So the Kenosha DA knew this was weak as hell and was most likely going to fail so he made his underling take the case and take the fall here as to not damage his own reputation?


From the UK Daily Mail:

Many court watchers believe Binger was thrown into the case because District Attorney Graveley — who would normally prosecute such a high-profile case himself — knew the case against Rittenhouse was weak. 'Binger was set up for failure,' one Kenosha legal insider told DailyMail.com during the trial. 'Graveley is the superstar and he knew this one was sure to tarnish it

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
So the Kenosha DA knew this was weak as hell and was most likely going to fail so he made his underling take the case and take the fall here as to not damage his own reputation?


From the UK Daily Mail:

Many court watchers believe Binger was thrown into the case because District Attorney Graveley — who would normally prosecute such a high-profile case himself — knew the case against Rittenhouse was weak. 'Binger was set up for failure,' one Kenosha legal insider told DailyMail.com during the trial. 'Graveley is the superstar and he knew this one was sure to tarnish it

Would you want to prosecute the case? I wouldn't, it was all caught on tape with witnesses. Everyone who cared to watch the videos knew exactly what happened.

The situation w Dominick Black is confusing (to me).

from this site:
https://gunwatch.blogspot.com/...-dominick-black.html

Binger charged Kyle's friend, Dominick Black with two charges of providing a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18, where the person discharges the weapon, and someone dies as a result.

For Dominick, the maximum penalties are a fine of up to $10,000 and/or six years in prison for each charge. Dominick is facing up to twelve years in prison.

Dominick's trial was moved to be after Kyle's trial

Judge Bruce Schroeder is the same presiding judge in Dominick's case as in Kyle's case.

The logical thing to happen, is for ADA Binger to drop the charges against Dominick, once Kyle's trial is over. Barring that, Dominick's attorney should file a motion to dismiss the charges to Judge Schroeder.

quote:

Would you want to prosecute the case? I wouldn't, it was all caught on tape with witnesses. Everyone who cared to watch the videos knew exactly what happened.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I posted about this earlier. This is a poor excuse of a DA if that was the case. I am not surprised because the DA position at least locally is a stepping stone to a lucrative criminal law practice. It is interesting to know that Binger formerly practiced civil law.

The only things that ought to be on ADA Thomas Binger's and ADA James Kraus' minds are Self Immolation followed by Defenestration from a very tall building.

It's the only truly honorable choice left for them, beyond ritual Seppuku on national TV.

quote:

Originally posted by Jester814:
That does not sound like a straw purchase to me according to my understanding of a straw purchase.

Actually, it is. All day long. Dude A gives Dude B money to purchase a rifle. Dude A is a prohibited person from completing a lawful sale. Dude B goes into the gun store and gives materially false information to make an unlawful purchase appear to be lawful by falsely answering yes on question 21(a).

Some will naturally attempt to argue “well Kyle wasn’t a prohibited person”. Absolutely he was. Could he walk into that gun store and complete the sale himself? No. Then that naturally comes to the argument “well, then I commit a straw purchase for my kids...”. No that’s clearly not the same. As I understand it, there’s no relation to the original purchaser.

From a letter of the law standpoint, it’s a straw purchase.

Don’t know if Illinois has a state law against it, but it satisfies 18 USC.

Concur, both as a retired cop and current gun salesman. See question 21a on the 4473. I wouldn’t execute such a sale.

Is there anything left in Portland to burn?

Yeah, hate to say it, and IANAL, but what Dominick Black did does appear to have met the criteria for qualifying as a straw purchase.

Had he not turned the rifle over to Kyle as he did--had he restricted Kyle's access to the rifle to only target shooting under his direct supervision, it still would technically have qualified as a straw purchase, but, "if a tree falls in the forest..."

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Jester814:
That does not sound like a straw purchase to me according to my understanding of a straw purchase.

