Kyle Rittenhouse
(Adam Rogan/The Journal Times via AP)
Previous Post
Next Post

From the Associated Press . . .

The man who bought Kyle Rittenhouse an assault-style rifle when he was only 17 has agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation, and avoid convictions on the two felonies he’d been facing.

The Journal Sentinel reports Dominick Black, 20, was charged in November 2020 with two counts of delivering a dangerous weapon to a minor, resulting in death. The two counts related to Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, the protesters Rittenhouse fatally shot the night of Aug. 25, 2020, in Kenosha.

Black was 18 when he purchased the rifle for Rittenhouse at a hardware store in Rusk County in May of that year. At 17, Rittenhouse was too young to legally purchase the weapon.

In August 2020, Rittenhouse used the rifle to kill two people and wound a third during protests in Kenosha. In November, a jury found him not guilty, based on his claim of self-defense.

Black was the first prosecution witness at Rittenhouse’s trial, but the status of his own charges were up in the air after Judge Bruce Schroeder agreed to throw out one of the charges against Rittenhouse — that he unlawfully possessed a firearm as a minor. The defense convinced Schroeder that an exception in the law allows 17-year-olds to possess rifles and shotguns, or at least left the law too vague to be enforceable.

On Friday, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger filed a proposed plea agreement. It suggested Black would plead no contest to a pair of citations, and pay a $2,000 fine, and the felony counts would be dismissed.

A hearing is scheduled Monday morning. Schroeder could reject the deal, or dismiss the original felony counts based on his ruling about the minors-with-firearms law in the Rittenhouse case.

Previous Post
Next Post

93 COMMENTS

  1. Would you all have supported Kyle if shot black rioters?

    Or would you have McMillan’ed him?

  2. Would you all have supported Kyle if shot black rioters?

    Or would you have McMillan’ed him?

    Ask yourself- why am I trying to impress liberals?

      • One black rioter did, he got away without being shot. This is the pic of the black rioter attacking Kyle

        https://nationalvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Black-rioter-kicks-Kyle-Rittenhouse.jpg

        you can also see Huber with the skateboard coming in to attack Kyle in that pic but here is a pic of Huber attacking Kyle > https://nationalvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/AnthonyHuber-skateboard-Ngo-Twitter.jpgalso

        University of California, Los Angeles, (UCLA) professor Kara Cooney wrote a book about the Rittenhouse incident after the trial was over. In her book called “The Good Kings” she claims:

        “…consider 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, who used his semi-automatic weapon to kill two Black men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, while waging a glorious race war on behalf of his inherited White power,”…

        She got called out on it, in response she placed the blame elsewhere while admitting it was a ‘mistake’. She said

        “On p. 341 of THE GOOD KINGS I state that Kyle Rittenhouse shot two Black men when instead he shot two white men.” Cooney tweeted. “That was my mistake, and I apologize. The response has been a hateful stew of ridicule and denial that America has a race problem at all.”

        and…

        “If one mistake in a little known book about ancient Egypt elicits this much howling, it is to avoid discussing our larger problem, to avoid seeing our deep-seeded obsession with patriarchal power,” she added. Cooney concluded that white supremacy and misogyny are still problems in the U.S.

        Notice how in her correction she still says only two white men were shot. Kyle shot three white guys – Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz.

        One black guy attacked him but did not get shot, she does not mention this in her book.

        “our larger problem” here is idiots like this who lie to make it seem as if there is larger problem that they then go on to define that larger problem in context with their lies.

        • {University of California, Los Angeles, (UCLA) professor Kara Cooney}

          “If one mistake in a little known book about ancient Egypt elicits this much howling,…”

          Wait –

          If her book was about ancient Egyptian Pharaohs, why in the hell was Rittenhouse even mentioned at all?

          More to the point, if that ‘book’ was comparing ancient leaders to modern leaders, Rittenhouse was about as far from a political leader as it gets.

          So, WTAF?

        • Apparently one of the standards used to determine gross negligence (and thus guilt) in a slander suit is if an author does not use the same level of effort to research the claims in the defamatory statement that they normally use. The fact that she got even these simplest of facts wrong indicates an absolute absence of research… by an author that supposedly does research for a living.

          She has exposed herself completely to being sued, on the level of the emperor in want of clothing. I hope Kyle does so and crushes her for her bald-faced lying on a subject that has already caused lives to be lost.

