17-year-old arrested in killing of 2 people in Kenosha

Matt_SERE said:
Legal Insurrection group has followed this case closely. Here was their take over the NBC settlement. Most is speculation, of course.

legalinsurrection.com

NBC Settles Nick Sandmann Lawsuit

Sandmann: 'At this time I would like to release that NBC and I have reached a settlement. The terms are confidential.'
legalinsurrection.com legalinsurrection.com

I doubt the rumors, not that you heard them. There are laws and percentages that even the worst ambulance chasing lawyer has to abide by when a client wins.
Click to expand...
That LI link doesn't appear to say anything of substance?

I'm not saying that the lawyers took 99%, I'm saying NBC offered to settled at an amount somewhere south of 1% of the original $275MM claim.
 
I dont know. Nick has nothing to lose going to trial. He has a strong case. The facts are black and white. I also believe that harm would be easy to show. If he got one threat of physical harm or death then there is likely a strong case for harm. Which seems highly likely given todays culture. NBC or other outlets have a lot to lose. There is an automatic minimum price to settle and that is the cost to defend themselves plus the "keep everything silent fee". I do not know how courts work, but I would think any compensation after a trial would include "plus legal fees"
I am sure behind closed doors there is some chess being played.
 
FPrice said:
Quite possibly the prosecutors trying to save face by getting SOMETHING on someone's record?

I would like to know how that "non-criminal citation" would affect him in the future. Especially his right to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

I think it’s basically a fine like speeding with no criminal relevance. I don’t think legally it’s a conviction so it shouldn’t have any effects on his life going forward.


@nstassel Thoughts?



I believe he’s 100% not guilty but this is a way to eliminate the risk of a conviction (juries can do stupid things and not follow the law and getting a conviction reversed on appeal may take a year during which you may be in jail serving the conviction). And also, lawyers are expensive. Often people will agree to something to resolve it and end the expensive legal costs and getting dragged to court once a month for a pre trial conference
 
SteelShooter said:
Even that makes no sense, there was no deliquency according to the court.
Click to expand...

It's probably like the McCloskeys case. The charges were bogus to begin with but are bargained down to something minor because the big bad charges would never work. After watching the Rittenhouse trial I knew that Blacks charges would get thrown out of court. Besides who wants to listen to 5 more days of Assistant DA Binger pontificating about nothing?
 
Thank you.

Heard Rekieta law just a moment ago discussing it a bit. The fine is reportedly $2,000. Ouch! But no conviction risk and legal costs at trial would definitely be infinitely higher
 
Last edited:
AHM said:
Pray tell, what is my "position"?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I just now got back to this thread to read the week's additions. I think you're saying that proposing gun control as a solution to anything happening in NYC is a very bad sign that NYC's new leadership intends to solve none of the city's problems, and it will continue to devolve into a bigger sh*thole than it already is. Whatever is wrong with the NYPD will not be fixed by these leftists. Best to resist digressing into a referendum on whether the NYPD is morally worthy of continued existence. Something had better be there to maintain a minimum of law and order. They seem hell-bent on reliving the circumstances that made "Death Wish" (set in NYC) and "Dirty Harry" (set in SF) resonate with the public.
 
This is how the system works. It does not matter if you are innocent. It does not matter if they KNOW you are innocent. If you do something they don't like, or they simply don't like you for any reason, they will punish you in any way they can. And the easiest way is to levy bogus and severe charges against you, and then offer you a "deal". The implication is usually enough, and for good reason.

If they are willing to charge you with knowingly false charges, they are willing to do worse to convict you of them. This is the reality of things. If you take things to trial, it doesn't matter what you have or haven't done, how innocent you are, how much evidence you have of your innocence, there is always the possibility of a conviction.

The system is corrupt and as much of an injustice as taking a plea is, being convicted of something more severe that you didn't do, is an even bigger injustice. And this is why plea deals are so plentiful.
 
Bonesinium said:
This is how the system works. It does not matter if you are innocent. It does not matter if they KNOW you are innocent. If you do something they don't like, or they simply don't like you for any reason, they will punish you in any way they can. And the easiest way is to levy bogus and severe charges against you, and then offer you a "deal". The implication is usually enough, and for good reason.

