From the AP . . .
A Wisconsin judge is set to hear arguments Friday on whether prosecutors should return to Kyle Rittenhouse the assault-style rifle he used to shoot three people during a street protest.
Rittenhouse shot the men during the protest in Kenosha in 2020. He killed Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm. Rittenhouse argued he fired in self-defense after each of the men attacked him. A jury last year acquitted him of multiple charges, including homicide.
Rittenhouse’s attorney, Mark Richards, filed a motion Jan. 19 asking prosecutors to return Rittenhouse’s rifle, his ammunition, his face mask and other clothing he was wearing the night of the shooting to him. Richards and David Hancock, a spokesman for Rittenhouse, said last week that Rittenhouse wants to destroy the rifle and throw the rest of the items away so nothing can be used as a political symbol or trophy celebrating the shootings.
Conservatives across the nation have praised Rittenhouse, saying he was defending Kenosha from far-left militants. Liberals have painted him as a trigger-happy vigilante.
The motion hearing was before Judge Bruce Schroeder, the Kenosha County judge who presided over Rittenhouse’s trial. Hancock said Rittenhouse would not be in court for Friday’s hearing.
Demonstrators took to the streets for a number of nights in Kenosha in August 2020 after a white police officer shot Jacob Blake, a Black man, in the back as Blake was resisting arrest during a domestic disturbance. The shooting left Blake paralyzed from the waist down.
The protests turned chaotic at times, with people burning buildings. Rittenhouse and his friend, Dominick Black, joined a group to protect a used car lot on the night of Aug. 25, 2020.
Rittenhouse, who was 17 at time and living in Antioch, Illinois, was armed with an AR-15-style rifle that Black had purchased for him earlier that year because he was too young to buy a firearm under Wisconsin law.
According to the motion, Black had agreed that the rifle would become Rittenhouse’s property on his 18th birthday, Jan. 3, 2021.
Bystander and surveillance video shows that just before midnight Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse down and Rittenhouse shot him as he closed in on him. He shot Huber after Huber swung a skateboard at his head and Grosskreutz after Grosskreutz ran up to him holding a pistol. Everyone involved in the shooting was white.
Black pleaded no contest to two citations earlier this month for contributing to the delinquency of a minor in exchange for prosecutors dropping two felony charges of intent to sell a dangerous weapon to a person younger than 18.
he should just play a country & western (both kinds) song backwards.
Question…
why should POTG care if Kyle is supposedly going to destroy all that stuff?
The history of the use of force is often grey, and moments of unambiguously heroic resistance are rare.
In the much rarer instances where weapons with clear provenance to those moments exist, they remain priceless symbols. We would like to think that the main players in those events epitomize heroism even more than the inanimate objects.
Imagine if you not only found the spear and shield of Leonidas, but could actually speak with him. Now imagine that, instead of the inspirational quotes history has left behind, he told you “I hate the idea of my weapons symbolizing resistance to tyranny. Life as a Persian slave might have sucked, but it’s better than resorting to violence!”
Um… What kind of music do you usually have here?
Both kinds….Country AND Western
“…both kinds…”
Jake and Elroy…one of the best movies of all times.
The band, Elwood! The BAND!!
Make the bastards pay!!
This is even worse than civil asset forfeiture, not only was he not convicted of a crime, he was acquitted. Give him his damn property back.
Harumph!
He doesn’t want it back. He wants it destroyed and signed off on the state destroying it for him.
“He doesn’t want it back.”
I believe he does personally want it back, so he can see with his own eyes it was properly destroyed…
Yeah, if he didn’t want it back he wouldn’t be suing to get it back. What he does with his own property is his own business. The property is rightfully his and the state has no authority to continue the seizure of his property so continuing to hold his property is a violation of his civil and human rights for no other reason than they’re holding a personal grudge. Not only should he get his property back, he should get compensated for his trouble by the unelected bureaucratic assholes that are attempting to steal his property.
The rifle that an anti fascist used to kill and wound storm troopers with? It should be in a freedom museum.
Wait, so either Kyle is a member of ANTIFA, or you are just an old beta male cuck who doesn’t know the definition of the word ‘fascist’.
Fascism is a political philosophy characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. There have been three major governments that adopted fascism and that was Spain, Italy, and Germany. They were also all socialist countries despite fascism being most frequently attributed to right leaning governments and individuals by people that do not like right leaning governments or individuals. Fascist themselves are people that adhere to the tenants of fascism.
You forgot China. Originally communist, it pivoted to fascism after the original Maoists died out and is now the biggest and most dangerous fascist nation the world has ever seen.
Ing You don’t know that Fascism Socialism and Communism are virtually the same?
First point. No alpha male needs to announce himself. Makes you a jackal, not a lion.
Second point. Cuck. That’s the sound an old hen makes when she’s looking to get shagged. You looking to get shagged, old hen?
Third point. The mobs on the street that night were displaying classic fascist behavior. The fact that Kyle went head on against them proves he was anti fascist.
You beta male, being generous there, are easily confused by slogans and terms. You are who your actions determine you to be, not your words.
The ‘left’ was bought and paid for by corporate billionaires who then converted it to fascism. All those so called ‘antifa’ mobbing on the street are just new age storm troopers.
Harsh man…… accurate but harsh.
Wow Mr. ‘Hitler had some great ideas’ jwm, you sure found a long winded way of admitting you’re an old enfeebled beta male cuck you who * still * doesn’t understand what the word ‘fascist’ means.
A male. You must be dacian in drag. Nobody but him is that stupid.
“First point. No alpha male needs to announce himself.”
*Zing!*.
With that, a perpetual beta was put in its proper place, at the bottom of the pile.
Seriously, aren’t you tired yet of being so brutally humiliated? What kind of person wakes up every day saying to themselves “I’m gonna prove what a total jackass I am to the entire world”?
