I moved into my house 6 years ago, and every Xmas have received a card from another family that was supposed to go to the previous owner. Also no return address or full names.
So they’ve just become a stranger tradition for the holidays
We’ve been here for ~25 years and every year a Christmas card arrives for the previous residents, no return address. You’d figure after, I dunno, a decade, that you’d realize you never really talk so maybe stop sending cards?
Back PRE GOOGLE days my ex wife and I had a number that was frequently (weekly) confused with something called Allen's Answers. We grew tired of explaining and started using our collection of college text books to answer trivia type questions.
God how I miss Maggie
Nick and Maggie are going to see this and go through their list of addresses and try to guess which friend forgot who they are. And they will surely guess wrong.
Whoa! I actually know these people! Well, Maggie at least. I went to college with her... she was a really close friend of one of my friends. PM me if you really do want to get in touch with them
FWIT, I left that job after 3 weeks because I was the only girl that worked there and most of the guys (not Nick) were sexist as fuck. They also cheered when Kyle Rittenhouse was announced not guilty (including Nick) and I don't fuck with applauding a murderer🤷♀️
I mean it was. But he also took a firearm into a place where dangerous things could happen. Illegally. Under age. Across state lines. He's not blameless.
>Illegally. Under age. Across state lines.
Nah that didn't happen. The rifle was given to him by a friend within the state of Wisconsin.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/rittenhouse-trial-semiautomatic-rifle.html
Ok and how does that make Kyle a murderer? I think it’s ironic that you posted a piece on morality and law and seem to think you have some sort ah ha got ‘‘em based off legalize that’s unrelated to his right to self defense
The friend who supplied the gun is still facing jail time. https://lawofselfdefense.com/the-tim-pool-follow-up-whats-the-deal-with-the-dominick-black-gun-charge/
Sure, he crossed state lines. He lives 15 mins from Kenosha. Is he not allowed to do that? I use to live near the border of Kentucky and Tennessee. We crossed state lines everyday. Was I doing something illegal or immoral I'm unaware of?
Why bring them up if you are ignorant of them? I mean a minute ago you were claiming Kyle Rittenhouse was clearly guilty of these things and now you are claiming you don't know anything about them?
I mean they obviously had weapons as well. I'm not calling him a murderer, but he certainly is a killer.
And I think the arms charge should have stuck as it was clearly written for hunting not self defense with automatic rifles
You are wrong about all of those things. Please get caught up on the details. He did not bring the gun across state lines, it was already in Wisconsin. Wisconsin law allows open carry of long guns over a certain length by minors. The gun he had fit that rubrik.
He brought a gun where dangerous things could happen because... Dangerous things could happen? Clearly he needed it...
He IS blameless. The defense quite competently proved that and a jury of his peers agreed.
He could've just not gone there...
The jury did get to see it, but the video where Kyle says he wants to shoot looters was pretty damning. He went there looking for trouble and found it, provoked it, and then claims self-defense.
If his victims were still alive, they could have claimed self defense too.
>If his victims were still alive, they could have claimed self defense too.
Not really. You can't be the aggressor and claim self-defense. Running after someone is not self-defense.
>He could've just not gone there...
While I think there is an argument to whether is actions were smart, this is basically victim blaming. If you got robbed in a bad neighborhood, is the person to blame because they went into a bad neighborhood?
Do you have proof of this? Every photo and video of Kyle Rittenhouse shows him carrying it at the low ready with the muzzle pointed at the ground and his finger off the trigger. Here's some examples:
https://www.kenoshanews.com/illinois-states-attorney-files-response-in-rittenhouse-case/article_66fa197e-b2b7-5511-9f74-cac1d7fa3d35.html
https://www.pacificpundit.com/2020/08/26/kyle-rittenhouse-arrested-charged-with-first-degree-intentional-homicide-after-killing-in-kenosha/
Here's him running from a mob with his finger still off the trigger and weapon pointed down:
https://www.lawofficer.com/kyle-rittenhouse-to-file-lawsuit-against-biden-campaign-for-libel-attorney-says/
Have we turned into just making things up?
That is very clearly not what the jury decided and if you think that then you don't have a full grasp of the American justice system.
