Silent Hill

On 12/6/2021 at 1:10 PM, avatar! said:

 

lol "reign of terror". Even the CNN article points out that many other states already have 'State Defense Forces'.

Nothing to see here. 

9 hours ago, Californication said:

If Rittenhouse was a black person he would have been convicted if not shot.

Only because I know how much you like loosely-related examples to try and prove a point: https://www.wpbf.com/article/andrew-coffee-not-guilty-on-all-counts/38304640#

Your extreme confidence that it would have played out differently if he were a another race is pure speculation. (I'll go ahead and speculate that if Rittenhouse were black, you'd be singing a different tune)

Rittenhouse clearly commited multiple crimes. 

Clearly, he did not, no matter how much you think he did. 
 

1 hour ago, Californication said:

The curfew was for people under 18.

Got it, convict him with being out after curfew then.

Grosskreutz had a carry permit - it expired. 

Exactly - illegal and a bit "reckless".

Rosenbaum was confrontational as were other people who complained about having guns pointed at them by people on the ground as well as by people on the roof who had lasers which were interpretted as gun sights.

Nah, I don't buy for a second that Rosenbaum was only confrontational because people pointed guns at him. (And the folks on the roof were at a Car Source location, not the gas station where Rosenbaum was filmed being aggressive). That's a cheap (and devoid of evidence) defense to downplay Rosenbaum's demeanor. 

Again I don't think Rosenbaum threatened him - there is no hard evidence of that. And based on what the prosecution states the requirements are for deadly force, that's not enough.

It's fine you don't think that, but multiple people corroborated and he's on video being aggressive/hostile. He's also on video chasing Rittenhouse while yelling "F*** you!" and lunging for his gun before being shot.
There's more in favor than against it.  

Who claimed Rittenhouse was able to shoot Rosenbaum because of his earlier threats? They definitely played a factor in Rittenhouse fearing for his safety but the law allowed him to shoot when Rosenbaum got close enough to lunge for his weapon after aggressively chasing him. 
 

Grosskreutz had multiple opportunities to shoot Rosenbaum - he didn't.

Again, what's your point? Like Rittenhouse shouldn't have shot when Grosskreutz was within a couple feet  advancing towards him, gun in hand, just because Grosskreutz could have shot him before that moment? It's absurd to believe that Rittenhouse, at that moment, should have just let him continue his advancement under the assumption that he meant no harm because he hadn't already shot Rittenhouse.

Defense went after the reporter during closing.

Watched it again and he did say that Rittenhouse didn't know he was there, McGinniss put himself in that position by openly running towards Rittenhouse/Rosenbaum, and under the law, if Rittenhouse was proven to have acted in self-defense, he's not responsible for McGinniss in that situation.
I guess I don't really see that as "going after him" or misleading the jury somehow.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Californication said:

The judge based the weapons charge on a case from the early 90's the interpretation seems like an outlier and apparently has been pushing by the gun lobbies.

Ok, its still a law so.... let's just hypothetically convict him of that misdemeanor and call it a wash. 

It's relevant in that Rittenhouse broke the law with the gun, with the curfew, and shows that he was reckless.

Sure, convict him of of the "questionable" law for underage possession like stated above and curfew (which everyone was breaking so anyone else could be considered "reckless" - Grosskreutz too since he shouldn't have legally had his pistol concealed). Still doesn't impact the primary charges. 

Rosenbaum's threats were only reported by Rittenhouse and I believe one of Ritenhouses's associates which doesn't mean that it happened. And even if Rosenbaum did make threats he had no means to carry them out.

Rittenhouse and Balch, who had just met that night. Did they have the same intentions?, sure but associate is a bit strong and you seemed to only use to try and disprove their testimony. Its fine if you don't believe them but a couple other people also stated that Rosenbaum was erratic and confrontational throughout the night. He was also on video angrily confronting people saying "shoot me n****". Add the fact that he was on medication for mental issues and it becomes easier to believe Rittenhouse/Balch/others in their testimony. 

And if Rosenbaum "had no means to carry threats out" (e.g., unarmed) then what do you think he was going to do when he caught up with Rittenhouse? (He lunged for his gun for a reason). Idiotic to risk losing control of your gun just because the guy wasn't already armed with a deadly weapon (as we know now with the benefit of hindsight - Rittenhouse did not at that time necessarily)

The whole Grosskreutz pretending to surrender is silly. That doesn't make sense.