If they are willing to charge you with knowingly false charges, they are willing to do worse to convict you of them. This is the reality of things. If you take things to trial, it doesn't matter what you have or haven't done, how innocent you are, how much evidence you have of your innocence, there is always the possibility of a conviction.

The system is corrupt and as much of an injustice as taking a plea is, being convicted of something more severe that you didn't do, is an even bigger injustice. And this is why plea deals are so plentiful.
Click to expand...

Amen to this!
 
Rockrivr1 said:
That’s a tough choice. I’m not sure I’d agree to any charges, minor or not, if I thought i was innocent. Then again I guess it would matter on how broke I was.
Click to expand...

It’s basically a ticket. Going to trial will cost $10s of thousands and get a bad jury who convicts you and you are going to jail. Even if it gets reversed on appeal, you may be in jail for a few years for that and only a very small number of cases are reversed on appeal. You take that deal every time. It’s not worth risking your freedom. Innocent people can and do get convicted.
 
meh said:
Sorry, I just now got back to this thread to read the week's additions. I think you're saying that proposing gun control as a solution to anything happening in NYC is a very bad sign that NYC's new leadership intends to solve none of the city's problems, and it will continue to devolve into a bigger sh*thole than it already is. Whatever is wrong with the NYPD will not be fixed by these leftists. Best to resist digressing into a referendum on whether the NYPD is morally worthy of continued existence. Something had better be there to maintain a minimum of law and order. They seem hell-bent on reliving the circumstances that made "Death Wish" (set in NYC) and "Dirty Harry" (set in SF) resonate with the public.
Click to expand...
Thanks much; your summary of my points matches my recollection of them,
and I have no disagreement with your subsequent assessment.
 
KBCraig said:
This was a state charge.

This arrangement does nothing to protect him if the feds go after him for the straw purchase (which it was).
Click to expand...

Dominic bought the gun with kyles money but he never gave the gun to Kyle, it was always kept at his fathers house. I don’t see a good case for a straw purchase because the possession never transferred to Kyle.
 
Hoover said:
Dominic bought the gun with kyles money but he never gave the gun to Kyle, it was always kept at his fathers house. I don’t see a good case for a straw purchase because the possession never transferred to Kyle.
Click to expand...
IANAL, but this is my understanding. A straw purchase is criminalized via making a false answer to item 21a on the 4473 form. The guidance provided by the ATF on the subject is guidance. In court they will ultimately have to prove that the person answering the question on the 4473 is not the "actual" transferee/buyer of the firearm. Despite Kyle and Dominic's intentions and motivations in setting up the deal, it will be a tough row to hoe given that the person who filled out the 4473 actually retained possession.
 
Hoover said:
Dominic bought the gun with kyles money but he never gave the gun to Kyle, it was always kept at his fathers house. I don’t see a good case for a straw purchase because the possession never transferred to Kyle.
Click to expand...
They testified that he bought the gun with Kyle's money, for Kyle, and would keep it for Kyle until Kyle turned 18.

By definition, that is a straw purchase. He had to have answered falsely on the 4473 ("Are you the actual purchaser of this firearm?")

I hope it never happens, but the feds have a slam-dunk case if they want to pursue "false statement in conjunction with the transfer of a firearm".

As for the transfer, it happened when Kyle took possession, and took it downtown. It's not Mass; "transfer" doesn't have to involve registration and paperwork.
 
KBCraig said:
As for the transfer, it happened when Kyle took possession, and took it downtown.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand the timeline. The deal was that Dominick would purchase the gun with Kyle's money and then transfer it to him when Kyle turned 18. The purchase occurred on May 1, 2020. The events occurred in late August, nearly 4 months later, and Kyle would not turn 18 until January 3, 2021. That alone is monkey wrench in the case if you're trying to argue that Kyle's possession of it on that night in August implied that he had assumed ownership. Kyle characterized the money as a "gift" with the expectation that he would be "gifted" the rifle when he turned 18. In the lengthy interim (8 months), Dominick would only day-lend the rifle to Rittenhouse for his use while he was in Wisconsin. That was their practice, and I think it must have occurred that very night as well because the gun never made it to Illinois with Kyle. Perhaps rather than a gift, he could also have characterized the money as a loan that was to be paid back with a rifle when he turned 18. At any rate, Dominick was the legal and actual owner and transferee of the gun, and he acted like it, however he might have thought about it. I see where you're coming from, of course. This is all sort of wink, wink, nod, nod, but the fact that Dominick merely day-lent the rifle to Kyle when he was in Wisconsin at least makes it an interesting rather than "slam-dunk" case.
 
