Rittenhouse gun being destroyed

[5GallonBucket]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

is this normal procedure @tvc184

when owner uses gun in self defense the gun gets taken away or destroyed.

[Hagar]

The young man was found innocent.  I can’t understand why they’d destroy the gun he used to defend himself.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that Ricky Schroder supplied much of Rittenhouse’s defense funds.  Very few conservatives in Hollywood. 

[baddog]

Let me have it. I’ll mount it on the wall. That gun took out two perverts. It’s a classic to me. 

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

is this normal procedure @tvc184

when owner uses gun in self defense the gun gets taken away or destroyed.

No but in this case according to the article, Rittenhouse wanted it and all of the.clothes he wore that night destroyed. 

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

Let me have it. I’ll mount it on the wall. That gun took out two perverts. It’s a classic to me. 

That  is exactly why Rittenhouse wanted it destroyed according to his attorney.  

[LumRaiderFan]

Makes sense, I wouldn’t want to keep it either.

[tvc184]

But look at the woke headlines from Yahoo…

Kyle Rittenhouse gun from Kenosha shootings to be destroyed

Judge Decides Fate Of Rittenhouse Gun

 

You would think it is a forced final hit at Rittenhouse like, he wasn’t convicted but we aren’t going to let him get his gun back!!!

Then you read the article and it is… uhhhhh….  Rittenhouse asked that the judge authorizes the destruction of all of the evidence.  

[baddog]

I think it should be saved and have a couple notches carved in the butt. It’s Rittenhouse’s gun, so he can do what he feels fit, but for me it represents our right to bear arms and to defend.

[Separation Scientist]

On 1/29/2022 at 8:15 AM, Hagar said:

The young man was found innocent.  I can’t understand why they’d destroy the gun he used to defend himself.

Me neither. Totally innocent verdict, ALL personal belongings need to be timely returned, then the owner can do what he wants. It should not be the Judges decision to make.   

[tvc184]

49 minutes ago, Separation Scientist said:

Me neither. Totally innocent verdict, ALL personal belongings need to be timely returned, then the owner can do what he wants. It should not be the Judges decision to make.   

Did you read the article or comments? The owner did do what he wants. Rittenhouse wants the items destroyed while still in custody of the court. The judge granted the decision at Rittenhouse’s  request. The judge absolutely has to make that decision because the court has no right to destroy them because as you say, the owner can do what he wants. Again, what he wants is for the court to destroy the gun and clothes.

[baddog]

The AR should be auctioned off and the funds donated to the NRA or police unions. 

[Separation Scientist]

12 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Did you read the article or comments? The owner did do what he wants. Rittenhouse wants the items destroyed while still in custody of the court. The judge granted the decision at Rittenhouse’s  request. The judge absolutely has to make that decision because the court has no right to destroy them because as you say, the owner can do what he wants. Again, what he wants is for the court to destroy the gun and clothes.

If the OWNER wants the OWNERS property destroyed, then the OWNER should then destroy the OWNERS property, not have any court or Judge do it. The Judge should not be part of the equation or part of any action. Pretty simple, isn't it? 

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, Separation Scientist said:

If the OWNER wants the OWNERS property destroyed, then the OWNER should then destroy the OWNERS property, not have any court or Judge do it. The Judge should not be part of the equation or part of any action. Pretty simple, isn't it? 

The owner can have anyone destroy it. Maybe he doesn’t want his hands on it so as not to make a show.

 The judge legally has to be involved as the property is still in the custody of the DA. 

I guess the owner and his lawyers should have consulted you for an opinion on what the owner wants. 

[5GallonBucket]

I wonder if someone was in rittenhouse s ear….and this is just a pr stunt.

Something don’t fit IMO

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

I wonder if someone was in rittenhouse s ear….and this is just a pr stunt.

Something don’t fit IMO

Cut my gun in half is a stunt?

Who knows, maybe somebody paid him good money in the background to do away with it. even if they did, good for him. That would mean the free enterprise system is alive and well. 

[5GallonBucket]

45 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Cut my gun in half is a stunt?

Who knows, maybe somebody paid him good money in the background to do away with it. even if they did, good for him. That would mean the free enterprise system is alive and well. 

Givin the case was front and center world wide…..yes I can see it maybe being a pr stunt but I can also see why he himself would want to destroy it being a 17 year old kid who was forced to kill two individuals.

me myself not a 17 year old I would not have it destroyed but also I wouldn’t have it mounted as a trophy either…. if anything I would look at that gun as it saved my life and use it what I normally would use it for….taking out the feral pig population. 
 

givin your background have you came across any guns used by a LEO that ended in a fatality to be destroyed?

