was not of an illegal length.
The gun was acquired for Rittenhouse illegally, with his direct involvement
Kyle rittenhouse planned a terrorist attack, described the plan before going to do it, did it, and y’all wanna hang your hat on barrel length making that okay, yikes bruh.
They get to dance joyfully around the most bullshit technicality, ignoring the spirit of the law (to facilitate families going hunting together), so they can have a culture war victory about their favorite toys
Like we got several pro gun folks in this thread who understand the weight and gravity that comes with firearm ownership, yet alone use thereof, and not a fuckin’ one of them acts like this fucking parade of gleeful geese.
Yo a straw purchased gun is illegal to possess and doesn't suddenly become magically legal until an activist judge throws out that particular charge
We've gone over this. The rifle was not legal for Rittenhouse to purchase, but it was legal for Rittenhouse to own, and it was also legal for him to carry. The individual who performed the straw purchase has been charged and is likely to receive serious legal consequences, but that does not change the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse did not break the law when he carried the rifle in Kenosha.
Yo a straw purchased gun is illegal to possess and doesn't suddenly become magically legal until an activist judge throws out that particular charge
We've gone over this. The rifle was not legal for Rittenhouse to purchase, but it was legal for Rittenhouse to own, and it was also legal for him to carry. The individual who performed the straw purchase has been charged and is likely to receive serious legal consequences, but that does not change the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse did not break the law when he carried the rifle in Kenosha.
he was party to the conspiracy to illegally purchase the firearm
You cannot say the item was legally his to own when he was party to the illegal straw purchase
+6
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
To protect himself from violent, likely suicidal mental patients who try to kill him?
Sounds wacky, right? But here we are.
He didnt just wake up there. The man wasnt in his home. It wasnt even his town.
So why was he there with a gun?
We've gone over this. His father lived there. Multiple other members of his family lived there. He had worked there as a lifeguard. It was a 20 minute drive.
He had more links to Kenosha (and more of a reason to be there) than anyone else who was involved that night.
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Yo a straw purchased gun is illegal to possess and doesn't suddenly become magically legal until an activist judge throws out that particular charge
We've gone over this. The rifle was not legal for Rittenhouse to purchase, but it was legal for Rittenhouse to own, and it was also legal for him to carry. The individual who performed the straw purchase has been charged and is likely to receive serious legal consequences, but that does not change the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse did not break the law when he carried the rifle in Kenosha.
he was party to the conspiracy to illegally purchase the firearm
You cannot say the item was legally his to own when he was party to the illegal straw purchase
NRA advocates carved out the barrel length exception in 2011.
Because they didn't care about kids shooting people, they just cared if their donors got the sales those law exemptions were designed to facilitate.
Remember, gun culture is the most successful ad campaign in history. At least with smoking, death caused people to take a step back and look. With gun culture, they cheer it on.
To protect himself from violent, likely suicidal mental patients who try to kill him?
Sounds wacky, right? But here we are.
He didnt just wake up there. The man wasnt in his home. It wasnt even his town.
So why was he there with a gun?
We've gone over this. His father lived there. Multiple other members of his family lived there. He had worked there as a lifeguard. It was a 20 minute drive.
He had more links to Kenosha (and more of a reason to be there) than anyone else who was involved that night.
Youre avoiding answering the actual question. Why was he on the streets with a rifle?
Yo a straw purchased gun is illegal to possess and doesn't suddenly become magically legal until an activist judge throws out that particular charge
Notably, Dominick Black is not charged with straw purchasing, which is illegal under Wisconsin statute 941.2905:
Whoever intentionally furnishes, purchases, or possesses a firearm for a person, knowing that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29(1m), is guilty of a Class G felony.
Section 941.29(1m) reads as follows:
(1m) A person who possesses a firearm is guilty of a Class G felony if any of the following applies:
941.29(1m)(a)(a) The person has been convicted of a felony in this state.
(b) The person has been convicted of a crime elsewhere that would be a felony if committed in this state.