KBCraig said:
They testified that he bought the gun with Kyle's money, for Kyle, and would keep it for Kyle until Kyle turned 18.

By definition, that is a straw purchase. He had to have answered falsely on the 4473 ("Are you the actual purchaser of this firearm?")

I hope it never happens, but the feds have a slam-dunk case if they want to pursue "false statement in conjunction with the transfer of a firearm".

As for the transfer, it happened when Kyle took possession, and took it downtown. It's not Mass; "transfer" doesn't have to involve registration and paperwork.
Click to expand...

It’s absolutely not a slam dunk. Kyle paid and Dominic purchased it with the thought it would go to Kyle when he turned 18. Possession was never transferred though so that’s a big problem for a prosecution for straw buying.

The testimony at the trial by Dominic was the gun was to be stored at his fathers house in Kenosha, in his gun safe which Kyle did not have access to. When the riots were going on in Kenosha, Dominic’s father had that gun and others out for easier access. Dominic testified that Kyle went to the basement and retrieved that rifle without permission from Dominic or his father. Dominic didn’t stop his but he didn’t offer it to him either. Even if he had offered it, it would have been for that night ie borrowing it, then returned to the safe. There was no transfer, only borrowing it.

The feds have a very high success rate when they bring charges, partly because of their resources but also because they usually bring cases with very clear facts. This is definitely not that case here, I think they’d lose at trial. Where possession was never transferred, Dominic could always say that even though that was the plan, he changed his mind.

I’m not aware of a prosecution for a straw buy where the intended recipient didn’t take possession.

Secondarily, Dominic has had a lawyer from early on and had a deal with binger to testify for the state. I’d be surprised if the lawyer didn’t get at least a verbal commitment from the feds not to prosecute. Also, while there are very unethical prosecutors like binger, I doubt many in the US attorneys office want to prosecute a 20 year old with zero criminal record and with such shaky evidence. Straw purchase prosecutions I’ve seen are targeted at gangs or gun traffickers who have long criminal records and were moving many guns to people they knew were criminals.
 
meh said:
I'm not sure you understand the timeline. The deal was that Dominick would purchase the gun with Kyle's money and then transfer it to him when Kyle turned 18. The purchase occurred on May 1, 2020. The events occurred in late August, nearly 4 months later, and Kyle would not turn 18 until January 3, 2021. That alone is monkey wrench in the case if you're trying to argue that Kyle's possession of it on that night in August implied that he had assumed ownership. Kyle characterized the money as a "gift" with the expectation that he would be "gifted" the rifle when he turned 18. In the lengthy interim (8 months), Dominick would only day-lend the rifle to Rittenhouse for his use while he was in Wisconsin. That was their practice, and I think it must have occurred that very night as well because the gun never made it to Illinois with Kyle. Perhaps rather than a gift, he could also have characterized the money as a loan that was to be paid back with a rifle when he turned 18. At any rate, Dominick was the legal and actual owner and transferee of the gun, and he acted like it, however he might have thought about it. I see where you're coming from, of course. This is all sort of wink, wink, nod, nod, but the fact that Dominick merely day-lent the rifle to Kyle when he was in Wisconsin at least makes it an interesting rather than "slam-dunk" case.
Click to expand...

After the gun was purchased, I’m not sure it was ever used prior to the riot night. It may have been shot while they were at the cabin the weekend it was purchased but other than that, it was at Dominic’s fathers house.

The only time it was ever in Illinois was the night of the shooting. Kyle couldn’t go to the Kenosha police station because it was barricaded due to the riots. So Kyle drove the 30 minutes to his apartment in Antioch IL and then went to the Antioch PD with the rifle.
 
meh said:
IANAL, but this is my understanding. A straw purchase is criminalized via making a false answer to item 21a on the 4473 form. The guidance provided by the ATF on the subject is guidance. In court they will ultimately have to prove that the person answering the question on the 4473 is not the "actual" transferee/buyer of the firearm. Despite Kyle and Dominic's intentions and motivations in setting up the deal, it will be a tough row to hoe given that the person who filled out the 4473 actually retained possession.
Click to expand...