Does your imaginary ‘wife’ know you do this? She must be so ‘proud’ of you! 😉
Fascism and socialism the way the modern Democrat Party envisions it go hand in hand. The structure of fascism is the power structure required to force compliance with their vision of socialism. Just think of one true socialist country that is not authoritarian and don’t name any of the northern European countries because they don’t consider themselves to be socialist despite what Bernie Sanders believes. Since you brought up Hitler ( by the way, bringing up Hitler in a discussion is a sure sign that you have lost the argument and are resorting to name-calling an innuendo) you do know the name of his political party don’t you? It was the National Socialist Workers Party; we call them the Nazis. They ran on a platform of Universal Health Care, environmentalism, workers rights, living wage, Etc. When you compare their platform against the platform of the modern Democrat Party you’ll see that they mesh about 85% of the time. The only difference is that they really hated communist.
Aww, how cute; you think Antifa are actually anti-fascist! I mean, they put it right there in their name; so it must be true!
Good to see you again Chip.
How did you get that Rittenhouse is a member of ANTIFA? (Scratching my head)
He was fighting fascists that night. Their tactics screamed national socialists. One was a pedo and all 3 had criminal records. Sort of mandatory for fascists.
Kyle has the best claim here for having been antifa, as he was actually fighting fascists.
Damn right it should.
“Everyone involved in the shooting was white.
More correctly,
Everyone who were actually shot were white. One black man was involved in the shootings but Rittenshouse missed and he escaped.
And what goes up comes on back down. Into the ground never to be found.
Yup.
Free KYLE’s rifle….& yes , make a trophy stand for it.
It won a great victory for self defense against the mob….
I don’t get it. More to the point, I don’t get Rittenhouse. I don’t understand his wish to destroy his rifle. He needn’t worry about it ever becoming a museum piece if it’s just left where it is: in a police evidence room. From my own past experience, it’ll end up being melted down and scraped (unless of course it’s stolen by an unscrupulous employee of the Kenosha PD — and that would never happen, right? ).
What’s he trying to do? Reform his image and become a “redeemed” miscreant who now sees the error of his ways so that someday he can become BFFs with David Hogg???
He’s a kid, and he’s been through hell. Maybe he’s struggling with what happened, and he feels that destroying the rifle will help. It’s his call.
After going through all the sht Kyle did I dont blame him.
He said basically he doesn’t want the rifle to be a trophy. Some scumbag would have eventually gotten it and tried to sell it as “Kyle’s Rifle” for a ridiculous amount of money causing all kinds of hysteria on the left not to mention inciting the antis to harass Kyle even more. It’s not like he can’t go buy a new better rifle.
That “trophy” could pay for a college education, or put it on display for real Americans to come see.
Yeah and give morons like Bloomberg and Watts a symbol to rally around. I’m pretty sure Kyle is sick of the BS.
“That “trophy” could pay for a college education,…”
He’s on track to be a multi-millionaire by the time all his lawsuits are settled, he’s gotten some solid advice on how to proceed with that…
Really the rifle should be used as a mold template that would be attached to a 3X scale bronze statue of Kyle erected on a museum in what was the used car parking lot.
The statute should mimic the top picture of him in this story and maybe an adjacent bronze of him sitting on the ground vaporizing the bicep of Grosscritz and Huber grasping his chest mortally wounded.
As God is my witness, I’d donate $1000 to that museum/statue fundraiser.
I’ve got money ready to send the second that project becomes a reality.
No it won’t…a cop will take it home and it’ll become his rifle.
Country Boy for your edification, the court has ordered the PD to return the rifle to Rittenhouse. So your nonsense about the cop stealing it is moot.
You have probably never been involved in a case where police “evidence” became the property of the Chief of Police, or the Sheriff, or one of their favored subordinates. A brother-in-law had it happen to him, twice. Serial numbers don’t lie, so he eventually got his property back in both cases.
Regardless of his motive. If it’s his property, and seeing as how he was acquitted by all charges the state accused him off, his property ought to be returned to him.
The rifle belongs to Kyle. Give him his rifle back!
Pipe down you insufferable 🥾 👅!
Take a hike dimwit. Did your mother have any children that lived
“Did your mother have any children that lived”
No, that little troll was dropped on his head as a baby likely dozens of times… 😉
I see that occasionally, what is boot tongue supposed to mean?
Well, there was this frog and skorpion. I think they were illegals because they were crossing a river to get here. Anyway the frogs tongue got stuck on a passing bass boat and they both got drug to death.
Terrible tragedy. The boat flipped over and a bunch of guns were lost.
I think the frog was coerced .
jwm It seems you need some spelling lessons. You misspelled scorpion. Maybe it’s time to go back to BOCES for some remedial education?
boot licker. I think.
He was acquitted on all counts. He is completely innocent. And he deserves his private property back. The idea of private property ownership for the ordinary person, is a Cornerstone of the founding of the United States. The Libertarians made a movie about an old white woman having her Pink House confiscated by the government.
Now will the Libertarians make a movie about America’s rifle, the AR-15, and the private property of an innocent American Teenager???
This rifle should be in a museum. Like the museum in Springfield Missouri. That holds the rifle that actor Charlton Heston held. When he made his famous speech about vice president Al Gore. Talk radio host Glenn Beck also has a museum in Texas. Where he has collected many examples of the fight for liberty in America and the round of the world.
Unfortunately this rifle is probably only going to be safe in a private Museum. I would not trust a publicly owned Museum taking care of it. Or having it out for public display.
There needs to be a museum at the old car parking lot with a 20ft high bronze of Kyle inside striding down the road with his AR.
I actually do not think Kyle Rittenhouse would like that.
I would imagine he wished it were all just a bad dream.
Some times the idea becomes bigger than the person.
He’ll accept it.
12 foot bronze statue would be better. That is more than life size, but small enough to actually see the entire bronze at a range of 15 to 20 feet. 20 foot statues are just awkward. And, don’t put the statue on a six ft high pedestal for the same reason – 12 to 24 inch pedestal is sufficient.
Gonna have to be fascist ANTIFAG/BLM proof.
Probbaly will need a DEEP moat.
That Rittenhouse was innocent by right of self defense was blatantly obvious from the beginning.
That Rittenhouse is guilty as sin of making a straw purchase of a firearm in full knowledge of it being a felony under Federal law is equally obvious from the get go. He and his co-conspirator in this criminal act admitted it under oath.
That the Federal DoJ has so far failed to prosecute for that crime is just one of countless examples of them saying one thing about fighting actual “Gun Crime”, and failing to do so in real circumstances.
