Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(10-28-2021, 12:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You want to make a case for Rittenhouse being guilty, please do so.  But this post just comes across as weak sarcasm, adding nothing to the conversation.  You are right about one thing though, it's absolutely not his fault that a mob of rioters tried to attack and disarm him for having the audacity to interfere with their attempts to blow up a gas station.  

"Parody" is the term you want here.  

(10-28-2021, 12:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For someone who prides themselves on a logical argument this reads rather like a diatribe.  But let's examine your "points".

Crossed state lines.  You mentioned it twice, so you clearly think it's important.  Unfortunately, you included factually incorrect assertions as well, as he did not cross state lines with a weapon.  I am left wondering why crossing state lines is important to you, why you think it matters to the facts of the case.  This is irrelevant, but I'll include it as it rather points out how nonsensical this point of yours is.  He lived in an area of Illinois that is literally right on the border of Wisconsin.  Antioch, Illinois is 33 miles from Kenosha.  Now, let's say he lived in the part of Wisconsin that is as far away as possible from Kenosha.  If he lived in Superior, Wisconsin and traveled to Kenosha that would be 427.7 miles.  Would that be more palatable to you?  After all he's not crossing state lines, which is apparently a very big deal to you.  I'm waiting for someone to try and bring up RICO (which would be the only reason crossing state lines would even be relevant) so hilarity can ensue.

You want to laugh at people?

People are interested in R's crossing of a state line because they want to know what jurisdictional questions might be raised by R's actions, not "distance" questions. 

The night of the shooting, how did R get the weapon he had purchased illegally and was carrying illegally to Kenosha?

I am relieved to see that I am not the only one on this thread who sees more to this case than simply question of R's guilt under current law.