Kyle Rittenhouse's so-called victim just admitted under oath that KR shot him self-defense

a reply to: JinMI

I bring up the trial is about Kyle because it's predictable his fan base will bring up people who were there. Who cares, Kyle is on trial for breaking the law, not them. So get over it.

The story goes, after cleaning graffiti, they went to buy the gun straps which Kyle's and Black's stories are not consistent with each other on buying the straps. I didn't watch the cross examination of Kyle stealing the gun so I don't know what he said, or maybe I did, can't remember.

Black said his Step Dad who had the key and safe combination, pulled all the weapons out of the safes on Aug 25th, and hid them in the house to quickly access them if the house became under attack.

Black says he was up in the kitchen and Kyle walks upstairs into the kitchen with the gun. This is how Black explained how Kyle got possession. Then they make their medical kits and go to Kenosha. Black is facing charges for supplying a minor with a firearm, so of course he's going to dance around in court being vague about giving Kyle the gun.

a reply to: game over man

Who cares, Kyle is on trial for breaking the law, not them.

Your stunning endearment of due process is noted. You're right. It's about Kyle proving his innocence.

To the rest of your comment, it says nothing about buying the gun that you brought up.

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.

a reply to: JinMI

Kyle is charged with illegal possession, agree?

Kyle obeyed the law for months prior to not taking possession of the gun and it was kept in a safe for him to take possession of when he turned 18. Agree?

On August 25th, as a minor Kyle took possession of the gun. Agree?

a reply to: game over man

Kyle is charged with illegal possession, agree?

Among many other crimes, agreed.

Kyle obeyed the law for months prior to not taking possession of the gun and it was kept in a safe for him to take possession of when he turned 18. Agree?

They went shooting prior and judging by the footage, is a quick study or had much more time behind the trigger. If Black did indeed admit to buying the weapon for KR, then that is admission of a felony which would indicate his willingness to speak out against KR, his "brother."

Here is the entire law:

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
948.60(1)(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Now the hunting implications and right to protect yourself notwithstanding, is he being tried as an adult? This may be impetus to have this charge thrown out. We'll see. Regardless, it's a misdemeanor.

a reply to: JinMI

Consciously breaking the law of minor in possession, at anytime, Kyle could have stopped breaking that law.

a reply to: game over man

If that's your hangup, have at it.

He's guilty of minor in possesion (which I highly disagree with), and should pay his fine.

Now that he's 18, he can legally go and purchase a firearm....today.

a reply to: JinMI

He respected the gun law prior to that night and decided to break the law and take the law into his own hands. If on that night he treated gun possession like all the other nights of his life, then none of this would have happened. But Kyle wanted to be a law breaker that night, and law breakers are called CRIMINALS.

a reply to: game over man

Following that logic;
If Rosenbaum would have went home when he got out of the mental hospital instead of going to riot and chase around ANOTHER kid, he'd be alive.

If Huber wouldn't have gone to riot and decided to attack a minor with a skateboard, he'd be alive.

If GG wouldn't have gone to riot and not packed his illegal firearm and pointed it at a minor, he'd still have a bicep.

This is fun.

a reply to: JinMI

The trial is about Kyle Rittenhouse, not those people. Kyle made the conscious decision to break the law all night, killed people and got caught. Kyle is on trial for his crimes and not them. The first crime he broke, illegal gun possession, and continued breaking all night, led him to his other crimes, because the other crimes he's charged with all involve Kyle using the gun. Kyle's actions and conscious decision of breaking the law led him to his future crimes. This is undeniable.

a reply to: game over man

The trial is about Kyle Rittenhouse, not those people.

Lol. Uncomfortable isn't it? It's like this event didn't happen in a vacuum.

Kyles actions saved his life. This is undeniable.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: game over man

The trial is about Kyle Rittenhouse, not those people.

Lol. Uncomfortable isn't it? It's like this event didn't happen in a vacuum.

Kyles actions saved his life. This is undeniable.

People who murder other people survive unless they commit murder-suicide. There are murderers in prison. This is undeniable.

a reply to: game over man

Sure, I agree. I also stand by my above post. Rittenhouse's actions saved his own life so he wouldn't be a murder statistic.

Were you talking about KR? Couldn't tell because he isn't a convicted murderer and you keep saying murderers.

a reply to: JinMI

Kyle's actions of illegally possessing the gun got him into the circumstances he got himself into. How are you not understanding this?

a reply to: game over man

How am I not understanding that because he had a firearm everything that happened after rests upon him?

Well, it's pretty simple.

I'm not a fan of blaming the rape victim because she was dressed provocatively.

I am a fan of due process.
I am a fan of self defense.

I'm also not a fan of double standards.

Question. If he's guilty of murder as an adult, can he also be guilty of the under 18 gun law? Vice versa?

a reply to: JinMI

Kyle is no victim of his own conscience decision to illegally possesses the firearm all night. In Kyle's mind, breaking the law was required to protect businesses.

a reply to: game over man

You seem very confused. Committing a misdemeanor doesn't constitute murder. Care to fill in the lengthy gap?

Also, can you show me that cool trick you used to peek into KR mind?

a reply to: JinMI

Kyle didn't kill anyone with his bare hands or some other weapon. He used the weapon he was illegally possessing. Possessing the gun is behaving in a lawless manner. So what whatever else he's doing. Psychos who abduct and sex traffic children can lure them in with candy and being a sweet friend to them. Breaking the law is breaking the law, doesn't matter if you have moments of being good in your life. The law is the law.

a reply to: game over man

Breaking the law is breaking the law, doesn't matter if you have moments of being good in your life. The law is the law.

Wait. You're saying breaking any law, in any capacity whatsoever, means that you are absolutely a bad person or as you put it;

Psychos who abduct and sex traffic children can lure them in with candy and being a sweet friend to them.

Which is so wildly off topic and specific that it begs....questions.

So what whatever else he's doing.

What an odd sentence.

Anywho, I'd wager just about every American has broken an American law at some point in their life.

a reply to: JinMI

People who commit crimes could have done a good deed or two, or many, in their past. Kyle fans defend his lawlessness by saying he's protecting buildings and providing first aid. Doesn't matter, he's still consciously breaking the law illegally possessing the firearm while doing that. Kyle pulled the trigger, 8 times. If he wasn't in possession, like he knew he shouldn't be, then there would be no trigger to pull.

a reply to: game over man

People who commit crimes could have done a good deed or two, or many, in their past.

VS.

Breaking the law is breaking the law, doesn't matter if you have moments of being good in your life. The law is the law.

So which is it?

Kyle fans defend his lawlessness...

Weird. A few posts ago I certainly agreed with you that the misdemeanor weapons charge was apt. I then posed the question on how that charge of a minor stacks up against tried as an adult for murder.

If he wasn't in possession, like he knew he shouldn't be, then there would be no trigger to pull.

I've addressed this already. Keep up.