I replied to KB already, my thoughts are similar to yours. And expanding on my other post. The feds use straw buying prosecutions more like the tax evasion changes against Al Capone for the most part. The feds know someone is selling many guns to people they know (or should know) are criminals, drug gangs, a violent ex who has restraining orders etc. the straw buy is a lot easier to convict than the other crimes the people are involved in. It’s a pretty simple set of facts for a straw purchase prosecution, they only need the person who signed the forms to say ‘I bought the gun for bob and signed the forms. He gave me the money and I gave him the gun’. Convictions for murder, drug dealing, etc are a lot more involved and will have a lot more evidence and testimony involved.

Look at the feds in DC political cases. 90% of the times the charges are lying to the FBI, not the subject of the actual investigation because the lying is so much simpler to understand and easier to prove in court.
 
Hoover said:
The only time it was ever in Illinois was the night of the shooting. Kyle couldn’t go to the Kenosha police station because it was barricaded due to the riots. So Kyle drove the 30 minutes to his apartment in Antioch IL and then went to the Antioch PD with the rifle.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction on this point. I was too lazy to check.
 
the discussion of a straw purchase here is possible federal charges. The charges Dominic Black in Wisconsin now are providing a dangerous weapon to a minor resulting in a death. The judge dismissed the minor in possession of a firearm against Rittenhouse at the conclusion of testimony in the trial because Wisconsin law allows a 17 year old to possess a rifle. If the judge dismissed the charge against Rittenhouse because it wasn’t a crime, these charges against Black should be dismissed. The Kenosha ADA has threatened to appeal if they are dismissed. (Probably BS because the charge dismissed against Rittenhouse could be appealed as well and we haven’t heard a thing about that happening )
 
meh said:
I'm not sure you understand the timeline. The deal was that Dominick would purchase the gun with Kyle's money and then transfer it to him when Kyle turned 18. The purchase occurred on May 1, 2020. The events occurred in late August, nearly 4 months later, and Kyle would not turn 18 until January 3, 2021. That alone is monkey wrench in the case if you're trying to argue that Kyle's possession of it on that night in August implied that he had assumed ownership. Kyle characterized the money as a "gift" with the expectation that he would be "gifted" the rifle when he turned 18. In the lengthy interim (8 months), Dominick would only day-lend the rifle to Rittenhouse for his use while he was in Wisconsin. That was their practice, and I think it must have occurred that very night as well because the gun never made it to Illinois with Kyle. Perhaps rather than a gift, he could also have characterized the money as a loan that was to be paid back with a rifle when he turned 18. At any rate, Dominick was the legal and actual owner and transferee of the gun, and he acted like it, however he might have thought about it. I see where you're coming from, of course. This is all sort of wink, wink, nod, nod, but the fact that Dominick merely day-lent the rifle to Kyle when he was in Wisconsin at least makes it an interesting rather than "slam-dunk" case.
Click to expand...
The timeline is not the point, and has nothing to do with whether it was a straw purchase.

Black bought the rifle on Kyle's behalf, using Kyle's money, with the intent that it be Kyle's rifle. That made Black not the "actual purchaser". He made a false statement on the 4473: it's a straw purchase.

In states without registration or UBC, "transfer" means handing it to the other person. There's no paperwork involved. Ah, but there's another issue: they were residents of different states. Black could not legally transfer to the rifle to Kyle without going through an Illinois FFL, and Kyle would have to obtain his FOID first and go through his own 4473/NICS.

It's not just wink-wink, nod-nod. They both testified to what I said: that it was purchased on behalf of Kyle and it was always intended as his rifle. That's the definition of a straw purchase, and the accompanying "false statement" on the 4473.

I have seen prosecutions for this where the intended recipient never received the firearm. I even recall a couple where the firearm never left the store. The moment the non-actual buyer signs that 4473 and submits it to the dealer, the crime has already been committed. If the dealer's spidey-senses tingle and he calls the feds in, the prosecution has a case.

