Allegations?
The word/s of the owners, and possibly witnesses to the purported request for help, is the only way to prove or disprove Black’s claim.
It was a straw man purchase because Rittenhouse, 17 years old at the time, was prohibited by WI law from purchasing any firearm.
He and his buddy, Black, knew this which is why on the night of the killings, Black told Rittenhouse that he was going to be in more trouble (Black was assuming that Rittenhouse’s shootings were justified).
“He remembered telling
Rittenhouse as they drove back to Antioch: “Dude, I think I'm going to be in more trouble than you because you defended yourself. In all reality,
you’re not supposed to have that gun.”
The friend of Rittenhouse, 17, purchased the gun later used to allegedly fatally shoot two men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, prosecutors say.
www.google.com
And as for your erroneous assertion that Rittenhouse was legally in possession of the firearm when he killed two and injured a third, the section cited below states the only instances in which it would be legal for him to have the firearm in his physical possession.
“3 (a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Note - the list of legally allowed occasions does not include providing security during a protest or riot.
You’re wrong, ASHES. Completely wrong. You are either being deliberately disingenuous or just plain thickheaded. Either way, I’m done debating with you.