Rob Reiner appears to be grossly uninformed.

[Equomba]

Link to tweet

?s=20

Really, he took the rifle across state lines? I like Mr. Reiner, but this is baffling to me.

[Ocelot II]

1. I guess he wasn't following the trial that closely

and relied on social media for the "facts." Rittenhouse got the gun in Kenosha when a friend bought it for him there - an illegal straw purchase - but he didn't take it across state lines. A lot is made of the whole "state lines" issue, too, not considering that Kenosha is only a few miles from the Illinois border. It's not like he drove there all the way from California or something; in terms of distance it's more like me driving from Minneapolis to St. Paul.

Reiner's fundamental point is well-taken, of course; but it isn't helpful to get basic facts wrong.

[Skittles]

2. why is it that some people seem more offended by Mr. Reiner's words

than what a white supremacist gun humping DOUBLE MURDERER did?

[Progressive Jones]

3. Thank You ! Nitpickers will nitpick... nt

[Skittles]

6. I am SICK of them

the Georgia jury got it right -the Wisconsin jury DID NOT

[PdamnedQ]

8. He illegally used another person to purchase his weapon.

But who's splitting hairs?

[Ocelot II]

12. Facts are important, they aren't nits to be picked.

Facts are why Rittenhouse wasn't charged with transporting a firearm across state lines. Federal law doesn't prohibit a person from transporting firearms across state lines except in certain specific circumstances. But since he didn't do that at all, the fact that he got the gun through a straw man sale in Wisconsin means he obviously couldn't be prosecuted for transporting a firearm across state lines. No matter how odious Rittenhouse's behavior was, the facts of his actions matter.

[stopdiggin]

22. Thanks. Facts DO matter. And repeating FALSE information

(this late in the game) is a disservice, and deserves correction at the very least. Another suggestion - if you can't bother to be informed about a particular incident - maybe leave off with the 'pithy' comments?

[FarPoint]

5. Bravo...

Well said.....

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. +1. . . nt

[onecaliberal]

36. 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Very good question.

[malaise]

48. THIS

[AngryOldDem]

52. THIS.

Abso-fucking-lutely!

[TheFarseer]

59. Like someone else said

It undermines your point. It allows people to ignore the substance of the message.

[Skittles]

80. two people were murdered by a racist gun humping piece of shit

that point cannot be ignored, except by CERTAIN PEOPLE

[Hortensis]

64. That goof is not the big point I took from Reiner's words.

I didn't watch the trial and so don't have some technical aspects tacked down, but not that he went out armed and looking for trouble and killed two innocent men.

[Polybius]

77. Because we like the truth

If we have to win by lying, I'd rather not win at all.

[Skittles]

79. LOL

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[Polybius]

94. So you're ok with lying to make a point?

Or is "bending the truth" a better phrase?

[Skittles]

100. so you're OK with murdering to make a point?

DONE HERE

[Polybius]

107. You're twisting into things that make zero sense and have nothing to do with each other

What does that have to do with not being ok with lying? It's the old Jesse Ventura "If you can't win fair cheat" line.

[myohmy2]

84. +1...

...I got the gist of Rob's statement and concern...

...and I agree...

[Paladin]

95. Bullseye, Skittles. Many thanks. (nt)

[blogslug]

4. This take is tiresome

[Baked Potato]

7. In his defense, he didn't name anyone. Rob is a rock solid Democrat. Nt

[captain queeg]

9. Well, the jury in WI judged according to WI law. Don't agree with their laws but I don't blame the

jury. (The judge however…)

[Tribetime]

53. Yes the judge not only had his thumb on the scale

he had his whole fat racist ass on it

[Phoenix61]

10. Whether he took the gun across state lines

is a minor point. Certainly not anything to warrant “grossly uninformed”

[brush]

14. Right. That's what most people thought until it came out in the trial that the gun...

was already in Wis.

[stopdiggin]

25. the fact that you're repeating erroneous

information this late in the game (meaning the OP tweet) - just like the people that still have the mother driving him to the protest? Nope. Doesn't cut it. Either get it right - or leave off with the commentary.

[zaj]

58. This is a ridiculous judgement

No one who is misinformed can possibly make the choice to "get it right - or leave off with the commentary".

They can't correct AT THE TIME what they don't know AT THE TIME.