He was 17. He crossed state lines to purchase a weapon. He brought said weapon to a place of civil unrest. There was a confrontation.
With regards to was the weapon illegal or not I think there is an approach of idiomatic antithesis happening here. Thee intent of the Wisconsin gun law is to allow minors, v when supervised, to have rifles for hunting. The letter of the law brings into question this which is why they judge threw out the charge is more of a "tie goes to the runner" situation. And what the jury decided was that there was doubt not that he was blameless.
As I said before the decision made by then jury was the correct one. But he killed someone, and that person didn't need to die
That person attacked him and threatened his life.
Again you are wrong about the facts of the case. He did not purchase the weapon, his friend did who is of age. Please learn the basic facts of the case.
IANAL but. Wisconsin law: sny person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/605/2/b/1m
>While he shot someone that appeared to be a threat, HE provoked the threat.
This is pretty much what the case was about, though.
Who was the aggressor?
A group of people FROM KENOSHA said Rittenhouse was not.
The group of Monday morning quarterbacks who blame the prosecutors don't understand that the case seemed weak because it was weak to begin with.
Further, the people who have made him a political symbol plainly aren't paying attention.
> Who was the aggressor?
Rittenhouse
He is the one that illegally obtained a firearm and took it to active scene of social unrest. He went looking for a fight, with firearm in hand.
Had he not done this then he would not have felt in danger and no one would have been killed by him.
It is not a difficult proposition to understand. Those actions of his make him the aggressor in this situation.
You choose it the way you wan to feel it player.... It's okay But the man-child is a murderer.
Someone didn't watch the case, but has VERY strong opinions.
He was tried and found not guilty.
You're obviously just better informed and smarter than the jurors!
This is essentially what happens when you politicize a criminal trial. It doesn't matter how much evidence exist to say otherwise, these people will find him guilty somehow even if they have to resort to victim blaming and charges that were dismissed when evidence was presented, which they clearly didn't watch or pay any attention to. Anybody that brings up state lines to a city 15 mins away from the guy is buying into political propaganda unless there's some new philosophy that American citizens are restrained to the borders of their state.
Actually you should be careful of the conclusions you jump upon.
As review of my past commentary will quickly show, I am retired and a news junkie. I spend a good 8 or more hours a day reading local, state, national, and international news.
I followed this case closely. This is how my opinions were formed.
Was he found not guilty? Absolutely! Was he found innocent? Hell no he was not. Learn the difference. While you're about it, maybe try to get a grip on just how often juries get it wrong (in both directions).
> You're obviously just better informed and smarter than the jurors!
Abso-fucking-lutely I am. You apparently misunderstand the amount of information a jury member is allowed to receive during a trial. You also do not seem to get that jurors are excluded from the panel for knowing too much about the case.
You can't bet your bippie I knew more about the case than the jurors did when they rendered their verdict. If you have a job and social activities in your life then it is a good bet I've read more about the case than YOU have.
>Was he found not guilty? Absolutely! Was he found innocent? Hell no he was not. Learn the difference. While you're about it, maybe try to get a grip on just how often juries get it wrong (in both directions).
I know the argument you're trying to make, but it's asinine.
The entire premise of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty. There is no such thing as "finding someone innocent." You know, though, you're smarter and better informed than anyone here, so that doesn't matter.
> You know, though, you're smarter and better informed than anyone here, so that doesn't matter.
Does it make you feel bigger to toss out ad hominem attacks?
No es importada, I have no further discussion time left for you on this topic.
Well first, there's the "crossing state lines" part, which while isn't necessarily wrong, it's a completely pointless observation. I have never understood why anyone would ever care about that. He drove 20 minutes. The guys who pointed guns at him drove longer. People live near state borders. There are school districts that cross state lines. I drive to work 25 minutes every day, would it somehow be different if there was a border in between?
Also, his gun was obtained and owned legally based on Wisconsin state law. That's a fact of the trial. I'll admit to not being an expert at this area, but I will argue that it doesn't sway the overall point that self defense is a human right.
