The article starts out with an elephant sized clue:
Kyle Rittenhouse’s self-defense case was solid. That’s the problem.
It’s a problem the Rittenhouse had a sold defense? Aleem would have us believe in some bizarre world view where it would be better that Rittenhouse had killed two people and seriously injured a third without being legally justified? That’s crazy talk—unless the objective is to denigrate the use of a firearms for self defense.
If you read the article you can see that is his clear intent. And he doesn’t let little things like facts get in the way of his fevered rant:
For many the verdict is an outrage and a brazen miscarriage of justice. Rittenhouse is a Blue Lives Matter enthusiast who went to protests against a police shooting with a military-style rifle that he obtained illegally,
No. It was legal for him to possess the rifle. This was made clear in the trail and Aleem even mentions this later in his article:
…the judge dismissed the illegal possession of a firearm charge since under Wisconsin law 17-year-olds are allowed to possess long-barreled guns.
Apparently Aleem doesn’t realize reality is immutable. He can’t claim it was illegal and simultaneously admit it legal for Rittenhouse to posses it.
It’s apparently all about the narrative so facts and clear thinking are not the important part. Here’s the important part, in Aleem’s words:
While a gun ostensibly gives an advantage to the gun-wielder, it also heightens their fear of escalation, since losing the gun or misfiring it could result in their own harm. In other words, openly carrying a firearm introduces a perverse logic whereby it makes other people feel less safe and simultaneously increases the chance of violence against those people.
…
Rittenhouse’s behavior that fateful night is a powerful symbol of the danger of these movements, and the way they intensify social unrest: right-wing militias increase the likelihood of serious violence while purporting to try to put an end to it.
Given the direction of politics in this country, it seems inevitable that these kinds of armed groups will continue to cause chaos, and the Rittenhouse verdict may embolden them even more.
Ultimately I do believe that Rittenhouse behaved irresponsibly and endangered people recklessly, and that the tragic outcome of his behavior merits some kind of punishment. I can’t say exactly what I think that punishment should look like
It seems obvious Aleem believes, “There ought to be a law! I don’t know what that law might be but we can’t let people with his politics defending themselves with a gun.” This reminds me of something pulled from Robert F Williams book “Negros With Guns”:
When the blacks armed themselves, and without firing a shot, defended themselves an old white man in the crowd that was previously chanting, “Kill the niggers!” started screaming and crying like a baby (page 10). He then said, “God damn, God damn, what is this God damn country coming to that the niggers have got guns, the niggers are armed and the police can’t even arrest them!”
Prejudice is an ugly thing.
“…increase the likelihood of serious violence…”
What he really means is that the likelihood of violence not being one-sided (coming from his side) is increased.
“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy”
– Col Jeff Cooper
In a similar vein.
1943
Warsaw, Poland
The Jewish ghetto
Nazis troops under orders to exterminate everyone
Their first words noted for posterity after coming under fire:
JUDEN HABEN WAFFEN!
JUDEN HABEN WAFFEN!
Indeed. And it’s the same mindset and movement today as it was then.
My thought exactly. Zeeshan Aleem and others of his despicable thoughts is appalled that the people he hates have weapons to defend themselves from his murderous desires.
Everyone wants the “cycle of violence” to end, and we all want it to end in the correct place. These totalitarians want it to end with the least harm to themselves and the most death and destruction to those who want to preserve liberty.
… right-wing militias increase the likelihood of serious violence while purporting to try to put an end to it.
Let me just insert a big, fat, Wikipedia-style “[citation needed]” right there.
Because it seems to me, the most violent protests are the ones where the Left is out in force and the so-called “right-wing militias” stay home.
He does have a point with how the rifle was obtained. It was legal for KR to POSSESS the rifle, as the trial proved. The issue here is that he gave money to Black so that Black could purchase the rifle with the express understanding that KR would receive the rifle on his 18th birthday. That makes this a straw purchase.
The fact that KR took possession of the rifle before his 18th birthday (even though possession was legal) completed the straw purchase. KR paid for the rifle, Black bought the rifle, then KR took possession of it. .Does it make sense? No, gun laws seldom do.
IANAL, but as far as I can tell, Kyle did not illegally obtain the firearm.
It is illegal for a prohibited person to possess, obtain, or attempt to obtain a firearm, but Kyle wasn’t a prohibited person, just a minor. It wasn’t illegal for Kyle to possess a long gun either under state or federal law.
It would be illegal for an FFL to sell Kyle a rifle, but not illegal for Kyle to buy it. If he’d bought it from a private individual, it would have been completely legal all around. The law says an unlicensed person can’t sell to someone they know or reasonably should have known is a prohibited person, it says nothing about minors.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the law that makes it illegal for a person who is not prohibited from possessing the firearm to get someone else to buy it for them. It’s only illegal for the person who actually commits the straw purchase.