What matters is the desire to embrace the right information and change your mind as a result. I'm sure Rob Riner and most democrats embrace this approach to the truth.

[stopdiggin]

73. quite true. but you can make some effort to acquaint

yourself with the facts of the case - before you go spouting off cutesy tweets. Correct? At this late stage in the news arc of the Rittenhouse saga, repeating this type of misinformation amounts to - less innocent mistake, and more sloppy negligence. If you can't be bothered being even marginally informed - keep you pie hole shut.

[zaj]

91. This standard means mistakes are intolerable...

... that's ridiculous. If this person had a long history of spouting off bogus information, I'd better understand the criticism. This is a really unproductive over reaction imo.

[stopdiggin]

74. you sure?

" .. and most democrats embrace this approach to the truth."

Seems there are a number of voices on this thread that are fairly indifferent to whether the information presented is actually true or not. Take a look for yourself.

[zaj]

92. I see what you say, but...

... I read those posts (and there were quite a few) as, not a defense of false information, but a defense against an unjustified level of hostility and an attack on someone who used the most widely understood facts that were only recently revealed to be incorrect.

Knowingly, maliciously, and systemically spreading false information is horrible. Using outdated information is merely unfortunate.

[ForgedCrank]

11. Where the hell did this myth start that

transporting a gun across state lines was some sort of crime? Because it isn't.
It's only illegal to go to another state and buy a gun and then bring it back. And even that is legal if you do it through an FFL.

[Ocelot II]

13. There are some circumstances where it's illegal but mostly it isn't.

And in this case it's irrelevant. Facts matter.

[ForgedCrank]

15. The only time it is illegal is

if you are taking a gun that is on the list of prohibited firearms in the state. But that has nothing to do with "state lines", it would be illegal for anyone, even current state residents, to own the prohibited firearm. The entire thing is silly

[brush]

16. I think it was because the killer was underaged, turns out it wasn't because of that.

[ForgedCrank]

19. Humans are weird in that way.

It's amazing how this has somehow morphed into a mythical federal felony worthy of life in prison or something.
It's no wonder no one ever knows what the hell is going on, even the media are still promoting these falsehoods.

[brush]

20. IMO though that killer deserves many years in prison.Wisconsin got it wrong.

Georgia got it right.

[dpibel]

30. That's what you got?

I know of nobody in this world who claims that transporting an illegal weapon, crossing state lines, or whatever is worthy of life in prison.

I mean, seriously. That's an idiotic statement.

Facts are, he shot two people right to death.

Many people think he ought not have done that.

Wisconsin law says he can do it. Sad, but true.

But if you want to cavil about falsehoods, you ought not promulgate them.

[ForgedCrank]

38. Lighten up, Francis.

I was exaggerating and poking fun at all the nonsense over it, a non-crime and the ridiculous levels of hyperventilating I've seen as a result.

[dpibel]

39. Ummm...yeah

That makes total sense.

In your world.

[ForgedCrank]

40. What seems to be problem?

I'm not the one who has been promoting a false narrative about a "minor crossing state lines" like it's some sort of major felony, when there IS no such law at all. I'm trying to relay the actual truth of the matter. Is that an issue ?

[dpibel]

41. You are, however,

the person who is making the idiotic statement that someone, somewhere, believes that transporting a weapon is what this case is all about.

It's about using that weapon to kill other people.

Francis.

[ForgedCrank]

43. Apparently you have not been reading much here nor

paying much attention to the media either, because that is exactly what this has devolved into in many spaces.
And as far as you calling me an idiot, I'm going to let that go and simply ignore you now.

[dpibel]

47. I did not call you an idiot

I called your analysis idiotic.

I don't imagine you can figger the difference between the two.

Happily, you will not read this, since you have me on ignore.

It matters not what "it has devolved into in many spaces."

You are in this space, and you will have to point me to anyone in this space who is arguing the straw man you want to argue.

That would be idiotic.

[leftstreet]

17. Meh. It's what the media coughed up for weeks

It wasn't until the actual trial that any facts were finally reported

[aeromanKC]

21. Rob Reiner has it right here

[link:|

[Takket]

23. that looks worse...

because it looks like occupy democrats changed his words to make his quote factually correct.

