Silent Hill

lol "reign of terror". Even the CNN article points out that many other states already have 'State Defense Forces'. Nothing to see here.

I would suggest atleast watching the prosecutions case since you think he is not guilty based on news blurbs. I'll paraphrase things I take issue with, but I am going to miss stuff and it isn't the same as watching. So firstly, the judge gave Rittenhouse breaks multiple times: - judge didn't allow the prosecution to speak about multiple things that could have helped the jury understand Rittenhouse's character and state of mind like: a. Rittenhosuse pointed his gun at people earlier in the night, b. Rittenhouse threatened to kill somebody at one point. The jury never heard those things. I watched a fair amount of the live trial and they did allow the testimony regarding the "guy in the yellow pants" who told Rittenhouse he had pointed his gun at him for being on top of cars earlier that night. Rittenhouse said that he sarcastically agreed in the moment while walking away to not cause a conflict. Whether you believe that or not is on you, but it was presented to the jury. Your other point about Rittenhouse threatening to kill someone I do not recall being discussed at all, in front of the jury or not. All I recall is testimony stating Rosenbaum was the one threatening to kill Balch and Rittenhouse earlier. -The judge did not allow the people murdered to be called victims This was apparently a precedent already set in his courtroom regarding these types of cases. It was a self-defense trial and allowing those shot to be referred to as victims implies the defendant is guilty of a crime. That is for the jury to decide. -The judge dismissed gun charges charges. Wasn't it determined to be legal for Rittenhouse to open-carry a rifle at his age, under WI law? Regardless I believe it is a misdemeanor charge so I really don't see how that had much of an impact, if any, on the jury's verdict. -When they set up the rules for how things could be explained to the jury, the judge was favorable to the defense including the way the gun was to be discussed Can you elaborate on this? Getting into the court arguments. -Rittenhouse should not qualify for self defense based on the laws requirements. Which requirement of the WI law prevented him from acting in self-defense legally? - Rittenhouse should not have been able to use deadly force because he did not exhaust all options. Honestly, what other options did he have in either scenario before he shot? If the medic Gorsskruntz, wanted to kill Rittenhouse he could have stopped and shot him at any point. Irrelevant, Grosskreutz had a gun drawn and was advancing on Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger after Grosskreutz feigned surrender and advanced again with the gun within inches of Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz drawing his weapon and chasing Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse told him he was going to the police didn't play in his favor either. The frame by frame clearly shows that Grosskruntz, who was trying to stop an active shooter, stopped and started backing away from Rittenhouse when he was on the ground. He tried to jump on Rittenhouse after pausing when he thought Rittenhouse was getting ready to shoot him. The video doesn't "clearly" show Grosskreutz state of mind (e.g., stopping an "active shooter"). It just shows him advancing on someone who's on the ground. Rittenhouse already didn't shoot him while he had his hands up and and he wouldn't have been shot had he not made another advance. You can't seriously expect Rittenhouse to just let Grosskreutz connect with or shoot him.... Now less clear to me, but the argument presented was that Grosskruntz never pointed the gun at Rittenhouse, the photo spread on social media was after Grosskruntz bicep was shot off and his arm fell holding his gun in the direction of Rittenhouse, but he could not use his gun. The gun was pointed in Rittenhouse's direction and was within inches of his head/body. I'd say from Rittenhouse's perspective, that's enough to fear great bodily harm or death. I really don't understand how a reasonable person (not the jury) could think this kid should not be in jail. I have heard zero arguments against these points. The defense did not have arguments against any of these points, they literally just said key words and talked in circles completly avoiding any of the points the prosecution made and demonized every person shot. The simplest way it can be put is that Rittenhouse attempted to flee from each scenario and only shot those who posed a threat of great bodily harm or death, which gives him the right to self-defense under WI law. The prosecution had zero evidence/testimony that Rittenhouse was an aggressor or had no claim to fear his life was in danger. Just to show even further what a joke this trial is, Rittenhouse didn't even get charged for endangering the camera man that was behind Rosenbaum. The defense did the same thing they did with the other victims, they talked shit about the camera man. How did the defense "talk shit" about McGinniss? Pretty sure Rittenhouse was cleared of that charge because he wasn't aware that McGinniss was ~5-6ft directly behind Rosenbaum. It's tough to say that Rittenhouse should have either known McGinniss was there or not have shot Rosenbaum (allowing him to connect) just because someone MAY have been directly behind him, in the potential line of fire. That was a tough charge to stick.