(bm) The person has been adjudicated delinquent for an act committed on or after April 21, 1994, that if committed by an adult in this state would be a felony.
(c) The person has been found not guilty of a felony in this state by reason of mental disease or defect.
(d) The person has been found not guilty of or not responsible for a crime elsewhere that would be a felony in this state by reason of insanity or mental disease, defect or illness.
(e) The person has been committed for treatment under s. 51.20 (13) (a) and is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 2007 stats.
(em) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 51.45 (13) (i) 1., 54.10 (3) (f) 1., or 55.12 (10) (a).
(f) The person is subject to an injunction issued under s. 813.12 or 813.122 or under a tribal injunction, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (e), issued by a court established by any federally recognized Wisconsin Indian tribe or band, except the Menominee Indian tribe of Wisconsin, that includes notice to the respondent that he or she is subject to the requirements and penalties under this section and that has been filed under s. 813.128 (3g).
(g) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 813.123 (5m) or 813.125 (4m).
As Rittenhouse was not a convicted felon, this statute does not apply to him, which means no "straw purchase" occurred.
People buy guns for their kids all the time. Just because it's illegal to sell a gun to a minor doesn't mean it's illegal for that minor to carry a gun.
You know a good way to not have your gun taken from you, but still carry for self defense?
Get a fucking concealed carry permit and carry it where some rando can’t easily access it from your person.
Except Rittenhhouse wouldn’t have been able to do that either, because it would have been illegal, and Just like his fucking rifle actually was until an activist judge tossed it out because he favored getting Rittenhouse acquitted from the start.
It is legal in the state of Wisconsin for a minor to carry a rifle or shotgun, provided the barrel is over 16 inches long, and the entire firearm is over 26 inches long. The judge dismissed this charge because the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the rifle was not of an illegal length.
The gun was acquired for Rittenhouse illegally, with his direct involvement
He committed a crime to get the gun.
This is false, see above.
Sage on
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Do people really believe the child rapist and felons that got shot were so about looking out for the public good by going after an active shooter unarmed (or not in the 3rd case) even before he was an active shooter and then when he was running away?
Such faith in humanity.
Ah yes, I forget the punishment for any crime is summary execution in the streets. How silly of me.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Kyle rittenhouse planned a terrorist attack, described the plan before going to do it, did it, and y’all wanna hang your hat on barrel length making that okay, yikes bruh.
They get to dance joyfully around the most bullshit technicality, ignoring the spirit of the law (to facilitate families going hunting together), so they can have a culture war victory about their favorite toys
Like we got several pro gun folks in this thread who understand the weight and gravity that comes with firearm ownership, yet alone use thereof, and not a fuckin’ one of them acts like this fucking parade of gleeful geese.
Yeah, the pro-Rittenhouse people have shown they have zero respect for the power of firearms and have zero compunction with regards to cheering over dead people.
The only people who don't see firearms as a threat to their wellbeing are either sociopaths or willfully ignorant and treat the shit like toys. They'd also be the first people to Karen out and dial 911 the minute they saw a black man with a BLM hat open carrying an AR-15.
Getting reeeeeal tired of people using ‘the guys he shot had criminal records!’ As a defence.
If he can read minds to know these people have done crimes, therefore deserving death, those people should be able to read minds to know that he illegally bought the gun, and showed up from out of state to intimidate them, hence them being well within their rights to attack him in self defence.
Jesus fucking Christ, its not that hard to argue self defence without bringing the victim’s unknown history, is it?
To murder completely innocent freedom fighting protestors, like Rosenbaum (who definitely did not repeatedly threaten multiple people and then chase Rittenhouse down after threatening to kill him), Huber (who definitely did not try to use his skateboard as a club and bash Rittenhouse's brains in as he was sitting on the ground), and Grosskreutz (who definitely did not have an illegal gun and who definitely did not stick that illegal gun right in Rittenhouse's face).
Do people really believe the child rapist and felons that got shot were so about looking out for the public good by going after an active shooter unarmed (or not in the 3rd case) even before he was an active shooter and then when he was running away?
