Jump to content

Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

clapclapclap

By clapclapclap
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14338

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hate said:

This whole paragraph is completely made up of shit I have never once said:

Why is this so fucking hard for you?  In parallel, why is it so fucking hard for you to see that there is no justification for shooting convicted or alleged criminals when the shooter has no knowledge of their convictions or alleged crimes?  You do realize we have a system of justice, and gun boner boy getting strapped up and killing a pedophile doesn't fall under allowable actions just because the guy was a pedophile?

Not one time have I ever commented on Rosenbaum or skateboard guy or handgun guy being convicted criminals.  I've never once brought it into the conversation.  You make shit up because you have absolutely no ability to be objective.  Everything out of your mouth comes from "tribe or team" or from some perception you really want to be able to apply with a great big blanket. 

 

@DDD Dad, the name comes form the old site where my username was ihateowho (as in I hate OU (who)).  Nobody ever got my username correct when they referenced me and I always signed my rep "- hate".  It was just easier to go with that here.  Thing I truly hate are hypocrites and liars....oh and people that make shit up because they have absolutely no ability to be objective.

Yes I remember your old name and that you signed rep with "hate."  

I don't have a dog in this fight.  I just thought the connection was humorous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Poe It Up
Poe It Up

The “I used to vote Republican” line is the CR’s version of “I have a black friend.”   

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

so, yeah, this is the problem writ large. unarmed black dude, may be a threat, shot several times in the back. armed white dude, with an assault rifle present and visible, who just shot some people, w

CORN
CORN

Kenosha's very own Sweet Corn Fest, held every August Jerry Smith Produce and Pumpkin Farm (7150 18th St.), would like you to know that they are here to support you during this difficult time. Wh

Posted Images

davidg

davidg 4037

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Bravo said:

I must have missed it. Someone was posting Nazi shit? Hailing the virtues of naziism? Or as I guess extreme hyperbole since the Nazi word is the most common word behind white supremacy in the CR. I can't wait to see the clear Nazi post made. 

indiana-jones-nazis-hate.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ojo Rojo

Ojo Rojo 1964

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

Those prosecutors let their egos get the best of them and failed miserably...They had no reason to bring the charges they brought, just pure dumbass on their part....Only shot they had was to trip Kyle up on the stand, and when that didn't happen, they were sunk like the Titanic...

Imagine if there had been no video evidence, they might have twisted this kid up bad and put him away.  We should be applauding the fact that our Justice system worked right for once, not shaming the victim for defending himself....

Respectfully, you are wrong.  Every legal expert I have heard or read has said that bringing the charges was 100% justified and in bounds.  These charges get brought 10/10 times under these circumstances in every jurisdiction in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38129

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

Those prosecutors let their egos get the best of them and failed miserably...They had no reason to bring the charges they brought, just pure dumbass on their part....Only shot they had was to trip Kyle up on the stand, and when that didn't happen, they were sunk like the Titanic...

Imagine if there had been no video evidence, they might have twisted this kid up bad and put him away.  We should be applauding the fact that our Justice system worked right for once, not shaming the victim for defending himself....

I’ve watched enough Dateline cases where this is pretty much true. 
 

prosecution: this is our best guess. It’s him

defense: you have no evidence. No weapon or motive 

prosecution: meh, he was in the same neighborhood. It’s probably him. 

jury: guilty 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34238

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Hate said:

This whole paragraph is completely made up of shit I have never once said:

Why is this so fucking hard for you?  In parallel, why is it so fucking hard for you to see that there is no justification for shooting convicted or alleged criminals when the shooter has no knowledge of their convictions or alleged crimes?  You do realize we have a system of justice, and gun boner boy getting strapped up and killing a pedophile doesn't fall under allowable actions just because the guy was a pedophile?

Not one time have I ever commented on Rosenbaum or skateboard guy or handgun guy being convicted criminals.  I've never once brought it into the conversation.  You make shit up because you have absolutely no ability to be objective.  Everything out of your mouth comes from "tribe or team" or from some perception you really want to be able to apply with a great big blanket. 

 

@DDD Dad, the name comes form the old site where my username was ihateowho (as in I hate OU (who)).  Nobody ever got my username correct when they referenced me and I always signed my rep "- hate".  It was just easier to go with that here.  Thing I truly hate are hypocrites and liars....oh and people that make shit up because they have absolutely no ability to be objective.

i never noticed the "o" in the middle of your old username until today.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45911

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Hate said:

This whole paragraph is completely made up of shit I have never once said:

Then tell me what I made up.  I'm not wholly focused on you, by the way.  There are plenty of others on this thread accusing me of the same bullshit, and I'd love to hear from each and every one of you sweethearts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Back to Kenosha, though. I believe the trial/hearing for the person who held the gun for Rittenhouse has been reset for January?