Straw Buys are one way the bad guys get guns.
Ignoring these criminal acts when discovered is one way the criminal practice is encouraged.
However unintentional, failure to prosecute encourages criminals to repeat the act.
That Rittenhouse is guilty as sin of making a straw purchase…
Nope.
It’s not as clear as you think it is since Kyle never took possession of the rifle.
That is especially born out by the fact that Black had those charges dropped.
Nonsense. He never took possession? What sort of crazy word salad adds up to that when he had the gun in hand and used to shoot his attackers? The pretense was that he would not have possession until an adult. The reality is the opposite as proven in a heck of a lot of video footage and sworn testimony.
And the Judge in the case did what? Regardless of how we look at it, the Judge stated why he threw the charge out and what legal doctrine he used to arrive at that conclusion.
“Judge stated why he threw the charge out”
Kyle was never charged with a straw purchase and the judge never threw a straw purchase charge out.
Kyle was only charged with being in possession of a rifle at 17.
Why wasn’t Kyle charged with a straw purchase, a felony under both state and federal law?
That’s the question, a felony straw purchase leading to multiple homicides, yet no prosecution, some sort of privilege I guess.
2nd Amendmant overrides it IMO. The fact it saved his life is another,
“Kyle never took possession of the rifle“
He was 17 when he took the AR 15 in hand and shot those folks.
KR had AR15 while escorted by an adult.
The fact he got separated from supervising adults was the fault of of a felonious pedophile.
Does my 9YO have illegal possession of a gun if I’m standing near by?
If I buy a pistol for my son, and tell him he can have it when he turns 21, is that a straw purchase?
Has Grosskreutz been prosecuted for illegally having a firearm and pointing it at Kyle? I find it interesting, but very predictable, that everyone having a conniption over the “straw” purchase or “crossing state lines(!)” never seem concerned about Grosskreutz traveling 40 miles(!) while illegally carrying a gun, and trying to shoot Kyle.
There’s a great deal of case law and documented policy that Congress never intended a gift purchase buy a family member to be a star purchase. The crucial deciding factor is always if the recipient of the gun is known to th4e straw buyer to be prohibited.
Kyle was known to be prohibited. He and Black admitted under oath they discussed their conspiracy and the risk of being charged. They claimed a plan to comply and then broke that plan when Kyle took unlawful possession.
Absolutely agree that Grosskreutz should be charged with his own felony and prosecuted under Federal law.
Two wrongs do not make a Right. Nor does a wrong gotten away with excuse another. The various crimes committed by any and all evil doers should be charged and prosecuted. I do not care who’s political sacred cow gets skewered in the process, a crime is a crime. Go after all criminals and pound them!
Likewise when someone defends themselves with a firearm the law should not be abused to make a political value statement, which is all the prosecution of Rittenhouse has so far been about.
Watch your doors and corners,
Two friendly corrections for you in the context of a straw purchase:
Taking possession of a firearm–in other words owning it–effectively requires that you keep it with you at your home. Since Kyle did not keep the rifle at his home (his friend kept it at his home), Kyle did not own it and therefore never took possession of it. While Kyle certainly borrowed it for the entire night of the event, he did not own it. (Note: in the chaotic aftermath of his self-defense event, he may have taken it home if he was unable to locate his friend to take it home.)
Second, whether or not someone is a “prohibited person” is irrelevant. A straw purchase only depends on one person handing money to another person to purchase a firearm on his/her behalf. Both people can have zero criminal prosecutions and be over 21 and still go down for a straw purchase. That actually happened when an uncle paid his nephew to purchase a handgun for him. Neither had any criminal convictions/record and the nephew was actually an active law enforcement officer. (The nephew got a significant LEO discount price which is why the uncle asked him to buy it.)
Aside from the legal technicalities of an official “straw purchase”, such a law is largely obscene and we should never support it based on principle alone–especially when the parties involved are of age and have no criminal convictions.
“The various crimes committed by any and all evil doers should be charged and prosecuted. I do not care who’s political sacred cow gets skewered in the process, a crime is a crime.”
I agree with this. I don’t know for sure if they have a good case against Kyle (for a straw purchase) because I’m not a legal expert, and I don’t play one on the net. Here’s what I do know. They weren’t prosecuting Kyle. They were persecuting him. Every honest, reasonable person knows that Kyle acted in self-defense. If Kyle broke other laws, then they should have gone after him for that to begin with. The fact that they aren’t aggressively pursuing other violations makes me think they don’t feel very confident about it.
Even if he did violate the other laws, I would like for them to use their prosecutorial discretion, and drop it since Kyle was put through hell for the crime of defending himself. It’s disgusting that our system is so corrupt, they’re willing to try a kid for murder solely for political purposes.
Next up, Kyle should be suing the media and Puppet Joe for smearing him as a white supremacist.
And no amount of petty regulatory administrivia (such as gun control) makes an action that is neither immoral nor harmful into a “wrong”.
Absolutely agree that Grosskreutz should be charged with his own felony and prosecuted under Federal law.
“Taking possession of a firearm–in other words owning it–effectively requires that you keep it with you at your home“
Absolute bullshit.
So as long as a felon never takes the gun out of his car and into his home, he’s not actually in unlawful possession?
You are really jumping through some hoops to try to absolve Kyle of any wrongdoing, tragically comic.
“The nephew got a significant LEO discount price which is why the uncle asked him to buy it”
Even better, they also engaged in a conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud by the LEO nephew falsely attesting that the gun was for him so he could obtain the discount for his uncle, the actual purchaser.
Theft by deception, under false pretenses.
“Kyle was known to be prohibited.”
No, he wasn’t. Federal statutes do not prohibit 17 year olds to possess a rifle, and Rittenhouse did not fall under any of the other prohibited possessor clauses.
Miner49er,
The topic, which the original commenter stated and to which I responded, is about the definition of “possession” with respect to a straw purchase. And in that context, “possession” requires more than just holding onto a firearm for a few hours. It requires “ownership”, which involves keeping that firearm with you for a very long period of time, probably on the order of at least a few weeks.
In the context of the NEW TOPIC which you introduced–state and federal “felon in possession of a firearm” laws–possession means holding onto a firearm even for a few seconds as you stated.
