“But he had a job there too. So it doesn’t matter that he took the rifle he had his friend illegally buy for him from the friend’s home and went to a riot with it slung around his neck. Who among us hasn’t killed two people while playing Billy Badass as a 17 year old”
The rifle was not illegally purchased.
Fuck off, Kyle fluffer…. abcnews.go.com/amp/US/frien...
PS - Don’t shoot the messenger. This is all just information which is in the public domain. 🤷🏻♂️
Lastly, Black's felony charges under WI s.948.60 (2)(c) were effectively voided by two facts. The first is that the person under 18 was not unlawfully in possession of the dangerous weapon, as ruled at Rittenhouse's trial, and second, the deaths caused were also judged to be lawful.
There wasn't any evidence to suggest that this was a federal straw purchase either. Black's declaration that he was the actual buyer / transferee when he filled out the 4473 at purchase was never false, as he always was the transferee. He never transferred the gun to Rittenhouse, or anyone else.
Black was never charged under Wisconsin's "Straw purchasing of firearms" statute WI s.941.2905. The reason for that is because it is only a Class G felony if the person furnishes, possess or purchases a firearm for somebody knowing that they are prohibited from possessing one under s.941.29 (1m)
Dominick Black was never charged with anything in connection with the purchase of the rifle, which was purchased in Ladysmith, WI, on May 1st 2020. He was charged that he did "intentionally give a dangerous weapon to a person under 18, causing death" on Aug 25th 2020, the day of the shootings.
He plead to a civil infraction & paid a fine, essentially an expensive parking ticket. All the criminal charges were dropped. Binger wanted to save face by getting something, and Black wanted his bail money back & to not pay additional legal bills by going to trial.
The ABC article is also inaccurate. The charges Black faced weren't about the purchase of the gun, they were about loaning the gun to a prohibited possessor on the day of the shootings. The prosecutor's case fell apart once the judge ruled Rittenhouse legally possessed the gun.
Your argument was he traveled to Kenosha on the 25th, from Antioch, with the intent of going to a riot. This was objectively false. Like I've said many times, I think he was stupid to go. That opinion of mine doesn't change that he lawfully defended himself.
You really think “but he worked a shift first” is a get out of jail free card. An the WP symbols were just “ok”, the PB anthem thing was just a coincidence…. www.stltoday.com/news/prosecu...
The prosecutor had to concede at pre-trial that he had no evidence that the defendant had any links to, was a member of, or even knew of the Proud Boys or any other group on or before Aug 25th 2020. The photo was taken four months after the shootings, hence its inadmissibility at trial.
No, I think "but he worked his shift first" disproved your claim in the post I was responding to. None of it has anything to do with the elements of the crime or guilt or innocence. If he had driven there on the 25th from Antioch, with a weapon from IL, it's still legally self-defense in Wisconsin.
Nah, he always intended to go to the riot with a rifle. A rifle he had a friend buy for him illegally. It’s really something to watch you and yours rally ‘round your little proud boy.
There was no evidence that either Rittenhouse or Dominick Black had any intention of being in Kenosha to guard property before being asked by Nick Smith who, according to Smith’s testimony, only contacted Black about it on the morning of the 25th, just hours before the shootings.
The rifle had been purchased lawfully three months prior by Dominick Black, who owned and kept it at his address. It was never Rittenhouse’s gun. It was intended to be, in January 2021 when Rittenhouse turned 18, but that transfer never happened, ultimately. Black always owned it.
"Nah, he always intended to go to the riot with a rifle. A rifle he had a friend buy for him illegally." Even if this were true, it has no legal bearing on whether it was or wasn't self-defense. You're allowed to defend yourself with an illegal weapon. It happens in gang cases all the time.
Unfortunately, this account blocked me. But, the way you are destroying them with facts is absolutely hilarious. Are you responding to the same account? Of so, I'm shocked that you haven't been blocked yet.