Kyle Rittenhouse’s Friend Charged for Giving Him the Rifle Used in the Kenosha Shootings

kyle rittenhouse rifle kenosha

(Adam Rogan/The Journal Times via AP)

It’s been reported that the rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used during the Kenosha shootings was owned by a friend of his. That’s apparently not entirely true, but either way, that friend, 19-year-old Dominick Black, has been charged with two felony counts of giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18, causing death.

From nbcchicago.com:

On May 1, Black purchased a rifle at Ladysmith Ace Home Center using money he was given by Rittenhouse, according to a criminal complaint from the Kenosha County District Attorney. Prosecutors stated that Black was aware Rittenhouse was 17 years old and not legally able to purchase a firearm.

The two agreed that the gun would be stored at Black’s stepfathers house in Kenosha, because Rittenhouse didn’t possess a (Illinois) Firearm Owner Identification card.

Those charges may not be the end of the legal trouble as far as Black is concerned. If the media account is correct, Black technically acted as a straw purchaser for Rittenhouse (someone who buys a firearm for someone they know is prohibited from purchasing one legally). If so, Black could be facing federal charges as well.

Stay tuned.

 

comments

  1. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Told ya,,,
    “””FREE KYLE”””

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      We knew it was coming,FREE KYLE and INCARCERATE the PROSECUTOR.

      1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

        To be fair this guy is likely guilty of a straw purchase. I think Kyle should never have been charged, but I also think this qualified as an illegal transaction. I mean he admits Kyle have him the money and he knew Kyle couldn’t buy the weapon.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          You are correct, they both knew they were breaking federal law when they conspired to engage in the transaction.

          And he will probably be charged by Illinois, as an Illinois resident, he conspired to circumvent the FO ID requirement.

          And because people died during the commission of these multiple felonies, the felony murder statute will apply.

        2. avatar DaveL says:

          The felony was already complete by the time of the shootings, the felony murder rule doesn’t apply.

        3. avatar PavePusher says:

          “Straw Purchase” shouldn’t even be a thing, unless deliberately done for the proveable intent of enabling a crime.

          Another cess-pool of fuckery from the Feds.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Every one of the gun control laws involved, state or federal, is blatantly in violation of the US Constitution, and have never been ruled otherwise by SCOTUS. Making this a wonderful case to fight to the Supreme Court now that Barrett is seated. I’m ready to contribute to the expenses, but we need coordination from NRA, SAF, GOA, Judicial Watch, and all the usual suspects.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Nope. Now with the kid admitting to felony gun infringements. Kyle is now in major trouble, he will be convicted of some gun charge and may be forced into a plea deal for involuntary manslaughter. His bail was set a 2 million due failures from his money grabbing lawyers.

      Trump is very heavy handed on straw purchases, he has federal gun control task forces running around enforcing the gun infringements, which people have been killed because of it. Barr loves to go after people for gun crimes and has reason to go after Kyle and Black now that Biden won.

      Kyle asked for the gun. He gave the money to his friend to buy the gun for him. They conspired on where to keep the gun. He wanted to be a cop before dropping out of high school. He was a Trump supporters. He wanted to stand up for his country by fighting BLM and Antifa. He lied about his age to the militia. He pretended to be going down to Kenosha to work and clean up graffiti. He appears to have been caught being violent against a female in the parking lot of his friend’s home, where he was beaten up by minorities for hitting a girl, which makes things look worse when he goes to a BLM protest with an AR-15.

      If they don’t drop the murder charges now that the elections are over, he will likely get more than you think. The jury can easily be swayed by the commentary above and the fact he shot at multiple people. Hence the plea deal being a strong possibility.

      1. avatar CWT says:

        I don’t see the word confession anywhere in the statement. Just a fishing expedition by the DA trying to pressure Rittenhouse’s friend.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “I don’t see the word confession anywhere in the statement.”

          The play is likely for the DA to drop the charges in return for testifying against Rittenhouse…

      2. avatar john woods says:

        biden has not won yet DUMDASS!!

    3. avatar doesky2 says:

      Seems like Trump needs to hand out a couple pardons for any federal crimes to Black and Rittenhouse on the day he exits.

      Problem solved on the Federal side.
      Wasn’t that easy?

