Quote (lolkggz @ Nov 11 2021 10:32am)
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"
From my initial posting here which was mentioned as bait, was under regards to him not being there which led to how he ended up with the rifle in the first place as a minor, again, never mentioning Kyle is being charged for obtaining it unlawfully. I specifically said someone was charged with supplying a firearm to him unlawfully, which to my knowledge, was the case given his age, regardless of his ability to brandish it himself.
Quote (InsaneBobb @ Nov 11 2021 10:38am)
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?
I do understand that yes, thank you. Initially this was on the hypothetical of him "should not have been there" which I tried to defend by stating he shouldn't have obtained the weapon in the means that he did, based off the charges that are still active against Dominck, which if I'm wrong, I eat my words.
Do you have a link to the litigation of which that surrounds the strawman purchase? I'd like to read on that.
And so everyone is clear, I was trying to go off my initial statement which was classified as bait and may have defended my self poorly with potential misinformation/lack of knowledge. I don't understand why the sentiment from others has to be negative instead of informative but all in all, this is a forum and everyone reacts differently, especially around politically fueled topics where a lot of folks are divided down the middle and a lot of people are uneducated on the matter.