I have an unfair advantage. I used to process paperwork on incoming felons, and I have easily seen several thousand cases of people being convicted for making false statements on a 4473. The majority were cases of saying no to any disqualifying conditions (thanks, Lautenberg!), but a significant number were straw purchases. And mind you, these are just the people who actually went to prison for it.
 
KBCraig said:
The timeline is not the point, and has nothing to do with whether it was a straw purchase.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to think of it as a straw purchase myself, in spirit, but you asserted that Black transferred the gun to Rittenhouse on that night, and the timeline undercuts that contention of yours. Now obviously Kyle had been coached on what to say, but this is what he actually testified to in court:

Binger: You had arranged to have Dominick Black purchase that weapon for you in Ladysmith, Wisconsin in early May of 2020. Is that correct?
Rittenhouse: Um, we were up north shooting, not shooting, going camping, and Dominick Black brought his rifle and we were talking. And I was like "Hey, what if we get a rifle for me. Um, I'll give you the money. You can purchase it. It's yours until I'm 18, so I bought the rifle for Dominic, and I can use it, but once I'm 18, um, we can uh do a private sale, and we can have it turned over to my name once I turned 18.
Binger: Because you knew as a 17 year-old, you could not have that gun. Correct?
Rittenhouse: I knew I could not buy that gun.
<Binger gets schooled>
Binger: It wasn't just unlawful for you to purchase it; it was unlawful for you to bring it home. Correct?
Rittenhouse: In Illinois I wasn't able to bring it home because I didn't have a FOID card, a Firearm Owner Identification card in Illinois.
<Some talking about FOID cards in Illinois>
Binger: So you knew that without that FOID card, the gun could not go back to your residence in Illinois, correct?
Rittenhouse: Correct.
Binger: And you agreed that the gun would be kept at Dominick Black's stepfather's house here in Kenosha, correct?
Rittenhouse: Uh, because he had a safe, yes.
Binger: And you agreed you wouldn't have access to that gun, correct?
Rittenhouse: Um, we agreed that the only time I would use the gun is when I was with him and we would go to like the Bristol shooting range or up north to his land.
Binger: But the only time prior to the night of August 25, 2020 that you ever used that gun was up in Ladysmith, correct?
Rittenhouse: Correct.

What kind of f*ked up straw purchase is this where the actual buyer can only use the gun when he is with the transferee? Note that on the night of August 25, Kyle was there with Black. They did get separated, but they were there together that day until then. I think this arrangement was stupid, especially since if the feds had managed to attempt a prosecution before the gun left the store, then they'd have an infinitely stronger case because Black would only be able to claim that he wasn't going to just hand it over to Kyle rather than keep it, and then the jury could decide whether they believed him (probably not). But they didn't. And in the interim we see Black acting as if he were the owner of the gun, retaining possession of it, and Kyle never having used it for months after the sale. This corroborates their story, and the question is not one of facts but of how the facts are characterized. Does funding the purchase of a gun that is kept by the transferee, only to be used in the presence of the transferee, with an agreement to transfer the gun legally to the funder at some distant future date imply that the transferee A) was not the actual buyer under this fact pattern and B) knew he was not the actual buyer? As soon as Black's state case is finished, we may see the feds swoop in and charge him, but that's the case they're going to have to make.
 

Similar threads

“We Hunted His Ass Down” – Illegal Alien Arrested for Rape of 9-Year-Old in Florida -Is Deportation Enough Or Should He Be Punished For Multiple Rapes
Replies
5
Views
53
rosco61
R
9-Year-Old Arrested In Baltimore For Armed Carjacking, Robbery Spree
Replies
12
Views
346
HeDidIt
H
3 Arrested After Shots Fired In Montgomery
Replies
5
Views
268
pcgod
P
DMV HORROR Three killed in DMV office shooting in Louisville as two women and man gunned down in broad daylight & suspect on loose
Replies
6
Views
173
AmeriKHAN
A
Tennessee serial killer who called self ‘Michael Meyers’ sentenced to over 250 years in jail for 5 murders
Replies
13
Views
106
MadatMarek
M
Back
Top Bottom