      Before indictments?….Sure.
      In rarer cases, such as the pardon of Richard Nixon, a pardon can also halt criminal proceedings and prevent an indictment.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        So the evidence clearly shows that they are guilty of multiple federal felonies, before he ever shot anybody, and you think he should get a free pass?

        So much for that ‘law and order’ stuff…

        Hypocrisy, thy name is conservative Republican.

        1. avatar doesky2 says:

          I place “Death to Leftists” over “Law and order” especially when the “law and order” today only favors Leftists.

          Oh yeah…also…Fuck you.

        2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          Pardons are lawful, I don’t understand your pretend outrage. It doesn’t even have to meet your partison approval.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Pretty certain a Presidential pardon erases any crimes the pardoned individual committed between his birth and the date of the pardon, there are no tricky word games involved in an actual pardon.

  2. avatar Montana Actual says:

    Good thing you didn’t purchase it.

    It was a gift. Totally legal.

    1. avatar A straw purchase is not a "gift" says:

      Montana said, “It was a gift. Totally legal.”
      No, if you read any of the article before commenting, you would have seen this:
      “On May 1, Black purchased a rifle at Ladysmith Ace Home Center using money he was given by Rittenhouse.”

      That’s not a gift; it’s a straw purchase.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        A gift purchase is not a straw purchase. Rittenhouse gave money to Black for Black to purchase a firearm that Black owned/possessed. For it to be a straw purchase, Black would have needed to have purchased the firearm with the intent of transferring ownership to Rittenhouse – which the two intentionally did not do (Black kept the firearm at his stepfather’s house).

        Purchase date: 01 May
        Use date: 27 August

        Not a straw purchase.

        1. avatar Katy says:

          There is a lot left to be cleared up, but as written it appears that the agreement was not that Black would own the weapon, but that it would belong to Rittenhouse and would be kept under a bailment agreement Black’s stepfather’s home. While Black and his stepfather would ostensibly have easier access, the ultimate ownership would rest with Rittenhouse.And if I’m the US Attorney, I’m bringing in the stepfather as well as least part of the conspiracy to violate federal law.

          As written, it doesn’t look good for ether Black or Rittenhouse. There may be more to the story, but it isn’t posted here.

        2. avatar hawkeye says:

          Is it known when the deal was struck and/or the money changed hands, relative to Black’s purchase of the rifle? I would think that would be a salient point.

        3. avatar Indigo Carmine says:

          I’m being lazy and not looking up the legal definition of a straw purchase, but
          1) Does being underage make someone a “prohibited person” in the same way that being a convicted felon, etc does? Snide follow-up: haven’t all of us been guilty of “being” underage. Was I supposed to petition someone to have my rights restored upon reaching the age of 18?
          2) The arrangement sounds like Kyle would have relatively easy access to the gun, but not formal ownership of it. How is it handled if a parent buys a firearm for a child’s use (but not formal ownership). I.e. a father buys a 15 y/o son a bolt-action .22 for some backyard plinking, but the father keeps it in a gun safe where the child needs to ask permission to take it out, etc. Should all the resources of the federal government be focused on stamping out this heinous and perverse evil?

        4. avatar enuf says:

          You just described a classic straw purchase and then at the end said it wasn’t what you just said it was.

          That is not helping. It is the opposite of helping.

        5. avatar Chief Censor says:

          I don’t think you can ask a friend to buy you a gun that you can’t legally own and keep it in another state where a relative of the purchaser lives so you can have access to it until you can own one legally. That already breaks the local laws, which amounts to a felony, as so charged. The purchaser is also the person Kyle called after he shot the first man dead. I believe Kyle fled to the purchaser before going home.

          The intent was to go around the law to get Kyle access to a gun Trump believes Kyle should not have access to.

        6. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Look:

          Prove it was a purchase and not a gift.

          All I’m saying. You all keep going off these leftist MSM reports saying it was a straw purchase. How about what the two guys say? What evidence can you find to support it was not legally gifted?

          You all act like the accusation and hearsay is justice. Shame on you.

          Personally, I could care less. The videos of him providing aid to RIOTERS, and trying to stop them from burning the city at the same time while being accosted for simply being there and presenting a means of self defense then later attacked and PURSUED with attempted murder after having already fired lethal defense shots is all you need to know. Fuck the rest. If you don’t support that, fuck you too.