[aeromanKC]

31. The words are true. Everyone needs to make sure this sentiment is repeated every day.

Trump and his MAGAt's have tried to turn this country into a shithole country. BUT we are fighting back!!!! We have to win because America is at stake.

[ripcord]

62. The problem is that he didn't illegal arm himself

Wisconsin statute 29.304(3)(b) states: "No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm".

I don't know why high profile democrats continue to spread false information but it isn't helping.

[Srkdqltr]

24. Well Rob Reiner got one fact wrong so all of what he said was wrong???? Get a life folks.

The main thing is he killed 2 and injured another. He had no business shooting them. Wherever he got the gun he killed for no reason .

[johnp3907]

26. Seriously.

[Pinback]

27. He probably can't even tell a Glock from a Ruger

or name the parts of an AR-15.

Trashing thread.

[johnp3907]

28. "Grossly?"

Nope.

[a kennedy]

29. WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING TO THIS Equomba thing?????

[Hekate]

98. Equomba has been escorted from the building

[a kennedy]

105. Thanks, thought something going on with him/her.......ugh.

[dpibel]

32. TBH, I don't quite believe you.

I don't believe you like Mr. Reiner at all.

Call me a skeptic, but there you are.

[Skittles]

33. the hit and run folk are pretty obvious

ya know?

[Hoyt]

34. He clearly thinks Rittenhouse is a gun-humping rube, harmful to society. Hard to argue with that.

[ZZenith]

35. Equomba appears to be grossly misplaced.

Last edited Thu Nov 25, 2021, 02:04 AM - Edit history (1)

https://freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

[Tommy Carcetti]

37. Well clearly that absolves Rittenhouse's documented behavior...

…because an actor commenting on the situation misspoke.

Gotcha.

Okay.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

42. This asshole lived in Illinois and took the rifle to Wisconsin

That involves crossing state lines

[Zeitghost]

44. The rifle

Was already in WI.

[Skittles]

45. the rifle actually was already in Wisconsin

the real mystery is why this misinformation offends some people more than the actual murders.....well, not really....we know the answer

[Ocelot II]

57. It "offends" people because it's incorrect and facts matter.

Aren’t we supposed to be the people who are so proud of ourselves for caring about facts and truth? The fact that the gun was purchased in WI doesn’t make KR’s actions any less despicable - and it’s pretty insulting to suggest that caring about accuracy means defending his actions, because it doesn’t. But facts matter and we should always get them right.

[Jedi Guy]

87. "But facts matter and we should always get them right."

DU's reaction to the Rittenhouse trial was immensely disheartening, honestly. For a community that prides itself on being "reality-based" and that purports to trade in facts and logic, most of DU's response to the trial was laughable. The constant repetition of "facts" that had been debunked umpty-ump times, the refusal to acknowledge actual facts that were inconvenient to the narrative people wished to be true, it was a total shitshow. And the crowning absurdity was that those of us who actually bothered to watch the trial and learn the facts were smeared as Rittenhouse's "fan club."

Most of DU chose, and continues to choose, to live in a fantasy world wherein inconvenient facts are simply ignored when it comes to the Rittenhouse trial. When I saw a thread about the narrative the right was weaving about the Waukesha parade incident and how silly it was, all I could do was shake my head in resignation. The old adage about glass houses comes to mind.

[Ocelot II]

89. DUers are as susceptible to confirmation bias as anyone else.

We are not special in that sense because we are "liberal," although I'd like to think we at least try a little harder to seek out the truth rather than rely on certain "facts" we find on social media or elsewhere just because those facts support what we want to believe.

The truth, like it or not, was that Rittenhouse decided to go to Kenosha because he wanted to "guard" businesses against rioters - apparently because he was a cop wannabe like a lot of teenaged boys (it's not clear that he was directly involved in or influenced by far-right groups like the Proud Boys before he went to Kenosha). He went there on his own; his mother did not drive him (another falsehood that got wide circulation), and when he got there he acquired a gun with the assistance of an over-18 friend who kept it in his house for him. KR did pay the friend, and the friend might be prosecuted under state and/or federal law for his involvement in the gun purchase. On the night of the incident KR got involved in several chaotic melees that ended up in him shooting three people, and that caused him to claim that he was acting in self-defense. Even though KR was either looking for trouble or else at least expected it (why else would he have brought a rifle with him?), under WI law the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not act in self-defense.

