Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(10-30-2021, 03:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because it's been established that the friend purchased the gun in Wisconsin.  His friend has criminally charged because of it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/10/kyle-rittenhouse-friend-charged-bought-him-gun-kenosha-shooting/6231407002/

A simple Google search could have answered this question for you.

A simple google search tells me that the gun Rittenhouse used to kill two people on Aug. 25 was purchased on May 1 in Wisconsin, for him, by a friend. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/19-year-old-charged-illegally-supplying-gun-kyle-rittenhouse-n1247307

That the gun was purchased in WI in May by a friend does not establish that Rittenhouse did not have possession of it in August, in Illinois, and then carried it across the state line into Kenosha. Is there evidence the friend held it for months and then gave it to him the night of the shooting?  How were R and illegally purchased gun united on Aug. 25? 

(10-30-2021, 03:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As to your position in general, I see a lot of "feels" and not a lot of facts.  A very simple, point by point, explanation of why this is a clear case of self defense has been provided.  Why have you made no attempt to address this?  If your position is that you don't care about the law and just want Kyle punished for not sharing your politics then just say so.

If the bolded doesn't count as a "feel," then I don't know how you are defining that term. Your posts are peppered with devaluations of the character and honesty of people who disagree with you; those are "feels," not facts.

And of course I disagree with your too "simple, point by point explanation of why this is a clear case of self defense." E.g., Bpat is quite right--the man with the pistol, whom R shot in the arm, had as much of a claim to self defense as R had before he shot him.

My "position," as articulated so far, is that there is an issue here to be explored regarding how the law selects which facts are relevant and which not, and this trial offers material for exploring that issue. The law has a "point of view" which favors some political views over others. When viewing "facts" through the prism of stand your ground and open carry laws, it is about as impartial as those police officers who allowed R to pass them with his hands in the air, carrying a long gun, after shots had been fired.