          Come and take them.

        7. avatar Hannibal says:

          Read the statements again. It was not “wanna buy this gun I own?” It was “I’ll go buy this gun with your money for you”

        8. avatar FedUp says:

          Possession is not ownership.
          It appears to have been Kyle’s gun in Dominick’s safekeeping.
          Which Kyle then transported to Illinois (under unplanned circumstances) without a FOID.

          Another reason to STFU around police in a high stakes investigation.

          Good thing that Illinois prosecutors are at least being reasonable about the whole affair.

        9. avatar LarryinTX says:

          All just supposition. An individual with a healthy suspicion of government would have been certain to express that the money Kyle gave to Black was a gift, which Black used to purchase a rifle. When Kyle needed a rifle for protection when going int an area filled with violent leftists, Black loaned him one, which happened to be the one he purchased with the money his friend had given him. Show me the straw purchase. Or prove that is not what happened.

  3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    Wasn’t the guy who got shot in the arm a prohibited person? I’ll stand by for news that he has been arrested and is being prosecuted. Should happen any minute now.

    1. avatar Mr. Tactical says:

      No, from what I understand he was charged with a felony, but never convicted. There was a plea made.

    2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      That was good for a chuckle.
      Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to happen.

    3. avatar FedUp says:

      Of the identified criminals involved in the attack, Grosskreutz is the only one who isn’t officially a felon.
      It’d be nice to see Kenosha County get a new DA and the guy who shot first get some hefty charges, along with Grosskreutz.

  4. avatar Mr. Tactical says:

    This I fully expected, this isn’t going to end well for him, sad to say

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Then it won’t end well for whoever aids and prosecutes either. From the DA, to the witnesses, to the judge, to the rest of the supporting democrats.

      We are done playing nice.

      Free kyle or suffer the consequences. It’s clear they don’t care about the law, so let them see what lawlessness looks like.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “Then it won’t end well for whoever aids and prosecutes either. From the DA, to the witnesses, to the judge, to the rest of the supporting democrats.

        We are done playing nice.”

        And there we have a very impressive not-so-veiled threat against specific judges, prosecutors and law-enforcement.

        I vaguely recall some sort of legal prohibition against such things, with serious statutory punishment involved…

        All to support a couple of felony charged co-conspirators, fascinating.

        Brave or foolhardy, you decide.

        1. avatar Jason says:

          You mean the way leftists are making lists of Trump supporters to “hold them accountable”.

          No, the only prohibited speech is incitement to violence, and that requires something resembling a real and immanent threat.

          Indignant tapping of the keyboard doesn’t rise to that level.

      2. avatar PminFl says:

        You can’t mean “no justice no peace”, that’s reserved for bidet voters !

  5. avatar enuf says:

    How is it not a Straw Purchase?

    The intended owner supplied the funds, therefore, not a gift.
    The intended owner did not make the purchase himself.
    The buyer made the purchases with someone else’s funds, that other person being prohibited under State and Federal law from making such a purchase on account of being under 18 years of age, and the buyer filled out a form 4473 claiming to be buying for his own use.

    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-customer-have-be-certain-age-buy-firearms-or-ammunition-licensee

    Straw Purchase all day long, incredibly stupid act.

    If you are going to buy someone a firearm as a gift, that’s cool. Just don’t be cagey or sneaky about the declarations on the Federal form, tell the truth and use your own money.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      What makes you think you know who the “intended owner” was? Your entire pile of blatant bullshit just went up in smoke.

    2. avatar PminFl says:

      Be careful when purchasing straw. it’s flamable.

  6. avatar No_Ones_Home says:

    2 items related to Rittenhouse come to mind with Joe Biden as the next president:

    1) Does Biden use the Department of Justice in some way to go after Kyle if he gets off on the current charges?

    2) What becomes of attorney Lin Wood‘s libel suit against the Biden/Harris campaign? Does it just disappear under ‘executive privilege’ or does the campaign pay it off like the media outlets did with Sandmann?

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      Two very intriguing questions. #2 Might mean that taxpayer money will be used to settle Mr. Wood’s libel suit. Or, it might mean that Lin Wood commits suicide some time within the next few months.

    2. avatar Jason says:

      Well, if Biden pulls a “If I had a son he’d look like Rosenbaum” he might be able to weaponize the DA’s office against Rittenhouse the way Obama did against Zimmerman.

