> the fact is that he took a gun across state lines
This is the part that was unproven and goes against sworn testimony in the court. Supposedly, the gun was stored at his friend's house in Kenosha. There was no evidence he took the gun across state lines.
So, you're proving the above poster's point because you're assuming he took the gun across state lines even though there was no evidence shown to show that was the case.
Is this supposed to be a gotcha? It doesn't change anything from what I said. I didn't say I think he's guilty of transporting a weapon. I said I think he's guilty of manslaughter.
A minor taking a gun like that across state lines would have been a crime which you stated he committed by looking at a video. In reality, he didn't commit the crime of trafficking the firearm across state lines as a minor. You even stated "if you look at the evidence, the fact is that he took a gun across state lines..." which is not backed by the evidence, you just jumped to a conclusion that it was a fact and even worse repeated that it was a fact despite zero evidence and against sworn testimony in the case.
> 2OEH8eoCRo0:
> My experience was that people did not look at the evidence- they jumped to a conclusion.
You didn't look at the evidence, you jumped to a conclusion which is not based in fact, and broadcasted that you did this in your message. Thus proving 2OHEH8eoCRo0's point: people assume things about the case without looking at the facts.
> I didn't say I think he's guilty of transporting a weapon
You 100% did claim this when you said "the fact is that he took a gun across state lines".