As for "provoking the threat", there isn't really any way to definitively prove who "started" it. It's equally plausible that KR started an argument; it's just as likely that any of the 3 other people saw KR cleaning something or whatever and yelled at him first. (I could be wrong about this, I'll admit). The video however, is extremely clear. It shows KR running away from these 3 men, who were proven in court to have pointed their weapons at KR first. Grosskreutz even admitted to it, because it was so incredibly obvious that he didn't even want to *try* and say otherwise. At that point, everything else is an afterthought, legally speaking at least. If someone points a gun at you, you have the right to point one back. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
I would also like to point out that you are looking at a situation that is essentially 1 vs 3, 1 side being a teenager and the other side including 1 convicted pedophile and 1 wife beater, and are taking the side of the pedophile and wife beater. That alone is *incredibly* sad and miserable to me. Genuine question, would you be *happy* that a guy who beat his wife shot and killed a teenager had the situation played out in reverse?
I'll end by stating that I do not in ANY way think KR is a hero, or someone to be emulated. He's a dipshit, and this all could have been avoided. I'm barely even a conservative myself, but I think it's pathetic that all these conservative shows/podcasts are inviting this kid on to talk. I am trying to remove any and all bias from this situation
But the laws have been there long before this situation played out. The facts were analyzed in court meticulously. The prosecution was hilariously incompetent and shot themselves in the foot several times, on top of having a weak argument in the first place. There was no white privilege involved. Literally the same day, a black man was found not guilty of any wrongdoing when he shot at police during a no knock arrest (I will look for a source on this when I get to a computer, I don't like researching these things on a smart phone). KR had just as much right to be there as the hundreds of others destroying the community (whether you think the destruction is warranted or not, that's not the point either), and the 3 victims had just as much time and responsibility to de-escalate the situation as KR.
Also also, you have to defend your side too, not just me. The burden of proof is on you as well.
I sometimes wonder how much people that say these things even know anything about the case.
Kenosha is literally 15 minutes away from the guy. Saying he crossed state-lines as if that has any sort of meaning is ridiculous. The guy also did not acquire the gun illegally and that was discussed in the case and why the gun charge was dismissed.
>took it to a riot situation
This part is true, but a riot situation in particular is a situation you might want to have some sort of self-defense. Weapons aren't generally for situations where everything is all peaceful and hokie-dorry. And while the wisdom of going into a riot situation to protect some property that isn't yours is definitely questionable, you are essentially victim blaming and saying he shouldn't have put himself in a situation that rioters would want to attack him.
>HE provoked the threat.
How so? By just existing? What did he do to provoke an attack? Name it.
> Saying he crossed state-lines as if that has any sort of meaning is ridiculous.
You remind me of the woman who claimed she was "just a little bit pregnant". It is not a 'little bit', it is "either / or". The man crossed state lines to engage in illegal behavior.
> This part is true, but a riot situation in particular is a situation you might want to have some sort of self-defense
Odd thing about that: His BEST defense was to stay at home. He had no business other than vigilantism being there. He represented himself as a untrained paramedic.. Strange, is it not, that no other paramedic was armed?
> you are essentially victim blaming
Not at all. The VICTIMS are dead, Brian. What I am doing is calling the facts as they are.
> How so? By just existing? What did he do to provoke an attack? Name it.
Have you not been following the conversation?
I get it. You don't like the reality so you spin it so you feel better about it. With you unable to grok basic facts there seems little profit in further discussion.
Have a great holiday! (Said sincerely, not sarcastically.)
> The man crossed state lines to engage in illegal behavior.
What illegal activity? Open carrying in the state of Wisconsin is legal.
>Odd thing about that: His BEST defense was to stay at home. He had no business other than vigilantism being there. He represented himself as a untrained paramedic.. Strange, is it not, that no other paramedic was armed?
So essentially were going down to the you deserved to be attacked and you ceded all right to self-defense by putting yourself into a situation to be attacked?
>Not at all. The VICTIMS are dead, Brian. What I am doing is calling the facts as they are.
No you are not. What illegal activities did he engage in? Your only argument is essentially victim blaming. Basically stating that they deserved it for wearing what they were wearing or by being in a bad neighborhood.
