Starting on page 25 and all the way to the last page of the Rittenhouse thread, people keep posting about bringing the gun "across state lines." Others are trying to gently, apologetically correct them, "well, I guess it seems like the reports are indicating that didn't happen", but good luck.
That motherfucker took a gun and went across state line to shoot "looters" and then did.
Yeah but driving across state line with an illegal firearm to shoot up a civil rights protest probably should be illegal.
How come he wasn't guilty of bringing his gun across state borders?
The sticking point for crossing state lines is that he was claiming he was protecting his community; but he lived in a whole other state.
I would have assumed the federal stuff would have been him not being the owner of the gun and bringing it across state lines, but I'm severely under-educated on the state/federal laws around guns.
Nobody is willing to point out that it is near where he lives, his dad lives there, his friends live there, his job is there, and therefore he would have "crossed state lines" anyway if there was no protest.
Meanwhile they ban people for alluding to Rosenbaum's crimes. And yes, those crimes were not allowed in the trial. But they are relevant to the discussion about the trial. In particular, they are relevant to the idea that the trial was biased. If the defense was allowed to use it, it would have taken 4 minutes, not 4 days, to reach a not guilty verdict.