And yet it wasn’t illegal. If it was he would have been found guilty. I said nothing of the intelligence of his plans, just what I remember of the facts. I remember he wasn’t doing anything wrong, but was targeted by some shitstains who chased after an armed guy. That was ultimately the stupidest decision on the day. One of the shitstains was a felon with a gun, and the dead one was a sex offender. If I got some of the details wrong it’s because I don’t care enough to look it up because it’s a decided case.
Who brings an AR-15 and wears a plate carrier to clean up a dangerous area, but fails to bring any sort of cleaning equipment or relevant PPE?
When I go cleaning outside, I bring nitrile gloves, a garbage picker stick/grabber, and garbage bags. Why on earth would you believe this rube went their with the intention of cleaning? Use your brain FFS.
Do you not remember the very iconic picture of him in his blue gloves? At the very least he did have something. Usually when somebody is running from attackers they don’t pick up the bucket of supplies they were using before running away.
You recall very incorrectly and should probably look up what really happened before you so confidently make incorrect statements. Ask yourself why he had zero cleaning equipment and instead only brought a loaded rifle.
17 year old in possession of a firearm. Misdemeanor. There. One simple charge and you are wrong. You clearly aren’t interested in truth, just your opinion on it. Have a good one.
17 year olds are typically only restricted from handguns. Go ahead and point to the law that says he wasn’t allowed to possess a long gun at that time. Maybe you should have been on the prosecution if you’re so good.
Okay, can you show me pictures and video of Rittenhouse with cleaning supplies? How am I supposed to provide the absence of evidence? Like what kind of Bush-era bullshit are you on? The guy’s whole trial had no mention of cleaning supplies.
He claimed he was hired to guard someone’s dealership, and when the guy denied ever hiring him he tried to say “Actually it was my dad’s dealership!” then when he was called on that lie he stopped bringing it up.
The other gun would disagree with the validity of that.
Why did he cross state lines with a weapon after threatening violence?
Because it’s not against the law and had shit that he was doing there. You act like state borders are like national borders.
And what “shit” was he doing there?
Cleaning graffiti if I recall correctly. Cleaning up in general in a dangerous area subject to some riots.
It’s astonishing to me that you are simultaneously capable of forming full sentences and not seeing how useless and dumb that sentence sounds.
And yet it wasn’t illegal. If it was he would have been found guilty. I said nothing of the intelligence of his plans, just what I remember of the facts. I remember he wasn’t doing anything wrong, but was targeted by some shitstains who chased after an armed guy. That was ultimately the stupidest decision on the day. One of the shitstains was a felon with a gun, and the dead one was a sex offender. If I got some of the details wrong it’s because I don’t care enough to look it up because it’s a decided case.
Sounds a lot like FAFO to me.
Who brings an AR-15 and wears a plate carrier to clean up a dangerous area, but fails to bring any sort of cleaning equipment or relevant PPE?
When I go cleaning outside, I bring nitrile gloves, a garbage picker stick/grabber, and garbage bags. Why on earth would you believe this rube went their with the intention of cleaning? Use your brain FFS.
Do you not remember the very iconic picture of him in his blue gloves? At the very least he did have something. Usually when somebody is running from attackers they don’t pick up the bucket of supplies they were using before running away.
You recall very incorrectly and should probably look up what really happened before you so confidently make incorrect statements. Ask yourself why he had zero cleaning equipment and instead only brought a loaded rifle.
Alright. Go ahead. Bring your evidence, because I saw the pictures and video.
17 year old in possession of a firearm. Misdemeanor. There. One simple charge and you are wrong. You clearly aren’t interested in truth, just your opinion on it. Have a good one.
17 year olds are typically only restricted from handguns. Go ahead and point to the law that says he wasn’t allowed to possess a long gun at that time. Maybe you should have been on the prosecution if you’re so good.
Okay, can you show me pictures and video of Rittenhouse with cleaning supplies? How am I supposed to provide the absence of evidence? Like what kind of Bush-era bullshit are you on? The guy’s whole trial had no mention of cleaning supplies.
He claimed he was hired to guard someone’s dealership, and when the guy denied ever hiring him he tried to say “Actually it was my dad’s dealership!” then when he was called on that lie he stopped bringing it up.