You are comparing/equating apples and oranges.
“Kyle was known to be prohibited.”
“No, he wasn’t.“
As an Illinois resident under the age of 18 and not possessing an FOID card, Kyle was a prohibited person and Dominic Black knew it when they engaged in the conspiracy to commit a federal firearms felony.
They have both admitted that the fact that Kyle was not legally able to buy the weapon is exactly why they engaged in a conspiracy, to claim otherwise is ridiculous.
“And in that context, “possession” requires more than just holding onto a firearm for a few hours. It requires “ownership”, which involves keeping that firearm with you for a very long period of time, probably on the order of at least a few weeks.“
Interesting claim. Have you a citation to support your assertion?
KJyle isn’t nor ever was a criminal. I had a .22LR rifle that I got for Christmas, at the age of 13. Didn’t make me a criminal..
“As an Illinois resident…”
The firearm in question was neither purchased nor possessed in Illinois, but rather in Wisconsin, where said possession was not unlawful for Rittenhouse, at 17.
Rittenhouse was not a prohibited person as defined in applicable federal or (Wisconsin) state statutes.
You’re welcome to cite statutes that state otherwise; I’ll not hold my breath, because I know that you cannot do so.
Miner49er While you may be right, the fact is that when Rittenhouse possessed the rifle, he was in Wisconsin. Therefore Illinois has no jurisdiction to prosecute him. You radical anti-gun nuts will keep trying to stretch the facts to fit your agenda.
“If I buy a pistol for my son, and tell him he can have it when he turns 21, is that a straw purchase?“
If you give it to your son before he is 21, yes.
Under the law Rittenhouse did not break a law concerning a straw purchase; his friend did. They structured it in such a way that getting a conviction against the purchaser would be very difficult.
This is so tiresome.
Straw purchases are a matter of federal statute. No one in this instance has (at least, as of yet) been charged under federal statute, either for making an illegal straw purchase or for lying on Federal Form 4473.
In point of fact, the purchase was not a straw purchase, because Rittenhouse was not a “prohibited person” as defined in federal statutes. Rittenhouse was not prohbited from possessing the rifle under either federal or state statute in the state where the rifle was purchased.
Now, the feds could succeed on a charge against Black for lying on the 4473; but even then, his actions (to wit, that Black took actual possession of the rifle upon purchase, and demonstrated intent not to transfer possession of the rifle to Rittenhouse until Rittenhouse was 18 years old) may well constitute a valid defense to such a charge.
Ultimately, it is plainly obvious that Rittenhouse and Black intended, and made every effort, to follow applicable laws – not to circumvent them. The intent of straw purchase statutes is to address those who attempt to circumvent prohibited possessor statutes.
Trying to apply those statutes here very well could call into question the constitutionality of the underlying statutes themselves.
This is why the left likes gun laws. So they can weaponize them for other interpretations. It seems less about following the law, and more about what they can get you for. Buy a rifle for a friend several years later? That’s straw purchasing now!
“Straw purchases are a matter of federal statute“
And also a felony under Wisconsin state law.
But no charges for a little Kyle or Dominick thus far by any Wisconsin state attorney.
“and demonstrated intent not to transfer possession of the rifle to Rittenhouse until Rittenhouse was 18 years old)“
Dominic black demonstrated no such intent, in fact he transferred ownership of the weapon to Kyle in the hours before Kyle used the weapon, thus consummating the felony conspiracy to provide a prohibited person with a firearm.
And Kyle was indeed a prohibited person, not being a resident of the state where the weapon was purchased using his funds, not to mention the fraud perpetrated by Dominick black on the 4473.
Ah, Miner45er bad news fella, it seems that charges were made against Dominick. He pleas guilty to illegal transfer to a minor.
You really have to get your facts straight.
But then you are another rabid anti-gun nut.
“And also a felony under Wisconsin state law”
[Citation needed]
Applicable Wisconsin statues criminalize the transfer of a firearm to someone not legally able to possess the rifle. Straw purchases are wholly the purview and jurisdiction of federal statutes.
Again, you’re welcome to cite applicable statute that demonstrates otherwise.
I’d recommend starting with Wisconsin statutes 948.60(2)(b) and 948.60(3)(c).
“Applicable Wisconsin statues criminalize the transfer of a firearm to someone not legally able to possess the rifle. Straw purchases are wholly the purview and jurisdiction of federal statutes“
Chippy, are you really not capable of doing the most basic research before you post your opinion?
May I recommend that you start with:
“Wis. Stat. § 941.2905
Current through Acts 2021-2022, ch. 118
Section 941.2905 – Straw purchasing of firearms
(1) 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.“
Even better, if Kyle was not a ‘prohibited person’, then why did he and Dominick black engage in their elaborate conspiracy?
Why didn’t Kyle just walk into the store in Kenosha and buy the rifle?
Because he was prohibited by both state and federal law.
The cognitive gymnastics y’all engage in to white wash these felony crimes is hilarious.
miner49er Again, you put meaning into the law that is NOT THERE!
941.2905 Straw purchasing of firearms. (1) 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.
The key here is 941/29 (1m) . Clearly you did not think that anyone would check this section. Much to your chagrin, I have.
Read it and weep.
(1m) A person who possesses a firearm is guilty of a Class G felony if any of the following applies:
(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).
Now, little fella, which one of these subdivisions does Kyle’s possession fall under? Seems the judge dismissed this charge as Kyle did not fall under any of the subdivisions.
All of your machinations about a “conspiracy” are moot.
Before you embarrass yourself any further, it might be wise to do through research before you put your fingers in gear.
You make this all too easy, Miner.
“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.”
Rittenhouse was not “prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29(1m)”.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/iii/29/1m
At least try to make it more challenging next time, eh?
Separating this one, for extra special mention, due to your inability to differentiate, or understand the legal distinction, between purchase and possess.
“Even better, if Kyle was not a ‘prohibited person’, then why did he and Dominick black engage in their elaborate conspiracy?”
Because purchase and possession are not the same thing, practically, factually, or legally. Rittenhouse couldn’t lawfully purchase a rifle, but he could lawfully possess a rifle in Wisconsin.
“Why didn’t Kyle just walk into the store in Kenosha and buy the rifle?”
