Kyle Rittenhouse Won’t Get His Rifle Back, But Will Collect Some of His $2 Million Bail

1. The “get” in the title moved.

   Me not, Danny, you do.

   • Modern Ebonics.

     • RE: “While Rittenhouse’s legal ordeal is likely over, he’s still a much-hated individual to many. If he’s still an Illinois resident, hopefully he’s gotten his FOID card reinstated and purchased a new gun. Or three.”

       What I did not “get” and wanted was a mention of lawsuits in the works for all the slander and libel Kyle received from the much-hated media.

     • English grammar and mathematics beez raycists anz sheets.

2. It says he will get a share of the $2 million, then when it is mentioned how it will be divided up, Kyle is not mentioned as getting any of it, at least not directly.
   So which is it?

   • He’ll “get” any remaining funds after his attorneys get paid for the defense.

3. Don’t you guys speak English or proofread what you write?

   “Kyle Rittenhouse Won’t His Rifle Back”

   • Lol. And you wonder why you’re alone…

     • Hi, nameless, brainless troll!

       Do you practice to be this stupid, or is it a natural talent???

       You’re too stupid to insult. Go micturate up a cable.

   • will: verb (MAKE HAPPEN)
     If you will something to happen, you try to make it happen by the power of your thoughts

     won’t
     short form of will not

     ‘Kyle Rittenhouse Will[s] Not His Rifle Back’

     ‘Kyle Rittenhouse Won’t His Rifle Back’

     I would say, “His Rifle Back Kyle Rittenhouse Wills Not”

     • that’s how nana would say it. something up with which i will not put.

   • I’m not going to throw anyone under the bus.

     I don’t think I wrote that last night. But who knows. I was pretty tired.

4. I would buy a much better rifle for the next thugs..perhaps a Noveske or wilson..

   • I would buy a cheap PSA AR or build one using the cheapest Milspec parts that will still function. That way, if that gun is confiscated by the authorities, I’m not out of pocket for too much money. It’s the same concept as carrying a Taurus (or SCCY, Ruger, or other good quality budget priced pistols) for EDC. You can buy two of them for the price of one of a myriad of other makes.

     • Get both. I have a PSA AR that works great. I also have a Noveske with a Geissele trigger that feels oh so nice. I see no reason to part with either one.

   • The one he used seemed to work just fine. IMHO.

5. Richards’ law firm and the #Fightback Foundation, were formed by Kyles attorneys Lin Wood and John Pierce.

   An entity known as the Patent and Trademark Hedge Fund Trust had filed a motion laying claim to the $2 million bail, arguing that as Pierce’s creditors the fund was entitled to the money. Judge Schroeder denied the motion, ruling that the fund’s attorneys aren’t licensed to practice in Wisconsin and have no legal standing in the state, and called the fund’s investment in a criminal bond “bizarre.”

6. And why is Lin Wood (ridiculous loon) getting anything?

   • Since the total bail was not raised by Rittenhouse, but rather by Woods through the Fightback Foundation its not actually going to Woods but rather back to the foundation.

7. Whoever penned this jibber is hilarious and needs to limit their publications to the ghetto. Illiterate idiots. I do feel Schroeder needs an exemplary show of appreciation for stepping up the way he did. Great American indeed.

8. Proofread much? Not even going to read this trash.

9. I have never heard of the FightBack Foundation before. Their website claims their focus is on the good fight. https://fightback.law/

   Kudos to Schroder from standing up for the kid. The Peoples Rep of Wi going to reimburse the NOGUILTY Kyle for the value of the goods/equipment they siezed?

10. Kyle should get that entire $2 million. That was raised for his bail and then his lawyer at the time decided not to bail him out so he stayed in jail for months and asshole lawyer at the time thinks he should have that money. He should not get or have a penny.

    • Kyle could probably sue them for keeping him in jail, but I bet he just wants that part to be over. He should get his team to sue the media and the Puppet for smearing him as a white supremacist. The media, their viewers, and the Dems learned nothing form the Nick Sandmann incident, and they never had a reckoning for the Russia Hoax. I wish Kyle could take those lying losers for everything they have.

    • Shawn,

      Ethically, what you say makes sense, but the law says the bail money goes back to those who posted it. No exception for crowd-funded bail. Unfortunate. The fact that Kyle is getting some of it is a credit to the judge who found a way to make it happen.

11. Fight back is Lin Wood and John Pierce, their foundation will receive almost $1 million.

    Good work if you can get it.

    “Company Number
    0803724358
    Status
    In Existence
    Incorporation Date
    12 August 2020 (over 1 year ago)
    Company Type
    Domestic Nonprofit Corporation
    Jurisdiction
    Texas (US)
    Registered Address
    1999 BRYAN ST STE 900
    DALLAS
    75201-3140
    TX
    USA
    Alternative Names
    #FightBack Foundation, Inc. (trading name, 2020-08-12 – )
    Agent Name
    CT Corporation System
    Agent Address
    1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, TX, 75201, USA
    Directors / Officers
    CT Corporation System, agent
    John Pierce, director
    K. Lawson Pedigo, director
    L. Lin Wood, director“

    • Miner49er So what? They earned it.

