Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
Though he was never the owner of the weapon. But now he never will be, either.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:49 pm And as far as the weapon destruction, at least I don't have to change the thread title!
Yeah, not buying that. Black bought the gun for Rittenhouse using Rittenhouse's money because Rittenhouse couldn't legally purchase the gun (and Black should be federally prosecuted for that, if you ask me.) The gun clearly belonged to Rittenhouse however, as his mother planned to get an IL firearm ID card so they could legally move the gun to be stored at Rittenhouse's home in IL. At which point I suppose it would technically belong to his mother, but this was all a bunch of hooey if you ask me. It was Kyle Rittenhouse's money, it was Kyle Rittenhouse's gun.andersweinstein wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:21 pmThough he was never the owner of the weapon. But now he never will be, either.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:49 pm And as far as the weapon destruction, at least I don't have to change the thread title!
One can make this argument. I'm not so sure about it. The plan was to transfer ownership to Rittenhouse when he turned 18. Rittenhouse never had control of the gun since, at Dominick's stepfather's insistence, it was kept in a locked gun safe in the stepfather's garage in Kenosha. So it was "his" to use when they were together -- apparently it was only used on one occasion before that night for target practice at Black's stepfather's property "up north". But it was kind of in being held in trust for him until he turned 18. Maybe not so different from a father buying a gun for a minor child to use on supervised family hunting trips -- so "his" (the child's) gun in a sense -- with the idea of transferring ownership to him when he comes of age. Rittenhouse could not use "his" gun whenever he wanted to.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:26 pmYeah, not buying that. Black bought the gun for Rittenhouse using Rittenhouse's money because Rittenhouse couldn't legally purchase the gun (and Black should be federally prosecuted for that, if you ask me.) The gun clearly belonged to Rittenhouse however, as his mother planned to get an IL firearm ID card so they could legally move the gun to be stored at Rittenhouse's home in IL. At which point I suppose it would technically belong to his mother, but this was all a bunch of hooey if you ask me. It was Kyle Rittenhouse's money, it was Kyle Rittenhouse's gun.andersweinstein wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:21 pmThough he was never the owner of the weapon. But now he never will be, either.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:49 pm And as far as the weapon destruction, at least I don't have to change the thread title!
You're glossing over the fact that the weapon was to be transferred to Rittenhouse's mother and moved to IL prior to Rittenhouse turning 18, according to Black. Which doesn't invalidate your supervised adult argument I suppose, it would just be a different adult.andersweinstein wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:46 pmOne can make this argument. I'm not so sure about it. The plan was to transfer ownership to Rittenhouse when he turned 18. Rittenhouse never had control of the gun since, at Dominick's stepfather's insistence, it was kept in a locked gun safe in the stepfather's garage in Kenosha. So it was "his" to use when they were together -- apparently it was only used on one occasion before that night for target practice at Black's stepfather's property "up north". But it was kind of in being held in trust for him until he turned 18. Maybe not so different from a father buying a gun for a minor child to use on supervised family hunting trips -- so "his" (the child's) gun in a sense -- with the idea of transferring ownership to him when he comes of age. Rittenhouse could not use "his" gun whenever he wanted to.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:26 pmYeah, not buying that. Black bought the gun for Rittenhouse using Rittenhouse's money because Rittenhouse couldn't legally purchase the gun (and Black should be federally prosecuted for that, if you ask me.) The gun clearly belonged to Rittenhouse however, as his mother planned to get an IL firearm ID card so they could legally move the gun to be stored at Rittenhouse's home in IL. At which point I suppose it would technically belong to his mother, but this was all a bunch of hooey if you ask me. It was Kyle Rittenhouse's money, it was Kyle Rittenhouse's gun.andersweinstein wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:21 pm
Though he was never the owner of the weapon. But now he never will be, either.
I have no idea how strong the federal case would be in a case like this.
(A bit ironically, it was only because of the first night of unrest that Black's stepfather took the guns from the safe and moved them into the basement -- in case there would be trouble. That's the only thing that allowed Rittenhouse to take it that night without asking permission.)
FIFYraison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:51 pmYou're glossing over the fact that the weapon was to be transferred to Rittenhouse's mother and moved to IL prior to Rittenhouse turning 18, according to Black. Which doesn't invalidate your supervised adult argument I suppose, it would just be a different alleged adult.andersweinstein wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:46 pmOne can make this argument. I'm not so sure about it. The plan was to transfer ownership to Rittenhouse when he turned 18. Rittenhouse never had control of the gun since, at Dominick's stepfather's insistence, it was kept in a locked gun safe in the stepfather's garage in Kenosha. So it was "his" to use when they were together -- apparently it was only used on one occasion before that night for target practice at Black's stepfather's property "up north". But it was kind of in being held in trust for him until he turned 18. Maybe not so different from a father buying a gun for a minor child to use on supervised family hunting trips -- so "his" (the child's) gun in a sense -- with the idea of transferring ownership to him when he comes of age. Rittenhouse could not use "his" gun whenever he wanted to.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:26 pm
Yeah, not buying that. Black bought the gun for Rittenhouse using Rittenhouse's money because Rittenhouse couldn't legally purchase the gun (and Black should be federally prosecuted for that, if you ask me.) The gun clearly belonged to Rittenhouse however, as his mother planned to get an IL firearm ID card so they could legally move the gun to be stored at Rittenhouse's home in IL. At which point I suppose it would technically belong to his mother, but this was all a bunch of hooey if you ask me. It was Kyle Rittenhouse's money, it was Kyle Rittenhouse's gun.