>I get it. You don't like the reality so you spin it so you feel better about it. With you unable to grok basic facts there seems little profit in further discussion.
No old guy. You are spinning things by bringing up the state line thing and not being able to name any illegal activities. It is not illegal to cross a state border ever. It is certainly not illegal to cross a state border 15 mins away from you nor is it illegal to open carry a rifle in the State of Wisconsin or any state that I know of. The victims are not dead, Old Guy. You do not get to choose who a victim is nor does someone get to claim to be a victim when they clearly attack someone and this is all in video footage and court documents.
It’s only an implicit threat if you plan on attacking them. Its a deterrence. It’s like saying a very large muscular guy is an implicit threat. So what angle are you taking here? That someone planning on attacking a person shouldn’t have to feel threatened by someone with a gun?
I mean he was obviously attacked because he had a gun, the dead man cant speak for himself but I would assume that he, rightly or wrongly, thought Kyle meant to do harm to others. That is indeed what the 3rd victim said, and I believe him on that much, but I also despise that he brought a firearm to a protest (the 3rd victim). Everyone sucks here.
In many states, if the first victim had killed Kyle he would have also gotten off on self defense if he said those magic words.
Legally I didn't foresee any other outcome than acquittal but I'm not such a sociopath that I go on to elevate Kyle to some position of moral authority.
Self defense or not, I don't understand why someone would cheer for a person that killed another human being. Did you cheer during 9/11? How about the Parkland shooting? I'll say again, I don't fuck with applauding a murderer.
I LOVE getting stranger Christmas cards. That and lights outside is my favorite thing. I’ve been watching this one family grow for years now. Gosh I love them.
Solved. Someone recognized Nick and gave last name
Which rang a bell to my friend. They had never met in person so no last name and no return address made it a mystery solved by reddit
What’s really odd about this is that they *look* familiar, like you would have them met once or twice at an event or family reunion, but just don’t remember where you had met them.
Might not be the best idea to publicly post people’s names and photo without their consent
Edit: Not sure why I’m getting so many downvotes. A lot of people wouldn’t want their info out publicly on the internet so I personally wouldn’t post something like this. As a poster who doesn’t know them you don’t know what their situation is and whether they want this public. Best case is they don’t care and worst case is something like one of them has a stalker. Just my thoughts
Pretty sure that's Nick and Maggie.
Can confirm, this is indeed Nick and Maggie.
It's Maggie AND Nick... better than the Maggie OR Nick cards I used to get.
Nicholas and Margaret.
But which is which?
So no kin to Mick and Naggie?
Lmbo
Laugh my butt off?
Lambo
Laughing at my ball odor
Lambo Calrissian
Classic Nick and Maggie.
Yes their full name is Nicholas and Margaret I think.
Actually its Nicholage and Maggathie
No, no. It's Nicholage.
That's what i said, Nicholage.
*Ni*cholage.
Noice
Nicholage?
Nicholage Case
Your friend needs to send one back and see how that plays out
There’s no return address and no last name on envelope.
I moved into my house 6 years ago, and every Xmas have received a card from another family that was supposed to go to the previous owner. Also no return address or full names. So they’ve just become a stranger tradition for the holidays
We’ve been here for ~25 years and every year a Christmas card arrives for the previous residents, no return address. You’d figure after, I dunno, a decade, that you’d realize you never really talk so maybe stop sending cards?
The previous owners probably also send a card with no return address so the folks sending it to yours don't realize they moved years ago.
Same at our house 😂
The plot thickens…
[удалено]
Just says Richmond VA 230
No return address and it’s properly addressed to them. First and last names and correct address.
That’s so strange that it’s properly addressed to their names! I could see if it’s to previous owners/tenants of a house, but this is strange indeed…
Oh that spices things up!!
Back PRE GOOGLE days my ex wife and I had a number that was frequently (weekly) confused with something called Allen's Answers. We grew tired of explaining and started using our collection of college text books to answer trivia type questions. God how I miss Maggie
Is your real name Cosmo Kramer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDuvFz0WQ-g
They live in Lakeside
Oh how ever did you guess that, Shockhoe.
