ewsieg

I'd argue that narrative of the story allowed the facts to come out in the national media before the other, that's the main difference between them, not that one is more complex than the other. With Arbery, you saw the video, in which you could tell Arbery was trying to avoid and run past before finally engaging. You also learned they pursued him for awhile before eventually driving past him and trying to force him to stop. You also learned that the reason for him being stopped was under question as he might have just been jogging while black. To the average news watcher, it didn't seem complex. When the facts came out, everything minus that fact that he was trespassing proved to be correct, and even the trespassing is something that many people have done with new homes under construction in a neighborhood. With Kenosha, you saw a video of a bag being thrown, and then you could tell there were some shots. You were told a kid shot a BLM protester because a plastic bag was thrown at him. Then as he fled, he shot two more people. Then you heard his mom took him there, crossed state lines, had an illegal gun. Cops just let him go home and before the trial started, you heard how he did horrible things like the OK sign. Just like the Arbery case, another clear cut case, right? Unfortunately for the narrative, the trial of Rittenhouse proved to confirm he didn't violate any gun laws, even if some folks don't agree with them. In fact they showed how a DA is willing to charge him with things that weren't even illegal (gun charge). As the additional video's and facts came out, it became clear what should be done from a legal standpoint, just like the Arbery case.

I came in late, but looks like both McMichael's guilty on all counts, mixed bag for the guy that was with them and filming including a guilty on felony murder.

I'm not looking to argue if one is worse than the other, or even if one is worse at all. My point on Hunter is simply there are some legitimate ethical concerns, rather it's an ethical issue or not, I can't say, but in a world I'd like more, a world with a more transparent government and journalism in place to ensure that, there would be more eyes on Hunter/China and Hunter/Joe period. If electric vehicles were not a political issue and Joe had an R next to him, many of the same people saying there are no issues, would definitely want to know more about his involvement with China for the world's largest Cobalt mine and now that Dad's in charge, him using tax payer dollars to incentivize the purchase of electric vehicles. Instead you just hear that he's no longer on the board of that company. What you don't hear is that he still holds a significant stake in that company. As an example, Joe Manchin. You guys don't even like him right now. He's the reason the prescription drug plan in BBB was scaled back so much. Yet it's widely known among conservative media, and easily verifiable elsewhere, that his daughter is a pharma CEO who helped ensure inflated prices for epi-pens. Still, the left is fine with this well known fact and instead of pointing it out, they go to their constituents blaming the GOP.

Archie will just play the 'imagine if Don Jr or Ivanka had that much of a financial stake in China as Hunter.' ....wasn't this a gun crimes thread?

Trump tried a different tactic. Previous ones weren't really working, so with that, guess i'll give him credit. But he didn't actually accomplish anything with NK. I defended him on trade with China, which ironically involved things a more progressive person would do (tariff's), but with that too, there was no result either.

Two thoughts here. 1) A corrected statement should be "They both do but I simply point out the left was much worse." or 2) Back before Trump, I was much more sympathetic to view points from the right and due to that, was able to brush off things they did better than those on the left and now, i'm seeing them both for what they always were. Guess there could be a 3) where some of each is true.

You mean like when he was waving the gun around?

This was likely to become an endemic all along, just sucks a good part of our population is helping ensure that. I'm not sure of the position of the person I saw quoted the other day, but he was a German official. In regards to their very high numbers right now, he basically said this is the last run for them. By early next year he expects everyone to be either vaccinated, cured, or dead.

Not looking to defend the guy, but I'd contend it's not fair to compare him to Trump. Trump's family had a lot more money, Donald did what his dad asked of him to ensure he'd get a piece of it as well. Even more important were all the contacts that went along with it. No white dealership owner from Romeo in the 80's had contacts with rap agents, especially for a kid that was consistently running away from home and living with anyone that would take him in.

You see the name of the thread? 😉 - Finally, the missing song from Team America! - Love that he avoided showing that the Earth was round when he blasted off it, don't wanna get the fan base upset. - Youtube: We're removing the dislike button Kid Rock: My time has come - Glad to see Weird Al and Joe Exotic finally collabed on a song - Wow this video has no dislikes, must be really good… - Nickelback can finally breathe a sigh of relief. - Finally a modern rock song for people who complain kids don't play outside but would yell at them to get off their lawn if they did.