Such faith in humanity.
Ah yes, I forget the punishment for any crime is summary execution in the streets. How silly of me.
Only if you’re black or not supporting white supremacy.
To murder completely innocent freedom fighting protestors, like Rosenbaum (who definitely did not repeatedly threaten multiple people and then chase Rittenhouse down after threatening to kill him), Huber (who definitely did not try to use his skateboard as a club and bash Rittenhouse's brains in as he was sitting on the ground), and Grosskreutz (who definitely did not have an illegal gun and who definitely did not stick that illegal gun right in Rittenhouse's face).
I mean yes, he was there to murder. He said so himself, even posted it online.
Unless you mean to say he was psychic or researched those people before hand and knew they were bad folks and decided to murder them, which is premediated murder and not much better.
You know a good way to not have your gun taken from you, but still carry for self defense?
Get a fucking concealed carry permit and carry it where some rando can’t easily access it from your person.
Except Rittenhhouse wouldn’t have been able to do that either, because it would have been illegal, and Just like his fucking rifle actually was until an activist judge tossed it out because he favored getting Rittenhouse acquitted from the start.
It is legal in the state of Wisconsin for a minor to carry a rifle or shotgun, provided the barrel is over 16 inches long, and the entire firearm is over 26 inches long. The judge dismissed this charge because the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the rifle was not of an illegal length.
Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
According to a theory of social psychology called the “weapons effect,” the mere sight of a gun inspires aggression. In 1967, the psychologists Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage wrote, “In essence, the gun helps pull the trigger.” Their methodology had flaws, but later studies verified their premise. In one U.K. study, people were more inclined to assault a police officer who was visibly armed with a Taser. Brad Bushman, an Ohio State researcher who served on President Barack Obama’s committee on gun violence, told me, “We’ve found that it really doesn’t matter if a good guy or a bad guy is carrying the gun—it creates the bias to interpret things in a hostile way.” Citizens who openly carry firearms “think that they are making the situation safer, but they are making it much more dangerous.”
But guns aren’t threatening, because second amendment rights, you see.
[ignore that the second amendment was put in place to allow for a citizen militia in lieu of a standing army, despite decades of “tyranny of the government” or “self defense!” Propaganda]
Yo a straw purchased gun is illegal to possess and doesn't suddenly become magically legal until an activist judge throws out that particular charge
We've gone over this. The rifle was not legal for Rittenhouse to purchase, but it was legal for Rittenhouse to own, and it was also legal for him to carry. The individual who performed the straw purchase has been charged and is likely to receive serious legal consequences, but that does not change the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse did not break the law when he carried the rifle in Kenosha.
He broke the law when he was the recipient of a straw purchase. An individual cannot legally be in possession of a straw-purchased firearm. If an individual is unknowingly in possession of a straw-purchased firearm through a third party transaction, they are not usually legally responsible, but you bet your sweet bippy that the person who fronts the cash is usually every bit as legally liable as the person who makes the purchase. Again, barring the charge being thrown out.
And before you pull your bullshit schtick of "people who don't know about guns", I am pulling this knowledge from all of the Don't Lie For The Other Guy seminars I attended during my six years as the responsible person on an FFL with an attached Class III/NFA.
Edit: It is legal to purchase a firearm as a gift for another person if to the best of your knowledge they are not prohibited. It is not legal to accept money to buy it on their behalf even if they can legally own it. This is federal law and is detailed on ATF and NSSF's websites in their straw purchase sections.
To murder completely innocent freedom fighting protestors, like Rosenbaum (who definitely did not repeatedly threaten multiple people and then chase Rittenhouse down after threatening to kill him), Huber (who definitely did not try to use his skateboard as a club and bash Rittenhouse's brains in as he was sitting on the ground), and Grosskreutz (who definitely did not have an illegal gun and who definitely did not stick that illegal gun right in Rittenhouse's face).
Yes, he was there looking for a fight with people he politically disagreed with.