Was it a straw purchase? If so Class G felony

Quote

Wis. Stat. § 941.2905

(1) Whoever intentionally furnishes, purchases, or possesses a firearm for a person, knowing that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29(1m), is guilty of a Class G felony.

(2) The prohibition in sub. (1) against possessing a firearm for a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm does not apply to the possession of a firearm by any of the following: (a) A person to whom the firearm is surrendered under s. 813.1285. (b) A person who has been designated under s. 51.20(13) (cv) 3 to store the firearm during the duration of the order under s. 51.20(13) (cv) 1 not to possess a firearm. (c) A person who has been designated under s. 51.45(13) (i) 3 to store the firearm during the duration of the order under s. 51.45(13) (i) 1 not to possess a firearm. (d) A person who has been designated under s. 54.10(3) (f) 3 to store the firearm during the duration of the order under s. 54.10(3) (f) 1 (e) A person who has been designated under s. 55.12(10) (c) to store the firearm during the duration of the order under s. 55.12(10) (a). (f) A person not covered under pars. (a) to (e) who has been designated to store the firearm during the duration of any temporary prohibition on the possession of a firearm.

Wis. Stat. § 941.2905

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Good question considering the gun charge against KR was dropped. Since it was legal for him to open carry the rifle and it was not stored by him at his residence, does that constitute a straw purchase? 

The distinction is between possess and purchase.  He might have gotten off on a loophole on the possession but I don't know about whether he was legally able to purchase the weapon on his own.  So if he could not then the only way he could get it was through a gift or straw purchase.  Rittenhouse gave the third party the money to buy it for him like a 17 year old looking to score Boone's farm outside 7-11.

 

I don't really know here.  Can a 17 year old from out of state go to Wisconsin and buy a rifle on their own or does a parent or legal guardian need to do that?

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TexasEd said:

The distinction is between possess and purchase.  He might have gotten off on a loophole on the possession but I don't know about whether he was legally able to purchase the weapon on his own.  So if he could not then the only way he could get it was through a gift or straw purchase.  Rittenhouse gave the third party the money to buy it for him like a 17 year old looking to score Boone's farm outside 7-11.

I agree and KR was not old enough to purchase the rifle but the statute says "possess". I guess we shall see. 

Twice in my life I have had someone ask me to buy a gun for them because they were rejected when they tired. Both of them received a "fuck no" from me

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tchookem

tchookem 3900

Posted
Posted
see, that's the problem with the dissembling. it's the same thing with the confederate battle flag. "what's wrong with southern heritage?" yeah, it's been hijacked. pepe was hijacked, and while the guy went to war to fight about his creation, but pepe and reeeee have very specific online meanings.
i've said it so many times on here, but online racists have tons of codespeak. yeah, "okay" is ok, but there is no doubt that people who are white supremacists use certain language to play in between the lines and self-identify with each other. happens here on this board. 
Everyone already knows all of this. Taparep for your effort at an honest discussion, but it's falling on troll ears.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tchookem said:
2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:
see, that's the problem with the dissembling. it's the same thing with the confederate battle flag. "what's wrong with southern heritage?" yeah, it's been hijacked. pepe was hijacked, and while the guy went to war to fight about his creation, but pepe and reeeee have very specific online meanings.
i've said it so many times on here, but online racists have tons of codespeak. yeah, "okay" is ok, but there is no doubt that people who are white supremacists use certain language to play in between the lines and self-identify with each other. happens here on this board. 

Everyone already knows all of this. Taparep for your effort at an honest discussion, but it's falling on troll ears.

Yeah but Eddie Murphy once made the ok sign so in our trolls eyes the point has been made.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

I hadn't read a lot about the other case (I think the defendant's name is Dominick Black?) other than noting that it got moved to the new year. I don't know if the time lapse will help his case, but his attorney seemed to think the verdict for Rittenhouse would be a positive for his client.  Black testified he bought the rifle and kept it at his stepfather's house when he appeared at the Rittenhouse trial, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I hadn't read a lot about the other case (I think the defendant's name is Dominick Black?) other than noting that it got moved to the new year. I don't know if the time lapse will help his case, but his attorney seemed to think the verdict for Rittenhouse would be a positive for his client.  Black testified he bought the rifle and kept it at his stepfather's house when he appeared at the Rittenhouse trial, correct?