The jury found that the prosecution did not meet that burden. It seems to many of us to be an unjust verdict - you shouldn't be able to insert yourself into a volatile, dangerous situation and then claim self-defense when you get into the very trouble you expected and ended up hurting or killing people - but there it is. The judge's behavior was appallingly unprofessional, but apparently he didn't say the crap he said in front of the jury (otherwise the prosecution probably would have moved for a mistrial).

To me the worst result is not that KR was acquitted, as wrong as that seems (considering that our legal system, with its presumption of innocence, offers the basic truth that it's better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted), is that the deplorable right wing has made him their hero, thereby glorifying vigilantism and encouraging people to get their guns and play cop. Eventually they'll stop wining and dining KR when they find another plaything; I don't think that dumb kid has much staying power and his fifteen minutes will be up very soon. In the meantime, though, too many people are reacting to the reaction, more than to the verdict itself, and in some instances doing that by ignoring or spinning facts. That doesn't help. The fundamental purpose of their reaction - the glorification of KR - is to own the libs. Don't be owned.

[Sympthsical]

104. I saw that

Fortunately I've been so busy with the holiday, it's been easier to just walk away from the computer than respond.

But oh god, I wanted to. So very, very wanted. As in, it took a conscious act of will to not click the "post reply" button.

And written by someone who repeatedly upbraided me in a nasty way for simply pointing out various factual information.

There needs to be a new term for it, because "cognitive dissonance" doesn't nearly suffice.

[Ocelot II]

56. The gun was purchased in WI - a friend bought it for him.

It was a straw purchase but KR didn’t bring it from IL.

[ripcord]

63. It wasn't a straw purchase

The rifle was never transferred to Rittenhouse.

[Ocelot II]

65. Then what did he shoot those people with?

[ripcord]

67. It is no different than a kid paying for a hunting rifle and his father buying it in his name

A number of people seem to come from areas where hunting isn't common, in Wisconsin the law is written so 17 year olds can take a rifle and go hunting alone, there is no basis for a straw purchase claim and there will be no charges.

[Ocelot II]

70. Really?

The AR-15 was stored at the Kenosha home of the person who purchased the weapon and Rittenhouse retrieved it there before going to the protests. Rittenhouse, then 17, was not old enough to buy an AR-15 at the time.

The buyer of the AR-15, Dominick Black, does face possible federal exposure related to the straw purchase of the firearm. Black testified during Rittenhouse's trial and he faces two charges of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to someone younger than 18, resulting in death, in state court.

Federal authorities have looked into Black's purchase of the rifle, a spokesperson for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told the Journal Sentinel earlier this year. Black testified he knew Rittenhouse was younger than 18 when he took Rittenhouse's money and purchased the gun for him.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-has-been-found-not-guilty-whats-next-bail-money-civil-cases/8653018002/

[stopdiggin]

75. yes. if Rittenhouse supplied the money

and was thus understood to be the owner of the gun - then that would fit the definition of a straw purchase. (although lawyers could probably argue some version of 'loan' or joint ownership, or some such in order to claim he was not technically the owner) I think the question of whether Rittenhouse could legally be in 'possession' of that firearm - probably falls on the other side of the ledger, depending on WI code.

[Demsrule86]

82. No hunter would use an AR-15...spare me the BS... I do come from a family that hunts

game not humans.

[ripcord]

85. You might come from a familty of hunter but you aren't an expert on this

Thousands of hogs are taken with AR-15s every year, the shorter barrel is great for hunting in brush. It is not much different from the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle being it is semi automatic and firing the same round.

[EX500rider]

96. I think you mean no hunter you personally know.

According to a 2014 survey of hunters by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 27% reported having used an AR-15 to hunt, and 58% of those used one in the last year. Given the continuing rise in sales of AR-type rifles, the percentage today is likely much higher.

https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/firearm-hunting/should-your-next-deer-rifle-be-an-ar-15

[KY_EnviroGuy]

46. Should be illegal for Republicans to cross state lines.

That would be just like transporting dangerous weapons!......

I'm sure the Twitter universe has properly raked Rob across the coals. If not, Archie surely will...