        • @Geoff

          “If her book was about ancient Egyptian Pharaohs, why in the hell was Rittenhouse even mentioned at all?”

          she tried to work it in to make an example for her false claim that “white supremacy” is rampant in the context. Later she said of her false claim in the context, on twitter on Jan 5th, 2022…

          “Yes. This was my mistake. And caught too late for printing. Apologies. I stand by the sentiment of white supremacy, however,”

          Throughout the whole book she presumes and claims to know everyone’s motives for everything she writes of but then its found out there is no documentation for any of it and she admits there is no documentation for any of her claims claims to know everyone’s motives.

          The long and short of it is, she purposely made up the “white supremacy” claims and she was caught at it.

          Despite all the news coverage, right and wrong, and all the pictures of those shot, and all the claims of ‘progressives’ over 80% of progressives did not know that Rittenhouse shot three white guys and they thought he shot three (and sometimes one, and sometimes two) black guys. For example, in November 2021, Sarah Beth Burwick on Twitter > https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825

          “I am highly educated and reasonably perceptive, and it was only today that I learned the Kyle Rittenhouse victims were white.

          My progressive bubble made this seem like a very different case than it is.”

          And there are still people today, including this stupid author (who by the was is also an author for ‘National Geographic’), who think Kyle Rittenhouse hunted down and with per-meditated malice and intent to murder shot three (and sometimes one, and sometimes two depending on the person) black guys in cold blood for simply being black.

        • black dude had priors and the prosecution did not want to present him…but their witnesses were a disaster anyway….

    • If they had assaulted him the way these guys did (and one black guy did assault him but did not get shot), yes I would have still supported Kyle not because he is white but because it was clearly self-defense. He should never have been charged with the shootings in the first place. I’ll support anyone where its clear its self-defense no matter their race (as long as they are not a criminal or gang member).

      Despite only shooting three white guys there is still a left wing and BLM faction out there that insists Kyle shot three black guys.

        • I don’t support criminals and gang members. I’ve seen up close and personal what happens with them. Although they may have a case where they need to defend them selves, I don’t support them even if it is legitimate defense. It is my wish that they would have perished.

      • I support the right to self defense no matter who the victim of a crime is.
        Doesn’t matter if it’s Mr Staright Citizen, a member of an M/C, a minority, or even a street gang member, so long as they are being faced with an assualter that intends to kill them. Be careful of who you deny rights to. OR…You may find it’s you that is being denied the right to self defense someday

        • The problem with that position is that gang bangers and other criminals often are only attacked because they are in that lifestyle. If someone is coming at a professional criminal I don’t expect the criminal not to defend themselves, but I do acknowledge that they may be being attacked because of their current or previous criminal activity.

    • Hey “TTAG’s liberalism disgusts me”, TTAG is not liberal, we are conservative, but I guess you are too liberal and too stupid to understand the difference.

        • Liberal, libertarian, and Libertarians are not the same thing. But I wouldn’t expect a patriot act supporting, middle east invading, military industrial complex funding republiCON to understand that.

        • In this day and age, Conservatives are just Libertarians who actually stand for something.

    • Color does not matter, nor does sex of said attackers, only intent.
      I find the question racist, it shouldn’t matter.

    • RE: “TTAG’s liberalism disgusts me January 9, 2022 At 10:10”

      1) disgusted tasks…Would you all have supported Kyle if shot black rioters?

      DW answer…Right moron, never mind the clear legitimate use of deadly force by some cracker everyone on TTAG would have covered for the perps and gave them alibis providing they were Black.

      2) disgusted asks…Or would you have McMillan’ed him?

      DW answers…If you were not ignorant of the law and void of common sense you’d know The McMillians 110% McMillianed themselves. Frankly…I can see a seat reserved for you right beside them.

      3) disgusted asks…Ask yourself- why am I trying to impress liberals?

      DW answers…You loser have presented ZERO Nada Nothing whatsoever for you to assume you have a podium to make and ask such a BS question. You on the other hand are doing an excellent job trying to make TTAG look as dumb, stupid and bigoted as you. Take a bow bozo…Anyone with half a brain knows liberals love cheering for jerks like you who run around giving their concocted liberal slander and libel credibility.

      • Debbie- the overweight divorced democrat who spends hours a day on Facebook and takes psych meds.

        Stop piling on to the McMillans. They are innocent. They are victims of BLM sharpton threading the jury and a liberal activist judge. Did you even watch the video? Armed Robbery grabbing the gun caused the trigger to be pulled.