    3. avatar Miner49er says:

      The Five Stages of Trump Grief

      1. Just Play Golf- “Election? What election?”

      2. Play the Victim- “Why are the media and the virus out to get me?”

      3. Lash Out at Enemies- “The Deep State, the libs, Alec Baldwin and Al Roker, they’re all plotting against me.”

      4. Lash Out at Friends- “Everyone at Fox should be fired.”

      5. Acceptance- “Can you loosen the handcuffs a little?”

  7. avatar Florida Kracker says:

    You know he was shittin his pants
    ( Hey that’s my Rifle ) waiting for the knock at the door.

  8. avatar DaveL says:

    Here’s Wisconsin Statutes 948.60(3)(c):

    (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

    Emphasis mine. The problem is that the plain text of the law is somewhat awkwardly written. Section 29.304 is about underage hunting, and would not have applied to Rittenhouse. Section 941.28 is about short-barreled rifles and shotguns and does not apply. We’re left with the question of whether Rittenhouse was “not in compliance” with 29.593.

    The problem is that section 29.593 sets the conditions under which a youth can obtain a certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval. Rittenhouse, as far as I know, never obtained such a certificate, but neither had he sought approval to hunt. On the one hand, it seems likely the intent of the legislature was to carve out an exception for minors engaged in hunting and who had received some degree of training to do so. On the other hand, are we to regard everyone as being “not in compliance” with a hundred thousand laws pertaining to things they have nothing to do with, from running a nuclear power facility to rehabilitating endangered tortoises?

    It’s a straw purchase, and federal charges are the most appropriate vehicle here.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Kyle falls under a misdemeanor under state law and has apparently committed a federal felony as well. That’s the least of his worries, but most likely the one that will do him in.

      Black has at least broken two felonies, one federal and one state. He will try to take a deal to testify against Kyle. Murder is more important than a straw purchase, especially if you can tie it to a hate crime.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        No good deed goes unpunished.

      2. avatar DaveL says:

        The federal gun charges are pretty clear-cut. The basis for the state gun charges, however, is not. See above.

        Murder is shakier still. Hate crime? That’s just underpants-on-head insane.

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Yea, that’s leftists Chief Censor for ya…

          Insane.

        2. avatar Chief Censor says:

          Felony murder is much easier to get. Happened to the McMichaels and their friend.

          You know they will try to tie the killings to Kyle’s motivation to be at a BLM protest. They tied the McMichaels and Roddy to a hate crime by their word usage. Look at how many charges they threw at Kyle already.

          They have more info than you do. Just like with the McMichaels and Roddy. You don’t know what is in his phone records, his socials, etc. The Ahamaud haters kept saying the McMichales were not racist and were not motivated by hate, they were so wrong.

        3. avatar DaveL says:

          I know the people he shot were white.

          Underpants. On. Head.

        4. avatar DaveL says:

          Also, justification negates Felony murder just as surely as any other murder charge. Second, you actually need a predicate felony. The straw purchase, and the conspiracy to carry it out, were complete by the time Rittenhouse showed up at the riot.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Black had been in sole possession of the rifle for what, 5 months?, when he “loaned” it to Kyle for self defense use. I think if I were Kyle, it would be a LONG time before I admitted any crime. Let’s get to the trial, it is supposed to be SPEEDY!

      3. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        So, you are saying that it’s a felony for someone under 18 to defend themselves. Haven’t ben able to find that in the Bill of Rights which superceeds all other law.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          The fact is, months before he was ‘defending’ himself, he was engaged in a conspiracy to violate federal firearms laws.

          Should he get a pass for those crimes?

          Why, because he shot BLM protesters?

          So much for that ‘law and order’ stuff…

        2. avatar DaveL says:

          He doesn’t get a pass for conspiracy to commit a straw purchase. That’s a separate question from self-defense entirely.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Last I heard, Minor, you were neither a Judge nor in possession of any actual facts. And you are obviously pretty stupid on the subject. So, pardon me if I am not impressed by your almighty summary judgement on the subject.

      4. avatar Hannibal says:

        Except, he doesn’t necessarily fall under that statute when you read the whole thing. You repeating that he does without addressing the defense presented above is not convincing.

