- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 82,384
- Reaction score
- 19,853
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
One would think yet here we are. Apparently it's far too difficult for you.
One would think yet here we are. Apparently it's far too difficult for you.It's honestly not that difficult.
Kyle gonna go back behind bars.
For self-defense? You realize this is bad for justice if you can be persecuted in this manner for defending Your Life you could be persecuted in this manner for anything.
If they didn't want their kids to be killed they should have raised them with better morality than to attack a 17-year-old boy.
There's a lot of that. This is just the first page, and not everything that could have qualified:This hasn’t aged so well.
lol....this kid is going to have a long future in the houses of corrections.
He didn't break a law or violate any conditions of his release then, so the judge said that would have been illegal.He did go out to a bar for three beers with the local proud boys, wearing a "Free as ****!" tee shirt! They should have pulled him in then.
Judge said it was a minor paperwork error.Where you are living is a paperwork issue? Wanna bet whether the judge views it as a paperwork issue?
That's right and until the verdict is reached, it's neither murder or self defense.
I always wonder why they call it common sense because it doesn't seem that common.It doesn’t even have to be an issue of morality, just common sense. Don’t chase the scared kid with the large gun.
Actually, since there’s no verdict yet, the presumption at this point is that it’s not murder until it’s proven to be.
It is until the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt he killed with malice aforethought and not in self defense.Is it self defense then?
Which one the first or the second or when he wounded the other?Is it self defense then?
All 8 shots he fired.Which one the first or the second or when he wounded the other?
RecklessAll 8 shots he fired.
Is it self defense then?
It is until the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt he killed with malice aforethought and not in self defense.
I had it long before you joined the thread.And I said him being a minor doesn't make it a straw purchase! What does is the exchange of money. Got it?
Wrong. I made the point, at least 3 times, that what made it a straw man purchase was Rittenhouse, a minor and therefore not legally permitted to purchase a firearm for himself, giving his money to Black to buy it for him.You included him being a minor as what made it a straw purchase. As I responded before the ATF says the a minor can be gifted a gun. With some stipulations. A gun can also be gifted to anyone. What makes a transaction a strawman purchase is the exchange of funds. Happy to fix your misguided mess.
Actually, Rittenhouse claims that he gave the money to a 19 year old friend in WI to make an illegal straw man purchase.
Friend who bought rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used in Kenosha shooting charged
A 19-year-old Kenosha man has been charged with giving Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, the rifle he used to kill two people during August unrest in Kenoshawww.google.com
Yep, a 19 year old friend illegally purchased (straw man) the M&P15 for Rittenhouse.
Kenosha man facing felony charges for giving Kyle Rittenhouse gun used in shootings
A 19-year-old Kenosha man who told police he bought a rifle for his friend Kyle Rittenhouse — and who drove Rittenhouse back to Antioch, Ill. after the teen is allegedwww.google.com
Please, pull your head out.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.”
19-year-old charged with illegally supplying gun to Kyle Rittenhouse
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?