What I'm saying is that there was no evidence or testimony that backs up any claim that Rittenhouse was "looking for trouble". That's far more of an opinion than fact at this point. He's on video stating his intentions that night and his actions throughout correlate with that intention. The gun was for self-protection and that's all it was used for. I personally wouldn't refer to him as "heavily armed" and if he were intentionally looking to harm people, he would have shot more people than just those who attacked him. The Prosecution tried to pivot at the end and paint him as a provocateur and couldn't do it. (And I see others have already commented on that night being a "peaceful protest".) To your other point about the Judge, I'm not entirely sure he's a "right-winger" and didn't really see any display of bias towards either side. Seemed to rule pretty fairly and uphold the law(s) throughout the trial, which you admitted you didn't watch, so I assume you're just referencing other people's opinions on the Judge vs. drawing your own. The Jerry Nadler tweet is comical at best. For one, crossing state lines isn't a crime and is especially irrelevant when put into context. Secondly, Rittenhouse had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else and a lot of what was happening that night wasn't protected by the First Amendment. You know, the things that Rittenhouse and others were apparently attempting to deter (violence, arson, looting, etc.) Lastly, he says "looking for trouble" which no evidence or testimony was presented to back that up. It's just an opinionated talking point to try and place guilt. Anyone who actually watched the trial would know that the evidence/testimony strongly implied otherwise.

Fair enough - wasn't exactly sure. Based on everything I saw during the trial I think it may be tough to prove that Rittenhouse didn't act "reasonably". I guess we'll see what happens.

Not sure if the families can even sue in civil court since its been determined he acted in self-defense. It'll be interesting to see if Rittenhouse goes the Sandmann route and sues for defamation, libel, slander, etc.

POS that was out looking for trouble I'll agree with. Guilty of charges brought against him? Not entirely convinced. Deserving of being anyone's political darling? Fuck no. Makes me sick the pedestal he's been put on by the disturbing far right. Complete mockery of gun rights. Not guilty, fellas. Zero evidence or testimony that Rittenhouse was a "a POS that went out looking for trouble and was happy to kill" @avatar! - though clearly nothing would convince you otherwise at this point. What is more disturbing than the "far right" promoting self-defense/hailing Rittenhouse as a hero, is the vast amount of "left-wing" "voices" and MSM outlets are still spreading false information and stirring up shit by openly slamming the verdict/undermining the legal process. Why everyone couldn't look at the evidence/testimony objectively is beyond me at this point. (For the record, I don't think Rittenhouse is a "hero" by any stretch but continuing to label him a murderer, white supremacist, etc. is far more deplorable, objectively)

If it played out exactly as described then yeah, he'll be charged for sure.

He'll be charged unless there's more to the story and he was robbed for the Xbox at gunpoint. Even then it's still not necessarily clear-cut self-defense. Unfortunately teenagers being shot (or doing the shooting) is far too common in Chicago.

"Lawmakers are rejiggering the proposal after a wave of criticism by Republicans and bank lobbyists. The $10,000 threshold replaces the $600 proposed by the Biden administration. It would exclude wage deposits and payments under federal programs — so that only accounts with “opaque” income streams would be reported to the government, according to a fact sheet from the Treasury Department released Tuesday."

I preordered in-store and will grab it after work. That's the only sure thing with GS. That said, I do agree with others that pre-ordering this title isn't terribly useful.

Necrobump

Hopefully this garbage doesn't fully go through. $600 from $20k/200 transactions is egregious and shit way to drum up money. I can't see any valid reason why anyone would be in favor of this.

I have a full US Dreamcast set and that's really it. Also, every Silent Hill game/OST released in the US. (shocker) I almost had a full US Vita set but sold a majority of it back in late 2018. I've thought about getting the launch lineup for a few consoles as that seems like a cool subset...

What do you mean? Like the variant data? I would think Wata (for example) would provide some filtering mechanism when searching a pop report. Wouldn't be too hard either. But then again, "not too hard" for Wata proves to be a challenge these days. Not sure if this is what he meant but it immediately made me think of a game once graded by WATA that ended up being crossed over to VGA. I'd assume that's already a factor in other collectible pop reports though. Not sure how you would combat that.

Hold up..... Would? got beat out by 1979?

Fantastic game - I was hooked on drumming for years. Still have the ION kit.

Optics are bad but I think it's an overreaction to highlight this as some massive collusion or manipulation. Proof of preferential treatment on grading would be a stronger issue IMO.

While I agree that a lot of people (especially YT personalities) seem to forget that their videos are a major cause in price increases, if only by brining awareness to titles. That said, Hagane is legit uncommon/rare as is P&R2. I rarely saw those over my 15 years of collecting. (Though I did get a copy of Hagane for $3.50 from LukieGames on eBay in 2014 - by pure luck)

I’ve got at least 5 messages similar to this or the “you’re selling too low” over the last few years. My reply is….. you’re always welcome to purchase it. The “protecting your investment” mentality in gaming has been out there long before any of this. While I've personally never gotten a message like this in my 14 years on eBay, I know there are some wild ass people out there. That said, wouldn't you think that they'd just buy the game low to acquire more copies and guarantee their manipulation? Especially something that's a few hundred bucks...

First car was a 1996 Nissan Maxima which I got at the age of 18. Since then (2004), I've had a total of 4 cars including the Maxima. (96 Maxima, 04 Impala SS, 07 Accord, 16 GTI) Bought the GTI new and have enjoyed every day of ownership.