  9. avatar Alexander says:

    The Biden corral commits national-size crimes for decades – he’s a moral example; Kyle kills a terrorist – he’s a criminal. We are a Banana Republic where law is sold to the highest bidder.

  10. avatar Ralph Humphrey says:

    Meanwhile… Real criminals burn down cities, attack citizens etc…. And all is well with them… They got a free pass….
    Welcome to the new Amerika!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Including Lefty, apparently, no charges for attempted murder even with video evidence.

  11. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    Considering how Kenosha voted ( heavy Trump ) this time compared to last time , I’m liking Luke’s chances of winning a jury trial. The DA has to see the writing on the wall AND how this could hurt his election chances. I mean he’s a democrat in an area that went red by 30 points. He and the others in government have to be doing the math.

    It sounds to me like the people in Kenosha have expressed a disdain with the left who looted their community. I doubt they will convict a guy who stood up to them.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Unless they find a way to move the trial or charge him in Illinois.
      If he does beat it it’s going to be an expensive slog. And Biden’s DOJ will probably charge him with civil rights violations or some other shit to get around an acquittal.

      1. avatar WARFAB says:

        After pushing for a sketchy AF extradition to Wisconsin, it would tell you their case is crap if they decided to turn around and try him in Illinois.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Illinois will charge him as well, as an Illinois resident who conspired to circumvent Illinois firearms laws by illegally possessing a firearm.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I heard, (don’t know) Kyle never (as in, did not ever!) possessed the rifle in IL, if you want to prosecute for that, you’d better have some actual evidence. Shouldn’t be too tough, if it was an actual, provable straw purchase, then Kyle took the rifle to his home within a week or so after purchase in May, right?

  12. avatar GS650G says:

    As much as Kyle is admired from his bravery and intentions he has an age problem and they are going to use that to hammer him and his older friend. If he was 18 they both would probably beat all of the charges as self defense for Kyle, and a legal transfer (in WI) of the gun temporarily.

    I guess this will prevent anyone from helping to defend against mobs in the future. We are all on our own, even more so. Clearly the argument could be made he shouldn’t have involved himself in the situation.

    It’s a shame the police stood around under orders to do nothing. That’s the real root cause, that and democrats running things.

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke

      Kyle would likely be dead or severely injured if he hadn’t been armed. So this case comes down to a person not having the right to self defense if they’re below a certain age. I’m pretty sure this is a case the antis don’t want to take to the newly constituted SCOTUS, and I’ll bet Kyle’s attorneys would love to take it all the way. Who’s going to blink first?

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        The Democrats framed this case as a Trump supporter, fed up with BLM, who decided to break gun control laws in order to shoot protesters “legally.”

        Turns out, Kyle and Black did conspire to break federal gun control to give a prohibited person an AR-15. Of which he went on to use to shoot 3 people as a medic armed with an illegal AR-15. Of course the laws the Democrats cited were not the ones he broke, it turned out to be worse.

        He still might make it out of the murder convictions, but he will go to court because of the motivation to break federal and local gun control. They will argue it was all a planned situation, thus Kyle put himself in contrived circumstances to give him plausible deniability on murder. There are bodies, a gun and videos. So he can’t pretend he didn’t shoot those people and didn’t have intent to kill.

        Kyle is going to need very smart lawyers who are not in it for the money and fame.

        1. avatar DaveL says:

          They will argue it was all a planned situation, thus Kyle put himself in contrived circumstances to give him plausible deniability on murder.

          There are few jurisdictions where merely being present and armed in a place where others may want to do you harm negates a self-defense claim. In fact, arguments to the contrary have a long and very, very racist history in the United States.

        2. avatar Chief Censor says:

          @DaveL

          He didn’t take his legal gun on an open carry adventure. He conspired with people to illegally arm him and he went to a target rich environment with high likelihood of violence requiring use of a firearm. He brought his illegal gun with him and lied to the militia that he was 18 when they went around checking people for compliance with law. He ran to a property to stop people from damaging vehicles, not to provide medical, during that effort he shot a man 4 times.

          So the whole, “I was just minding my business and was only there as a medic,” is totally gone. He killed people while he was actively committing a felony and he called his co-conspirator after killing the first person he shot. He did not call the police for medical, as a medic and innocent person would do. He then met up with the co-conspirator, who then immediately ratted him out to the police.

