here are your words that i took as 'damning' words:
so, you've got nothing to defend your bogus argument
I don't post up links. Never have. Again not responsible for what you don't know or are too LAME to find.
The behavior isn't fully known. If there is no evidence of illegal behavior they won't be allowed to be referred to having been engaged in that behavior during the trial. Again, they aren't defendants in this case. If the judge believes the defense has provided sufficient evidence to call someone a rioter, looter, arsonist, etc they will be able to be labeled as such. They would also be allowed to reference the mob by the behavior they were engaging in. The mob is not on trial in this case. If you had to defend your life from a mob of rioters, looters and arsonists you would want to be able state what happened and properly set the frame of mind you had during your encounters.
Why are you purposely obtuse?
Donald Trump could have handed him the weapon that night. It doesn't change the self defense analysis, nor does it put Rittenhouse on the hook for something someone else allegedly did.
If you find the video you will find Rittenhouse on video claiming the following, a first aid kit dangling from his hip:
The irrefutable fact is that Black has denied he violated the law. You have repeatedly said he admitted to committing an illegal act. That is not true. Personal insults aside, it's not a matter of being a "supporter of law." It's a matter of following the facts rather than emotion.
The prosecutor has a very weak case and the work he has performed during the hearings thus far has been less than adequate. He's getting stomped on at every turn. The judge recently mocked him for downplaying the behavior of the rioters. He got his hand slapped for lying about Kyle's physical location. He got mocked for saying use of force experts weren't needed and shouldn't be admissible. And he hasn't been making strong arguments thus far. The defense doesn't have to try very hard. The prosecution is doing their job for them.
His own words say otherwise.
Even a competent Prosecutor is going to have a hard time getting over the "beyond a reasonable doubt" hurdle in this case. I would much prefer being the Attorney for the Defense in this one.
what i notice is you make absolutely no mention of the stupidity of those who assaulted rittenhouse, and were shot for their efforts, for having been stupid enough to place themselves in harm's way at the very same destination that you keep insisting a 17 year old should have known not to venture into
he was not officially a graffiti cleanser yet he fulfilled that function near the riot site
you obviously have not been able to distinguish the difference between "give" and "loaned"
then you should not expect us to search that for which you are too busy to do the same
You not being capable to read is a problem. Rittenhouse and Black have both stated why Black bought the rifle with Rittenhouse’s money for Rittenhouse because he was of legal age to purchase it.
You have ignored the multiple links and posts for your straw man arguments for the last 12 hours.
And what is your point relative to my post about the distinction between the two verbs?
It may surprise you to learn that most crimes are not committed by “worldly” or “sophisticated” individuals of any age.
Not sure how you could find the facts that I presented “dubious”.
Your need to address the history of those Rittenhouse injured and killed is one the ways in which you express your bias toward Rittenhouse.
Your assumption of any bias on my part is meritless.
Again, “sophistication” isn’t necessary. Rittenhouse and Black’s crime doesn’t require any sophistication at all, and as is born out by the facts involved, even a couple of “simple fellows” could pull off the simple conspiracy of a straw man purchase.
I haven’t denied Black’s “innocent” plea.
Now you’re lying. I have provided the proof repeatedly. That you’re unwilling to accept the truth is a you problem.
Your bias, an emotion driven belief, is preventing you from accepting irrefutable facts. Again, a you problem.
You said he admitted guilt. He didn't.
This isn't complicated. He bought a firearm that Kyle wanted with Kyle's money. However, ownership is not a settled discussion. The rifle stayed at Black's stepfather's house. In fact, there was discussion of Kyle's mother getting a firearm's license to transfer the rifle over to her. We don't know the details there. We do know there was concern on Black's part that if they had to tell Kyle he was not allowed to use it he would throw a hissy fit which implies they viewed themselves as the gatekeeper for using the rifle. Your claim that they have publicly said they decided to break the law or commit a straw purchase is false. They didn't say that, you inferred that. Black has plead not guilty to the charges and nobody has claimed they have a confession from what I've seen. It is not uncommon for hunting/gun families to buy firearms so minors can use legally use then despite not being able to buy on their own. Are they guilty of straw purchase?
Both Black and Rittenhouse have admitted they both knew Rittenhouse was not legal to purchase or possess the rifle. If you want what you say to be true, Black would have stated he was buying it for Rittenhouse on the federal form, he wrote he purchased it for himself.
Not sure what you were prattling on about regarding awards, so we will just skip over that stuff.
Yes. So Black purchased it and took it home with him. At what point did Rittenhouse take ownership of the rifle? When did he not have to get it from Black or Black's stepfather when he wanted to use it? This is the likely argument that Black is going to make in court.