The Khindri brothers did not ultimately hire anybody. They had reportedly promised their employee Nick Smith a few dollars for guarding the car lots, but that money never materialized. It was Smith who had recruited Rittenhouse and Dominick Black to assist voluntarily on behalf of the owners.

PS - don't forget to block!

Rittenhouse was never accused of killing black people. The three individuals shot were white, one of them being a convicted child-rapist pedophile, so that ought to cheer you up.

None of that is actually correct. Is it too much to ask these days that people be honest and do some actual research before commenting on a subject?

Just to note, the three individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, for which he was found not guilty on the grounds of self-defense, were all white.

The law has never treated the precaution of being lawfully armed in anticipation of violence, by itself, as premeditation to an unlawful act. People regularly confuse those two principles, but the fact is that people in the US can lawfully arm themselves for that reason alone.

WI s.941.28 = "Possession of short-barreled rifles and shotguns"

WI s.29.304 = "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age"

WI s.29.593 = "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval"

He didn't need to be under WI s.948.60 3(c). The exception does not mention that as a requirement.

"can't have a gun" means prohibited from possession due to factors such as felony convictions, misdemeanor convictions or other things such as a history of mental illness etc. The criteria are typically laid out in each state's firearm possession statutes.

That exception is covered under WI s.948.60 3(a) which did not apply to him. Neither did 3(b) as he was not in the military. It was 3(c) which was ruled to apply. The three exceptions are separate and independent of each other. A person under 18 only has to meet the criteria of any one of them.

He also was not in possession of a firearm which was of a size that could be concealed. The prohibition is referring to pistols and handguns, not long guns like rifles or shotguns.

"Legally allowed to possess" means that they are not prohibited from possessing a firearm, typically because they have felony convictions. Rittenhouse was not legally prohibited from possession of a firearm either in Illinois or Wisconsin.

With respect, your AI overview does not trump the actual Wisconsin statute and exceptions. He was not permitted to possess a handgun, and he was not permitted to purchase or legally own any firearm. He was, however, able to possess a rifle or a shotgun in Wisconsin. Illinois laws are not relevant.

No problem. Thank you for being a reasonable poster.

Some more information for you. This is the prosecutor at Dominick Black's hearing explaining to the judge that the prior possession ruling and the not-guilty verdicts at Rittenhouse's trial which preceded Black's case made Black's felony charges "not appropriate".

YouTube video by PBS NewsHour WATCH: Rittenhouse trial judge throws out gun possession charge

Here is the video from the trial of the count being dismissed. www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4zz...

Possession of a dangerous weapon under 18 in Wisconsin | Grieve Law Milwaukee, Brookfield, Madison, WI Possessing a deadly weapon under the age of 18 is a violation of Wisconsin State Statute 948.60 resulting in a Class A misdemeanor (fines and prison time).

That flow chart comes from Grieve Law's website, who are a Wisconsin-based criminal attorney. www.grievelaw.com/Penalties/Wi...

2024 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations :: Chapter 948 - Crimes against children. :: 948.60 - Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. Justia Free Databases of U.S. Laws, Codes & Statutes

This is the link to the Wisconsin s.948.60 statute. The relevant exception is in subsection 3(c). law.justia.com/codes/wiscon...

Which links would you like?

Rittenhouse was charged under WI s.948.60 "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18". The charge was dismissed due to exception 3(c) of that statute. He was only required to be over the age of 16 and not in possession of a rifle which was short-barreled, as they are prohibited.

Just to be clear. Black already had a rifle. I was referring to the gun bought in May 2020, which was the rifle Rittenhouse carried in Kenosha. This image was taken during that camping trip to Ladysmith.

I know. The post outlines the circumstances surrounding the rifle purchase. It wasn’t sneaky. They tried to remain within the law, and actually did so.

With respect, why does it matter? He never took the rifle to Illinois nor ever possessed it there, as far as the evidence showed. He only ever possessed the gun in Wisconsin, where he was subject to Wisconsin law.

Black already had a rifle. During their camping trip to Ladysmith three months before the shootings, they agreed that Black would buy and legally own a rifle that Rittenhouse could have occasional use of until he was of age in January 2021, at which time ownership would be transferred to him.

Because the law in Wisconsin is that he could not buy or legally own a rifle himself until he was 18. He knew that he could possess a rifle or shotgun though as a 17 year old. They are separate matters, legally.

He could do that. It was not unlawful for Rittenhouse to possess a rifle, and it was not unlawful for Black to give one to him.

The judge dismissed Rittenhouse’s possession of the rifle due to an exception in the law which provides for 16 and 17 year olds in possession of a rifle or a shotgun. That, and the not guilty verdicts for the shooting deaths, are what led to Black’s felony charges effectively evaporating.

He didn’t drive there with a weapon. The gun was owned by Black, who lived in Kenosha, and kept the rifles at his house. The self-defense statute does not concern itself with location. Only whether the person who uses force reasonably believed that the force used was necessary.

How knowledgable are you on Wisconsin’s gun laws? Black was never charged with a firearm straw purchase under WI s.941.2905. He was charged that he did “intentionally give a dangerous weapon to a person under 18, causing death”. Those charges became voided due to the outcome of Rittenhouse’s trial.

I have trouble determining exactly what race those individuals are from that video, and there was nothing to suggest that he made his remark based on race.