Kyle Rittenhouse is an American Political Hero far wise and mature beyond his years.

[bripat9643]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

youre leaving out that we dont know everything and are going off what the fake media is telling us,,

but if I was on the jury based on what I know he walks on everything,,,

what gets me is theres more outrage at him than the people in charge that allowed this all to happen,, if they did their job we wouldnt be discussing this,,

That is true. The police should have cleared the streets of the violent mobs and there would have been no need for Rittenhouse, and if he had showed up, the cops could have told him to go home too, or arrest him for violating curfew.

There was no need for Rittenhouse to begin with...

who are you to speak for him or them???

Just expressing my opinion, buttmunch. Don't get your panties twisted...

 

[progressive hunter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

youre leaving out that we dont know everything and are going off what the fake media is telling us,,

but if I was on the jury based on what I know he walks on everything,,,

what gets me is theres more outrage at him than the people in charge that allowed this all to happen,, if they did their job we wouldnt be discussing this,,

That is true. The police should have cleared the streets of the violent mobs and there would have been no need for Rittenhouse, and if he had showed up, the cops could have told him to go home too, or arrest him for violating curfew.

There was no need for Rittenhouse to begin with...

who are you to speak for him or them???

Just expressing my opinion, buttmunch. Don't get your panties twisted...

no reason to get nasty,,

 

[Canon Shooter]

1. So, you accepting my conclusion about his intent for the gun then? That it was to deter attacks on property and people?

Not even a little bit...

2. The state of Wisconsin is more concerned about stopping people from getting the means to protect themselves then they are with stopping violent mobs from rampaging though their streets. That is them being a very sick society.

You would have a point if this were a "one or the other" case, but it's not. They can want to keep firearms out of the hands of minors while, at the same time, want to keep violent mobs from rampaging through the streets...

3. It is not spin. It is pointing out the injustice of the State's case. They are charging him as an adult for murder based on him being a minor. Any reasonable person would be uneasy about that.

Wow, just when I thought I was all dialed in on how dense you were, you come across with shit like this.

The state of Wisconsin does not intend to charge him as an adult for murder based on him being a minor. In the case of murder, the state of Wisconsin does not distinguish between a minor and an adult. Anyone charged with murder is tried as an adult...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

youre leaving out that we dont know everything and are going off what the fake media is telling us,,

but if I was on the jury based on what I know he walks on everything,,,

what gets me is theres more outrage at him than the people in charge that allowed this all to happen,, if they did their job we wouldnt be discussing this,,

That is true. The police should have cleared the streets of the violent mobs and there would have been no need for Rittenhouse, and if he had showed up, the cops could have told him to go home too, or arrest him for violating curfew.

There was no need for Rittenhouse to begin with...

who are you to speak for him or them???

Just expressing my opinion, buttmunch. Don't get your panties twisted...

no reason to get nasty,,

Exactly, which is why there was no reason for you to jump on what I said.

My opinion is there was no reason for Rittenhouse to be there. Aside from Black, no one asked him to come help protect anything. It was not Black's place to solicit people to help protect anything, especially when the person being asked is a minor.

I believe that, if Rittenhouse wasn't eager to shoot rioters that night, he also wasn't too eager to avoid such a confrontation...

 

[Correll]

1. So, you accepting my conclusion about his intent for the gun then? That it was to deter attacks on property and people?

Not even a little bit...

.....

You asked a lot of questions about intent, and suddenly just changed the subject.

 

[Canon Shooter]

1. So, you accepting my conclusion about his intent for the gun then? That it was to deter attacks on property and people?

Not even a little bit...

.....

You asked a lot of questions about intent, and suddenly just changed the subject.

No, I really didn't...

 

[progressive hunter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

youre leaving out that we dont know everything and are going off what the fake media is telling us,,

but if I was on the jury based on what I know he walks on everything,,,

what gets me is theres more outrage at him than the people in charge that allowed this all to happen,, if they did their job we wouldnt be discussing this,,

That is true. The police should have cleared the streets of the violent mobs and there would have been no need for Rittenhouse, and if he had showed up, the cops could have told him to go home too, or arrest him for violating curfew.

There was no need for Rittenhouse to begin with...

who are you to speak for him or them???

Just expressing my opinion, buttmunch. Don't get your panties twisted...

no reason to get nasty,,

Exactly, which is why there was no reason for you to jump on what I said.

My opinion is there was no reason for Rittenhouse to be there. Aside from Black, no one asked him to come help protect anything. It was not Black's place to solicit people to help protect anything, especially when the person being asked is a minor.

I believe that, if Rittenhouse wasn't eager to shoot rioters that night, he also wasn't too eager to avoid such a confrontation...

youve been speaking as though what you say is fact and I called you on it without insult or rudeness,, the least you could do is return in kind,,

 

[washamericom]

you know, i said jury of his peers.i suppose that also includes tried in the court of public opinion via fake news. i think people like me wont stand for his imprisonment. thats the new red line in the obama/biden political sandbox.from my cold dead might be the way it ends for me, its that important, just as important as the fist revolution and the civil war.. fake news is complicit in American treason, that too will revert back to journalism. but not right away. watch the mexico border for terrorism invited by the dmocrats.

 

[bripat9643]

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Nevertheless, the gun is in his name and stored at his house, so he is the legal owner. You can speculate about motives all you like

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

The law isn't clear about that.

 

[Papageorgio]

Rittenhouse was looking for trouble, that was his reason for going to a riot armed. I think he shot in self defense but he was looking for trouble, he isn’t bright, smart beyond his years, he was a thug and looked for excitement and violence. He is a dumb kid, much like Zimmerman.

 

[Correll]

Rittenhouse was looking for trouble, that was his reason for going to a riot armed. I think he shot in self defense but he was looking for trouble, he isn’t bright, smart beyond his years, he was a thug and looked for excitement and violence. He is a dumb kid, much like Zimmerman.

Possibly.

Or he might have gone there to protect property and people, and planned to use the gun to deter violence.


Indeed, the video evidence seems to support the idea he was looking to help.


What evidence do you have that he was a thug?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Rittenhouse was looking for trouble, that was his reason for going to a riot armed. I think he shot in self defense but he was looking for trouble, he isn’t bright, smart beyond his years, he was a thug and looked for excitement and violence. He is a dumb kid, much like Zimmerman.

There's a difference between "looking for trouble" and "knowing trouble is out there". You have absolutely no evidence that he was "looking for trouble" beyond your own admitted assumption that "The only reason someone would go to a riot armed is because they want trouble". That's a little like saying if I, as a woman, have to go to a bad part of town and take my gun with me because I know it's a bad part of town, I went there "looking for trouble".

You and I normally get along quite well, but that's no barrier to me telling you what I tell any other poster: Spare me your assertions of ASSumption as "fact". Post evidence, or admit that it's just your personal, emotion-driven opinion.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The law isn't clear about that.

Yeah, it really is.

Unless you're stupid...

 

[bripat9643]

The law isn't clear about that.

Yeah, it really is.

Unless you're stupid...

You obviously haven't read it, NAZI moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the firearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

 

[Correll]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...