Black man shot in Kenosha, riots starting all over again...

[Ark]

Why are Democrat-run cities trying to up the body count? I'm seeing this in city after city.

Philly City Council Strips Cops Of Rubber Bullets, Tear Gas After Dozens Wounded In Street Violence

Philadelphia has declared a curfew and are actively removing police's ability to enforce this edict and their laws using less-than-lethal tools.

No wonder the police are nowhere to be found as the mob loots and burns.

 

[Phase2]

No wonder the police are nowhere to be found as the mob loots and burns.

When you reduce their options pretty much to shooting people for primarily property crimes and prosecute police for doing their jobs, then police will find ways to not enforce laws and protect the public.

 

[printcraft]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/father-21-year-black-man-killed-washington-deputies-73930644

I suspect that when encountering police, it is far more likely to be shot by police if you’re running from them and shoot at them, than if you’re just going about your day being black. But I guess police must just think black lives don’t matter. Expect Portland violence to become even more insane.

Daniel Thompson, 26, stopped by with a bouquet of pink roses to leave at the scene. Thompson, who is Black, said he did not know Peterson but could identify with the shooting death.
“I walk this street every day. It’s sickening. It could have been anyone of us,“ he said.

Yes, it could have been ME had I chosen to sell drugs and shoot that the police that were chasing me for selling the drugs.
Practically any one of us I tell you!
If only there was a way to prevent that from happening, but damned if I can think of it!

 

[jamil]

Yes, it could have been ME had I chosen to sell drugs and shoot that the police that were chasing me for selling the drugs.
Practically any one of us I tell you!
If only there was a way to prevent that from happening, but damned if I can think of it!

A well functioning, sane society, would reject her thinking. No, it couldn’t have been just anyone who was shot. It was only the person breaking the law at that time, showing a firearm, fleeing, and then (allegedly) shooting at police. But the people who need to say it aren’t saying it. It either drives a convenient narrative or the soft bigotry of low expectations makes people reluctant to say it out loud.

 

[Ark]

Yes, it could have been ME had I chosen to sell drugs and shoot that the police that were chasing me for selling the drugs.
Practically any one of us I tell you!
If only there was a way to prevent that from happening, but damned if I can think of it!

Ha, yeah it doesn't speak highly of your community when you say "it could have been any one of us" dying in a gunfight with the police after getting caught doing crimes.

Kinda sounds like your community is mostly criminals and scummy people.

 

[BugI02]

It has occurred to me that if more citizens exercised their right to bear arms some of these police shootings wouldn’t happen. The reason is because a lot of these thugs would have been killed by citizens protecting themselves long ago.


Then again I’m reminded that the Kenosha kid is awaiting murder charges for self defense and the Missouri couple was charged for displaying a firearm against a violent mob, so I don’t know wtf to think anymore.

I think you pick up your brass and move on

 

[Phase2]

 

[MCgrease08]

Man Charged With Two Felonies For Giving 17-Year-Old Kenosha Gunman Weapon Used In Fatal Shootings

New allegations about how Rittenhouse got the gun. If true, this could be a problem for him. It still doesn't negate the self defense claim, but could fall under the category of a straw purchase.

Dominick Black, 19, was charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18, causing death, according to NBC 5. Black allegedly gave Kyle Rittenhouse, who was not legally able to purchase a firearm, a rifle that he purchased with Rittenhouse’s money, the criminal complaint from Kenosha County District Attorney reportedly says.

Black purchased the rifle on May 1 from Ladysmith Ace Home center. The two reportedly agreed that the gun would be stored at Black’s stepfather’s house in Kenosha, because Rittenhouse did not have proper firearm identification documents.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Man Charged With Two Felonies For Giving 17-Year-Old Kenosha Gunman Weapon Used In Fatal Shootings

New allegations about how Rittenhouse got the gun. If true, this could be a problem for him. It still doesn't negate the self defense claim, but could fall under the category of a straw purchase.

As usual, the crime doesnt getcha... the ancillary does.

Just like how you dont go to jail for the actual crime when summoned by congress, but you get sent to prison because they found a nuanced angle to your answer that they deemed to be perjury.

 

[chipbennett]

Man Charged With Two Felonies For Giving 17-Year-Old Kenosha Gunman Weapon Used In Fatal Shootings

New allegations about how Rittenhouse got the gun. If true, this could be a problem for him. It still doesn't negate the self defense claim, but could fall under the category of a straw purchase.

This is not a straw purchase. Rittenhouse bought Black a gun (an act that is not unlawful) - a gun that Black possessed and that Rittenhouse did not.

