Alex Pretti was ‘known’ to feds, and had rib broken in anti-ICE protest a week before he was killed by Border Patrol

[postman]

Wrong
He was not law abiding.
It is illegal to interfere with law enforcement in the act of duties.
It is illegal to refuse an order to leave
It is illegal to vandalize any vehicle, let alone a federal government one.
It is illegal to engage in harassment and terrorizing any group of people - law enforcement or not.

Let me remind you. ICE agents are NOT law enforcement.
They're immigration enforcement.

And Google AI says:

ICE agents generally cannot give lawful orders to U.S. citizens, as their authority is restricted to enforcing federal immigration law against non-citizens.

 

[postman]

I'm going to challenge this .. why do you feel it was illegal for Rittenhouse to carry a firearm at age 17? Wisconsin law has exceptions for carrying firearms for minors -- Wisconsin Statute 948.60(3)(c) contradicts your narrative.

The gun itself was illegally purchased

No, it is not legal to own a firearm acquired through a straw purchase in the United States. A straw purchase is a federal crime, regardless of whether the ultimate recipient is legally allowed to own a gun. The transaction involves lying on federal forms (ATF Form 4473) about the true buyer.

Consequences of Ownership: A firearm obtained via a straw purchase is considered contraband, and possessing it can lead to further criminal charges, along with becoming a convicted felon.

Any person involved in the purchase, both the buyer and the recipient, may face prosecution

 

[jotathought]

The gun itself was illegally purchased

No, it is not legal to own a firearm acquired through a straw purchase in the United States. A straw purchase is a federal crime, regardless of whether the ultimate recipient is legally allowed to own a gun. The transaction involves lying on federal forms (ATF Form 4473) about the true buyer.

Consequences of Ownership: A firearm obtained via a straw purchase is considered contraband, and possessing it can lead to further criminal charges, along with becoming a convicted felon.

Any person involved in the purchase, both the buyer and the recipient, may face prosecution

The purchaser was charged and convicted with the straw purchase (later dropped). What does this have to do with Rittenhouse, when straw purchase liability is typically imposed on the buyer? Rittenhouse did not commit a straw purchase, as the case confirmed.

It's like saying someone purchased the rifle that Lee Harvey Oswald used, so they must be guilty of assassination.

 

[postman]

The purchaser was charged and convicted with the straw purchase (later dropped). What does this have to do with Rittenhouse, when straw purchase liability is typically imposed on the buyer? Rittenhouse did not commit a straw purchase, as the case confirmed.

Rittenhouse as the recipient of the straw purchase, received and carried an ILLEGAL FIREARM.

it is not legal to own a firearm acquired through a straw purchase in the United States.

 

[jotathought]

Rittenhouse as the recipient of the straw purchase, received and carried an ILLEGAL FIREARM.

it is not legal to own a firearm acquired through a straw purchase in the United States.

False .. there was no transfer of ownership, it was stored at the purchaser's step father's house, Rittenhouse didn't pay at the time of ownership, and the plan was to transfer after Rittenhouse turned 18. The reason the charge was dropped.

In reality, Rittenhouse was carrying his buddies rifle.

 

[gipper]

You will do well to think logically, rather than emotionally like a child.
Everything I said is true, and has been true for well over 100 years in this country. Not one of those laws are remotely recent.

No. You think the state has the right to do whatever it wants. This is authoritarian thinking. No American should support it.

 

[jotathought]

Rittenhouse as the recipient of the straw purchase, received and carried an ILLEGAL FIREARM.

it is not legal to own a firearm acquired through a straw purchase in the United States.

That’s just not correct with the reasons stated above .. no funds or transfer to Rittenhouse .. the definition of a straw purchase

 

[postman]

False .. there was no transfer of ownership, it was stored at the purchaser's step father's house, Rittenhouse didn't pay at the time of ownership, and the plan was to transfer after Rittenhouse turned 18. The reason the charge was dropped.

In reality, Rittenhouse was carrying his buddies rifle.

When his buddy lied on the 4473, all purchases under that 4473 were ILLEGAL
So the gun, no matter who has possession of it, was an ILLEGAL[.b] firearm.

Weapons purchased on a falsified ATF Form 4473 are subject to federal seizure, often becoming evidence in criminal prosecutions for "straw purchases" or making false statements. The purchaser faces up to 10–15 years in federal prison, $250,000 in fines, and permanent loss of firearm rights, even if the gun was not used in a crime.

 

[jotathought]

When his buddy lied on the 4473, all purchases under that 4473 were ILLEGAL
So the gun, no matter who has possession of it, was an ILLEGAL[.b] firearm.

Weapons purchased on a falsified ATF Form 4473 are subject to federal seizure, often becoming evidence in criminal prosecutions for "straw purchases" or making false statements. The purchaser faces up to 10–15 years in federal prison, $250,000 in fines, and permanent loss of firearm rights, even if the gun was not used in a crime.

