I for one do not believe he shot them people out of self defence and never meant to kill them. I think he intended to kill them and thought he would get away with it. The Judge as well is a joke. What a very strange trial. Only in America.
I think some of the law enforcement officers might argue with you on that point. Many of them were quite grateful for the help they got from armed citizens protecting businesses and homes.
Periodic reminder that “fact checks” are propaganda and opinion, and are seldom informative.
More like shown up to be failures being they were armed themselves backed up by armour ,and needed outsiders to deal with the riots , while they turned up average Joes they did little to quell the rioting or helping law enforcement
He didn't have the gun in Illinois. What possible weapons charge could Illinois press? May as well charge an Irishman in Ireland for having a machinegun when he's in Las Vegas where it's a tourist attraction.
The gun was bought in Illinois ,he wasn't legally entitled to own the gun in Illinois,did he not transport it across state lines ,
Ok you might argue the straw purchase ,but the fact it's been publisised thorough the trial process they might Illinois may decide they have to do something to acknowledge that and to be shown they won't allow similar to happen ,
I know Wisconsin dropped the weapon charge , but that wouldn't stop Illinois from charging him for offenses in that state ,
Unless you know otherwise ?
The gun was bought and kept in Winsconsin.
JFC.
This. Precisely because he couldn't purchase or possess it in Illinois.
Something I'm not sure folks really understand, but the people who know the most about gun laws and exactly where the limits are tend to be the gun owners. It's the difference between what people at large 'think' to be legal or illegal without any particular vested interest if they're right or wrong, and those of us who want to possess firearms with the very vested interest in not going to jail. In other words, we are more likely to read the fine print, like "Only applies to rifles with short barrels."
You have been wrong on so much, its almost impressive.
No. If you are a local I'd have more time for that. Police are trained, I know were talking the USA, but the idea is the police are better suited.
Based on his online presence and the facts thus far.
police in USA aren't able NOR obliged to help you - see 2005 supreme court ruling .help yourself and your community , the only communities where BLM and Antifa were run out of were the ones where the community protected itself. Last summer the police were weak as piss in some areas in the USA.
we have this quaint attitude to the state and garda as if we are all one happy community or friends in ireland and project that to other countries where it doesn't exist
I hope Rittenhouse walks free. he should be given a presidential award for shooting communist peados and rapists
One thing wow that's a real gotcha 😂
Interesting closing from the prosecution so far ,
Was he legally allowed to possess or use the gun in Wisconsin? Technically, he didn't own the gun, Dominick Black bought the gun for Rittenhouse using Rittenhouse's money and was holding it in Wisconsin until he turned 18.
Yes. Which is why the possession charge was dismissed.
But black is facing trial for that next
His father and half his family live there. Do you have any time for that?
Kyle Rittenhouse proved by his actions, he was more than competent with a firearm.
Nobody is attempting a gotcha on you Gatling. People are just reading your litany of misinformed or incorrect posts.
One claim -
For instance I said he could have stayed at the police line if he felt he was in danger ,
Replies , that's a lie ,that's s lie , that's a lie.
Question 2 how is that a lie ehhhh ,your telling lies ,
Question 3 where is the lie ,
Again no reply ,3/4 low level posters couldn't string a reply other than its an agenda yada ,yada yada
Those charges will likely be dismissed. The agreement was that Black would hold the gun in trust until Rittenhouse's 18th birthday, which is legal. If Rittenhouse was legally permitted to have the gun in Winsconsin (which according to the discussion this morning where the charge was dismissed, he was) then I can't see that there is any ground for charging Black for supplying a legally owned firearm to a person legally permitted to possess it.
It's just useful for the prosecution to be able to say "I am prosecuting Mr Black for bla bla"
Competent with a firearm his shots were all over the place ,
A competent shooter would have put most of of their rounds in the centre mass of all 3 victims ,
And missed the kick guy despite him litterally being on top of him ,
He was lucky
Goes to show the gun laws are easily circumvented.
This is some Call of Duty ****.
"Centre mass" shooting is done from distance, not up close in the act of self defense while being attacked.
No, they're not "circumvented". The charge was dismissed because as the law stands it was legal for Rittenhouse to be in possession of the firearm he had that night.
There is an argument that that law is bad and should be changed, and that there is never any reason a minor should be able to legally possess a firearm in public, and I'd probably be sympathetic to it, but there was no "circumventing" here. That's simply what the law states.
He could have. He didn't. Your suppositions are pointless.
Rosenbaum could have not attacked him. He did.
I'm only interested in talking to you about what happened Gatling.
I'm watching the closing arguments, the defense says the car source owners asked Rittenhouse & Co to guard car source. But I thought they said differently? e.g.
[quote]But the co-owner of Car Source said Thursday he didn't hire the men, ask for their help or endorse it.
"Why would I?" Anmol Khindri said, in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "I'm already burned out. There was nothing left to protect."
Khindri said he and his father own Car Source, and three lots along Sheridan Road, just blocks from the civic center. Arsonists burned dozens of cars at the main retail lot on Sunday night. [/quote]
Spoken like someone who has never fired a gun, never mind fired one while being attacked in a riot.
Jesus Christ Gatling, you can't believe half the **** you say.
I've fired more guns than most people on boards , including bolt action hunting rifles , pistols , revolvers , semi automatic rifles and shotguns ,and black powder smooth ball muskets
Being in fair digging matches too ,
Again a competent shooter would have put their rounds centre mass ,but rittenhouse house was not competent ,he previously only fired a few mags through it a few months previously but then decided to walk into a riot ,
You say he was competent I take it you have little or no experience with firearms of any kind ?.
Watch this will be called a lie ,
He wasn't asked ,it was some bloke who apparently used to work in a car source said lets protect it ,
He was not.
There's conflicting testimony on that. The owners of Car Source said they didn't ask for help, while there's another guy who says they contacted him personally to ask for help, and he's the one who gathered some people, including Black, which was how Rittenhouse ended up in there.
So it could be the Car Source guys are lying in testimony or the guy who organised the group is lying in testimony, but either way it doesn't have much impact on what information Rittenhouse was working with (namely that they were looking for volunteers to go down there that night).
