daz28

I just added to my last post, and I don't know if you saw it. Here's the problem: The barrel length was necessary for it to fit under the 17 year olds hunting staute, not to qualify it as an open carry weapon for those 18 and older(adults). He was clearly and self-admittedly using the weapon as open carry, and that's not legal. I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but judges OFTEN make bad/poor calls. This is one of them, because if he's considered legally allowed to carry the weapon, then that takes away the negligence factor.

It was not obvious to drop it. The judge initially did not. From what I understand is the hunting exemption is what was accepted, because 17 year olds can use them for hunting. The b arrel length is also a factor, but I'm only pointing at the hunting part. Imo, if that's the provision, and he was not hunting, then it shouldn't apply. His own words: "People are getting injured and our job is to protect this business," Rittenhouse told the Daily Caller in a video interview before the shooting. "And my job also is to protect people. If someone is hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle; I’ve gotta protect myself, obviously. But I also have my med kit." He VERY CLEARLY did not have his rifle for hunting.

If I see you're collecting millions of dollars, buying new Nikes, and not paying me my $10k, eventually I'm snitching, too.

Lot's of people are victim shaming, and taking the position you are that they targeted him. I'm arguing that it's more likely people targeting a known shooter aren't just looking to get a few licks in on an easy target(one armed and known to use the weapon???), but rather trying to stop him evading or causing further harm. If you're correct about him needing reassurance, why didn't he contact police shortly after, or turn himself in sooner? He will say he was scared, but if I just get done protecting myself from people attacking me, I don't go into hiding. My personal opinion is he is negligent, because he was a child with a weapon who shouldn't have had the weapon. He was NOT hunting, and that's what the rifle exception is for. If he stayed at the car lot, likely no one is harmed. Other people's actions led to their own harm(we will not know their true intentions), but none of them happen if he is following the law in the first place. The kicker of this whole thing is that the guy who bought him the gun is going to be in prison for many years, but all the negligence after that is somehow washed down the drain.

Dropping the gun charge is a HUUGE aspect, imo. If he shouldn't have had the weapon, that makes him much more negligent. The Wisconsin law is sketchy, but how in the world was it ACCEPTED as a hunting exception??? Kyle didn't take the weapon there to hunt, and this was testified as fact by the purchaser. You can't legally hunt in the city, and it was night time. Doubtful he has a WIS hunting license. I wasn't asking if the charge was dismissed, but rather why it was, when it's clear he was indeed not hunting. Also, one could easily argue that him shooting someone shortly beforehand would be considered a "threat", and running "AWAY" from a scene is almost always a sign that you were doing something wrong. He lied to the camera person. He didn't "turn himself in". He could have easily walked in front of a police car to stop it, which is EXACTLY what I(or anyone) would have done if I was in fear for my life, and attempting to turn myself in/seek protection.

Apparently a lot of people here are claiming that every person there was a lawless rioter, EXCEPT Kyle Rittenhouse. I guess it's ok to take that MASSIVE leap if it makes your point look better. Maybe just admit you have no idea why the people who attempted to intervene and disarm him were there. What's more believable: a) they knew Rittenhouse was trying to defend property, and they were willing to risk life and limb to ensure more looting took place; b) people were yelling, 'that guy just shot someone", and they risked life and limb to make sure he didn't hurt anyone else, or get away. Pray tell, why did the "hero" call a friend(instead of the police), and say, "I just shot someone"? Why didn't he turn himself in until the next day? If someone broke in my house9or any other scenario), and I shot them defending myself, I'd call the police, and report it IMMEDIATELY. One last point about his "right" to have the AR. If I'm not mistaken, he has a 17 year old 'hunting' exemption. How does a hunting exception allow him to be "defending" a car lot, and the CITY streets of Kenosha at NIGHT?

You're confusing "for its". I'm not pro dirty politics(not for it), but I am for knowing all the facts(for it). I made that clear.

This is EXACTLY my stance here. He was talked into this law suit by lawyers after the fact, who I'm sure told him his case would have been MUCH stronger had he forced the Raiders to fire him. When he resigned, it showed that he evaluated the situation, and chose the best course, based on HIS own actions.

The real question is why is weed still illegal in Florida?