Because that would have been unlawful, and it appears that the two made every effort to comply with existing statutes.
“Because he was prohibited by both state and federal law.”
He was prohibited from purchasing, but not from possessing. He didn’t purchase, so he didn’t run afoul of that prohibition.
Both federal and Wisconsin statutes define who is a prohibited possessor/em>, as referenced by the statute I linked previously.
“Rittenhouse couldn’t lawfully purchase a rifle, but he could lawfully possess a rifle in Wisconsin.
“Why didn’t Kyle just walk into the store in Kenosha and buy the rifle?”
Because that would have been unlawful, and it appears that the two made every effort to comply with existing statutes.“
Your cognitive dissonance is ringing like a bell, fascinating!
You’ve just laid out the facts in the conspiracy engaged by Kyle and Dominick in order to circumvent Wisconsin, Illinois and federal laws regarding the purchase of a firearm.
“Your cognitive dissonance is ringing like a bell, fascinating!”
The only cognitive dissonance here is pretending that purchase and possess are the same thing.
It is lawful in Wisconsin (and in many other states) for someone under 18 to possess a rifle.
It is unlawful in Wisconsin (and every other state) for someone under 18 to purchase a rifle.
Many people under 18 (and in many other states) do, and lawfully, possess a rifle. Those people included Kyle Rittenhouse.
“You’ve just laid out the facts in the conspiracy engaged by Kyle and Dominick in order to circumvent Wisconsin, Illinois and federal laws regarding the purchase of a firearm.”
Considering that the rifle in question wasn’t in Illinois, why do you keep bringing up utterly irrelevant Illinois laws?
I’ve already demonstrated that Rittenhouse didn’t violate – and therefore by definition could not have “circumvented” – Wisconsin or federal statutes.
The purchase wasn’t a “straw” purchase under Wisconsin or federal statutes, because a straw purchase requires knowledge that the intended possessor was a prohibited possessor – and, again, Rittenhouse was not a prohibited possessor under either Wisconsin or federal statutes.
The only possible charge here (other than the “make this go away” plea deal to which Black copped) is a federal charge of lying on Form 4473 – and even that is extremely tenuous, given that Black took actual and constructive possession upon purchase, with a stated intent to transfer ownership only upon Rittenhouse turning 18.
Conspiracy requires intent to violate a law. Rittenhouse and Black acted in a manner that allowed them to comply with the laws in place.
Miner49er. You are again, spreading lie after lie. Kyle Rittenhouse did not violate Wisconsin law. II have covered this with you repeatedly and still you perpetrate this lie.
Kyle didn’t make a purchase of a weapon, so he can’t be guilty of a straw purchase.
Kyle wasn’t in legal possession of the weapon, since it was stored in his friend’s home, and Kyle only had access to the weapon when his friend’s dad approved of that access. Some other person exercised authority over the weapon, not Kyle.
The intention all along was to give Kyle full possession of the weapon on his 18th birthday. It’s perfectly legal to gift a firearm, and what more appropriate time than an 18th birthday?
If Kyle were a criminal for carrying that rifle, then many (most?) of us were criminals any time we took a rifle from our parents’ homes to go target shooting or hunting or whatever before we turned 18 (or 21 in some draconian states).
You may well question the wisdom of allowing a 17 year old to carry a weapon into a danger zone, but there was nothing illegal about Kyle carrying that weapon on the night in question. And, in fact, a judge issued a ruling to that effect.
Hilarious that you believe what you’ve posted.
Both Kyle and Dominic have admitted under oath Kyle provided the money for Dominick to make the purchase, because Kyle was not a resident of the state in which a purchase was made and he was under age to buy a long gun.
“The intention all along was to give Kyle full possession of the weapon on his 18th birthday.”
Perhaps that was the intention, but the fact is Dominick transferred full ownership to Kyle at 17yo hours before Kyle used the weapon to kill people.
“what more appropriate time than an 18th birthday?“
Again, you fantasize about what might’ve been when the facts and evidence show that ownership and possession was transferred to Kyle while he was still 17 years of age.
So what? The fact is that Kyle did NOT violate the law. I pointed this out in spite of your diatribes to the contrary. It seems you have been fantasizing to try to convict Rittenhouse of something. Clearly you do not believe in self defense as clearly the jury did find that Rittenhouse acted in self defense. I guess you would have been happy if these three criminals, one of which was a pedophile, had killed Rittenhouse.
In fact a 17 yr old CAN have, possess own a rifle to use legally in spite of your argument to the contrary.
“Kyle didn’t make a purchase of a weapon, so he can’t be guilty of a straw purchase”
Sorry, Kyle has already confessed that he provided the money from his Covid unemployment check and directed Dominick to purchase the weapon and claim it was his purchase.
Kyle paid the money and received possession of the firearm that he later carried openly in the streets of Kenosha.
Miner49er So the f’ what? Again, according to Wisconsin Law he did not violate the law.
You are spreading lie after lie.
It is a shame that the police shot Jacob Blake. They should have held their fire. They should have allowed the Black man who had just robbed his estranged wife of her car keys while he was out on bail for sexually assaulting her, and was obviously armed with a Karabit knife, to get into the car that her children were in. Given the totality of the circumstances of an scrumptious seperstion, it is predictable that if the police had allowed Jacob Blake to abduct his estranged wife’s children the police would later have no difficulty identying the killer after the bodies of the murdered children were discovered. It would have been a win for the cops, a win for Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA. The only loosers would have been the children. Think of it as evolution in action.
An agreement has been reached in court. The gun will be destroyed in April per Rittenhouse’s wish, without it being returned to him:
https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouse-heads-court-gun-045604519.html
So the court is going to destroy any evidence the feds need to persecute Kyle for that bogus straw purchase charge. Good.
Its not until April that its destroyed. The feds can come in at any time and take it as evidence until that time in April and it will not be destroyed. If it wasn’t of any evidence value then why wait until April to destroy it?
Baby face white Rittenhouse will get his gun back because he is going before the same racist white cracker judge that blasphemed the case from beginning to end. Now if Rittenhouse had been black he would be in prison right now and this gun already melted down.
Watch your doors and corners just posted what happened to Kyle Rittenhouse’s riffle, dacian.