[Diablo del sol]

49. Seems like some are still focused on the minutiae

Same old same old.

[Raine]

50. Right or wrong with facts never seems to make s difference

in people commenting anymore.

[AngryOldDem]

51. OK. He's wrong on that point. But everything else is spot on.

The GOP making this punk out to be a cultural icon and hero is far more troubling to me. Where he traveled from, really, is immaterial. He was a kid, he had an assault weapon, he was in a place he had no reason to be, and he killed two people. Most important, he got away with it. This green-lights how many other Rittenhouses out there?

Why fixate on this point when there is a much bigger issue here? We have an ex-president, the ideological leader of the extreme Right in this country, saying “job well done.”

But, go ahead and get your pants in a twist over one misremembered fact.

[ripcord]

68. He got away with it because it was self defense

The aerial video shows that.

[Skittles]

106. he provoked them

FUCK HIM

[Tribetime]

54. Can I unrecommend a post

[Skittles]

103. he has been tombstoned

so essentially, Elad unrecommended him

[janterry]

55. If we want to be the party of truth

we need to speak it.

RR is repeating misinformation and that does matter.

[PatSeg]

60. "Grossly uninformed" is a bit of an overstatement

Sounds more like he misspoke, but his point is still valid. A lot of people believed Rittenhouse had taken an assault rifle across state lines.

[edhopper]

61. Yes, let's concentrate on the rifle part

and not the "kills two people, and injures another".
Or that this killer was welcomed by the leader of the GOP.

Cause we must keep what is important upper most.

[ProfessorGAC]

66. The Rifle Was Recovered In Antioch

In the trunk of the car of the person who drove him home.
He didn't cross state lines INTO Wisconsin, but the gun did cross state lines.
However, since the driver was of legal age, it's questionable that a crime was committed there, either. Unless, of course, there's a law against transporting evidence in a homicide case across state lines.
I don't know how rules of evidence work.
So, technically Rainer is accurate, except the implication is that the gun crossed state lines before the fact.
It did not.

[Sympthsical]

69. The gun's owner was in the car, too

Dominic Black went with Rittenhouse to Antioch, and they both went to the police department when he turned himself in.

So it makes it extra immaterial.

I do not get why people are fighting so hard to maintain misinformation. Not you. But all the details of the case in general. One google search clears everything up. Takes less time to find facts than it does to actually write all these posts.

[ProfessorGAC]

71. I Can See...

...the "ownership" being in question, since KR paid Black for the gun. So, was Black still the owner? Again, I'm not versed in the details of the law, but I do know a decent amount of business law. When the compensation & item both changed hands, from a business perspective, ownership would transfer.
Small point though, and it's still immaterial to the greater point. As you said.

[Sympthsical]

72. It has to do with the fact Black stored it at home

The agreement, such as it was, is that the gun was to be stored in Black's stepfather's gun safe until Rittenhouse turned 18. And until that day, that was the case. He hasn't been charged with a straw purchase.

Given that Rittenhouse could legally possess the gun, it's now a question if Black's charges will hold up or if they'll be dismissed at his next hearing.

Wisconsin needs to clean up its gun laws. I thought for sure he was going to be convicted on a gun charge. Shocked the hell out of me to see the tangled mess of that law.

[stopdiggin]

76. thanks. that's the clearest summation

we've seen (at least on this thread) so far. Whether or not Rittenhouse actually 'owned' that gun - is a bit murky, and probably something that will have to be hammered out with the lawyers and courts. But clearly, 'carrying' the weapon that night was not against state law.

[BannonsLiver]

78. Oh. Look. It's inane detail guy.

Hope you can get past this tremendous injustice put forth by Mr Reiner. Poor wittle Kyle, too.

[egduj]

83. "You can't handle the truth!"

[Iggo]

86. Yours is the most important take on the events of this week.

Congratulations, sir or madam.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

88. Equomba appears to be grossly tombstoned.

Fact.

[UnderThisLaw]

90. .

He or she never did reply to all the responses the post generated

[AngryOldDem]

97. Good.

[Hekate]

99. And Rob Reiner (D) is still not a dingbat...

[Skittles]

101. I wish that was true of every Rittenhouse apologist here

yes INDEED

[Iggo]

108. Oh, hey! The don't just go under review anymore, eh?

The ban hammer is back!