So, in this case, the only person who broke the law was Black for the straw purchase, and Kyle obtained the firearm legally.
This is borne out by the fact that he was never charged with anything related to the purchase of the gun. If he were guilty of a crime in that respect do you think the AG would have passed up charging him for it? They didn’t charge him for it because he committed no crime in that respect.
By the way…the only reason they were able to charge Black is because he admitted to the straw purchase from the beginning. My guess is he didn’t know it was illegal for him to do that since Kyle wasn’t prohibited from possessing the gun, only buying it from a dealer. If Black had bought the gun with his own money, and then sold it to Kyle the next day, it would have been legal.
As I said at the very top, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m happy to hear counterarguments that cite the laws proving me wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m59YNxXNgs0
This guy is a lawyer and that video goes a long way to clarify the legal minefield.
It also underscores for me that far too much of our legal system has little to do with things which are wrong or immoral.
Good stuff, thanks…
I see why I missed the part about it being a crime to get someone else to commit a federal crime, it’s a general law, not specifically related to firearms, so it’s in a completely different section of Title 18.
With that said, even the lawyer in the video wasn’t very confident that the person who asked the straw buyer to purchase the gun is guilty.
The example that best fits the Rittenhouse situation begins at 3:22 in the video. At 4:21, the conclusion is that the person asking the straw buyer to make the purchase “possibly” is guilty of…
Again, I believe if the DA thought they could make a charge like that against Rittenhouse, they would have brought it. They didn’t. Combined with the lawyer in your video being…um…less than certain…about the illegal act here, I’m still not convinced that Rittenhouse broke the law.
Maybe there’s some caselaw on the subject? I don’t know, I don’t have the time for that kind of research.
Wasn’t a straw purchase. Rittenhouse never maintained possession in his own residence.
On his 18th. birthday they could go down and transfer the weapon to Kyle.
The whole straw purchase is a meme to begin with. Since form 4473 was invented one could purchase a firearm, walk outside and hand it to someone walking down the street. Legally. It says so right in the instructions part of the form.
Only recent state laws have changed the gift clause.
Just as a great uncle can take a 10 year olds savings and purchase him a Glock 19.
And let him keep it under his pillow if he wants.
It’s a complete shit-show to prove. Because possession has to be more than just holding a weapon. Regardless of some states going gestapo about it.
Note the only prosecution of a straw purchase was a police officer buying a Glock for his uncle on a discount program, with a check wrote out from the uncle that noted it was for the purchase of the gun.
That’s the case I’m thinking of. The concept of a straw purchase was stretched as far as the Mann Act was stretched to bust the boxer Jack Johnson for taking a woman he wasn’t married to across state lines for a vacation at Niagara Falls, which was a long way from the “immoral purposes” contemplated in the Mann Act which was also termed “The White Slavery Act. ”
As a lawyer, it was my understanding that a “Straw Purchase” had to be for someone who could not buy the weapon himself — not someone who could not buy the weapon himself AT THAT PRICE.
But then, I am not a corrupt politician or a judge, which is nothing but a politically connected lawyer.
https://zeeshanaleem.com/about/
All the commie boxes checked.
It’s certainly good to hear the commies go all whiny about it. Watching the mental/verbal gymnastics are incredible!
Clown World mania at it’s best!
If only such worldwide attention, and such scrutiny of detail and legal nuance were being directed toward the powerful conspirators, organizers and planners of these riots, and the politicians, their fraternities and the media companies, et al, who lend them aid and comfort.
The only way to turn this around would be mass arrests and mass convictions of those enemies entrenched within America, and overseas. So long as we’re focused elsewhere, there’s nothing being done. Public opinion can be, and has been, turned very much against them, but without identifying them, ratting them out and putting them on public trial, so long as we leave them in their positions, free to regroup, rebrand, plan, organize and execute their programs, the problem will never go away.
But there’s not a single one of you who wants to go down that rabbit hole, is there, for fear of where it leads? And so the problem continues, and will continue, virtually unabated.
We would love to go all judge, jury, and ex. on the super-rich.
Just me, but somehow I’m thinking citizens arrest isn’t going to work here?
We always got a choice.
But no one is going to change what’s going to happen in this country. It’s gone to far, for to long. The best that can be done is to hunker down and ride the storm.
This crap always ends badly. But it does end. And this world will need good people such as yourself to rebuild. You need to make it till that day, with as many good people around you as you can get.
And being a provider and leader through the culture shock of our civilization’s destruction will be best one can aspire to be at this point in time, in my estimation.
Vanity has the Soro’s of the world well in hand. Their destruction will not be escaped.
The avalanche has started. It’s too late for the snowflakes to vote.
To leftists facts….like reality….are nebulous ever changing things that can be twisted, morphed and mutated as needed to support whatever their agenda du jour is.