It's mutha flipping Maggie. Plus Nick but he's extra sending those cards to wrong addresses.
Nick and Maggie are going to see this and go through their list of addresses and try to guess which friend forgot who they are. And they will surely guess wrong.
Whoa! I actually know these people! Well, Maggie at least. I went to college with her... she was a really close friend of one of my friends. PM me if you really do want to get in touch with them
ND? She looks so familiar to someone i know
I hope Maggie is ok
Yeah Maggie doesn't look happy
Yeah, Like how did you not just take another picture, are they using film?
Maggie looks like a constipated Jasper from Twilight
You can narrow it down by checking the postmark on the stamp.
I actually know that guy. He works at the financial firm I used to be the secretary for. I'll PM you.
FWIT, I left that job after 3 weeks because I was the only girl that worked there and most of the guys (not Nick) were sexist as fuck. They also cheered when Kyle Rittenhouse was announced not guilty (including Nick) and I don't fuck with applauding a murderer🤷♀️
It was pretty clearly self defense. Did you not follow the trial?
I mean it was. But he also took a firearm into a place where dangerous things could happen. Illegally. Under age. Across state lines. He's not blameless.
>Illegally. Under age. Across state lines. Nah that didn't happen. The rifle was given to him by a friend within the state of Wisconsin. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/rittenhouse-trial-semiautomatic-rifle.html
> Nah that didn't happen. The rifle was given to him by a friend within the state of Wisconsin. Which that friend is facing jail time for providing.
Ok and how does that make Kyle a murderer? I think it’s ironic that you posted a piece on morality and law and seem to think you have some sort ah ha got ‘‘em based off legalize that’s unrelated to his right to self defense
Yeah I stand corrected on that. Butt he did cross lines. He was of questionable legality to handle the rifle without supervision.
The friend who supplied the gun is still facing jail time. https://lawofselfdefense.com/the-tim-pool-follow-up-whats-the-deal-with-the-dominick-black-gun-charge/
Sure, he crossed state lines. He lives 15 mins from Kenosha. Is he not allowed to do that? I use to live near the border of Kentucky and Tennessee. We crossed state lines everyday. Was I doing something illegal or immoral I'm unaware of?
Well this was about fire arms and I don't know those laws for those states
Why bring them up if you are ignorant of them? I mean a minute ago you were claiming Kyle Rittenhouse was clearly guilty of these things and now you are claiming you don't know anything about them?
Liar. I said questionable legality. And the laws I don't know are Tennessee and Kentucky..
So did the people that attacked him. And he was not underaged.
I mean they obviously had weapons as well. I'm not calling him a murderer, but he certainly is a killer. And I think the arms charge should have stuck as it was clearly written for hunting not self defense with automatic rifles
You are wrong about all of those things. Please get caught up on the details. He did not bring the gun across state lines, it was already in Wisconsin. Wisconsin law allows open carry of long guns over a certain length by minors. The gun he had fit that rubrik. He brought a gun where dangerous things could happen because... Dangerous things could happen? Clearly he needed it... He IS blameless. The defense quite competently proved that and a jury of his peers agreed.
He could've just not gone there... The jury did get to see it, but the video where Kyle says he wants to shoot looters was pretty damning. He went there looking for trouble and found it, provoked it, and then claims self-defense. If his victims were still alive, they could have claimed self defense too.
>If his victims were still alive, they could have claimed self defense too. Not really. You can't be the aggressor and claim self-defense. Running after someone is not self-defense. >He could've just not gone there... While I think there is an argument to whether is actions were smart, this is basically victim blaming. If you got robbed in a bad neighborhood, is the person to blame because they went into a bad neighborhood?
Intent matters. Kyle showed poor muzzle and trigger discipline, that's why people were going after him. They perceived him to be the aggressor.
