I think you're trying really hard to argue a topic that isn't being argued. I never said Kyle Rittenhouse is charged for what your claiming, but that he obtained the gun illegally, which he did and someone was charged for it. We're not discussing him wielding the weapon like you're repeatedly pointing out.



I'm not a part of BLM, I have no idea why no one can have a discussion on a matter without people calling someone a libtard or some type of activist on any account. From what I've read, a 19 year old individual was charged with purchasing a weapon for Kyle Rittenhouse. BY all means, if that was dropped and I've miss spoke, I'll gladly retract but show me where the charges were dropped.

Why are all of you so enraged over someone trying to have a civil discussion with you on a matter where they could be wrong. Instead of flaming them, supply them with adequate information to change their opinion. That is how you do it, not go on a tirade of flaming lol.

This post was edited by Buhhh on Nov 11 2021 11:30am

This is the Kyle Rittenhouse trial
Not Dominick Black trial.

Kyle LEGALLY possesed a gun

Weather Dominick Black providing the gun to him was illegal or not is completely irrelevant to the current case.

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 11 2021 11:31am

Did they change the gun laws in Wisconsin within the last year or so?

In every thing I have commented, I have clearly stated that someone was charged with 2 counts of supplying Kyle Rittenhouse a weapon, thus meaning it was obtained unlawfully and also never said Kyle was wielding it illegally. I never once said that Kyle was being charged with it, I stated the means in which it was obtained was unlawful and someone is charged for it.

Re-reading charges, laws will get back. If I'm wrong, I eat my words but you yourself are providing nothing yourself on the matter of the individual supplying the weapon which is where I thought the charges lied. Will come back no problem if I'm wrong and say so.

This post was edited by Buhhh on Nov 11 2021 11:36am

Humor me.
Okay so he obtained it illegally
Now what?


I'm not sure what you're trying to do here Kyle isn't being charged with "obtaining" he's being charged with "possessing"

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 11 2021 11:37am

That was the first time the jury has seen the unstuttered video zoomed in on Rittenhouse shooting Grosskreutz from a clear perspective, isn't it?
Every other presentation had them interrupt it every tenth of a second or whatever, and narrated over it

You could very clearly see in this video how Grosskreutz runs up to him with gun drawn, puts up his hands when Kyle points the gun at him, then Kyle lowers the gun- clearly NOT reracking- and then Grosskreutz points the gun at him and gets shot by Rittenhouse's quick reaction

Kyle did not obtain the firearm illegally. The legal owner of the firearm provided the firearm to Kyle Rittenhouse, willfully. That means Kyle's possession of the firearm was 100% legal.

The charges the legal owner of the firearm is facing are related to a potential straw purchase, as he accepted money from a minor to purchase the rifle, with the intent to sell that firearm to that minor after that minor came of age.

That's a process crime that does not bear on Kyle whatsoever, and I don't believe the prosecution in that case will get a conviction. Parents buy their teenage children firearms in Wisconsin every day. The parent is the legal owner, the teenagers use the rifles when they choose with the parents' consent. Once the minor turns 18, there's a bill of sale of the firearm from the parent to their now-adult child. This process is time honored. The fact that it is not a parent in this specific case is not particularly relevant.

The fact that the rifle in question was kept in safe at a family member of the purchaser (responsibly) and has been provided for Kyle's use by the owner absolves Kyle of any illegality whatsoever. He obtained the rifle legally. Whether or not the actual purchase of the firearm was legal, or if there's a strawman purchase crime charged? Has zero to do with Kyle, or this trial.

Do you understand?

This, 100x over.

I'd assume you're really excited for Dominick Blacks trial then.
I don't think what you're claiming here has any relevance to the charges Kyle is facing.
This makes me question what you're even on about, if there is no "obtaining a gun illegally or whatever" charge.

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 11 2021 11:41am

MAKE HER HOLD IT

I missed cute testimony over make believe "obtaining" vs the actual charge"possession"
dang.

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 11 2021 11:45am