11-01-2021, 12:40 PM
(11-01-2021, 12:58 AM)Dill Wrote: 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?
Uhm, it's in the link you just quoted.
Prosecutors say Black kept the gun in Wisconsin, and Rittenhouse never possessed it in Illinois, where he lived with his mother and sisters.
If you're going to ignore evidence presented then just let me know now so I can stop wasting my time providing actual facts.
Quote: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.
This comment is as silly as it is inaccurate. I've literally presented fact after fact regarding the circumstances of this case. It is telling you have not addressed a single one of them. Hell, you couldn't even be bothered to read an article you directly requested.
Quote: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.
Not if he's part of the group that initiated the violence in the first place. Also, the fact that he initiated the contact with Rittenhouse rather negates a claim of self defense. Rittenhouse was running away. He was attempting to get up to resume fleeing when the third person approached him, not the other way around. You also say you disagree with my, and Bel's, position that this is a clear case of self defense. However, you have provided absolutely no fact based argument refuting my or Bel's position.
Quote: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.
Yeah, that's been addressed as well, it's yet another thing you apparently chose to ignore. If you want to argue the morality of the law and not the facts and the law as they actually exist, then just let us all know that. We'll stop bothering to make a fact based argument and join you in the land of supposition.
As a final note, the law as written states you can defend yourself if you are attacked. This is a rather simple and direct position that I'd have a very hard time determining how anyone could take issue with. You apparently want to blame Kyle for the actions of others rather than blame the people who actually initiated the violence. I, and the law, on the other hand, hold people responsible for their own actions. I get that you disagree and I don't see how further "debate" will bring our positions any closer. That being the case, unless you'd like to discuss the actual facts of the incident, I think we can amicably call it a day.