Actually, it is. All day long. Dude A gives Dude B money to purchase a rifle. Dude A is a prohibited person from completing a lawful sale. Dude B goes into the gun store and gives materially false information to make an unlawful purchase appear to be lawful by falsely answering yes on question 21(a).

Some will naturally attempt to argue “well Kyle wasn’t a prohibited person”. Absolutely he was. Could he walk into that gun store and complete the sale himself? No. Then that naturally comes to the argument “well, then I commit a straw purchase for my kids...”. No that’s clearly not the same. As I understand it, there’s no relation to the original purchaser.

From a letter of the law standpoint, it’s a straw purchase.

Don’t know if Illinois has a state law against it, but it satisfies 18 USC.

I don't know the finer points of WI & IL statutes regarding straw purchases, but if the feds were to charge Dominick Black, I believe they'd have a very strong case against him.

Abramski v. United States went all the way to the Supreme Court. Abramski was a LEO in Roanoke, VA. He used his blue label discount to buy a Glock for his uncle in PA. He transferred ownership of the Glock through an FFL. Both he & his uncle were legal to own firearms.

The evidence that nailed Abramski to the wall was the check his uncle wrote him. It was dated before Abramski made the purchase, and on the memo line, his uncle wrote, "for Glock 19 handgun".

Black & Rittenhouse both testified that Rittenhouse gave money to Black for Black to buy the rifle. This wasn't a case of a parent or legal guardian buying a gun for his child. If Black used his own money to buy the rifle and told Rittenhouse, "I'll lend it to you when you want, and when you turn 18, I'll sell it to you," then they'd have an argument against straw purchase, but by federal law, I think it's clear cut.

But a convicted felon with a handgun in the trial won't be prosecuted.

As far as Federal law goes, it was a straw purchase.

They say Gaige Grosskreutz is not a felon.
However he does have a good list of criminal activity.

Link

I believe that Gaige’s concealed permit was not expired, but revoked for misdemeanor intoxicated use of a firearm.

Gaige, a Paramedic played Policeman, running after Kyle instead of running toward the injured Rosenbaum to render aid.

Gaige chased Kyle down while drawing his illegally carried, concealed Glock 27.
Gaige then attempted to shoot Kyle, before being shot in self defense by Kyle.
Gaige lied on the Police report stating that he dropped his illegally carried weapon while running after Kyle.

To me it seems, Gaige Grosskreutz should have been the one on trial for attempted murder, illegally carrying a concealed gun, and lying on a police report.

Kyle is getting a replacement AR.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:

I believe that Gaige’s concealed permit was not expired, but revoked for misdemeanor intoxicated use of a firearm.

Correct. His permit was revoked, not expired. Yet the prosecutor--who must have known this--asked his question to Gaige in a way that implied that it was revoked. The way I see it, Gaige committed perjury, and the prosecutor is guilty of a crime here too.

I’m very happy for Kyle. But I fear for his future. If I were him I’d not be going on Tucker Carlson and I’d turn down the offer for the free AR.

Me now? I’d go on Tucker and any other show that wanted me. I’d take the free AR and any other free gun and I’d hang out with whoever I wanted and let them buy me drinks all night. But Kyle is an 18 year old kid who seemingly has a good heart, but likely doesn’t fully comprehend that there are a lot of people who have already taken advantage of him, and many more who want to. His family doesn’t seem capable of helping him make good decisions either and don’t strike me as all that bright.

I think they are all very vulnerable to people preying on them.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
Fox News has announced that Kyle will be on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' Monday for his first interview since the trial. I'm certainly not missing that.

Jim

Apparently Carlson had a film crew with Kyle during the trial. Being allowed in his hotel room etc. Daily Mail reported Kyle's attorney threw the crew out of the room several times. Imo Tucker is pushing it here and he knows it. I'm surprised the attorney or Kyle would even allow it in the first place. I hope Kyle knows enough to avoid the spot light but so far he has not shown to have that judgement.