The gunm will not be returned but destroyed.
I guess you dont read other people’s post unless their replying to you.
Moron. How did this become about race? Kyle was white and so were the 3 storm troopers he shot.
I think you’re more confused than normal.
Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty! And that means institutionalized racism! Yall raciss. Guns raciss. All you cisgendered heteronormative privileged white folk always get what you want. Always. Rasciss. Institutional racism! The second that judge threw out the gun charge, I knew racism was happening. The second I watched the video of rittenhouse shooting a bunch of white people, I knew racism was happening! And they second the white jury pressured the one black juror into acquittal of this white kid killing other whites, – I knew right away – institutionalized racism!
Rittenhouse took a gun, shot supporters of “black lives matter.” And if you don’t support “black lives matter” – you raciss! Period. It says it right in the name – “Black lives matter.” If you don’t support them, then you don’t believe black lives matter. Therefore, you raciss!
Dacian-tard You bet Rittenhouse shot two CRIMINAL “black lives matter” “supporters” Two that deserved exactly what their criminal minds deserved.
While you are at it, you might want to go to a detox center and do something about your alcoholism.
dacian, Only in your Leftist-Socialist mind is Mr Rittenhouse a “racist” etc. It seems that both slime balls he shot were a) criminals and b) Caucasian. Now, As Mr Rittenhouse is Caucasian, how does that make him a “racist”?
Seems it is you who is the real racist here.
You appear to be the idiot who is unaware that a black man was acquitted of charges after shooting a bunch of cops who busted into his home. Don’t tell us what would have happened if Kyle were black – the headlines told us a couple months ago.
Pretty much anywhere in the world this KID would bein jail for a very long time and so would the bloody nut case who loaned him the rifle. As far as I can acertain this kid was too young to have this kind of weapon anyway. When you put weapons int6o the hands of untrained and irresponible kids, or adults and wannabe Rambos come to that, this is what happens.
Here in the UK we have a considerable problem with KNIFE crime [but actuallty LESS per capita than the USA] as Americans are all to keen to point out But consider this in 2019 there were 784 ILLEGAL DEATHS in the UK , This includes all murders by whatever means including GUN crime, Acts of Terrorism, Domestic violence, Knife crime, Police actions nd manslaughter manslaughter, on a PER CAPITA basis this would be about the EU average I presume.
However AMERICA has a population of over four times that of the UK. which mean’s on a per capita basis the ILLEGAL death rate in America, as a stated above, would be around 3000-3500 Surely to god that must mean something to the American Gun Freaks. The fact is that every single gun control merasure the governments of Europe and none more so than the UK have the overwhelming support of the electorate.
I carried guns of all descriptions whilst in the UK Services Raf and UK Infantry Reserves and trained literally hundreds of young [and not so young] persons in their DEADLY no buggering about useage.
I am now over 80 years old and appart from the use ofshotguns in the countryside have never even seen a firerarm in the nahds of a civilian let alone been threatened with one. TWO EXCEPTIONS here 22Target Shooting and my brother-in-law was a licensed DEER STALKER employed in culling DOMESTIC DEER for the butchery trade.
But then I’ve never been threatened with a knife either. The Servicel life could be a bit violent at times. But other than that in CIVILIAN LIFE I’ve only ever been threaten thrice in my life. resulting oin a black eye, a bruised ear and a sprained ankle and by the way lifetime CRIMINAL RECORDS for seven perpetrators The very very last thing I would ever expect when out and about is criminal violence.
BUt DO NOT LET THAT FOOL YOU us BRITS are among the most and calculatedly violent people on Earth if push comes to shove. Just ask the rest of the world’s Armed Services.
You’re proud to be a subject. Good for you. You’re living in the right spot for that.
Bwahahahaha.
Oh sorry that wasn’t very nice.
It’s just that I heard a song in my head about ” The Battle of New Orleans “.
Pretty darn nice of us Yanks to come to your rescue, twice, even though the UK tried to make the US part of their empire.
But yup the British are feared for their renowned viciousness ( hard to say that with a straight face) in the heat of battle.
You have, once again, extolled your own ignorance. I expect nothing less from a nation of cowards, terrified of their own citizens, and pointy object.
Mr. Taylor,
Go easy on Albert Hall: the British Ruling Class (and their enablers) have browbeaten him (and all the rest of the British Working Class) into submission to be a quiet and compliant subject, subservient to the Ruling Class. He is suffering from the same lack of confidence and self-worth that a battered wife experiences after years of her husband telling her that she is worthless and beating on her.
Oh, never mind. Go ahead and ridicule him all you want–he deserves it.
Except that with the first mass murder school shooting the Brits put an end to it and decades later they never had another one compared to our weekly mass murders. Banning pistols and assault rifles certainly was the right move because it worked.
Gone past ubc’s all the way to bans, dacian the nazi?
To Jethro our forum Dotard
Reporting on what happened does not mean you are either supporting what happened nor condemning what happened. But for a high school drop out this is way over your head.
That’s right! Gun crimes are gone in the UK. If a guy shows up and shows you a knife and wants to fill your cootch? You better let him have it. And you should too, because 1) Equality, and 2) give him what he wants and don’t bother with the cops, and nobody needs a gun. She don’t need to shoot him, and he don’t need to “eliminate witnesses.” Gun homicides and gun crimes are what is important here. Saving lives! Even the lives of perpetrators! And if cootch filled victim is made here or there, that’s the sacrifice that needs to be made, because saving lives are what’s important! If it saves one life, we should do it! Brits recognize that they are not responsible enough to own, carry, or use guns. And the USA isn’t either! The solution isn’t to become more responsible, but to ban guns, so that the few that can’t be responsible, don’t have to be!
dacian the nazi. Apparently it’s over your head to list any degrees you have. Judging by the way you argue you have no degrees.
Prove me wrong.
The Brits never had another mass shooting, you say? What were these?
August 13, 2021, Plymouth, England. 5 dead.
2011, Cumbria, England. 12 dead. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jun/02/cumbria-shootings-slaughter-countryside-derrick-bird
There may be more; these are just the two I remember here on the spur of the moment.
dacian There you go again with your Leftist-Socialist propaganda. Again, I invite you to take the courses Introduction to the Constitution and Constitution 101 to learn what rights real Americans have. I’m afraid though that the course Constitution 201 would be beyond your ability to comprehend.