The people he shot at after the first guy he shot thought they were disarming an active shooter. You can literally hear people saying, "that dude just shot someone, stop him", and things like that. Hypothetically, if a "good guy with a gun" shoots the actual shooter(in a mass shooting incident), and there's a case of mistaken identity after, is it ok for him to shoot the people who BELIEVE that he is the bad guy, who are only trying to disarm him? That's kind of what happens here, except if Rittenhouse isn't there illegally(too young to have the weapon), then it never happens at all. I mean it sure looks like there's some negligence here. If the law says you legally should not have been there in the first place, then that's negligence, right?

Just because I accept the reality of what something is doesn't make me for it(pro-). There's a lot of Republicans who either have selective memories, or are just plain hypocrites calling anything a "Democrat witch hunt". They obviousy aren't comparing Benghazi(going after top candidate) or Ken Starr(smear job) to anything happening now. It would be pretty hard to argue that Ken Starr being jealous of other guys getting some was more important than this Jan 6th commission, but it won't stop them from trying.

Christmas is coming up, so let's use that analogy. How do you know what's in the gift box before you open it? Maybe we will find out that they knew there was nothing in the election fraud box. but peddled the conspiracy anyways. Politics is a dirty business, but undermining democracy by creating a false election fraud narrative, followed by legislation that will alter outcomes isn't dirty politics, it's a threat to all we hold sacred. Lewandowski came out as saying Trump KNEW he lost, but made the claim anyways. So if he testified to that under oath, and we find out Trump did indeed try many ways to undo the election anyways, is that a crime?

Bannon don't have a case though. There will be zero juries, that the statute will be described to, that won't convict him. His best option is to ask for it to be dropped if he complies rapido. The other options aren't good, and I still don't buy into threat there's enough coup-laid drinkers out there to vault all these convicted criminals into the political startosphere. OAN and Newsmax would consider them martyrs, but even they aren't gonna want America's most wanted DC edition on their prime time slot every night. These people are going to have to give up the documents, and testify. ALL of them like it or lump it. As for Kavanaugh, which is irrelevant(man crush?), I blame the media, and I rarely blame the media, because they don't make anyone dumb, they were born that way. The accusations should have been followed up much better by the FBI, and given whatever time they needed. THEN they should have proceeded with the hearings AFTER he was cleared. He didn't need to be pushed through like poop thru a goose.

What's the 10 month rule? Are you ok with the charges against Bannon? It's kind of a slam dunk case, because he literally did exactly what they say. I'm a little disturbed that in this war of politics a lot of people are going to end up in jail. The only saving grace is most of them will be slimebags, who knew the risks going in. The sad part is they will crucify anyone who attempts to end the whole political charade, leaving us with perma-political war, and a hopeless future for our country. A large group of Kyle "good" Rittencehouses could have had the same effect

It's a goal, but not the end goal. The testimony will be under oath, so the facts will be out, but I made clear in another post the politcal thater is for the Democrats gain. That we agree on. Please elaborate? Is there video of them staging the scene, or could it possibly be copy paper?? Asking seriously, not being snarky.

Does Chucky have the emails? Does he have a legal right to them? Would he be able to subpeona them? These are all important questions. One would think that, because he filed suit he has them, but the NFL lawyers aren't going to go down easy if he wants to play hardball. I'm guessing he may have some, and wants settlement money.

If you can read and understand like you claim, then you'll know that I was very clear this is an investigation by the House for legislative reasons, and not a matter for "law enforcement". The reason he will be begging for immunity won't be because he fears criminal prosecution for what they may find, but for the fact that he has ALREADY committed the crime of contempt of Congress. It's up to the committee(and DOJ) if they want to drop it now if he agrees to give testimony. He can't simply just show up now, and say, "sorry drop that charge i didn't mean it". That's not how the law works. Steve Bannon is simply being used as an example for others not to test the committee's patience. The'yre playing 3D legal chess, and apparently you, and a lot of other people still don't see the moves. The executive privilege thing is CERTAIN to fail(precedent), and now pretending they can avoid contempt is no longer an option. I'm not naive. I know the goal of the Democrats isn't to prosecute or legislate, or any of that nonsense. It's to bring the facts to light, which will hurt the Reuplican's politically. Even though the tribunal is indeed a farce, it carries political weight, and it was their own mistake to follow the orange doofus into the trap, even though it was largely unavoidable. That's the Republican politician's achilles heel is that they're doomed if they stick with him, or if they go against him. We'll see how much of this is my imagination. Apparently, Meadows got his warning shortly after Bannon got his 2 count indictment. Just read that.