 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Givin the case was front and center world wide…..yes I can see it maybe being a pr stunt but I can also see why he himself would want to destroy it being a 17 year old kid who was forced to kill two individuals.

me myself not a 17 year old I would not have it destroyed but also I wouldn’t have it mounted as a trophy either…. if anything I would look at that gun as it saved my life and use it what I normally would use it for….taking out the feral pig population. 
 

givin your background have you came across any guns used by a LEO that ended in a fatality to be destroyed?

 

No. I think 10 of my coworkers have shot and killed people and one of them twice about 20 years apart. I witnessed one. 

 But…. they were officers, not a 17 years old, accepted the fact that the day might come and none were national news.

American police have probably killed hundreds of people and inside of cars yet there is no notoriety to any to any of the vehicles and the actual vehicle would be meaningless…. unless it was being driven by Clyde Barrow with Bonnie Parker in it. 

[Separation Scientist]

7 hours ago, tvc184 said:

The owner can have anyone destroy it. Maybe he doesn’t want his hands on it so as not to make a show.

 The judge legally has to be involved as the property is still in the custody of the DA. 

I guess the owner and his lawyers should have consulted you for an opinion on what the owner wants. 

Then we agree. The OWNER should have someone destroy it, if he wants to do that. He can hire a gunsmith, or chop it up with a hacksaw in his garage, or throw it into the nearest ocean, whatever. Its the OWNERS responsibility. The Judge and court and DA are not employees of the citizen, there to do his bidding. What all could KR have asked them to do? What are the limits? What if KR would have asked them to film an NRA commercial with it? Would they have obediently obliged? 

The DA should release private property in a timely manner, and be done with it. They should have told KR to take it away and use his own means for disposal, if that's what he wants. Check the US Constitution.    

[baddog]

I have a Ruger mini-14 Ranch rifle but I don’t have an AR. I’ll take this one any day. To me it is not dirty. I hate to see any gun destroyed. The destruction of this gun has a lot of symbolism attached. 

[bullets13]

Both the left and the right are using this to try and make political statements.  The left wants to appear that the court is ordering this done as some sort of justification that Rittenhouse did something wrong, and the right is trying to make it out that his property is being unjustly destroyed against his will.  The fact of the matter is that he doesn't want the gun to be bought and sold like a trophy.  It's obvious that this would happen, and there are at least two comments in this thread stating as much.  In a way this IS a stunt, as I'm sure there are people in Rittenhouse's ear telling him that it would look best if he went ahead and had the gun destroyed.  

[5GallonBucket]

21 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Both the left and the right are using this to try and make political statements.  The left wants to appear that the court is ordering this done as some sort of justification that Rittenhouse did something wrong, and the right is trying to make it out that his property is being unjustly destroyed against his will.  The fact of the matter is that he doesn't want the gun to be bought and sold like a trophy.  It's obvious that this would happen, and there are at least two comments in this thread stating as much.  In a way this IS a stunt, as I'm sure there are people in Rittenhouse's ear telling him that it would look best if he went ahead and had the gun destroyed.  

It couldn’t be bought unless he himself sold it….otherwise he could have it in his house as home defense or hunting

[baddog]

38 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Both the left and the right are using this to try and make political statements.  The left wants to appear that the court is ordering this done as some sort of justification that Rittenhouse did something wrong, and the right is trying to make it out that his property is being unjustly destroyed against his will.  The fact of the matter is that he doesn't want the gun to be bought and sold like a trophy.  It's obvious that this would happen, and there are at least two comments in this thread stating as much.  In a way this IS a stunt, as I'm sure there are people in Rittenhouse's ear telling him that it would look best if he went ahead and had the gun destroyed.  

That would be me and I bet I’m not alone by a long shot. Just don’t anyone try to make me out to be a bad person for this. Everyone collects things. Heck, I’d like a gun owned by Jesse James, but I’m sure I couldn’t afford it. 

[CardinalBacker]

8 minutes ago, baddog said:

That would be me and I bet I’m not alone by a long shot. Just don’t anyone try to make me out to be a bad person for this. Everyone collects things. Heck, I’d like a gun owned by Jesse James, but I’m sure I couldn’t afford it. 

Actually I've got one of his that I'd be willing to part with if you're really serious.

 

I promise. 

[bullets13]

30 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

It couldn’t be bought unless he himself sold it….otherwise he could have it in his house as home defense or hunting

He's had offers.  I think this is a public display that he's not going to profit off of the gun.  

[bullets13]

13 minutes ago, baddog said:

That would be me and I bet I’m not alone by a long shot. Just don’t anyone try to make me out to be a bad person for this. Everyone collects things. Heck, I’d like a gun owned by Jesse James, but I’m sure I couldn’t afford it. 

I'm not making you out to be anything, but it's not a good look for you.