Sense or not, its on video. He was advancing, Kyle aimed towards his direction, Grosskreutz put his hands up (gun in hand), Rittenhouse didn't shoot, Grosskreutz dropped his hands and stepped towards Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse shot him in the arm. That's exactly what happened within those few seconds.

For McGiniss look at the stuff the defense put on their "power point" They called him something and they basically said he put himself in a situation where he could be shot by a gun so it was his fault.

It's irrelevant whether Rittenhouse knew McGiness was there he was using ammo that could go through someone and a long distance so he was putting many people in danger. The charge they argued was reckless something I think.

Just skimmed through the defense questioning of McGinniss and see no PPT or statement on why it was McGinniss's "fault" that he was behind Rosenbaum. I do recall them asking Rittenhouse if he was familiar with the possible trajectory of FMJ ammo, which he claimed to be ignorant of all the differences. 

And again, this still all goes back to the main problem that nothing was causing an immediate threat to Rittenhouse's life. You can imagine whatever scenarios you want, but that is not how the law is laid out. You have to exhaust all options. 

Again, what option did Rittenhouse have when he ran away from Rosenbaum, turns around once he hits a bottleneck, and Rosenbaum is within mere feet, lunging at him? 

I think the prosecution made a pretty good argument that Rittenhouse did the same thing we all have done in COD. He found a safe area between a couple cars, stopped running, and when Rosenbaum got close he shot him. That version was shown to be reasonable from the FBI footage.

LOL the argument about video games is/was weak af. A totally irrelevant hail mary. 

Rittenhouse legit runs away after Rosenbaum pops out from behind a couple cars on the lot, gets to a bottleneck between cars and a partial wall, turns around and Rosenbaum is lunging at him. Per video and testimony from McGinniss. Not sure why you're trying to spin that has he ran to a "safe area", turned around, took aim and let loose on Rosenbaum. That is so dishonest its laughable. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Californication said:

Apparently you didn't watch the trial either.

1. Kyle Rittenhouse threatened people with his gun. 

Addressed in my other post to you

2. On direct questioning, the police and all of the people who testified did not mention violence except for Rittenhouse. There were guns being shot, but no one was hurt. 

And? It's irrelevant. Like Rittenhouse couldn't defend himself because nobody else was shot that night.

Property was damaged. 

3.The judge has Trumps walk on song as his ringtone.

LOL how long has that song been around? Anyone who likes that song is pro-Trump now?

The judge ruled against a law that basically says kids can't have guns that

Addressed in my other post to you

4. Rittenhouse didn't have a right to be there. There was a curfew and he violated it.

Pretty sure they couldn't 100% prove that curfew was in effect that night. 

5. Rittenhouse says he was there to protect a business. The business had all of their cars moved because their cars were burned on a previous night and Rittenhouse was wandering around with his gun no where near the business.

Rittenhouse bounced between two CarSource locations and there was plenty of testimony around him being part of a group that was asked to be there by the owners. (Cars were still on the lots too, not that its relevant) Regardless, him "wandering" around doesn't prove shit, especially murderous intent. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Californication said:

2 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

I never did watch it, I followed it right along though. I certainly wasn't a fan of the judge asking for a veterans day ovation for the defense witness, that seemed a bit disturbing and pandering to the camera like a judge Ito. Most of the other incidents seemed blown out of proportion. Were there others I missed?

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. 

18 hours ago, avatar! said:

What a joke. Although he was not found guilty, things are far from over, and everyone knows he was absolutely looking for trouble! Or, are you trying to tell me that someone who goes heavily armed into a peaceful protest is doing so because they're friendly and helpful? It's funny you say Why everyone couldn't look at the evidence/testimony objectively is beyond me at this point. First off, let's be real. If you've ever served on a jury or been to a trail you know there is absolutely no such thing as being entirely objective. Secondly, the judge was also a POS who was clearly biased towards his fellow right-winger and I feel will likely have his career cut short, or so I hope.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-has-been-found-not-guilty-whats-next-bail-money-civil-cases/8653018002/

Congressman Jerry Nadler, D-New York, called for a federal review of the case Friday. He serves as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ," he tweeted. "Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest."

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/20/could-kyle-rittenhouse-be-sued-for-negligence/

A criminal acquittal doesn't preclude a civil lawsuit out of the same claims. First, the acquittal resolves only that guilt couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (requiring, say, a >90% confidence level); the standard for civil liability is preponderance of the evidence (which requires just >50%, or perhaps ≥50%, if the injury is easily proved and the burden is then shifted to the defendant to prove self-defense). Second, liability could be based on a negligence theory

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.

