Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(10-29-2021, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, they aren't as this has been addressed, both here and elsewhere.  Anyone still bringing it up is engaging in the use of talking points to muddy the waters.

There's plenty of evidence addressing this, he got it from a friend who purchased it in Wisconsin.  Now, this raises strawman purchasing concerns, but that wouldn't apply to Rittenhouse, but the person who bought it.  It also has absolutely nothing to do with the crux of the case, which is the self defense argument.

Oh, so you're not discussing the subject of the thread other than as an indictment of our criminal justice system in general?  That wasn't clear, at all.  It's also not rather germane to the trial itself, hence my not assuming that was what you were doing.  I would be happy to actually discuss the substance of the case with you, if you are so inclined.

We SHOULD be discussing these self-defense cases as "an indictment of our criminal justice system in general."

So yes, that is what I am doing. And I don't regard this issue as somehow separate from "the trial itself; that separation is itself political and part of the problem.

"Strawman" purchasing concerns? I think people not schooled in law can be forgiven for wondering whether it makes a difference if
someone charged with a homicide used an weapon purchased and wielded outside the law.  

People can also be forgiven for wondering why and how a minor can bring a loaded weapon to a "riot" and then shoot people in "self-defense." 
How are "rioters" being distinguished from armed "patriots", whose vigilantism is tolerated or welcomed by police?

You said earlier that Rittenhouse did not carry his weapon across a state line. I'm wondering how you know this.