I think you've got all of that right. I honestly don't know but my guess is that the charge will end up being dropped due to the ruling that KR was old enough to possess or carry the rifle. He did admit in testimony that he gave the money to Dominic Black to purchase the gun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, tchookem said:
2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:
see, that's the problem with the dissembling. it's the same thing with the confederate battle flag. "what's wrong with southern heritage?" yeah, it's been hijacked. pepe was hijacked, and while the guy went to war to fight about his creation, but pepe and reeeee have very specific online meanings.
i've said it so many times on here, but online racists have tons of codespeak. yeah, "okay" is ok, but there is no doubt that people who are white supremacists use certain language to play in between the lines and self-identify with each other. happens here on this board. 

Everyone already knows all of this. Taparep for your effort at an honest discussion, but it's falling on troll ears.

I did not know about the fucking frog so I asked the question. Sorry it bothered you

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I hadn't read a lot about the other case (I think the defendant's name is Dominick Black?) other than noting that it got moved to the new year. I don't know if the time lapse will help his case, but his attorney seemed to think the verdict for Rittenhouse would be a positive for his client.  Black testified he bought the rifle and kept it at his stepfather's house when he appeared at the Rittenhouse trial, correct?

As I understand it:

  • Kyle wanted the gun but could not legally buy it in Illinois or Wisconsin
  • Kyle contacted Black in Wisconsin who agreed to buy the gun on Kyle's behalf with money Kyle sent him
  • Kyle was ruled as able to possess the gun in public based on a technicality in the current law.  I don't think this was the intent of the law but a loophole.
  • The question is was the original purchase a straw purchase since it was intended for another person.
  • How did Black answer question 21a on Form 4473?

21.a) 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. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are only picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 21.a. and may proceed to question 21.b.

Edit: I'm a gun owner and this is one of those cases where not prosecuting cannot be an option.  It doesn't matter that Kyle was only restricted from buying because of his age.  He was not legally able to purchase just like a violent felon could not buy it.  Prosecute the laws on the books applies here. If not, just fuck it all.

Edit 2: If not obvious I'm talking about Black facing the charges for making the straw purchase.  Basically he was an illegal gun dealer if he did regardless of what the restriction was on Rittenhouse or even if Rittenhouse was legally able to buy it. This was a straw purchase.

 

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MNLonghornFUKM

MNLonghornFUKM 8817

Posted
Posted
This place frequently reminds me how disconnected I must be from most of the online world. I had no idea what all this “reeee” back and forth was about, had to look it up. 

Just wait until you find out people are losing sleep about a dead pedo. Then Hugo will say we’re vilifying their newfound martyr even though Hugo wouldn’t let his kids, if he has any, within 100 ft of these shitheads
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Why would it be illegal for the guy who bought it but not illegal for the guy who paid for it and then obtained it?

Read this post: 

He was underage to go to the store and buy it himself.  Form 4473 says you can't buy a gun on behalf of someone else.  Wrong person is getting the background check on the gun.

There are all kinds of reasons people can't buy guns like felons, illegal aliens, under age, domestic violence, etc.  Should we alow people to get around the only check that we have like this.

If they were smarter they could have avoided this but he already testified against himself.

Edited by TexasEd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Read this post: 

He was underage to go to the store and buy it himself.  Form 4473 says you can't buy a gun on behalf of someone else.  Wrong person is getting the background check on the gun.

 

Looks like conspiracy to commit a felony to me. 
 

I didn’t hear Kyle’s testimony on the stand on that issue but it potentially could be pretty damning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Keep in mind that until Kyle took the stand, the feds had no admissions from him on the gun charge case that I’m aware of. Certainly nothing sworn to. Also nothing either from the guy who bought it as the case is still pending. Or at least that I’m aware of.
 

Now they do. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Keep in mind that until Kyle took the stand, the feds had no admissions from him on the gun charge case that I’m aware of. Certainly nothing sworn to. Also nothing either from the guy who bought it as the case is still pending. Or at least that I’m aware of.
 

Now they do. 

Thanks, did not know that development was so recent.  Looked back and saw their alibi was that Black loaned it to him.  Admitting to pay for it kinda blows the "loaned" alibi out of the walter.

I thought that the narrative about using his stimulus check to buy it was several months old so I was going off that.

Edited by TexasEd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Thanks, did not know that development was so recent.  Looked back and saw their alibi was that Black loaned it to him.  Admitting to pay for it kinda blows the "loaned" alibi out of the walter.

I thought that the narrative about using his stimulus check to buy it was several months old so I was going off that.

Yeah but keep in mind I didn’t actually watch his testimony and am relying on what one of our trolls here said he said, so it easily could be wrong.