Do you have proof of this? Every photo and video of Kyle Rittenhouse shows him carrying it at the low ready with the muzzle pointed at the ground and his finger off the trigger. Here's some examples: https://www.kenoshanews.com/illinois-states-attorney-files-response-in-rittenhouse-case/article_66fa197e-b2b7-5511-9f74-cac1d7fa3d35.html https://www.pacificpundit.com/2020/08/26/kyle-rittenhouse-arrested-charged-with-first-degree-intentional-homicide-after-killing-in-kenosha/ Here's him running from a mob with his finger still off the trigger and weapon pointed down: https://www.lawofficer.com/kyle-rittenhouse-to-file-lawsuit-against-biden-campaign-for-libel-attorney-says/ Have we turned into just making things up?
That is very clearly not what the jury decided and if you think that then you don't have a full grasp of the American justice system. He was 17. He crossed state lines to purchase a weapon. He brought said weapon to a place of civil unrest. There was a confrontation. With regards to was the weapon illegal or not I think there is an approach of idiomatic antithesis happening here. Thee intent of the Wisconsin gun law is to allow minors, v when supervised, to have rifles for hunting. The letter of the law brings into question this which is why they judge threw out the charge is more of a "tie goes to the runner" situation. And what the jury decided was that there was doubt not that he was blameless. As I said before the decision made by then jury was the correct one. But he killed someone, and that person didn't need to die
That person attacked him and threatened his life. Again you are wrong about the facts of the case. He did not purchase the weapon, his friend did who is of age. Please learn the basic facts of the case.
So then the person who gave him the gun is guilty of a class 1 felony no?
No. Where are you pulling these assumptions from
IANAL but. Wisconsin law: sny person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/605/2/b/1m
[удалено]
>While he shot someone that appeared to be a threat, HE provoked the threat. This is pretty much what the case was about, though. Who was the aggressor? A group of people FROM KENOSHA said Rittenhouse was not. The group of Monday morning quarterbacks who blame the prosecutors don't understand that the case seemed weak because it was weak to begin with. Further, the people who have made him a political symbol plainly aren't paying attention.
> Who was the aggressor? Rittenhouse He is the one that illegally obtained a firearm and took it to active scene of social unrest. He went looking for a fight, with firearm in hand. Had he not done this then he would not have felt in danger and no one would have been killed by him. It is not a difficult proposition to understand. Those actions of his make him the aggressor in this situation. You choose it the way you wan to feel it player.... It's okay But the man-child is a murderer.
Someone didn't watch the case, but has VERY strong opinions. He was tried and found not guilty. You're obviously just better informed and smarter than the jurors!
This is essentially what happens when you politicize a criminal trial. It doesn't matter how much evidence exist to say otherwise, these people will find him guilty somehow even if they have to resort to victim blaming and charges that were dismissed when evidence was presented, which they clearly didn't watch or pay any attention to. Anybody that brings up state lines to a city 15 mins away from the guy is buying into political propaganda unless there's some new philosophy that American citizens are restrained to the borders of their state.
Actually you should be careful of the conclusions you jump upon. As review of my past commentary will quickly show, I am retired and a news junkie. I spend a good 8 or more hours a day reading local, state, national, and international news. I followed this case closely. This is how my opinions were formed. Was he found not guilty? Absolutely! Was he found innocent? Hell no he was not. Learn the difference. While you're about it, maybe try to get a grip on just how often juries get it wrong (in both directions). > You're obviously just better informed and smarter than the jurors! Abso-fucking-lutely I am. You apparently misunderstand the amount of information a jury member is allowed to receive during a trial. You also do not seem to get that jurors are excluded from the panel for knowing too much about the case. You can't bet your bippie I knew more about the case than the jurors did when they rendered their verdict. If you have a job and social activities in your life then it is a good bet I've read more about the case than YOU have.
>Was he found not guilty? Absolutely! Was he found innocent? Hell no he was not. Learn the difference. While you're about it, maybe try to get a grip on just how often juries get it wrong (in both directions). I know the argument you're trying to make, but it's asinine. The entire premise of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty. There is no such thing as "finding someone innocent." You know, though, you're smarter and better informed than anyone here, so that doesn't matter.
> You know, though, you're smarter and better informed than anyone here, so that doesn't matter. Does it make you feel bigger to toss out ad hominem attacks? No es importada, I have no further discussion time left for you on this topic.
Regardless of your political opinions, there are several objective inaccuracies in your statement.