You're right, Rittenhouse was way too old for Rosenbaum's taste.

In a world of divisiveness, I figured I'd try and bring us all together. For Archie and especially Triggerwarning, enjoy this video. For everyone else, enjoy the comments.

Don't you worry now. Prayer warriors are out in force for a kid I went to high school with. I'm sure that's helping him a lot more than the vent he's on.

Man, if Trump was still on Twitter, I could seem him backing up Wendy and by this evening, MAGA would despise Kyle, forcing the left to love him.

I told ya, it's starting!

The narrative runs deep with you. - It's not like this is all hearsay or even just witness testimony, there are tons of video's as well. He flat out ran from Rosenbaum, turned and pointed his gun to deter, and again, since Rosenbaum loves to get some underage ass, he kept going, which led Rittenhouse to try and run again. Yet with the narrative that he just wanted to look for more danger, instead of staying there and shooting others, including one that assaulted him right after the first attack, he is on video heading towards the police lines. - you say crowd of unarmed, even though Rosenbaum's fire setting accomplice was armed and later in the second incident, grosskreutz was armed. So the narrative is a guy legally taking a gun to stop crimes (the town burning down) is horrible and he was asking for trouble and got it, yet those, even if they thought he was an 'active shooter' were just trying to disarm him and you can't blame them. Haven't I been told that's a job for law enforcement in this thread? - To further note the comment 'unarmed people', Rittenhouse tried to turn himself into police. I'm sure you're well aware of the narrative that they just let the white guy go home after killing three BLM protesters. But the two cops that he approached pulled out their weapons on Rittenhouse and after he didn't stop moving towards them, they maced him. At that time they hear folks stating there is an active shooter, people are wounded, and still hear gunshots. Every witness that was called stated there were gunshots all night long. I can just see the narrative that you would be all on board with if the cops shot Rittenhouse. The WAPO headline would be "Cops further incite Kenosha riots as they kill man at BLM protest." Details would leak about that same kid was in a shooting previously with a white guy using the n-word and starting fires (as stated in testimony from multiple witnesses). Probably just another MAGA guy trying to make BLM look bad and after this kid justifiably shoots him, just tries to do the right thing and turn himself in, only to be shot by cops. ACAB!!!! Meanwhile Trigger and Archie would be on here saying "It was a justified shooting, he didn't listen to the cops, he was asking for trouble and got it". Well, Trigger would be saying it, but with a much more assholish theme to it.

Yup, right now that is America. I'm not disagreeing there is a problem. I just don't think putting the non-aggressor, who didn't try and stand his ground (which isn't allowed in Wisconsin), but rather attempted to flee first, in jail just because you feel guns are bad is the right solution.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/rittenhouse-tells-fox-news-racist-person-backs-blm-81344259 Uh-oh, Rittenhouse is flipping the script on the narrative. With a good PR firm, a year from now, instead of CPAC, he might be leading BLM rallies, with BLM allies noting he killed 2 white people that were sabotaging their peaceful protests, as the right calls him a socialist.

So honestly, your scenario is actually the same reason why I thought Rittenhouse would be found guilty as we headed towards the trial. At that time, I assumed that the DA in a city of 100k actually knew the laws pertaining to gun usage and bought into the 'illegally brought a game over state lines'. Even if it was truly self defense in that moment, he would still be guilty of manslaughter because that scenario happened in the commission of a crime (illegal gun). For instance in your scenario, there is a possibility it was self defense. Maybe the guy walked into the country store to shoot the store owner for a specific reason, then put the gun down, fully expecting to be arrested when someone called the cops. Instead, a friend of the store owner comes in and wants to take justice in his own hands and tries to beat him to death. I guess I would really need to understand the law and would hope the jury instructions do a good job of doing that, but I suspect that the fact that the situation happened directly after the commission of a crime, even in a self defense moment afterwards, he might still be guilty of manslaughter.

No baiting, I simply pointed out that Larry Summers is stating that Reagan is the worst president in the last 40 years. Lots of people have that opinion, including people that you really believe should be respected (Summers).

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?