To murder completely innocent freedom fighting protestors, like Rosenbaum (who definitely did not repeatedly threaten multiple people and then chase Rittenhouse down after threatening to kill him), Huber (who definitely did not try to use his skateboard as a club and bash Rittenhouse's brains in as he was sitting on the ground), and Grosskreutz (who definitely did not have an illegal gun and who definitely did not stick that illegal gun right in Rittenhouse's face).
Yes, he was there looking for a fight with people he politically disagreed with.
Yo a straw purchased gun is illegal to possess and doesn't suddenly become magically legal until an activist judge throws out that particular charge
Notably, Dominick Black is not charged with straw purchasing, which is illegal under Wisconsin statute 941.2905:
Whoever intentionally furnishes, purchases, or possesses a firearm for a person, knowing that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29(1m), is guilty of a Class G felony.
Section 941.29(1m) reads as follows:
(1m) A person who possesses a firearm is guilty of a Class G felony if any of the following applies:
941.29(1m)(a)(a) The person has been convicted of a felony in this state.
(b) The person has been convicted of a crime elsewhere that would be a felony if committed in this state.
(bm) The person has been adjudicated delinquent for an act committed on or after April 21, 1994, that if committed by an adult in this state would be a felony.
(c) The person has been found not guilty of a felony in this state by reason of mental disease or defect.
(d) The person has been found not guilty of or not responsible for a crime elsewhere that would be a felony in this state by reason of insanity or mental disease, defect or illness.
(e) The person has been committed for treatment under s. 51.20 (13) (a) and is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 2007 stats.
(em) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 51.45 (13) (i) 1., 54.10 (3) (f) 1., or 55.12 (10) (a).
(f) The person is subject to an injunction issued under s. 813.12 or 813.122 or under a tribal injunction, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (e), issued by a court established by any federally recognized Wisconsin Indian tribe or band, except the Menominee Indian tribe of Wisconsin, that includes notice to the respondent that he or she is subject to the requirements and penalties under this section and that has been filed under s. 813.128 (3g).
(g) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 813.123 (5m) or 813.125 (4m).
As Rittenhouse was not a convicted felon, this statute does not apply to him, which means no "straw purchase" occurred.
People buy guns for their kids all the time. Just because it's illegal to sell a gun to a minor doesn't mean it's illegal for that minor to carry a gun.
You know a good way to not have your gun taken from you, but still carry for self defense?
Get a fucking concealed carry permit and carry it where some rando can’t easily access it from your person.
Except Rittenhhouse wouldn’t have been able to do that either, because it would have been illegal, and Just like his fucking rifle actually was until an activist judge tossed it out because he favored getting Rittenhouse acquitted from the start.
It is legal in the state of Wisconsin for a minor to carry a rifle or shotgun, provided the barrel is over 16 inches long, and the entire firearm is over 26 inches long. The judge dismissed this charge because the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the rifle was not of an illegal length.
The gun was acquired for Rittenhouse illegally, with his direct involvement
He committed a crime to get the gun.
This is false, see above.
So your argument is it is factually illegal for Rittenhouse to buy a gun himself in Wisconsin at the time of purchase… yet totally legal for him to coordinate an illegal straw purchase of a gun to skirt around this restriction, which the purchaser has now been charged over?
Yet you somehow don’t see the logical inconsistency with this?
Sartre.txt
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
To murder completely innocent freedom fighting protestors, like Rosenbaum (who definitely did not repeatedly threaten multiple people and then chase Rittenhouse down after threatening to kill him), Huber (who definitely did not try to use his skateboard as a club and bash Rittenhouse's brains in as he was sitting on the ground), and Grosskreutz (who definitely did not have an illegal gun and who definitely did not stick that illegal gun right in Rittenhouse's face).
Yes, he was there looking for a fight with people he politically disagreed with.
You are mistaking Rosenbaum for Rittenhouse.
The classic “I know what you are but what am I” rebuttal.