12. “hopefully he’s gotten his FOID card reinstated”

    So he had an Illinois FOID at 17 years of age?

    Fascinating…

    • Illinois will issue a FOID to a minor with a parent or guardianship signature on the form. They still must meet the eligibility requirements, and so does the parent or guardian who sgns off.

    • It does not matter a single bit, Miner49er. You keep harpin on this “he straw bought the gun” and the Judge dismissed that charge.
      Not to mention, I have pointed out that Kyle did NOT violate Wisconsin law.

    • my kids were both younger when theirs were issued.

13. Can somebody lay out for me exactly why – after his not-guilty verdict – him getting HIS OWN stuff back even needed to be adjudicated?

    • The gun couldn’t legally be Rittenhouse’s property until he turned 18. Calling it “his” gun before his 18th birthday is a common loose way of meaning that he had possession of it. We speak of our minor children’s things as their stuff even though “their” stuff legally belongs to us, the parents.
      This is the up-front reason that no straw-man purchase occurred. The gun didn’t legally become Rittenhouse’s property. It remained the legal purchaser’s property.

14. I see they fixed the title for this article.

    🤣

15. 1- he previously said he wanted the rifle destroyed so it’s not like he ‘failed to get it back’
    2- I seem to remember the argument being made that it was not actually ‘his’ rifle since, if it was, it would have been straw-purchased. Rather, he was just ‘borrowing’ it while it was still under the ownership of someone else (who purchased it)

    • NO not at all. The term “straw urchse” has a very specific meaning. It is the purchase of a fiream for an individual who cannot LAWFULLY POSSESS the particular firearm. Kyle ciuld and did, lawfully POSSESS that rifle at the time and place in question, the subject of his trial. The jury decided he DID in fact and law “lawfully possess” that rifle on the night and in the location in questioin. This it was NOT a “straw purchase”.

      I can go buy a firearam for my neighbur with my money. I buy it for myself, with the intent to give it to Pete, I know Pete can lawfully possess the type of firearm I buy. This is not a straw purchase. If he was, and I knew or should have known, he is a convicted felon then he is a rohibited person and cannot lawfully possess that gun. THEN I am a straw purchaser. That type of purchase is a federal crime. That Wisconsin court had no jurisdiction to prosecute that one. They DID have the jurisdiction to try the possession charges, did so, and found he WAS lawfully in possession of that rifle at the time and place in question.

16. He got his phone back.
    Funny back in the old days they never yanked the land line off the wall and toted it down to the cop shop lab.

    • Land lines didn’t hold Information like cell phones

      • NIce shot

      • If you set up your smartphone correctly it won’t have any personally identifiable information in it.

17. The reason that Kyle was not able to get the rifle back is that Kyle is not the legal owner of the rifle because he did not purchase it because he was underage for purchase at the time the rifle was taken into evidence. Black is the legal owner of the rifle. Basically, if the item is not your legal property when it enters evidence it can not be returned to you.

    On 22 Jan 2022 it was reported (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/22/kyle-rittenhouse-gun-rifle-kenosha-shootings) that Sgt Leo Viola of the Kenosha police department gave this statement “Though the case involving Mr Rittenhouse has been concluded, the firearm is still being held in evidence as Mr Black’s property until the time his case is resolved,”

    So maybe its possible that Black could reclaim the rifle before its destroyed but somehow I do not think he will.

    • Good info, thanks

    • Did not realise that the point of signficance is the point in time when the item came into evidence or was seized. WHile id DID lawfully become Kyle’s property upon his turning 18 years of age, as per their verbal “contract” (binding) it was not yet Kyle’s at the time it was taken into custody. Thus it must be returned to Dominick as it was lawfully his, Kyle not having yet turned 18, at the time it came into custody.
      All that aside, it IS Kyle’s now, as the terms of the agreement were such tahat it wuld become Kyles on his 18th.
      Mr. Black could insist on having it returned to him, s that is the rule for disposal of evidence. I beiev his trial has concluded at this point, and he was acquitted of the insane charges they dreamt up agasint him. Same judge same despicably rotten prosecutor.

18. These progressive states are going to become the mess that Ann Rand predicted and wrote about in her books. Union Pacific had already stated it will be rerouting rail traffic away from a California to avoid these issues. The rich and self supporting who wish to live free are already fleeing to move to free states. All I have to do is look in my neighborhood and town in Fla. to see plates from New York, Michigan, Connecticut, Illinois and Yes, even California. I am afraid that these new immigrants are going to bring their liberal bull crap with them and end up destroying my state as they did frown whence they came!!

    • Rand lived through the Soviet revolution and saw this firsthand. She knew we’d get there someday.

      • So did Aleksandr Solzhenitzen. He also wrote about it but in an historical fashion Rand wrote in fictional fashion. I beleive anyone who cares about reality read both.