 

[T.Lex]

This is not a straw purchase. Rittenhouse bought Black a gun (an act that is not unlawful) - a gun that Black possessed and that Rittenhouse did not.

Heya chip - of course, this is pending actual evidence, but the reporting suggests that Rittenouse was unable to buy the weapon, so he gave Black money to purchase it. That's a straw purchase.

Black allegedly gave Kyle Rittenhouse, who was not legally able to purchase a firearm, a rifle that he purchased with Rittenhouse’s money, the criminal complaint from Kenosha County District Attorney reportedly says.

ETA: Black may have retained possession/control of it, but Rittenhouse owned it and then retrieved it so they could go to Kenosha.

 

[KLB]

Black is charged with two felonies and INGO argues about whether some charge that hasn't been made is correct or not.

Dominick Black, 19, was charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18, causing death, according to NBC 5.

More examples of just how stupid the law has gotten in this country. Just the fact that legislatures had time to come up with the ideas for these laws and get them passed shows how they all spend way too much time doing their "jobs".

 

[KLB]

Heya chip - of course, this is pending actual evidence, but the reporting suggests that Rittenouse was unable to buy the weapon, so he gave Black money to purchase it. That's a straw purchase.



ETA: Black may have retained possession/control of it, but Rittenhouse owned it and then retrieved it so they could go to Kenosha.

R was only 17, so there is no way he could buy the rifle legally.

 

[drillsgt]

Now they want to pursue straw purchases, okay.

 

[chipbennett]

Heya chip - of course, this is pending actual evidence, but the reporting suggests that Rittenouse was unable to buy the weapon, so he gave Black money to purchase it. That's a straw purchase.

ETA: Black may have retained possession/control of it, but Rittenhouse owned it and then retrieved it so they could go to Kenosha.

It is not a straw purchase to give someone money to purchase a gun that the purchaser owns/possesses. It is only a straw purchase for a purchaser to use a third party's money to purchase a gun that the purchaser transfers to the third party for ownership/possession.

Please define "ownership" as you use it when you say that "Rittenhouse owned it". This isn't a garden-variety "constructive possession" issue. Black lived in WI, and possessed/kept the gun in WI. Rittenhouse lives in IL.

 

[chipbennett]

R was only 17, so there is no way he could buy the rifle legally.

Understood. But what law says that a 17-year-old can't give a 19-year-old money to use to buy a gun that the 19-year-old then owns? It is basically the 17-year-old gifting the 19-year-old a gun. I know of no law that makes such an act unlawful.

 

[Alpo]

It's a classic straw purchase. I don't know how you can't see it.

That Rittenhouse used it to defend himself isn't a fact in his favor.

 

[T.Lex]

It is not a straw purchase to give someone money to purchase a gun that the purchaser owns/possesses. It is only a straw purchase for a purchaser to use a third party's money to purchase a gun that the purchaser transfers to the third party for ownership/possession.

Please define "ownership" as you use it when you say that "Rittenhouse owned it". This isn't a garden-variety "constructive possession" issue. Black lived in WI, and possessed/kept the gun in WI. Rittenhouse lives in IL.

No, constructive possession doesn't enter into it. At least not from what I can tell.

Pardon me, while I quote you again.

It is only a straw purchase for a purchaser to use a third party's money to purchase a gun that the purchaser transfers to the third party for ownership/possession.

First party = Black, purchaser
Second party = gun seller
Third party = Rittenhouse, owner and ultimate possessor

Again, according to reporting on the complaint, the first party used the third party's money to purchase the gun from the second party. Then, first party transferred possession to the third party for the party in Kenosha.

That's just using your own framework, which is itself imprecise.

[Boring property law paragraph.]

Ownership of a thing carries with it rights to do certain things with it. One of those rights is to possession. But, the right of possession is not a requirement. If I own an AR, I can let you possess it for a period of time or in a particular location.

Based on reporting, Rittenhouse gave money to Black to purchase the gun for Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse owned it. He agreed with Black that Black should possess it in WI. Rittenhouse may not have possessed it until he got to Kenosha, but he owned it. He gave money to buy it and it was bought on his behalf. If it were a car or an umbrella it wouldn't be a big deal. But since it was a gun, those kinds of transactions are problematic.

If it turns out Black bought the AR for his own purposes, thus owning it, and decided upon Rittenhouse's arrival to allow Rittenhouse to possess it, then that is a different scenario from what is being reported.