        If citizens arrest was illegal- which it wasn’t in that area- why aren’t you supporting new laws to make it legal?

        No, you’re just a fat divorced liberal.

    • The law has no specifics in regards to color when it comes to self defense. If Kyle had been black, and his assailants were black, same support. If Kyle had been white and his assailants were black, same support. If Kyle had been black, and his assailants were white, same support. Self defense is self defense, any way you look at it.

      Remember Doctor Martin Luther King’s speech? You should look it up. It’s commonly referred to as the “I’ve got a dream” speech. Seriously, look it up. Read it a couple times. I think that MLK would have supported Kyle Rittenhouse. He was apparently able to look at a situation, and maybe notice the color of skin, but not make that part of his evaluation.

      I also have a dream. Maybe one day trolls will have their fill, and go back under their bridges. Especially race baiting trolls.

      • Ok GlenBeck Dan boi.

        MLK was another white-hating fake doctor who plagiarized his doctorate dissertation and had orgies with and raped white women.

        If he were alive today- he’d be just sharpton, Jackson, BLM. Stop watching so much liberal TV.

        • nah!…as i’m sure many have said “that was one smart…”
          well, you know….truth is he used the media really well and reached out and got white support for a cause…understanding he needed that to be successful…even JFK wasn’t that keen on pushing for civil rights…but King applied so much pressure he had no choice as seeing white kids beaten and killed inflamed the public..

    • “Would you all have supported Kyle if shot black rioters?”

      If the Black rioters were attacking Rittenhouse in the exact same way as Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz, then yes, I still would have fully supported Rittenhouse’s actions.

      Rittenhouse fired to stop felony-level attacks, not skin color.

      I mean seriously, WTAF kind of question was that? 🙁

  3. The guy only plead guilty to a state-level charge. The feds are still free to prosecute him and more than likely will do so.

    • The fed Dept of “Justice”, of today, only takes cases where they can extort a plea bargain “convection” from supposed lawbreaker. How the incompetenct buffoons their “93 % conviction rate”

    • still a weak case…not your standard straw-purchase with felonious intent….bought the gun with the intent of holding on to it until Kyle was older…

  4. I’m thoroughly annoyed that Binger might get any kind of win at all out of those events. IMNSHO, he should be disbarred for his malfeasance, not rewarded in even the smallest way.

  5. Not directly connected to this. An ss/antifa foot soldier was arrested near a 1/6 peaceful protest with an explosive device in his back pack.

    I’m guessing that since the fascist in charge of the left have had their reichstag fire on 1/6 and the public is tiring of this nonsense the time for the ‘night of the long knifes’ is at hand. ss/antifa troopers(read sacrficial goat) will start to be arrested with a quickness and fed into the system.

    These storm troopers deserve their fate. But so do those that have used them.

    • Equally ludicrous that they charged him with “delivering” the same item twice. Perfectly plausible in the minds of the mentally inept, one would suppose.

    • the guns were locked-up until the trouble started…then the safe was opened and Kyle took the gun to the scene for self-protection…more like loaning the gun temporarily with the intention of putting it back later

  6. Personally I think the deal sucks and charges should be outright dismissed. That also allows the D.A. to put it all behind them.

    • essentially the charges are dismissed by pleading it down to no contest to a pair of citations and a $2,000 fine. Its better than dragging the kid through a trial. My guess is the feds will charge him though and this may be the reason for wanting to just dispose of this so the feds can step in sooner to avoid any possible ‘double jeopardy’ types of situations due to the original charge if he did go to trial for it.

    • “…I think the deal sucks and charges should be outright dismissed. That also allows the D.A. to put it all behind them.”

      I hope a lawyer who knows can chime in, but being a misdemeanor, he should be able to get that expunged some time in the (hopefully), not-distant future…

      • Unless such lawyers are too busy chiming in on how Hunter Biden isn’t prosecuted for his violation(s) on the 4473 he filled out.

  7. Let’s face it — the only thing that Rittenhouse should have been charged with was littering.

    Even in 2022 America, which is Bizarro World, a charge of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” against Black requires delinquency by said minor. Was August 25th a school night? Oh the humanities!

    Still, Black bought a gun for Rittenhouse with Kyle’s money. That is, by definition, a straw purchase. This business isn’t over yet.