So tell me genius .. what was the outcome? How were black and Rittenhouse charged?

 

[postman]

So tell me genius .. what was the outcome? How were black and Rittenhouse charged?

Black cut a deal to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
But Rittenhouse was not charged.
The gun was confiscated, and eventually destroyed.

 

[Rawley]

Revenge is viable explanation of intent. He was involved ina violent altercation a week prior. So we ask why was he there with a gun in the first place and insert himself into a situation he had no business being in?
HIs judgement was so poor I have to believe he was acting emotionally. When this happens rational thought is shut down and the brain is running on emotion. That explains his poor judgement
It was still wrong to shoot him as he was never an immanent threat.

Dude with a gun, initiating a physical altercation with law enforcement, is an imminent threat.

 

[jotathought]

Black cut a deal to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
But Rittenhouse was not charged.
The gun was confiscated, and eventually destroyed.

The charges of a straw purchase were dismissed. No felony conviction.. no trafficking. The firearm was destroyed not as a legal declaration that the gun was contraband, but as a routine evidentiary disposition.

So .. what else ya got?

 

[Rawley]

Let me remind you. ICE agents are NOT law enforcement.
They're immigration enforcement.

And Google AI says:

ICE agents generally cannot give lawful orders to U.S. citizens, as their authority is restricted to enforcing federal immigration law against non-citizens.

1,000% Ratty. Kudos

 

[postman]

The charges of a straw purchase were dismissed. No felony conviction.. no trafficking. The firearm was destroyed not as a legal declaration that the gun was contraband, but as a routine evidentiary disposition.

So .. what else ya got?

The straw purchase charge wasn't dismissed, it was plea bargained down.

Dominick Black, who purchased the rifle for Kyle Rittenhouse, avoided prison by pleading no contest in January 2022 to a reduced, non-criminal charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. As part of the plea deal, Black paid a $2,000 fine, and two felony charges of delivering a dangerous weapon to a minor were dismissed.

 

[jotathought]

The straw purchase charge wasn't dismissed, it was plea bargained down.

Dominick Black, who purchased the rifle for Kyle Rittenhouse, avoided prison by pleading no contest in January 2022 to a reduced, non-criminal charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. As part of the plea deal, Black paid a $2,000 fine, and two felony charges of delivering a dangerous weapon to a minor were dismissed.

The felony straw-purchase–related charges against Dominick Black were dismissed as part of a plea agreement, and he ultimately pled no contest to a non-criminal ordinance violation and paid a fine. There was no felony conviction, no trafficking conviction, and no judicial finding that the firearm was illegally purchased or contraband.

Kyle Rittenhouse was never charged with a straw purchase offense, and no court ruled that his possession of the rifle was illegal on that basis. Calling it an “illegal firearm” goes beyond what the actual legal outcome supports.

 

[postman]

The charges of a straw purchase were dismissed. No felony conviction.. no trafficking. The firearm was destroyed not as a legal declaration that the gun was contraband, but as a routine evidentiary disposition.

So .. what else ya got?

Because Black wasn't convicted of a crime, the gun should have gone to him. But since he lied on the 4473, he was barred from getting the gun.,
Rittenhouse through his lawyer claimed ownership of the gun, and filed for its return.
But technically Rittenhouse couldn't claim ownership, without affirming the straw purchase, requiring confiscation of the gun.
The police could have sold it at auction, but Rittenhouse agreed to have it destroyed rather than sold as an infamous gun at auction.

 

[jotathought]

Because Black wasn't convicted of a crime, the gun should have gone to him. But since he lied on the 4473, he was barred from getting the gun.,
Rittenhouse through his lawyer claimed ownership of the gun, and filed for its return.
But technically Rittenhouse couldn't claim ownership, without affirming the straw purchase, requiring confiscation of the gun.
The police could have sold it at auction, but Rittenhouse agreed to have it destroyed rather than sold as an infamous gun at auction.

So much of this is nuanced information.
There was no conviction requiring forfeiture, but courts are not obligated to return seized firearms. No court found a 4473 violation or ruled the gun illegal. Ultimately, the parties agreed the rifle would be destroyed rather than auctioned, and the court approved that disposition.

 

[BackAgain]

we saw the video.

And as always, you either didn’t understand what you saw or you’re just not very honest about it.

 

[pknopp]

And as always, you either didn’t understand what you saw or you’re just not very honest about it.

Shot 9 times in the back by cowards.

 

[BackAgain]

Shot 9 times in the back by cowards.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. And you have even less of a basis for calling the agents “cowards.”

You have a partisan bias through which you filter everything. And therefore you jump to irrational conclusions. You’re truly an asshole.