To murder completely innocent freedom fighting protestors, like Rosenbaum (who definitely did not repeatedly threaten multiple people and then chase Rittenhouse down after threatening to kill him), Huber (who definitely did not try to use his skateboard as a club and bash Rittenhouse's brains in as he was sitting on the ground), and Grosskreutz (who definitely did not have an illegal gun and who definitely did not stick that illegal gun right in Rittenhouse's face).
Yes, he was there looking for a fight with people he politically disagreed with.
You are mistaking Rosenbaum for Rittenhouse.
No, I'm capable of understanding that everyone here misbehaved
Jesus fucking Christ, its not that hard to argue self defence without bringing the victim’s unknown history, is it?
Ideally we could example the situation in a vacuum, and laser focus on the shooting itself, but a person's previous history can show that they have a propensity for violence, or it could show a belligerent lack of self preservation (for example, the fact that Rosenbaum had recently tried on multiple occasions to commit suicide might have some bearing on his actions that night - notably loudly yelling "SHOOT ME!" multiple times to random people, and charging at a person who was carrying a gun).
I think its incredibly hypocritical to complain about bringing up the previous aspects of their lives in one breath while rambling on about how Rittenhouse "talked about how he wanted to kill people in the past" in the next, however.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
To be fair, I don't think Rittenhouse planned to kill the actual eventual victims.
We’re also back to the GunGoosers just going back to “no one gets the privilege of self defense but Rittenhouse after he gunned a stranger down and started fleeing the scene of the shooting” argument
Yo a straw purchased gun is illegal to possess and doesn't suddenly become magically legal until an activist judge throws out that particular charge
Notably, Dominick Black is not charged with straw purchasing, which is illegal under Wisconsin statute 941.2905:
Whoever intentionally furnishes, purchases, or possesses a firearm for a person, knowing that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29(1m), is guilty of a Class G felony.
Section 941.29(1m) reads as follows:
(1m) A person who possesses a firearm is guilty of a Class G felony if any of the following applies:
941.29(1m)(a)(a) The person has been convicted of a felony in this state.
(b) The person has been convicted of a crime elsewhere that would be a felony if committed in this state.
(bm) The person has been adjudicated delinquent for an act committed on or after April 21, 1994, that if committed by an adult in this state would be a felony.
(c) The person has been found not guilty of a felony in this state by reason of mental disease or defect.
(d) The person has been found not guilty of or not responsible for a crime elsewhere that would be a felony in this state by reason of insanity or mental disease, defect or illness.
(e) The person has been committed for treatment under s. 51.20 (13) (a) and is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 2007 stats.
(em) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 51.45 (13) (i) 1., 54.10 (3) (f) 1., or 55.12 (10) (a).
(f) The person is subject to an injunction issued under s. 813.12 or 813.122 or under a tribal injunction, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (e), issued by a court established by any federally recognized Wisconsin Indian tribe or band, except the Menominee Indian tribe of Wisconsin, that includes notice to the respondent that he or she is subject to the requirements and penalties under this section and that has been filed under s. 813.128 (3g).
(g) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 813.123 (5m) or 813.125 (4m).
As Rittenhouse was not a convicted felon, this statute does not apply to him, which means no "straw purchase" occurred.
People buy guns for their kids all the time. Just because it's illegal to sell a gun to a minor doesn't mean it's illegal for that minor to carry a gun.
You know a good way to not have your gun taken from you, but still carry for self defense?
Get a fucking concealed carry permit and carry it where some rando can’t easily access it from your person.
Except Rittenhhouse wouldn’t have been able to do that either, because it would have been illegal, and Just like his fucking rifle actually was until an activist judge tossed it out because he favored getting Rittenhouse acquitted from the start.
It is legal in the state of Wisconsin for a minor to carry a rifle or shotgun, provided the barrel is over 16 inches long, and the entire firearm is over 26 inches long. The judge dismissed this charge because the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the rifle was not of an illegal length.
The gun was acquired for Rittenhouse illegally, with his direct involvement
He committed a crime to get the gun.
This is false, see above.