We all know the truth on what happened there but if he admitted to the truth on the stand that changes the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, immortal13 said:

How would KR get charged? He's not the one who made the purchase. You're not a smart man

Reading comprehension.  I said "He (Kyle) won't.  But the guy that bought it for him (Black) is already charged/awaiting trial.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Keep in mind that until Kyle took the stand, the feds had no admissions from him on the gun charge case that I’m aware of. Certainly nothing sworn to. Also nothing either from the guy who bought it as the case is still pending. Or at least that I’m aware of.
 

Now they do. 

 

wu987.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27660

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

How would KR get charged? He's not the one who made the purchase. You're not a smart man

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/7/buying-and-selling-firearms-part-6-straw-purchases/

If a person straw purchases a firearm for someone else, both the purchaser and the other person potentially violate numerous federal laws. The straw purchaser has violated the law by lying on the Form 4473. Furthermore, if the purchaser knows or has reason to believe that the person for whom the gun is being bought is a felon or otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, or if the purchaser knows or has reason to believe that the gun will be used in a crime, those are federal felonies, each punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The person who ends up with the gun can be charged with conspiracy to violate federal law, because he or she orchestrated the illegal purchase. And he or she is a prohibited person, possession of the gun is another 10-year/$10,000 felony.

(I hope you find this source acceptable)

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
Just now, Captainant said:

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/7/buying-and-selling-firearms-part-6-straw-purchases/

If a person straw purchases a firearm for someone else, both the purchaser and the other person potentially violate numerous federal laws. The straw purchaser has violated the law by lying on the Form 4473. Furthermore, if the purchaser knows or has reason to believe that the person for whom the gun is being bought is a felon or otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, or if the purchaser knows or has reason to believe that the gun will be used in a crime, those are federal felonies, each punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The person who ends up with the gun can be charged with conspiracy to violate federal law, because he or she orchestrated the illegal purchase. And he or she is a prohibited person, possession of the gun is another 10-year/$10,000 felony.

(I hope you find this source acceptable)

Thanks for the intelligent response. The question really is whether it will be deemed a straw purchase per the Wisconsin statute since the judge ruled that KR was legal in carrying and possessing the gun that night. The Wisconsin statute does not say the word purchase

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27660

Posted
Posted
Just now, immortal13 said:

Thanks for the intelligent response. The question really is whether it will be deemed a straw purchase per the Wisconsin statute since the judge ruled that KR was legal in carrying and possessing the gun that night. The Wisconsin statute does not say the word purchase

Federal firearms laws my dude. Rittenhouse admitted on the stand that he gave his friend cash specifically to buy a gun for him because he was not legally allowed to buy one. 

As I posted about 30 or 40 pages ago in this thread, that's conspiracy to commit a felony, which is itself a felony. I'm pretty sure you negged it actually. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted (edited)

From what I have read about the purchase (which is very little), it was an illegal straw purchase.

Doubt the DOJ pursues the case though, either on the actual purchaser or by a connect the dots conspiracy charge on KR.  

Edited by Anastasis
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Federal firearms laws my dude. Rittenhouse admitted on the stand that he gave his friend cash specifically to buy a gun for him because he was not legally allowed to buy one. 

As I posted about 30 or 40 pages ago in this thread, that's conspiracy to commit a felony, which is itself a felony. I'm pretty sure you negged it actually. 

He really likes to neg so I’m not gonna doubt you on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Azbadlands

Azbadlands 109

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Yeah but keep in mind I didn’t actually watch his testimony and am relying on what one of our trolls here said he said, so it easily could be wrong.

We all know the truth on what happened there but if he admitted to the truth on the stand that changes the game. 

He did admit he gave him the money to buy the gun, but the gun is in his buddies name and was kept at his buddies house...I think the intention was his buddy would keep it until Kyle was old enough to own it, then they would transfer it to his name...

How would it be a straw purchase if the gun was in his friends name and stored at his friends house?  Seems like a lot of grey areas since the gun was stored at the friends house...  He could say he gave his friend the money as a gift for his friend to buy a gun for his friend to use until he is old enough to legally own and store it...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted (edited)

Summary of Black's testimony (not a transcript) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/11/02/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-dominick-black-first-witness/6258860001/

Quote

Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black's family's hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn't lawfully buy or possess one.

Black said he used Rittenhouse's money to make the purchase.
Black said they discussed knowing it was illegal, but agreed Rittenhouse wouldn't get the gun himself until he turned 18. They shot a couple hundred rounds that week, Black testified, and that was the only time Rittenhouse had used the weapon until Aug. 25, 2020.

Current charges are state.  

Quote

At Car Source's repair garage, Black said, one of the owners showed them how to get inside if they needed to and to the ladder Black and some others used to set up on the roof.

"I didn't want to be in the mix of a lot of problems," said Black, who is facing two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to someone under 18, resulting in death. "I didn't want to get hurt."

 

Edited by TexasEd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...