Isn’t it time for you to buy a ticket and go to Europe where you would be more at home?
To Ing
quote————The Brits never had another mass shooting, you say?————-quote
Your reading comprehension is at the 4th grade level. I spoke of school shootings.
dacian, the Dunderhead You are full of donkey dust. School shootings are not the only mass shootings. England has had a surge or murder by various means, guns included. Seems that your terrorists friends like to use knives.
So, when are you leaving for Europe? soon I pray.
Albert Hall (a.k.a. dacian’s alter ego),
Kyle carried a rifle for self-defense and without malicious intent. He did not attack anyone. He did not shoot until angry and violent people chased him down, overtook him, and attempted to overpower and/or kill him. That is the textbook definition of righteous self-defense and is an inalienable right. How a person defends him/herself or which objects or weapons he/she uses to defend him/herself are irrelevant.
Your hatred of firearms and the fact that you let your emotions have the final say in your brain is the actual problem. Objects (such as firearms) do not transform a person into a murderer. If you don’t want to own firearms, good for you. Do NOT tell me whether I can own firearms. You don’t know me. You don’t know how trustworthy and honorable I am. You don’t know how much self-control I have.
I don’t condemn you for being a feeble and impotent subject of the Crown who is unable to defend himself, his family, his community, and his nation from both foreign and domestic threats. Do NOT condemn me for being a strong and resolute citizen who has significant capacity to defend myself, my family, my community, and my nation from both foreign and domestic threats.
Britain is a has-been superpower. Two world wars killed so many of them that they have never recovered and they’ve been diluting their country with foreigners ever since. A significant percentage of my family still lives there and this is their opinions that I’m relaying. You should hear what my cousin from South Africa has to say about the current state of that nation and how it got that way and she’s a flaming liberal academic that fought tooth and nail to end apartheid.
To Herr Hauptman Storm Trooper Officer Bill
quote—————they’ve been diluting their country with foreigners ever since————–quote
Glad you could take time off from building gas chambers to comment.
The real facts are that the history of worldwide immigration proves immigrants enhance a countries wealth. When Rome cut off immigration it was one of the major factors contributing to the their decline and fall. In more recent times immigration to America was “the primary reason” America prospered early in the 20th Century. Of course an uneducated racist like yourself would know nothing of the history of immigration. Even a dead rat sickens me less than you do.
Absolutely! I’m picturing an indigenous american saying to his buddy as the mayflower arrived, these guys are going to enhance our wealth … so much.
dacian,the dunderhead Where in God’s name did you come up with this nonsense that immigration enhances a country’s wealth? Your Lefty propaganda machine is working over time.
Here are the 8 reasons why the Roman Empire fell: 8 Reasons Why Rome Fell
Invasions by Barbarian tribes. …
Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor. …
The rise of the Eastern Empire. …
Overexpansion and military overspending. …
6 Reasons the Dark Ages Weren’t So Dark.
Government corruption and political instability.
None have a damn thing to do with immigration.
To Walther Dotard
You flunked Roman History Dotard. One of the primary reasons for Roman wealth was the exchange of goods with foreign countries. Only a retard like yourself would think Global trade was something new. Immigrants flocked to Rome when they were still being granted citizenship and stopped when Rome ceased to grant them citizenship because the Roman elite used them as a scapegoat when the Empire began to fail.
Immigrants maintained contacts with their home country and they were by an large merchants and again Rome prospered because of the global trade immigrants were carrying on between Rome and their home countries.
Even the fresco’s located in Pompeii reveal much of this.
And by the way you Moron even a High School student is taught about the contributions Immigrants made to American wealth and prosperity both in the past and in the present. The son of a Syrian Immigrant (the people Trump totally banned from even visiting here) invented the cell phone which brought billions in wealth to the U.S.
Stay out of history Walter you flunked it. If you ever wondered why I hate the Far Right its because of ignorant racists like you and storm trooper Herr Hauptman Bill.
To the Tard
Quote———-Absolutely! I’m picturing an indigenous american saying to his buddy as the mayflower arrived, these guys are going to enhance our wealth … so much.————-quote
I was speaking of industrialized literate civilizations not indigenous tribes of whom there were hundreds in the America’s pre Columbian. And I might add the Whites did not become part of the Indian nations rather it was eventually the opposite. So therefore if the whites were never part of the Indian Nations they certainly could not have brought prosperity to them.
dacian, the Dunderhead, It seems that it was the United States that started the Industrial Revolution. Not your European “heroes”. We are just as civilized, maybe more so than your European buddies.
It is clear that you really don’t like it here. So when are you leaving? Permanently?
dacian, the Dunderhead, Nice try! My information posted is from one of your favs, the Internet only mine isn’t a lefty’s propaganda source. The Romans did not get their wealth from trade. They got it by conquest. It seems that your education was sorely neglected.
You really ought to go to an accredited school. Not Moscow University?
Absolutely! I agree! Constantly importing cheap uneducated labor for exploitation enhances a countries wealth big time! Don’t want to clean your house? An uneducated laborer just arrived yesterday from [insert 3rd world country here]. Don’t want to take your garbage out? Here’s an “undocumented” right here.
That’s not all folks! Order in the next two minutes and you get a fruit stand to go with it! – And the best part about it? Most imports vote blue, and let’s be honest, thats the real reason we like ’em! Come on, do you really think we’d be pro-immigration if 80% of them were republican????? F NO! So Yeah! Bring them over in mass quantities! We can add them to the insectional victimhood liberation array. Baad-a-bing, baad-a-boom! We are going to get that majority vote through open borders! Hooray! Central and South american’s welcome. But no cubans. We don’t want cubans. Have enough republican cubans as it is. Cubans come over here, move to florida, and then instantly turn red. WTF!
But every immigrant that arrives at our southern border, is one more diluted white heteronormative cisgender patriarchal vote. We need to destroy the culture of the whiteness, by any means necessary. And if making the next generation half guatemalan is the way to do it, then we need to do that.
