Good news for a change! Judge tells prosecutor to pound sand in Rittenhouse case

November 19, 2021, 09:40 PM

slosig

quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
quote:
Now that he's beaten the criminal charges does that give him immunity from civil charges?

It didn't protect O.J., so no.

Wouldn’t that be a state law thing. I believe there are some states (not Kommiefornia) where if you are found not guilty criminally you are shielded from civil liability. No idea what WI law is on this.

November 19, 2021, 09:43 PM

kkina

quote:
Originally posted by slosig:
quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
quote:
Now that he's beaten the criminal charges does that give him immunity from civil charges?

It didn't protect O.J., so no.

Wouldn’t that be a state law thing. I believe there are some states (not Kommiefornia) where if you are found not guilty criminally you are shielded from civil liability. No idea what WI law is on this.

That I don't know. I don't even play a lawyer on tv.

November 19, 2021, 09:49 PM

DoctorSolo

quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
quote:
Originally posted by slosig:
quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
quote:
Now that he's beaten the criminal charges does that give him immunity from civil charges?

It didn't protect O.J., so no.

Wouldn’t that be a state law thing. I believe there are some states (not Kommiefornia) where if you are found not guilty criminally you are shielded from civil liability. No idea what WI law is on this.

That I don't know. I don't even play a lawyer on tv.

That's actually true and many of these new CCW "attorneys" dont want you to know.

OJ murdered an unarmed woman and her boyfriend over marital strife.

Kyle defended businesses from career criminals who caused an obvious and immediate threat to his own life, and in the end they fucked with the wrong guy.

You ok? Do I need to draw a picture to clarify the self-defense, justified deadly-force distinction here?

November 19, 2021, 09:50 PM

Pipe Smoker

quote:
Originally posted by P-220:
God Bless you Kyle.

MSM go fuck yourself!

Yes indeed. It’s been a GOOD day!

President Trump liked it too. Buck Fiden gritted his teeth.

November 19, 2021, 10:05 PM

46and2

November 19, 2021, 10:15 PM

TXJIM

quote:
Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
quote:
Originally posted by 2PAK:
The guy in biggest world of Sh*t, is the one who purchased the rifle for KR. That's a big federal charge especially if they want to make an example of you, which they will want to do.

I think you think it's a straw purchase. That's not what happened here. If there's a riot in my town and it's bad enough I'm arming the neighbors who don't have a rifle or shotguns, that's a whole other scenario.

On the stand, under oath, Kyle stated that he gave another person money to buy the gun for him to use and they could do a private transfer after he turned 18. This was after going shooting with the friend and him wanting a gun of his own. It happed well before the riots. So, the gun was actually Kyle’s gun in his mind at least. He bought it through a straw purchase. It was a cringe moment in the testimony, I commented on it when it happened earlier in this thread at the top of page 16.

November 19, 2021, 10:19 PM

TXJIM

quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
quote:
Originally posted by 2PAK:
The guy in biggest world of Sh*t, is the one who purchased the rifle for KR. That's a big federal charge especially if they want to make an example of you, which they will want to do.
What are you talking about?

Kyle testified that he wanted a gun after going shooting with a friend at some time prior to the riots. He later asked the friend to buy him a gun and keep it for him to use with the plan to transfer it privately after Kyle turned 18. He said he gave the friend the money to buy the AR he eventually used that night.

November 19, 2021, 10:26 PM

Hildur

quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
quote:
Now that he's beaten the criminal charges does that give him immunity from civil charges?

It didn't protect O.J., so no.

Some states with stand your ground laws exempt the shooter from civil lawsuits if the shooting was justified and no conviction of any criminal charges.

November 19, 2021, 10:51 PM

mcrimm

“Nothing wrong with shooting...as long as the right people get shot.”
― Clint Eastwood

November 19, 2021, 10:55 PM

kimber1911

November 19, 2021, 11:08 PM

flashguy

quote:
Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
quote:
Originally posted by 2PAK:
The guy in biggest world of Sh*t, is the one who purchased the rifle for KR. That's a big federal charge especially if they want to make an example of you, which they will want to do.

I think you think it's a straw purchase. That's not what happened here. If there's a riot in my town and it's bad enough I'm arming the neighbors who don't have a rifle or shotguns, that's a whole other scenario.

I'm with you! I have sufficient arms that I can easily equip a number of neighbors, should the need arise. However, since this is Texas, I doubt that it would be necessary--most of them probably already have firearms in their homes.

flashguy

November 19, 2021, 11:13 PM

sigmonkey

quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:...Kyle testified that he wanted a gun after going shooting with a friend at some time prior to the riots. He later asked the friend to buy him a gun and keep it for him to use with the plan to transfer it privately after Kyle turned 18. He said he gave the friend the money to buy the AR he eventually used that night.

Kyle was not the "ultimate possessor".

As I understand the testimony and other facts, the "person" (Dominique Black) purchased the firearm, and maintained lawful possession of the firearm, in Wisconsin. Kyle and he agreed that the gun would be transferred to Kyle upon his 18th birthday.

