Rittenhouse AR-15 rifle will be destroyed.

67ray said:
What does that have to do with it?
Click to expand...
It’s just one of the many, many, many differences between the circumstances surrounding Rittenhouse’s gun and the circumstances surrounding Ruby’s.

You‘re comparing apples to oranges.
 
Picton said:
Yeah, but you're missing the part where you aren't Rittenhouse. He didn't want it. Didn't want to sell it, auction it off, or own it. He wanted it gone.

I don't get that either, but it's his property and if he wanted to State to melt it down, why should any of us have a problem with that?

As for your $25k... well, hell. I'd rather use that to buy a few Valmets and a cannon or two. You do you, but I'm not into throwing good money after bad.
Click to expand...
I bet he wanted it back… it’s like kryptonite to Superman… His attorney definitely made that decision. It’s probably not a bad call

I had a police department calling me for three years trying to return a weapon used in a shooting that wasn’t mine… It almost got to the point where I went claimed it. But it wasn’t my gun and I didn’t shoot the guy. Or so the story goes… If I shot the guy and it was my gun you better f***ing believe I’d be getting it back

Don’t believe anything you hear or half the things you see.. That’s my policy.
 
How is it legal to be ordered destroyed by the .gov.
The accused was found not guilty by the jury, the personal property seized as evidence should be returned to the owner.
If this can stand than if someone is mugged, the mugger set free then the wallet and contents are destroyed? Thieves make off with house contents, contents located, contents can be destroyed, not returned to the lawful owners.

This seems wrong the destruction of personal property? Just cause it was used in a trial, where the defendant was found not guilty.
 
Picton said:
Post 27 is, I think I read, what happened.

Rittenhouse agreed to this outcome. I’d feel completely different if he wanted the gun back, but he didn’t. He basically asked the State to destroy it. What happened the other day was just the legal formality allowing that to happen.
Click to expand...
I wonder if they will send him a bill for disposal.
 
Talon3 said:
How is it legal to be ordered destroyed by the .gov.
The accused was found not guilty by the jury, the personal property seized as evidence should be returned to the owner.
If this can stand than if someone is mugged, the mugger set free then the wallet and contents are destroyed? Thieves make off with house contents, contents located, contents can be destroyed, not returned to the lawful owners.

This seems wrong the destruction of personal property? Just cause it was used in a trial, where the defendant was found not guilty.
Click to expand...
I give up.

Y’all need to read the article.
 
mac1911 said:
I wonder if they will send him a bill for disposal.
Click to expand...
Sometimes they don’t wanna return it without you paying the bills to remove the brain matter from it… Like you guys have never put a firearm in a dishwasher
 
Talon3 said:
The accused was found not guilty by the jury, the personal property seized as evidence should be returned to the owner.
If this can stand than if someone is mugged, the mugger set free then the wallet and contents are destroyed? Thieves make off with house contents, contents located, contents can be destroyed, not returned to the lawful owners.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Hampton Beach.
 
Rittenhouse claimed he wanted the gun so he could destroy it.

The state called his bluff, and he either had to go with the deal or say "I didn't really mean it" and destroy his credibility.
 
Quite_Exasperated said:
Or did they? Misinformation and conspiracy theories are more fun…
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Have you seen the video? It's pretty clearly his gun.

I'll put it this way: anyone showing up in the future with "Rittenhouse's gun" is going to have to come up with lots and lots of explanations about why it's in one piece. They won't sound convincing.
 
Picton said:
Uh huh. Have you seen the video? It's pretty clearly his gun.

I'll put it this way: anyone showing up in the future with "Rittenhouse's gun" is going to have to come up with lots and lots of explanations about why it's in one piece. They won't sound convincing.
Click to expand...
Sort of like a 1933 St Gaudens.
 
Picton said:
I'll put it this way: anyone showing up in the future with "Rittenhouse's gun" is going to have to come up with lots and lots of explanations about why it's in one piece. They won't sound convincing.
Click to expand...
You should see the Bren gun that someone displays at our club's open house.
The receiver is welded back together so neatly that it would actually help
the narrative to have some alcohol soluble marker traced over the incision.
 
It's sad that they didn't just destroy the "firearm" (lower receiver). They shoved the entire rifle into the chipper, followed by the Aimpoint optic, and then the Magpul mag.
 
[sad]

You know. When someone wins the Daytona 500, the car gets put on display in the track's museum for a year.

Kyle does something more impactful, and he wants the rifle destroyed. So it isn't celebrated....or something.

If it were me, I'd have it donated to the NRA museum so everyone had the opportunity to make pilgrimage and pay tribute.

But that's the kind of guy I am. [rofl]
 
KBCraig said:
It's sad that they didn't just destroy the "firearm" (lower receiver). They shoved the entire rifle into the chipper, followed by the Aimpoint optic, and then the Magpul mag.
Click to expand...

That’s what I wish he did. Strip the rifle and toss the parts into bins of AR parts. It would be like throwing a cup of water into a bucket of water there would be no way to figure out what parts were his. And the optic wasn’t even a part of the shooting, he never used it during his self defense
 
The woman in the video is the firearms “expert” for the Wisconsin state crime lab who testified in the Rittenhouse and edgecomb trials. She has a valley girl voice and her answers are robotic. Extremely odd way of speaking. I doubt she’s like that is real life, I’m guessing they trained her to testify like that, so her answers are clear and informative to a novice. She was better, more natural in the edgecomb trial but it’s still not a normal way of speaking.

The 5 hr, 7 minute mark here.
View: https://youtu.be/XZEdgcTbJ4Q


The way she holds the optic and mag feeding them into the machine is like you’d hold a baby bird.
 

Attachments

  • 982292B7-9053-47C3-9144-FDE74E9A0091.png
    982292B7-9053-47C3-9144-FDE74E9A0091.png
    482.3 KB · Views: 8
  • 3CBB15DA-181E-46CD-B501-ECA6D0420E5F.png
    3CBB15DA-181E-46CD-B501-ECA6D0420E5F.png
    475.3 KB · Views: 8

Similar threads

state police nipped this one in the bud: wonder what the legal outcome will be?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
Chicago DA Says Illegal Guns, Drugs and Stolen Property Discovered during Routine Traffic Stops Will Not Be Treated as Offences
Replies
28
Views
710
Thunder Dump
Thunder Dump
Soon, they will be everywhere.
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
RKG
R
Rifle-Armed Robot Dogs Now Being Tested By Marine Special Operators
Replies
10
Views
167
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
This hurt my brain reading this "article" on an AR-15
Replies
14
Views
573
Broc
Broc
Back
Top Bottom