To Walter the Beverly Hillbilly
quote————-dacian, the Dunderhead, It seems that it was the United States that started the Industrial Revolution.———–quote
Stick to being an ignorant cop who beats people with night sticks. Stay our of history lessons. I suggest you go back and study the 1st Industrial Revolution before making a complete fool and complete ass of yourself amongst educated people. It was Britain that started the 1st Industrial revolution when the majority of American Hillbillies were mostly living in log cabins with mud floors.
quote————–The Romans did not get their wealth from trade. They got it by conquest. ————-quote
It is well known Rome’s conquest money went to paying off their military in wages and retirement money (social security) and the expenses of running the Army and equipping it. This had nothing to do with the Nations prosperity which came from trade.
Giving you just one example of many. Egypt supplied the grain that fed Rome. In fact so much grain that there were even automated bakeries that processed thousands of bread loaves per day to feed the Roman people. Do you think these Roman businessmen ran these bakeries for just fun and games.
Walter your ignorant responses are a laugh a minute.
dacian, They say that you can’t fix stupid. You are a prime example of that adage.
To hear you say it, the industrial revolution started with the Egyptians? ROFLMAOBT!
What is truly well know, is that your education was an indoctrination.
God save us from stupid people.
Albert Hall, what a load of equine manure.
Pretty much anywhere in the world this KID would bein jail for a very long time and so would the bloody nut case who loaned him the rifle. As far as I can acertain this kid was too young to have this kind of weapon anyway. When you put weapons int6o the hands of untrained and irresponible kids, or adults and wannabe Rambos come to that, this is what happens.
Exactly! The problem isn’t that:
1) There was a violent mob in the streets destroying the town
2) A violent sexual deviant who travelled all the way from texas to kenosha chased after him after rittenhouse shouted, “friendly friendly friendly” and earlier in the day that same sexual deviant said he if “got him a alone he would rip his heart out.”
3) The violent mob kept burning down businesses and looting storefronts because nothing says “support black lives” like burning down a “car source” and looting a liquor store, a game stop, and a footlocker.
4) The violent mobs behavior historically pushes a person around until they provoke a response, and then they “Reginald Denny” you, with the mob suddenly feeling justified since they got a physical provocation from you.
None of these were the problem. The problem is a boy, answered the calling, to defend a city, against such people. And he used a gun. The problem is the gun, mostly, and secondly, to a lesser degree, the problem is he was white. White people and guns should not be allowed in the USA! And if you feel any of the items 1-4 above happened, you rasciss!
Hear hear!
Your opinion stopped mattering to us almost 250 years ago.
Albert Hall. Only in your anti-gun Leftist-Socialist mind would Mr Rittenhouse be in jail. As you are a Brit, you apparently don’t understand the Constitution of the US. Could it be because Great Britain has no constitution upon which to base its government? Could it be because your “Parliament” is the law unto itself with nothing stopping them from imposing their will upon the populace?
I suggest that you go to Hillsdale College on line and take two courses, “Introduction to the Constitution,” and Constitution 101. There is also a course Constitution 201 but that would be beyond you.
To Walter the Beverly Hillbilly
Status: The United Kingdom constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the institutions of the state, regulate the relationships between those institutions, or regulate the relationship between the state and the individual. These laws and rules are not codified in a single, written document.
In fact their system is not enslaved by a Constitution which can and often does become outdated or was poorly written at its inception. The American 2A is just one glaring example of one fucked up document even the Historians have been arguing about since its passage. Britain’s laws can be changed as the situation demands.
That’s right! Having a constitution is enslavement! We should not have a document defining common values and structures for governance! Further, if you want to change that constitution, don’t bother. Just write laws that go against it, and install the advocate of your choice in the supreme court! It helps if you re-interpret what a “constitution” means. It’s a living and breathing document. And that means we can interpret it however we like. And that means it doesn’t really say what it looks like it’s saying! In other words, we can ignore it! Now, the constitution can be changed. In fact, any part of it can be changed. The problem is consensus. Some people (think hillbillies), don’t know what is best for them, and we do! Therefore we just need to find creative ways to get around what the constitution actually says, and what these hillbillies are actually defending. That’s all! PROBLEM SOLVED! The US constitution is dumb. It’s written for gridlock. Which is dumb. It needs to be written for progress. Our progress. Straight progressivism. Burn yesterday. Conserve nothing. Hope and change for tomorrow.
When you get right down to it, the Crown owns every ass in the UK, starting with the Queen’s own ass, right on down to the welfare bums in their “estates”.
In ‘Murica, the government doesn’t own anyone.
Albert Hall sez “As far as I can acertain”
If Albert Hall would read Judge Schroeder’s ruling on the matter, then Albert Hall could acertain that Kyle broke no laws by carrying his gun on the night in question. Seriously, would it be too much to ask that Albert Hall actually read the decision before commenting on the decision?
Thankfully, we in the US are not subjects to be governed by the Crown. I can see where Albert might get the idea that we have bad attitudes here in the US.
“…BUt DO NOT LET THAT FOOL YOU us BRITS are among the most and calculatedly violent people on Earth if push comes to shove. Just ask the rest of the world’s Armed Services…”
Ok, since you asked. It’s ok if you want to beat your own drum, but please…Quite a few on this board have served in combat arms all over the world.
What actually surprises me is that no AR-15 manufacturer has signed an agreement to sell Rittenhouse edition AR’s, with a percentage going to Kyle. Could be named “Rittenhouse Self-Defense rifle”.
Oh man. Talking about making heads explode.
I do not believe Rittenhouse would authorize that.
I think Kyle would like a do over myself.
The emotional breakdown during his testimony was quite telling. And personally I think he despises that rifle.
It would be interesting to hear what he had to say about that as I am only making assumptions.
I think that I’d buy one – provided they didn’t cheap out on the Kyle edition. I mean, who would even want a $150 Kyle Edition AR-15, available through Wal-Mart?
This photo shows an optic mounted on KR’s rifle.
When the prosecutor used it as a prop in the courtroom, it was a flat-top.
What happened to KR’s optic while his rifle spent all those months in the evidence locker?
Could it be the rifle in the court room was not the one Kyle actually had.
I suppose that would be legal as the gunm used was not in question ?
I thought the rifle belonged to Black.
Bingo!
Comments are closed.