Imagine a world where all people who were fired or resigned, because they did something that other employees did, but didn't get in trouble for, are given huge settlements. First, it creates a zero tolerance policy for ALL work policies/practices, and then requires the employer to fully disclose all misdeeds by all employees equally in a timely manner. I hope there's a ton of money in that infrastructure for courthouses and law schools. If his own union didn't stick up for him, and he admitted to the wrong-doing, then this is just sour grapes to get a settlement. If I were him, I'd be mad, but this kinda stuff happens to people every day, and I don't think the court system untintentionally setting some kind of impossible to manage equal justice for fired employees policies is the answer. There was no slander or libel here. These were his own words, so there's no defamation.

All I was doing was correcting him that it wasn't enumerated in the Constitution. Then he made a point that it is still Constitutional, because the Supreme Court says it doesn't go against it. As far as the truth goes, I said it's political theater, and a side effect of that is I get to hear the truth. I had no clue as to what Timmy was even talking about with the whole 10 month senate thing, and still don't. No messes here, but there sure is in the Trump camp about who's gonna BEG for immunity first, so they can run to the House and testify before someone else scoops up that deal first. There gonna slap them once to get them to talk, and then have to slap them 10 times to shut them back up. All the questions about what they thought was supposedly election fraud is gonna be pure comedy. Example: " Well, I didn't really have any proof of election fraud, but I was just believeing what so and so was saying", until the whole circle jerk blames each other. Don't miss it!

I think what he's trying to say is if you look at the wikipedia page that lists all instances of contempt since 1975, that you will see that up until recently most cases ended up with compliance. This would lead any rational person to believe that people recently have been attempting to flaunt non-compliance, and it's about time we started MAKING LAW AND ORDER GREAT AGAIN. That's like saying why bother looking into the causes of the Civil War, because all you can really do next time is have bigger armies. Ridiculous argument. Why bother studying anything to see if it can be handled better in the future??? I'll get back to you AFTER I find out all the facts, ok?

It's mentally exhausting trying to explain to the common sense hypocrtites what their OWN common sense ideals that they've backed forever are. Do they completely forget, or are they just messing with our heads? Do the crime do the time, play stupid games win stupid prizes(lookin at you Kyle), just follow orders, etc

Try reading, this is exactly what I said, "while the house committe is investigating to help understand what legislation may be needed to prevent another insurrection, aka their job." How in God's creation did you get that I said they are doing a criminal investigation??? BTW, you're the one talking about some trial in the house and senate that happened 10 months ago. That was so ridiculous, that I didn't even bother to ask you what the hell you were talking about.

He's arguing that you can't be law and order, and still think that they all should be able to just ignore legal subpeonas without being a hypocrite. While it most surely is a "political stunt", the bonus to the American people is that they will hear the facts. I'm completely ok with that trade off. Asking politicians not to politic is like asking your cat not to cough up furballs, especially in today's politics. No one makes everything more political than Donald Trump, so once again, you can't hate the Democrats for doing it, while Trump does, without being a hypocrite.

In a criminal case, there is a doctrine of double jeopardy. That's why the prosecution has to have all their facts in BEFORE the trial, because once it's over, then it's over. This is a committe investigation(not a trial), and obviously they feel there's still many, many facts to uncover. There is absolutley nothing illegal about how Congress is handling this, and not even the staunchest Trumplican will even attempt to claim such. That's why they(and the people who they brainwash) call it a waste of time or witch hunt. They claim that they should be busy obstructing any and all legislation in Congress, instead. The FBI is investigating criminal offenses(their job), while the house committe is investigating to help understand what legislation may be needed to prevent another insurrection, aka their job.

It's winning, because Americans are sick of people thinking they are above the law, and can see accountability, and the law being followed. It just so happens that the Democrats did it, while Trump broke his campaign promise to do so. Finding out the truth behind what REALLY went down on Jan 6th(and leading up to), and the false claims of election fraud, which had its day in court isn't a game. If following the law is "scoring", then yes, I'm all about scoring. The reason the country is going down the toilet is up for debate, but to be angry about finding out why is ridiculous. The fact you feel it's "pointless" is irrelevant, and if it's a waste of "your" time, then let it go Elsa. I hate to break this to you, but Trump would have in zero ways spent ANY "time" persuing Hillary. This may come as a shock to you, but even though Trump wishes he made policy or had control over the judicial/DOJ, it is a commonly held belief that it is independent. The fact is either his DOJ was either completely imcompetent, or there was no 'there' there with all the Hillary nonsense he sold to you all at the rallies. The coup-laid was too watery.