ewsieg

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.

And note, I argued what health department did as a result of the EO, but since it wasn’t explicitly in the EO, I must have been a liar. Funny how you take such a literal view of law when it suits you.

No idea what you’re talking about, movie reference? But man, you’re testy when you get caught lying. What I do know is anytime I said Whitmer has the power, you argued semantics that she specifically couldn’t do it, even when I pointed out she could still issue EO’s, just not one that stayed in effect forever, you said that was not possible. Most of this forum will back you, but they remember, lying about it isn’t really scoring any points for you.

I’m not sure if they have all powers that the state health department has and I’m sure not the powers an EO from Whitmer would have, but they do have powers. Pretty sure they can determine mask mandate in schools for example.

You posted for months that nothing could be done because of the evil GOP. I pointed out what the health director could have done, or what Whitmer could have forced her to do since this time last year, but nope, it was always that the GOP stripped away all powers. I’m glad you’re realizing it, but don’t pretend you weren’t on the wrong side for a year.

He might follow him so when the next person says “I heard……”, he can quickly respond “stop listening to Dr Oz”.

Idk, maybe the health director has been hearing the same news and following the same people you and Oblong followed for the last year and truly believes the GOP has prevented any of those actions from happening/enacted by the Whitmer admin?

I was playing off of the judge/jury/executioner line. Self defense is any force to alleviate the threat, up to and including death. And with that, then you hope that force is deemed necessary by the DA or a jury if it goes that far.

Incorrect, in self defense you become the executioner. You then hope that the DA agrees with your belief that it was self defense. If he doesn’t agree, then you hope the trial acts as judge and jury and sides with you.

This is the problem, too many folks want to focus on the evidence that only supports the vew they want portrayed. You (and I) would have supported the police if they killed an unarmed person that was showing no violence to any other person, but trying to break into the courthouse in Portland as an unlawful mob was pushing them on. We would use the same argument that the left is using to argue about Babbit, in support of the officer that shot her.

His mom didn't drive him there, just more MSM reports that were never corrected. And as I stated, he, nor anyone, has the right to be judge/jury/executioner. But from a legal standpoint, he violated a curfew, that's it. You're allowed to be stupid and not go to jail, which is a good thing for Rittenhouse.