ewsieg

I do agree that it's a slippery slope, but I do see a difference from someone like Zimmerman, who simply believes a kid is up to no good, ignores a 911 operator, follows Trayvon, and then is surprised he's in a fight and shoots and kills him when compared to a kid that legally has a gun, is approached by a guy with a illegal gun (Ziminski - felon and stolen gun), backpedals and then runs away, only to hear a gunshot (from Ziminski who claims it was a warning shot - even though eye witnesses stated he also told Rittenhouse he'd kill him earlier that night, turns around and raises his gun to deter. Unfortunately that doesn't work because Rosenbaum must have sensed he was underage and he loves chasing after underage boys, and still Rittenhouse waits until the last possible moment before a physical altercation would happen to turn around and shoot. Still, he tries to check on Rosenbaum, only to have Ziminski (the guy that shot a gun which even if it was a warning shot would do nothing but escalate the issue) and his wife start yelling at everyone to get Rittenhouse.

A year of lazy journalism is certainly worse than an hour of Tucker, but two wrong's don't make a right. And i'll bet my first born there are a ton of half truths that will come out of this Tucker thing, which is just as bad as an outright lie when you've had a year, and a trial full of testimony, to truly dig into it and get it right.

By this standard, what if two people are in a place they shouldn't be, both with guns, and one shoots first. Is the other allowed to return fire in an act of self defense or do you just sit there and hope you don't die, but don't shoot under the hopes the attackers will stop?

It is sad that Americans feel this way, but 1) we don't have a license to be a vigilante just because in one case, people looked at the situation, and made a judgement call and 2) this is where I get upset at the media narrative that if you're black, white people are allowed to kill you. And even if that was true in the past, things change. I mean today, a black man can run down his girlfriend, resist arrest, get bail, and then run down a bunch of old white people and still not get killed by police. Considering that prior to this, 100% of all black men that have interactions with police are shot, we must be heading in the right direction. Unfortunately this is exactly what happened with Trayvon Martin. He was legally doing nothing wrong. Rather you don't think it should be legal or don't feel sympathy for him regardless, I can understand that, but I don't understand the claim that it's not self defense because he shouldn't have been there in the first place or shouldn't have exercised a right that state affords to him is ridiculous IMO. My analogies never work out, but let's try it. A 'karen' is giving someone a hard time and that someone pushes her away. Situation ends. That someone doesn't have the right to put their hands on 'karen', but if Karen complains to the manager, i'm probably sticking around until Karen leaves to let the manager know both sides. A guy is spewing some hateful words towards a black man, immediately after using the n-word, the black man clocks him, laying out the asshole. Assuming the asshole is OK right away, just got his bell rang, i'm probably laughing at him as i'm telling the black guy it might be good for him to walk away in case anyone calls the police. If the guy dies from the punch though and i'm called to testify, i'm not lying about what I saw and I believe that's manslaughter. During sentencing, I certainly hope the judge would allow me to speak on behalf of the defendant though.

If I'm reading this right, you're saying that Biden is worse than every president in the last 40 years, except for Reagan?

1) Progressive Dem defunds police in NYC. 2) The city deals with spike in crime, which in a city, tends to hurt the poor and minorities the most. 3) Progressive Dems pay no attention to the crime issues or the people they claim to want to help the most. 4) Minorities in the city redirect the party, bringing in a law and order dem. 5) Progressive dems - we weren't progressive enough!!! 6) A couple of proud boys evade a 3 dollar toll with no visible sign of cops in a video. 7) Progressive dems - "Did you see that!!!! Defund the Police" fast forward 2 years 8 Progressive dems - "Obviously we didn't run progressive enough, otherwise instead of record losses, we would have probably gained seats in the House and took the Senate."

“Unfortunately, epidemics are not limited to 28 days," Whitmer said in a veto letter, according to MLive.com. "We should not so limit our ability to respond to them." That’s a quote from Whitmer in the article you just posted. You know why she said that? Because she still has the same power as before, but any order will only last for 28 days. So, if she feels we need a two week lock down, she could do that, actually she could do 4 weeks. Additionally her health department can issue orders as well, and if they don’t want to do something Whitmer wants them to do, she can replace them with someone that will run the department the way she wants. This is like my wife telling me not to use the instapot to make a roast and instead of using the oven, I just get everyone to tell her she’s preventing me from cooking dinner. As the family gets hungry, I just remind them I’d love to do something about it, but it’s just out of my hands.

If it’s just a word to you, how about you correctly use it?

Can you explain to me exactly what you believe the GOP prevented her from doing?

Show me the video or eye witness testimony that stated he was waving his gun around, outside of the specific moments where he was actually defending himself and he brought it up to shoot and/or deter.