Again, the exact nature of the various transactions will get figured out in court - and it looks like the prosecutor is avoiding this whole issue - and then we'll know "for sure." But, the facts as portrayed support a description of it as a straw purchase.

 

[chipbennett]

No, constructive possession doesn't enter into it. At least not from what I can tell.

Pardon me, while I quote you again.


First party = Black, purchaser
Second party = gun seller
Third party = Rittenhouse, owner and ultimate possessor

Fact not in evidence. For purposes of establishing a straw purchase, the owner and ultimate possessor was Black, not Rittenhouse.

Again, according to reporting on the complaint, the first party used the third party's money to purchase the gun from the second party. Then, first party transferred possession to the third party for the party in Kenosha.

Per the article, the gun was purchased May 1st, 2020. The incident happened, I believe, August 27th. Per the article, the two agreed that the gun, upon purchase, would be kept at Black's stepfather's house, since Rittenhouse couldn't yet legally own it.

The transfer in question happened four months after the purchase. It is clear, from the facts at hand, that the purchase was not a straw purchase, and was not intended to result in transfer of possession/ownership of the gun at the time of purchase.

That's just using your own framework, which is itself imprecise.

[Boring property law paragraph.]

Ownership of a thing carries with it rights to do certain things with it. One of those rights is to possession. But, the right of possession is not a requirement. If I own an AR, I can let you possess it for a period of time or in a particular location.

Possession and ownership are not the same thing, and it is evident that Black and Rittenhouse did not conspire to confer ownership of the gun in question upon Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse merely temporarily possessed the firearm on the night in question - again, which occurred four months after the purchase of the firearm.

(And, said possession was 100% lawful under WI statutes.)

Based on reporting, Rittenhouse gave money to Black to purchase the gun for Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse owned it.

Uh... based on what, exactly? Rittenhouse gifted Black money to purchase a gun - a gun that was kept intentionally somewhere away from Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse could not own/possess it. On what basis did Rittenhouse own a gun that was purchased by Black and kept at Black's stepfather's house?

He agreed with Black that Black should possess it in WI. Rittenhouse may not have possessed it until he got to Kenosha, but he owned it. He gave money to buy it and it was bought on his behalf. If it were a car or an umbrella it wouldn't be a big deal. But since it was a gun, those kinds of transactions are problematic.

It is the "bought on his behalf" that you have yet to prove. All facts point to an intent not to transfer ownership/possession of the gun unlawfully to Rittenhouse.

If it turns out Black bought the AR for his own purposes, thus owning it, and decided upon Rittenhouse's arrival to allow Rittenhouse to possess it, then that is a different scenario from what is being reported.

IMHO, you are approaching this backwards. There is no evidence that Black purchased it for the purpose of transferring ownership to Rittenhouse. To establish a straw purchase, such evidence must be presented.

Again, the exact nature of the various transactions will get figured out in court - and it looks like the prosecutor is avoiding this whole issue - and then we'll know "for sure." But, the facts as portrayed support a description of it as a straw purchase.

The facts only establish a gift purchase, not a straw purchase. Their actions establish an intent to avoid unlawful ownership/possession.

 

[KLB]

No, constructive possession doesn't enter into it. At least not from what I can tell.

Pardon me, while I quote you again.


First party = Black, purchaser
Second party = gun seller
Third party = Rittenhouse, owner and ultimate possessor

Again, according to reporting on the complaint, the first party used the third party's money to purchase the gun from the second party. Then, first party transferred possession to the third party for the party in Kenosha.

That's just using your own framework, which is itself imprecise.

[Boring property law paragraph.]

Ownership of a thing carries with it rights to do certain things with it. One of those rights is to possession. But, the right of possession is not a requirement. If I own an AR, I can let you possess it for a period of time or in a particular location.

Based on reporting, Rittenhouse gave money to Black to purchase the gun for Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse owned it. He agreed with Black that Black should possess it in WI. Rittenhouse may not have possessed it until he got to Kenosha, but he owned it. He gave money to buy it and it was bought on his behalf. If it were a car or an umbrella it wouldn't be a big deal. But since it was a gun, those kinds of transactions are problematic.

If it turns out Black bought the AR for his own purposes, thus owning it, and decided upon Rittenhouse's arrival to allow Rittenhouse to possess it, then that is a different scenario from what is being reported.

Again, the exact nature of the various transactions will get figured out in court - and it looks like the prosecutor is avoiding this whole issue - and then we'll know "for sure." But, the facts as portrayed support a description of it as a straw purchase.

I wonder if WI even has a law that could be applied for a "straw" purchase. I am guessing not, since it looks like they are going after everything they can to get these guys.