I have no idea how strong the federal case would be in a case like this.
(A bit ironically, it was only because of the first night of unrest that Black's stepfather took the guns from the safe and moved them into the basement -- in case there would be trouble. That's the only thing that allowed Rittenhouse to take it that night without asking permission.)
The AR-15 rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used to kill two protesters will be destroyed instead of returned to him
Jacob Shamsian
Fri, January 28, 2022, 8:48 PM
The rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used to kill protesters will be destroyed, a judge ruled Friday.
The Wisconsin state crime lab plans to destroy it later this year, officials said.
Rittenhouse, who became a conservative political icon, was acquitted of homicide and attempted homicide in November.
The AR-15 rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used to kill two protesters and injure a third amid unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin in 2020 will be destroyed by state authorities, a court ruled Friday.
Judge Bruce Schroeder, who presided over Rittenhouse's criminal trial, approved an agreement between defense attorneys and prosecutors at a court hearing Friday to allow state officials to destroy the rifle, rather than return it to the teen's possession.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ar-15-rifle- ... 04601.html
Evidence disappears; it happens. Given the amount of other evidence, the firearm's no longer being in existence will not be a big deal.Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 4:52 pm My only concern is that the gun could be considered evidence in a future lawsuit or Federal charge if the US would choose to go after the little shithead on a civil rights charge.
Rittenhouse wanted the gun back to see that it was destroyed, not profited from. He was a party to the agreement to have the state destroy it. So his wishes for the gun were granted by this settlement. Dominick Black, who was the legal owner of the gun, also signed off.
andersweinstein wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 11:38 amRittenhouse wanted the gun back to see that it was destroyed, not profited from. He was a party to the agreement to have the state destroy it. So his wishes for the gun were granted by this settlement. Dominick Black, who was the legal owner of the gun, also signed off.
Notice he wanted his ammo back? And his rifle sling and a gun magazine for the gun he "wants destroyed", Why would he want the ammo back? For future weapons or to sell.
Kyle Rittenhouse is seeking the return of the gun he used in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in a motion filed by his lawyer with the Kenosha County Circuit Court on Wednesday.
Rittenhouse, 19, has also asked for the return of several items taken from him upon his arrest — ammo for the rifle, a firearm sling, a gun magazine, an iPhone, his cloth face mask, a $1 bill, and the clothes he was wearing on the night of the shooting, Kenosha News first reported.
According to the court filing, the teenager intends to destroy the weapon, echoing his words from last November when he said on a podcast: "We don't want anything to do with that." Rittenhouse said at the time the rifle was being "destroyed right now," though this his new request appears to contradict that statement.
Are you serious? You think Kyle is that mature?andersweinstein wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 11:38 amRittenhouse wanted the gun back to see that it was destroyed, not profited from. He was a party to the agreement to have the state destroy it. So his wishes for the gun were granted by this settlement. Dominick Black, who was the legal owner of the gun, also signed off.
I don't know why you are questioning this. Rittenhouse said he planned to have the gun destroyed in several of his post-acquittal media appearances. This was widely reported at the time. It's what he and his spokespeople have consistently been saying. When the motion was filed to get it back, this was also the purpose he gave.neonzx wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:58 pmAre you serious? You think Kyle is that mature?andersweinstein wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 11:38 amRittenhouse wanted the gun back to see that it was destroyed, not profited from. He was a party to the agreement to have the state destroy it. So his wishes for the gun were granted by this settlement. Dominick Black, who was the legal owner of the gun, also signed off.
According to Mark Richards, the reason to get all his property back including the clothes was also to prevent someone from auctioning them as souvenirs. I would imagine there is some sense of closure to getting everything back in his possession.
I see no reason not to take him at his word. He could probably have auctioned the rifle for more than a million dollars to a wealthy gun collector. He gave up that opportunity. Why not think about what it is to give up a million dollar opportunity and give him credit for wanting this resolution?
Jesus possessions were auctioned off, why not Rittenhouse'?andersweinstein wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 8:32 pmAccording to Mark Richards, the reason to get all his property back including the clothes was also to prevent someone from auctioning them as souvenirs. I would imagine there is some sense of closure to getting everything back in his possession.
I see no reason not to take him at his word. He could probably have auctioned the rifle for more than a million dollars to a wealthy gun collector. He gave up that opportunity. Why not think about what it is to give up a million dollar opportunity and give him credit for wanting this resolution?
Dude, that's a little harsh.Reality Check wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 8:46 pm If someone should happen put a few slugs into this little shithead it would not even be a bad day.
Reality Check wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 8:46 pm If someone should happen put a few slugs into this little shithead it would not even be a bad day.