11 hours ago, Tulpa said:

Sure they can. The outcome of the criminal trial has no bearing on any subsequent civil trial. They'll be tried separately on their own merits. Not to mention the burden of proof is less in a civil trial.

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. 

21 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

This was whether or not an out of state militia member acted appropriately when he took three lives. And criminally he apparently did. Civilly we shall see. The young man stands to make a small fortune from his fame in the coming weeks. We shall find out if the families of those who lost their lives will have a claim to that fortune.

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.

On 11/18/2021 at 8:52 PM, Kguillemette said:

On 11/18/2021 at 7:52 PM, avatar! said:

He might be found not-guilty, but I'm convinced that Rittenhouse is a POS that went out looking for trouble and was happy to kill - go on, convince me otherwise

And apparently the apple does not fall far from the rotten tree...

Expand  

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)

4 minutes ago, FireHazard51 said:

Sounded like the 19 year old was in the car with a gun and the 15 year old was out of the car stealing the console.  I'm just having a hard time imagining how the 15 year old should be a legit target of the shooting.  I don't know all the facts so there may be a reason but off the cuff this seems fucked up and I have a hard time seeing how an unarmed 15 year old should be shot at.  

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

9 minutes ago, FireHazard51 said:

WTF?!?!  You can kill a fucking teen for stealing a console???  What if they were stealing console game, would that be legal to kill a teen?  How about if they stole a piece of candy?  This if fucking sickening.  You want to shot at someone robbing with a deadly weapon then sure, go ahead.  But this is nuts to shot a teen who wasn't an immediate threat to the guy's life.  

I'm not sure if dude should serve time but he should lose the right to own guns as far as I'm concerned.  You can't just shot at teens who aren't a threat to your life.  And if you think theft of a console has enough value to kill a teen over then you have fucked up morals.  Theft of personal property shouldn't be a free ride to kill if you can aim good enough.  

I have serious personal issues with guns being used when life or severe personal harm (like rape) isn't at risk.  IF that is the case then yes, that is a good use of a firearm for protecting you or someone else.  If not then fucking let the law deal with the crime.  Anymore lots of shootings seem to be way stretching of the intent of firearms used for protecting yourself.  I'm not for citizens killing people over petty crimes done against them.  Soon you'll just be able to say "I thought they had a gun" when they stole my $10 Chipotle Gift Card so that's why I killed the 13 year old.

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...

18 minutes ago, inasuma said:

1 hour ago, obnoxious said:

I believe the Achilles heel of pop rep is the lack of a unique identifier on the outer side of boxes.

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. 

14 hours ago, AdamW said:

Paul Allen (another Microsoft cofounder) literally collected so much pop culture stuff he had to build a museum to put it in:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Pop_Culture

It has some cool video game stuff, in fact. It has one of the few (I think) copies of one of Keita Takahashi's wilder game concepts, which is a kinda arcade cab with like a hundred buttons; at the start they all do the same thing, then as you go along, more and more actions get added in...

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.

18 hours ago, Tanooki said:

NA doesn't deserve the blame for Hagane, he was off and on the site at that time.  I remember that conversation, his memory is right, but wrong.  Those self serving pricks at cinemassacare caused it.  It was like their first hidden gem video, or at least the first one that took off like wildfire.  They claimed it was rare, that it was a rental, that it was impossible to find (and it wasn't, lower amount of copies yes, but hard to get...no...rare...no.)  NA fed off it because we were getting annoyed at that shitty video and others post that where we'd debate how a game was $10 and now $200...$400+  Hagane, Run Saber, Pocky & Rocky 2, and others got the mike/cinemassacre treatment and the prices got hosed.

The early VGPC stuff since it had less years to feed off of, it had this huge rocket like trajectory launch of the line graph post video.  FOMO kicked in, you know fear only morons observe...and they'd buy, then another would buy for more, and more, and more...then it plateaued.  Sometimes they'd retreat a bit, some a lot (like Guardian Legend went stupid high, then fell largely back to normal + a little.)

NA didn't cause it, they just didn't help things debating it and broadcasting it, but also other 'rare' games that could be the next victim of the stupidity which basically fed into it.

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)

51 minutes ago, Mr. CIB said:

55 minutes ago, spacepup said:

That message looks too ridiculous to be real, IMO.  I suppose it's possible, but idk, I'm a bit skeptical.

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.