          The situation has changed. The anti gunners will correctly argue the laws he broke were intended to stop someone like him from legally entering such a situation and to prevent such outcomes from occurring. They will have the laws necessary to deny him his right to self defense.

          That’s why you must follow all the laws prior to shooting someone.

        3. avatar DaveL says:

          He didn’t take his legal gun on an open carry adventure. He conspired with people to illegally arm him

          Relevant to the gun charges, not relevant to self-defense. While self-defense is not available to a burglar in the course of a burglary, or a mugger in the course of a mugging, it hardly requires that the defender maintain a legal state of grace unencumbered by every regulatory offense on the books.

          and he went to a target rich environment with high likelihood of violence requiring use of a firearm.

          The same argument used against black people for daring to enter white neighborhoods, it was specious then and it’s specious now. Such arguments are a thin cover for a belief that certain groups don’t really have a right to self-defense when their “betters” want to use violence to keep them in their place. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for making it.

          He ran to a property to stop people from damaging vehicles, not to provide medical, during that effort he shot a man 4 times.

          You act like there was no video. You act like we can’t see him being pursued by that same man. He was attacked, he defended himself, it’s as simple as that. It doesn’t matter that it was a “target rich environment”. It doesn’t matter that he wasn’t acting as a medic. Self-defense is not limited to places where medics. It isn’t limited to places and times where nobody means you harm. It doesn’t evaporate because you have the means to actually defend yourself. To argue the contrary is to flatly deny the right to self–defense, only without the integrity to say it outright.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          How much “intent” for anything does a person have after being clubbed over the head with a skateboard? Most would “intend” to survive, if possible, not much else. Case is simple if you are a simpleton and have made up your teensy mind before even watching the videos.

  13. avatar All American says:

    The Russians and Chinese love the mistrust between Americans. They even employ trolls to stir animosity throughout the internet.

    1. avatar Aaron Walker says:

      That’s why there should be a BWN button here! I’m well aware of a few trolls that need to go bye bye!

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        DAFOOK is BWN?

  14. avatar Datahut says:

    Sooner these kids are subjected to the life complicating consequences of the legal mess they deserve, the better. Speculate, make all the declarations you want, but that’s going to be the reality.

  15. avatar enuf says:

    Stupid kid should have stayed home with his mama. He had no business being in that location, displayed no skill with arms or small unit tactics and was alone much of the time in a scenario that only works in a team setting. In short, incompetent, asking for trouble.

    The shootings were clear self defense, videos make that clear as crystal.

    The gun buy was a straw purchase.

    The kid is and should be in major trouble even if he is acquitted on the murder charge..

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      “displayed no skill with arms”

      I’m not so sure of that. He shot when it was justified and hit 3/4 targets (the fourth ran off and so was not further engages).

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    “Black technically acted as a straw purchaser for Rittenhouse (someone who buys a firearm for someone they know is prohibited from purchasing one legally)”

    No, that is NOT the definition of a “straw purchaser.” See Abramski v. United States. If a person buys a gun for a third party with the third party’s money or expecting to be repaid, it is a straw purchase whether or not the third party is prohibited. Gifts are perfectly okay.

    Question 21a of From 4473 spells it out:

    “Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.” The Form also notes: “A person is also the transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party.”

    For the deal to be a straw purchase, it doesn’t matter whether the other person is disqualified or not (in Abramski, the eventual owner was not only fully qualified, but also passed his own background check).

    You can get people in trouble with such bad advice.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      I agree 100%. The problem is where the money comes from, and has nothing to do with whether the recipient is a disqualified person or not.

      Of course, if he is a disqualified person, that’s another problem.

      In my opinion, Black may be in more trouble than Rittenhouse. Check out what happened to the guy who bought the guns for the San Bernardino shooters.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Money came from Kyle, check. Gun was owned by Black, check. Where was the straw purchase, again? Seems like a gift. The reason you rarely hear of straw purchases prosecuted (refer to “Fast and Furious”) is that the law is stupid, and nearly impossible to prove. It is normally only used as incentive to plead out other unenforceable laws, if everyone waited for their jury trial the whole system would halt until most laws were repealed.

  17. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Sorry cheating lowlife drama queen Jim Crow Gun Control democRats but self defense is not murder.

    TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

  18. avatar The SGM says:

    For all the banter and latrine lawyers makings statements in various comments; Let me see if I have this correct: 1, Rittenhouse is underage and not qualified to purchase a weapon.
    2. His friend, Dominick Black, was qualified to purchase and did so for Rittenhouse.
    3. Black purchased the weapon gave it to Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse shoots others during a
    Political Demonstration.
    Bothe individuals were/ are in the wrong for different crimes at the State and Federal level. There should be no great discussion, they did the crimes, they are guilty both should go directly to jail for at least 10 years, no parole or time off for good behavior, and loss of the right to ever own a weapon again. They have given the entire population of sane and legal gun owners ,current and future, a bad name and we do not need to tolerate them.

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      sgm…Thank you judge, jury, executioner and all around poophouse lawyer. You need a conviction for murder first before you can go talking out your pompous behind.
      Perhaps a mob could use their skateboards to give you a different perspective.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      What makes you think Black “did so for Rittenhouse”? Did you simply make that up, knowing how important your assumptions are to the world?
      What makes you think he “gave it to Rittenhouse”, the thing I heard initially was that Rittenhouse had borrowed the gun from a friend in Kenosha. Are your assumptions running away with you again?

  19. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Why can’t folks just shut up instead of blabing to law enforcement ?
    Coming from a law enforcement officer.
    Y’all shush
    You have the right so use it

  20. avatar Ark says:

    The manner in which the weapon was acquired does not invalidate the right to self defense. You are not required to allow yourself to be attacked and killed in the street, full stop.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      In this case it could matter a lot. Could be the thing that makes him guilty of murder. You can’t conspire to commit a gun crime, then commit a crime with that illegal gun and while in commission of that felony you shoot people with the illegal gun you intended to use. At that point you are pushing felony murder, thus have no human right to self defense regardless.

      It was a conspiracy manufactured by Kyle himself. He wanted that gun and he wanted to go down there with it. He wanted to protect property from people with his illegal gun. He got what he wanted by breaking the law.

      If he never broke the gun laws he wouldn’t have been capable of killing people that day and would likely not have shown up to a place where men with guns were roaming the streets. Kyle hurt every gun owner with his actions. We can no longer defend him and claim self defense under this new information. It will hurt 2A to pretend otherwise.

      Other cases of self defense comes from felons using a gun under circumstances they did not create. For instance, the felon was in a home of a friend where a gun was on the table, ex husband broke-in to kill the family, then the felon picked up the gun to defend the family. He can defend himself and others because he didn’t conspire to set up the situation where he can use the gun to kill the ex. He just happened to be there and there happened to be a gun in arm’s reach that was owned by the wife. The felon will still go to prison for touching the gun unless pardoned.

  21. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    I can’t find the words “straw purchase” anywhere in my copy of the Bill of Rights. What version are you people looking at? As a juror, ‘Not guilty” is the only way to vote on any paperwork gun violation.

  22. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Hang them both.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Turn the kids loose with the nation’s thanks, hang Lefty and the Persecutor.

  23. avatar N1GHT357 says:

    Did he take possession of the firearm?
    Like back to his home, or was Kyle using
    It and giving it back untill he turned 18.

    Does Wisconsin state law prohibit a 17 year old from possessing a rifle?

    Lots ifs ands n ain’ts in this case….

    Free Kyle!!

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      It sounds like his friend probably should have talked to a lawyer before the police and made some admissions.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        probably thought it would improve his case…bad idea…he stepped right into it….

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Dunno! Has someone produced a sworn statement?

  24. avatar Hannibal says:

    They’re trying to find anything that will stick because they know their case on the actual incident is smoked by the overwhelming exculpatory evidence.

  25. avatar MLee says:

    Putting aside all the gun rights crap, in my opinion, the act of giving or otherwise providing a firearm, let alone a “fully semi-automatic weapon of war” with a big bullet holder clip thingy to a 17 year old who’s going to a high energy, high emotion RIOT was a STUPID thing to do. That’s like having someone dress up like the biggest gay person alive and send them to a biker bar and tell them to blow kisses at everyone. Just what do you think is going to happen? (besides get a date)
    I’ve gone to 2A rallies armed but that’s not a protest and not filled with rioters and I’m 60
    While I personally believe Kyle was justified, I do however think it showed incredibly poor judgment to go to such an event armed as he was at his age and level of maturity.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Looks a lot like a smart thing to do, to me. Without that gun, Kyle would be dead.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Without that gun, would he have gone there at all?