So your argument is it is factually illegal for Rittenhouse to buy a gun himself in Wisconsin at the time of purchase… yet totally legal for him to coordinate an illegal straw purchase of a gun to skirt around this restriction, which the purchaser has now been charged over?
Yet you somehow don’t see the logical inconsistency with this?
Sartre.txt
Did you miss the part where the purchase of the gun was not an "illegal straw purchase" under Wisconsin law, and how Dominick Black has not been charged with that crime? Black is currently charged with two counts of providing a deadly weapon to a minor, causing death. Because Rittenhouse was legally allowed to carry a rifle, expect those charges to be dropped or dismissed.
Posts
Such faith in humanity.
No see it was legal for him to have that gun because of its length and a law that says he could have it to go hunting with parental permission or some shot despite the fact that, you know, it was an illegal straw purchase that he coordinated himself so he could have it that night, which the buyer is going to court over
And now we're back at this stupid thing.
It is legal in the state of Wisconsin for a minor to carry a rifle or shotgun, provided the barrel is over 16 inches long, and the entire firearm is over 26 inches long. The judge dismissed this charge because the prosecution failed to provide evidence that the rifle was not of an illegal length.
His rifle was legal, the only way it would have not been legal is if it had been an SBR. It was not. The charge was "tossed out" because it did not apply.
The only person involved who was actually illegally carrying a gun was Gaige Grosskreutz, who was carrying a concealed weapon even though he did not have a active license to do so. He then aimed that weapon directly at Kyle Rittenhouse and Kyle Rittenhouse shot him.
edit:
If you are this ignorant of the case than you might want to read up a bit on what happened before posting again.
The gun was acquired for Rittenhouse illegally, with his direct involvement
He committed a crime to get the gun.
They get to dance joyfully around the most bullshit technicality, ignoring the spirit of the law (to facilitate families going hunting together), so they can have a culture war victory about their favorite toys
Like we got several pro gun folks in this thread who understand the weight and gravity that comes with firearm ownership, yet alone use thereof, and not a fuckin’ one of them acts like this fucking parade of gleeful geese.
We've gone over this. The rifle was not legal for Rittenhouse to purchase, but it was legal for Rittenhouse to own, and it was also legal for him to carry. The individual who performed the straw purchase has been charged and is likely to receive serious legal consequences, but that does not change the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse did not break the law when he carried the rifle in Kenosha.
He didnt just wake up there. The man wasnt in his home. It wasnt even his town.
So why was he there with a gun?
he was party to the conspiracy to illegally purchase the firearm
You cannot say the item was legally his to own when he was party to the illegal straw purchase
We will never know, because a judge decided his clear admission that he went there to shoot protestors did not exist.
So it will forever remain one of the great mysteries of this case.
We've gone over this. His father lived there. Multiple other members of his family lived there. He had worked there as a lifeguard. It was a 20 minute drive.
He had more links to Kenosha (and more of a reason to be there) than anyone else who was involved that night.
NRA advocates carved out the barrel length exception in 2011.
Because they didn't care about kids shooting people, they just cared if their donors got the sales those law exemptions were designed to facilitate.
Remember, gun culture is the most successful ad campaign in history. At least with smoking, death caused people to take a step back and look. With gun culture, they cheer it on.
Youre avoiding answering the actual question. Why was he on the streets with a rifle?
Notably, Dominick Black is not charged with straw purchasing, which is illegal under Wisconsin statute 941.2905:
Section 941.29(1m) reads as follows:
As Rittenhouse was not a convicted felon, this statute does not apply to him, which means no "straw purchase" occurred.
People buy guns for their kids all the time. Just because it's illegal to sell a gun to a minor doesn't mean it's illegal for that minor to carry a gun.
This is false, see above.
To protect himself from attack.
Ah yes, I forget the punishment for any crime is summary execution in the streets. How silly of me.
Yeah, the pro-Rittenhouse people have shown they have zero respect for the power of firearms and have zero compunction with regards to cheering over dead people.