    • Be fearful. The Kalifornikators have already kalifornikate Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. They are attempting to kalifornikate Idaho and Montana, Texas and Florida. I don’t know how you stop them. After screwing up the state they originated in, they then flee to other states where they commence to do the same thing to their new state. One would hope they would learn but that is impossible for people who have had their brains washed with too much drug intake.

      When I moved to kallifornikation it was indeed the Golden State. We had the best road system in the world. Our universities and school system was ranked among the top systems in the country and our politics was mostly middle of the road.

      Then we voted to make the legislature full time. We should have seen what New York was then which at that time was the only state with a full time legislature. That was the biggest single mistake of the referendum system. The state started downhill from there and has continued to slide into socialism until it resembles any number of communist countries in the world.

      Word of advice: should your legislature want to go full time, resists it with all your might. Contribute as much as you can to the anti-campaign. It will be money well spent.

19. During the trail, Rittenhouse indicated the rifle was Dominic’s and it was loaned to him. Dominic copped a plea deal which made him guilty of a misdemeanor of loaning Rittenhouse the rifle. In theory, it wasn’t Rittenhouse’s rifle, it was Dominic’s. I would imagine Dominic’s deal included the surrender of the rifle to the police for destruction.

    If it was Rittenhouse’s rifle, paid for by Rittenhouse prior to the events in question and before he was 18 and could legally purchase it himself, it could be considered a Straw Purchase, which would be a felony for Dominic. Otherwise, Kyle would have had to have a bill of sale stating he was 18 and since it was a private purchase across state lines a transfer may have been necessary as he was under 21. Sometimes taking a loss isn’t a bad thing in the long run.

    • Black pled no contest to a noncriminal county ordinance violation of contributing to the delinquency of a minor for enticing Rittenhouse to break the curfew. He paid a fine.

      No misdemeanor conviction.

    • straw purchase is for someone who can not egally POSSESS the firearm in question. the court determined Kyle DID in fact legally POSSESS the rifle on the date and place in question. In states where those under 21 cannot PURCHASE handguns (which is all of them because that’s a stupid federal law) those between18 and 21 can still OWN and POSSESS them. It is only the pURChASE of them that is prohibited. This a Dad or a friend could purchase the handgun, and resell/give to the 19 year old man who cannot pURCHASE it from an FFL but cn legally own possess, use, etc (but not carry about upon his person legally in loaded condition, concealed, as state laws restrict that to 21+ years of age. In states wth Universal backgrund checks, the purchaser/donor-reseller musst be a “close family member” like Dad or Uncle or Grandpa or Big Brother. because most UBC states prohibit SALES to under 21. Gifts, with no BGC, are legal (but restriced to close family memebers, as above)

20. I wish Rittenhouse all the best and a quiet life. If he moved next door, I would shake his hand with a smile and offer him a cup of coffee or something. I would feel confident if we were fighting an enemy side by side.

    But I’m ready to move on.

21. Rittenhouse was innocent and justified in his acts of self defense from the first bunch of videos that were posted. All items held in evidence should have been returned without fees or delays the instant he was declared innocent. Unless the State had other charges they were prepared to pursue, a ruling of Not Guilty means all his possessions are untainted by any crime in the State’s jurisdiction.

    He should not have been there. Should have stayed home and not made an illegal purchase of a firearm. He should be prosecuted, but much more so his co-conspirator in that strawman purchase, should be prosecuted on Federal charges.

    The thieving lawyers (the first batch, before he fired them and got better ones) who tried to use him to con donors out of millions do not deserve a single cent.

    • there was no straw man purchase. Rittenhouse did not purchase that rifle. He was legally allowed to possess his rifle. Where I agree he should have stayed home I also believe more innocent blood would have been shed if he had so thats not much of a thing to me.

    • “He should not have been there. Should have stayed home and not made an illegal purchase of a firearm. He should be prosecuted, but much more so his co-conspirator in that strawman purchase, should be prosecuted on Federal charges.”

      You should learn the facts of the case. You should defend your neighborhood and not surrender it to a bunch of violent thugs. He did not make an illegal purchase of a gun. He did not make a straw purchase.

      Thank you for your comment, though. You’re just more evidence of how dumb and ignorant the anti-rights crowd is.

22. That poor rifle did nothing wrong!

23. I would love to hear the legal reasoning behind the judges decision to not return the rifle. As acquittal means no offense was committed and ALL his property should be returned immediately. Keeping and ultimately destroying the weapon is and unreasonable seizure of property (4th Amendment)! A quick and concise appeal would probably overturn the judges decision and tell other judges that the constitution matters even if they don’t like it!

24. It does not matter a single bit, Miner49er. You keep harpin on this “he straw bought the gun” and the Judge dismissed that charge.
    Not to mention, I have pointed out that Kyle did NOT violate Wisconsin law. 😊

25. Kudos to you Kyle, you did the right thing, and many others would do the same! This country needs more like you!!!%

Comments are closed.