  26. avatar Pb_fan59 says:

    Everything is going to be ok…. (Dominick) Black’s Life Matters!!!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I saw what you did there!

  27. avatar mapohe says:

    Putting aside all the gun rights crap, in my opinion, the act of giving or otherwise providing a firearm, let alone a “fully semi-automatic weapon of war” with a big bullet holder clip thingy to a 17 year old who’s going to a high energy, high emotion RIOT was a STUPID thing to do. That’s like having someone dress up like the biggest gay person alive and send them to a biker bar and tell them to blow kisses at everyone. Just what do you think is going to happen? (besides get a date)
    http://WWW.BONANZU.COM

  28. avatar Jospeh says:

    In the end, Kyle was defending himself when he shot those assholes, who probably needed shooting for many other reasons as well. But Kyle is a dumbass supreme, and will suffer the consequences for that. Taking an illegally purchased weapon, which he knew, into a dangerous area and acting like a one man militia and savior was idiotic at best. Young and dumb, he’ll have a lot of time to think about it unfortunately.

  29. avatar Miner49er says:

    So much for comrades in arms, even the right wing militia is cutting Kyle Rittenhouse loose:

    “Rittenhouse was a kid who lied to the people he was with. Anybody who was in proximity to him, he lied to us.”

    There’s your hero.

    It is sad when the POTG ignore a real innocent American like Philandro Castile or Tamir Rice, unfairly attacked and killed by law-enforcement and instead choose to lionize a high school dropout who had already engaged in a federal felony before showing up illegally armed at the protest.

    But you know, they are black and he’s white so there you go, it is what it is.

    “Ryan Balch, the Wisconsin man who Hatewatch reported was immersed in white supremacist propaganda before joining Rittenhouse in Kenosha on Aug. 25, reached out to Hatewatch by phone. He offered additional context about what happened that night, when Rittenhouse allegedly killed two people and injured another. Balch, 31, described the militia contingent that descended on the city in the midst of civil unrest there as being “small groups of friends who went together” in separate groups. He called the groups “ad hoc.” Balch also told Hatewatch that Rittenhouse lied to him that night, claiming that he was 18 years old and an EMT, both of which were untrue.

    Rittenhouse and Balch
    Kyle Rittenhouse (left) walks with Ryan Balch in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Tuesday, Aug. 25. (Photo via Adam Rogan/The Journal Times via AP)

    Referring to the culture war surrounding the violence that gripped Kenosha in August, Balch told Hatewatch in a phone call:

    I think that the propaganda around Rittenhouse is not factually based, which I mean, it’s propaganda, so of course. But … it’s really damning [when looking at] the facts of what happened. And, I think them lionizing him is only going to hurt him down the road. It’s only going to [make] the divide bigger. Myself personally, I don’t lionize him. Rittenhouse was a kid who lied to the people he was with. Anybody who was in proximity to him, he lied to us.

    Rittenhouse has been celebrated as a hero by many far-right commentators. Fundraising efforts for his legal defense have pulled in around $1 million. Fox News’s Tucker Carlson defended Rittenhouse on his show after his arrest on homicide and gun charges. A channel on the messaging app Telegram associated with the street-brawling Proud Boys published a propaganda video featuring images and video of Rittenhouse, glorifying him to the tune of the song “A Real Hero” from the soundtrack to the 2011 film “Drive.” President Trump also appeared to defend Rittenhouse during a press conference.

    Balch dismissed the credibility of a potential criminal defense of Rittenhouse using the Second Amendment’s description of a “well-regulated militia,” which is what his lawyer apparently intends to argue on his behalf in court.

    “There was not a whole lot of communication [that night], and that was even within the protesters themselves,” Balch told Hatewatch. Asked what he would need to call a militia well-regulated, Balch said, “There would have to be some organization.” Hatewatch reached out to Rittenhouse’s lawyer, John Pierce, for a comment on this story, through his firm Pierce Bainbridge. Pierce did not immediately respond.”

  30. avatar Don A Prather says:

    Good idea or bad idea: an armed teenager loose during an episode of street violence?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email