Just wondering, why does that smell like BS to you and is there a specific idea on why Rittenhouse would lie about that? I ask as honestly when I heard that testimony, I assumed he was admitting guilt to a lesser crime, but apparently what he did wasn’t illegal, somewhat surprising to me. If he wanted to keep the narrative that he was squeaky clean, I would have expected him to say he borrowed the gun from his buddy and never mentioned the verbal agreement between them. He testified he knew he was legal to possess at his age. The gun was registered to his friend, that would have been easier to say and extremely tough to prove, in fact, would it even have been questioned?

Miles away is all subjective. I used to work 13 miles from home and I considered it close as it took me 15 minutes to get to work. I moved to metro Detroit and got an apartment 8 miles from work and only after the first week did I realize the mistake I made to love that far away.

There was, it had since been ruled as unlawful. I am not aware of anyone else being arrested for it, so singling out a guy because he’s lawfully carrying a gun and it’s scary to some doesn’t seem right either. Because they prefer to focus on this rather than join the athletic community in asking about that Chinese tennis player? The little I know about that, it’s surprising. That said, all these cases that have been brought up in this thread are different, thus treated differently.

I would support some sort of law that would prevent kids from going into hostile situations with guns. But why do you have to lie about this case (waving a gun)?

For those saying Rittenhouse has a case for defamation, note that the public/media is allowed to report what the DA has said. Claims he illegally was carrying a gun, or that he instigated the shooting with Rosenbaum, despite the only evidence being multiple eye witness and video that contradicted that statement , all came from the DA. Addressing and maybe finding some way to hold prosecutors accountable could benefit everyone, and likely disproportionally benefit minorities as well. Edit: Addressing lazy journalism might be another.

I suspect this is in response to my post. If so, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying I'd want that, but I would want him to have that feeling that he should help if his community was in need. Him cleaning up graffiti during the day, great thing; him carrying a gun at night, stupid.

It's only 20 miles apart, plus his dad, not just other family lived there, which means he may have lived there if there was split custody. He also worked there. He had ties to that community even if most people in Antioch go to Gurnee, Crystal Lake, or McHenry, everything appears that Rittenhouse went to Kinosha.

Well, I guess, but you see to be arguing what a law should be, not what it is. A gun alone, is not a threat, that's all i'm saying about that. In Kenosha, a 16 year old or older, with a gun, is legal. I'm not trying to argue if it should/shouldn't be. Note, if rioters were destroying my town, or a larger neighboring town that is part of my community, I'd want my 17 year old to want to go down and try and do something helpful to keep it from happening or help. I also would hope that he'd understand that it's not a safe place to be and that even if it was legal to do so, he likely isn't ready to deal with that situation. Additionally, it's dangerous, as we learned with Kenosha where if we follow the narrative of the left, he randomly shot three people. Yet, those random shootings he got a guy that rapes kids, another that assaulted his grandmother and choked his brother, and a third that was illegally carrying a gun. Just not a safe place at all.

It’s not a threat to legally carry a gun in Kenosha. Also, why doesn’t he belong there? To me, it’s stupid. I wouldn’t let my 17 year old do what Rittenhouse did. But guilty of being stupid is not a crime.

I didn’t say they were better off dead, I implied that the world is better off without them. I apologized for lumping both of the deceased together. One clearly had some issues, but I feel bad he’s dead. The other, he should have had a much more horrible, painful death. Guess that’s the old conservative in me that just can’t agree with more progressive organizations like NAMBLA. Am I really that horrible of a human being for not giving a shit about a man that molested 5 boys between 9-11 years old? Fitting that he wasn’t supposed to have contact with anyone under 18 and In violating that again, he wound up dead. That sounds like justice to me.

Why am is troll for pointing out that either you’re lying, wrong, or possibly both. Is it really your claim that you never said the GOP stripped Whitmers powers to issue orders?

Where were you last fall? I was the one advocating (because I legitimately thought it was the safe thing to do) and wondered why Whitmer wasn’t being more aggressive, either through a one time limited EO or through the health director. To this day it’s not clear what side of which issue she fired the previous guy, so I’m not sure how that’s hypocritical. I merely pointed out she’s already done it, after you made it sound like that’s a sleazy move and wondered if I thought before I wrote stuff down. You criticized me for being a hypocrite back than as well. I still can’t believe she avoided criticism as a whole during the spike last fall/winter but she has cover from folks like you and the media lying about how it was all the GOP’s fault.

One could ask you the same question. I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Whitmer get rid of the previous health director over a difference of opinion. (Rare) severance package and all. and again, Whitmer has the power to issue an EO, which would last for 28 days.

It’s impressive how much you hold onto semantics. 1) Whitmer can order an EO. Always has been. It just can’t stay in effect indefinitely. So with that alone, you’re wrong. 2) I consistently pointed out Whitmer’s Health Secretary did have those powers and as she can be fired at the discretion of Whitmer, Whitmer this has the power. On a technicality, yes Whitmer can’t sign something on behalf of her secretary, but instead of understanding the point, you argued semantics, proving you’re no better than the likes of the political right you abhor, who will stoop to any level to “own” the other side.

Solid maneuver going with the pfife on motownforums said x and ignoring what pfife on motownsports touted for the last year.