  8. RE: “Man Who Straw Purchased Rifle for Kyle Rittenhouse Takes a Plea Deal, Avoids Jail.”

    Headlines should have said, “Man Who Straw Purchased The Rifle That Saved The Life of Kyle Rittenhouse Takes a Plea Deal, Avoids Jail.”

    Next AP proceeds to label the rifle as “Assault Style.” It is obvious AP is sneaking around, playing on words to say without saying AP favors Gun Control. Wish It, Want It but AP and their ilk will never have it no matter what those ratbassturds say or do.

      • All AP content is “news style” and while they may regurgitate some actual facts, their intent always to deceive, obfuscate, or bury anything that clashes with their political bias.

    • which could lead to another test case they might lose…people buy guns for others all the time without any sinister intent…

  9. I SUPPORT 2SD , HOWEVER STILL BELIEVE AR , AK , ETC SHOULD HAVE TO BE 21 AND OLDER TO BUY , AND TO CARRY AROUND , I JOINED THE ARMY IN 1971 GOT TO CARRY ONE IN VIET NAM , AND LICENCE TO KILL .
    BS TO HAVE AR OR AK ON THE STREET . HUNTING GAME , NOT HUMAN GAME ON THA SREET . TAKE TO THE RANGE NOT TAKE TO THE STREET WITH ONE .

    • what is “2SD” ?

      Chaldean Numerology: The numerical value of 2sd in Chaldean Numerology is: 7

      Pythagorean Numerology: The numerical value of 2sd in Pythagorean Numerology is: 5

      The ‘Eversman 2SD pull type scraper’ perhaps?

      Mean ± 2SD is a method to determine a cutoff score for a scientific diagnostic test.

      Come on, tell us what 2SD is. Does it have anything to do with ‘CAPS LOCK’?

    • Wrong, stuck key, you most DEFINITELY DID NOT carry an AR- anything in ANY of the US forces in ANY military theater, EVER. You sound like the fucking fake news reporters !! Maybe if you had, you wouldn’t be here today spewing regurgitated b.s.

    • I dont think it’s to smart to pack rifles down the street either.
      However a person should be able to do what they want when it comes to exercising a constitutional right.
      21 to purchase an AK or AR, No the legal age is 18 and that’s where it’s at. Age and maturity are two different things. Someone may be 30 and still have the maturity level of 16, someone may be 18 and have an advanced maturialy of a 30 year old.

    • It’s funny how the same people that don’t want 20 year olds to be able to buy a rifle, want 16 year olds to be able to vote. Why should immature, zero life experience 16 year olds dilute the vote of America? Because political power, that’s why.

      • “It’s funny how the same people that don’t want 20 year olds to be able to buy a rifle, want 16 year olds to be able to vote.”

        Let’s make the Leftist Scum in Washington a ‘deal they can’t refuse’ :

        When we retake House control, we introduce a bill that no picture ID is required to vote, if no picture ID will be required to buy a gun.

        Watch how fast they back-pedal on that one.

        That’s the best way to embarrass them, show them the utter absurdity of requiring picture ID proof to exercise an expressly-enumerated Civil Right… 🙂

    • O’ the yellow Fudd from Texas
      Claims to support the 2A
      He really loves to shout at us
      And thinks he’ll save the day
      But all he does is show his butt
      And expose his ignorance

      Yep, kinda mean, but he did ask for it…

  10. I just remember walking past both Army/Navy Surplus stores in a nearby city when I was about fourteen and seeing M1 Carbines (a little low powered, but still assault weapons) for sale at both for $100 and wishing I had $100. I knew both of the owners and would have had no problem walking in, buying one, walking out probably without a case, and taking it home, all perfectly legal. I did manage to save up the $57 ? for a Ruger Mark I I still own at 16 in an adjacent state just before the Gun Control Act of 1968 went into effect. The only issue was the city where the shop was located had a seven day waiting period for handguns so I had to go back to claim it. Times sure have changed!

    • most of us started out with shotguns and/or .22’s…but up until recently there was a lot of military firearms for sale in the chain stores…M-1’s for $129 and such…probably still have those Sunday paper ads around here someplace…my understanding the Obama administration put an end to all of that….

  11. Make no mistake about it. If was Dominick Black was not white he would have spent decades in prison but white right wing privilege left him off the hook.

    • how about the black guy in Seattle filmed passing out AR’s from his trunk….anything ever come of that…just curious…

  12. Surprised that one loony toon only bitched once so far on an argument that has been relevant for around 15 odd years, but bit of an improvement.