The only people who don't see firearms as a threat to their wellbeing are either sociopaths or willfully ignorant and treat the shit like toys. They'd also be the first people to Karen out and dial 911 the minute they saw a black man with a BLM hat open carrying an AR-15.
If he can read minds to know these people have done crimes, therefore deserving death, those people should be able to read minds to know that he illegally bought the gun, and showed up from out of state to intimidate them, hence them being well within their rights to attack him in self defence.
Jesus fucking Christ, its not that hard to argue self defence without bringing the victim’s unknown history, is it?
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Fucking.
Lol.
To murder completely innocent freedom fighting protestors, like Rosenbaum (who definitely did not repeatedly threaten multiple people and then chase Rittenhouse down after threatening to kill him), Huber (who definitely did not try to use his skateboard as a club and bash Rittenhouse's brains in as he was sitting on the ground), and Grosskreutz (who definitely did not have an illegal gun and who definitely did not stick that illegal gun right in Rittenhouse's face).
Failed at that then.
He should have stayed home.
Laughable and utterly idiotic statement.
Only if you’re black or not supporting white supremacy.
I mean yes, he was there to murder. He said so himself, even posted it online.
Unless you mean to say he was psychic or researched those people before hand and knew they were bad folks and decided to murder them, which is premediated murder and not much better.
Your heroes are kinda shit, yenno that?
Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply.
- John Stuart Mill
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante/amp
But guns aren’t threatening, because second amendment rights, you see.
[ignore that the second amendment was put in place to allow for a citizen militia in lieu of a standing army, despite decades of “tyranny of the government” or “self defense!” Propaganda]
He broke the law when he was the recipient of a straw purchase. An individual cannot legally be in possession of a straw-purchased firearm. If an individual is unknowingly in possession of a straw-purchased firearm through a third party transaction, they are not usually legally responsible, but you bet your sweet bippy that the person who fronts the cash is usually every bit as legally liable as the person who makes the purchase. Again, barring the charge being thrown out.
And before you pull your bullshit schtick of "people who don't know about guns", I am pulling this knowledge from all of the Don't Lie For The Other Guy seminars I attended during my six years as the responsible person on an FFL with an attached Class III/NFA.
Edit: It is legal to purchase a firearm as a gift for another person if to the best of your knowledge they are not prohibited. It is not legal to accept money to buy it on their behalf even if they can legally own it. This is federal law and is detailed on ATF and NSSF's websites in their straw purchase sections.
Yes, he was there looking for a fight with people he politically disagreed with.
You are mistaking Rosenbaum for Rittenhouse.
So your argument is it is factually illegal for Rittenhouse to buy a gun himself in Wisconsin at the time of purchase… yet totally legal for him to coordinate an illegal straw purchase of a gun to skirt around this restriction, which the purchaser has now been charged over?
Yet you somehow don’t see the logical inconsistency with this?
Sartre.txt
The classic “I know what you are but what am I” rebuttal.
No, I'm capable of understanding that everyone here misbehaved
Well, he was attacked.
And he protected himself with his gun.
So I think its safe to say that yeah, it's a good thing he had his gun to protect himself from attack!
Ideally we could example the situation in a vacuum, and laser focus on the shooting itself, but a person's previous history can show that they have a propensity for violence, or it could show a belligerent lack of self preservation (for example, the fact that Rosenbaum had recently tried on multiple occasions to commit suicide might have some bearing on his actions that night - notably loudly yelling "SHOOT ME!" multiple times to random people, and charging at a person who was carrying a gun).
I think its incredibly hypocritical to complain about bringing up the previous aspects of their lives in one breath while rambling on about how Rittenhouse "talked about how he wanted to kill people in the past" in the next, however.
They were white, after all
Did you miss the part where the purchase of the gun was not an "illegal straw purchase" under Wisconsin law, and how Dominick Black has not been charged with that crime? Black is currently charged with two counts of providing a deadly weapon to a minor, causing death. Because Rittenhouse was legally allowed to carry a rifle, expect those charges to be dropped or dismissed.