Kyle travelled from Illinois to Wisconsin and picked up the rifle, and had it in his immediate possession the night of the Riots/shooting.

That does not mean he was in "absolute" possession" as it was at that time a "borrowed" firearm that was owned/possessed in the state of Wisconsin by Dominique Black.

I do not see a "straw purchase", but I do understand how someone might make the wrong assumption that it was.

If Kyle gave Dominique the money and Dominique made the purchase and then handed the firearm over to Kyle and Kyle maintained "absolute" possession, it would then be both a "straw purchase" and a violation of transporting a weapon across state line from Wisconsin to Illinois as a permanent possession by Kyle. (which did not happen)

November 19, 2021, 11:15 PM

kkina

quote:
Originally posted by Hildur:
quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
quote:
Now that he's beaten the criminal charges does that give him immunity from civil charges?

It didn't protect O.J., so no.

Some states with stand your ground laws exempt the shooter from civil lawsuits if the shooting was justified and no conviction of any criminal charges.

Ah, thank you for the info. That's exactly why I didn't want to pose as a lawyer.

November 19, 2021, 11:19 PM

kkina

quote:
Originally posted by DoctorSolo:
quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
quote:
Originally posted by slosig:
quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
quote:
Now that he's beaten the criminal charges does that give him immunity from civil charges?

It didn't protect O.J., so no.

Wouldn’t that be a state law thing. I believe there are some states (not Kommiefornia) where if you are found not guilty criminally you are shielded from civil liability. No idea what WI law is on this.

That I don't know. I don't even play a lawyer on tv.

That's actually true and many of these new CCW "attorneys" dont want you to know.

OJ murdered an unarmed woman and her boyfriend over marital strife.

Kyle defended businesses from career criminals who caused an obvious and immediate threat to his own life, and in the end they fucked with the wrong guy.

You ok? Do I need to draw a picture to clarify the self-defense, justified deadly-force distinction here?

Well, I understand the difference in those cases, but my only original point was that winning a criminal case does not necessarily protect you from civil proceedings. And as Hildur pointed out, the situation varies on a state basis.

November 19, 2021, 11:21 PM

TXJIM

quote:
Originally posted by sigmonkey:
quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:...Kyle testified that he wanted a gun after going shooting with a friend at some time prior to the riots. He later asked the friend to buy him a gun and keep it for him to use with the plan to transfer it privately after Kyle turned 18. He said he gave the friend the money to buy the AR he eventually used that night.

Kyle was not the "ultimate possessor".

As I understand the testimony and other facts, the "person" (Dominique Black) purchased the firearm, and maintained lawful possession of the firearm, in Wisconsin. Kyle and he agreed that the gun would be transferred to Kyle upon his 18th birthday.

Kyle travelled from Illinois to Wisconsin and picked up the rifle, and had it in his immediate possession the night of the Riots/shooting.

That does not mean he was in "absolute" possession" as it was at that time a "borrowed" firearm that was owned/possessed in the state of Wisconsin by Dominique Black.

I do not see a "straw purchase", but I do understand how someone might make the wrong assumption that it was.

If Kyle gave Dominique the money and Dominique made the purchase and then handed the firearm over to Kyle and Kyle maintained "absolute" possession, it would then be both a "straw purchase" and a violation of transporting a weapon across state line from Wisconsin to Illinois as a permanent possession by Kyle. (which did not happen)

I have no problem admitting that I have no depth in this area. I can say for sure that I would not want to be in a position to defend making that purchase. If an underage friend approached me to buy a firearm on their behalf and hold it until they were old enough to buy it themselves I would decline.

It seems like a lie on question 11 if the purchaser was buying on Kyles behalf even if he was going to maintain possession in the short term. Maybe not technically a straw purchase but it waddles and quacks from where I sit…

November 19, 2021, 11:44 PM

coloradohunter44

quote:
Originally posted by RichardC:
'Colin Kaepernick says Rittenhouse verdict 'validates the need to abolish our current system'

Colin Kaepernick responded to the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict in a tweet on Friday, stating that "this only further validates the need to abolish our current system."
Colin Kaepernick responded to the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict on Friday night, stating that the decision validated "the terroristic acts of a white supremacist."

"This only further validates the need to abolish our current system. White supremacy cannot be reformed," he tweeted
_____________________________________________

'New York City Mayor-Elect Eric Adams on Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: 'We should not be shocked'

New York City Mayor-Elect Eric Adams released a statement Friday night responding to the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict, which determined Rittenhouse is not guilty on all charges.

Eric Adams tweeted "We should not be shocked. We should be focused on swift and righteous action."'

Maybe the EFF Bee Eye should be investigating these domestic terrorist threats.

https://www.foxnews.com/live-n...ttenhouse-trial-jury

Congrats to Kyle and those who defended him. To the the rest of the lame street fuckers etc. No ones cares about anything you soy faced bitches have to say. Go drop dead.