  13. We gave that kid $78,000 to hire a big lawyer and shove it up Binger’s ass.

    Binger had absolutely no case, if he were a real attorney he would have dismissed the charges after the Rittenhouse trial.

    The charge against Black was improperly doubled (should have been one count instead of two) and was only applicable if Rittenhouse was in illegal possession of the gun on the night of the homicides. The judge, the very same judge who had Black’s case, already ruled that Rittenhouse’s possession was lawful before Rittenhouse’s case went to the jury.

    • Possession can be lawful in Wisconsin but the means of how that possession happens can be illegal in Wisconsin. In other words Kyle could have been in legal possession but Black could have still conducted an illegal straw purchase to facilitate the possession. Being in legal posession or not does not determine the actual legality of the procurement.

    • in effect, he could have it…just not legally purchase it…which is what transpired…seems a bit incongruous…but apparently that’s the way the law was written…restrictions only extended to SBR’s…which this wasn’t…

  14. It was not Kyle Rittenhouse who was on trial, it 2nd Amendment on trial. And did we hear anything from NRA? After 23 years of begin a member that was the last straw for me.

  15. The defense didn’t “convince” the judge that the law allows 17 years olds to own rifles in WI… the law clearly allows that, under very specific circumstances– circumstances that Kyle went to a great deal of trouble with which to comply. He read the law, and obeyed it. No ambiguity involved.

  16. Rittenhouse defended himself and the jury reached the correct decision on that.

    Dominick Black, the straw-purchaser of the gun use by Rittenhouse, has now reached a plea deal on STATE charges, not FEDERAL charges. We do not yet know if there will be Federal charges on the straw purchase.

    So Black could still be in for a lot of trouble should the Dept of Justice decide to go after him.

    Rittenhouse is also guilty of his involvement in that straw purchase. But he was under 18 at the time and I’d be very surprised if Federal charges are brought for him.

    • if it happens it will be purely political as these sorts of things go on all the time in the form of gift purchases..the fact that he did not allow Kyle to take actual, permanent possession has to factor in…what i’m most interested in is what Kyle did with that gun after the shooting…

  17. It wasn’t a straw purchase, at least not one that could be proven in federal court, considering the fact that Kyle never took ownership of the carbine.

    Analysis by actual attorney can be found here:

    • Utter nonsense. No amount of legal mumbo-jumbo and word salad acrobatics can alter the facts. Rittenhouse obviously had possession as he used the gun to defend himself. Both he and Black stated they discussed the illegal nature of their straw-purchase plan before committing the felony. They are both guilty.

      • Where was the gun kept? Black’s.

        Who controlled when the gun was accessed? Black.

        Who purchased the gun? Black.

        Seems pretty obvious; no mumbo jumbo required. Just half a brain.

  18. Why was this considered a straw purchase? Black bought the gun and LENT it to Rittenhouse to use that night. He did not transfer ownership of said firearm to Rittenhouse. According to Wisconsin law (or so I have been told), a 17 year old is allowed to have a firearm but not purchase one which was why the unlawful possession of a firearm charge against Rittenhouse was thrown out. If he is allowed to have a firearm but not purchase/own one, the only way this could be possible if someone LENDS him one; which he stated that he did. Black should not have been charged with killing Pettigrew…. wait, that is a different Black…..

    If there is something missing in my thought process regarding this I wold like to know.

  19. Rittenhouse wasn’t charged with underage possession of a firearm, the charge cited a dangerous weapon, which is a Wisconsin-specific category. When the prosecution introduced no evidence Rittenhouse possessed anything in that category, the underage issue disappeared and the charge was dropped.

    The charge against Black was providing a dangerous weapon to a minor. If that minor was not shown to have had one, how could anyone be charged with providing it to him? Black would have been a pitcher with no ball and no catcher.

  20. Ok, yesterday. Monday 10 Jan 2022 – in court …

    Dominick Black pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

    Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger dropped two felony counts of intent to deliver a dangerous weapon to a minor as part of the deal.

    Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months in jail, but Binger reduced the charge to a non-criminal county ordinance violation. Under the deal, Black will pay a $2,000 fine.

    so no criminals charges at all, just an ordinance violation and fine.

    • Also, the rifle was tagged as evidence in Rittenhouse’s trial, but it’s unclear what will become of it. Rittenhouse’s attorney, Mark Richards, said Rittenhouse wants it to be destroyed.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here