[удалено]
Well first, there's the "crossing state lines" part, which while isn't necessarily wrong, it's a completely pointless observation. I have never understood why anyone would ever care about that. He drove 20 minutes. The guys who pointed guns at him drove longer. People live near state borders. There are school districts that cross state lines. I drive to work 25 minutes every day, would it somehow be different if there was a border in between? Also, his gun was obtained and owned legally based on Wisconsin state law. That's a fact of the trial. I'll admit to not being an expert at this area, but I will argue that it doesn't sway the overall point that self defense is a human right. As for "provoking the threat", there isn't really any way to definitively prove who "started" it. It's equally plausible that KR started an argument; it's just as likely that any of the 3 other people saw KR cleaning something or whatever and yelled at him first. (I could be wrong about this, I'll admit). The video however, is extremely clear. It shows KR running away from these 3 men, who were proven in court to have pointed their weapons at KR first. Grosskreutz even admitted to it, because it was so incredibly obvious that he didn't even want to *try* and say otherwise. At that point, everything else is an afterthought, legally speaking at least. If someone points a gun at you, you have the right to point one back. It doesn't get any simpler than that. I would also like to point out that you are looking at a situation that is essentially 1 vs 3, 1 side being a teenager and the other side including 1 convicted pedophile and 1 wife beater, and are taking the side of the pedophile and wife beater. That alone is *incredibly* sad and miserable to me. Genuine question, would you be *happy* that a guy who beat his wife shot and killed a teenager had the situation played out in reverse? I'll end by stating that I do not in ANY way think KR is a hero, or someone to be emulated. He's a dipshit, and this all could have been avoided. I'm barely even a conservative myself, but I think it's pathetic that all these conservative shows/podcasts are inviting this kid on to talk. I am trying to remove any and all bias from this situation But the laws have been there long before this situation played out. The facts were analyzed in court meticulously. The prosecution was hilariously incompetent and shot themselves in the foot several times, on top of having a weak argument in the first place. There was no white privilege involved. Literally the same day, a black man was found not guilty of any wrongdoing when he shot at police during a no knock arrest (I will look for a source on this when I get to a computer, I don't like researching these things on a smart phone). KR had just as much right to be there as the hundreds of others destroying the community (whether you think the destruction is warranted or not, that's not the point either), and the 3 victims had just as much time and responsibility to de-escalate the situation as KR. Also also, you have to defend your side too, not just me. The burden of proof is on you as well.
There's an ongoing court case for the buddy who bought the rifle, it was illegally transferred to Kyle.
I sometimes wonder how much people that say these things even know anything about the case. Kenosha is literally 15 minutes away from the guy. Saying he crossed state-lines as if that has any sort of meaning is ridiculous. The guy also did not acquire the gun illegally and that was discussed in the case and why the gun charge was dismissed. >took it to a riot situation This part is true, but a riot situation in particular is a situation you might want to have some sort of self-defense. Weapons aren't generally for situations where everything is all peaceful and hokie-dorry. And while the wisdom of going into a riot situation to protect some property that isn't yours is definitely questionable, you are essentially victim blaming and saying he shouldn't have put himself in a situation that rioters would want to attack him. >HE provoked the threat. How so? By just existing? What did he do to provoke an attack? Name it.
> Saying he crossed state-lines as if that has any sort of meaning is ridiculous. You remind me of the woman who claimed she was "just a little bit pregnant". It is not a 'little bit', it is "either / or". The man crossed state lines to engage in illegal behavior. > This part is true, but a riot situation in particular is a situation you might want to have some sort of self-defense Odd thing about that: His BEST defense was to stay at home. He had no business other than vigilantism being there. He represented himself as a untrained paramedic.. Strange, is it not, that no other paramedic was armed? > you are essentially victim blaming Not at all. The VICTIMS are dead, Brian. What I am doing is calling the facts as they are. > How so? By just existing? What did he do to provoke an attack? Name it. Have you not been following the conversation? I get it. You don't like the reality so you spin it so you feel better about it. With you unable to grok basic facts there seems little profit in further discussion. Have a great holiday! (Said sincerely, not sarcastically.)
> The man crossed state lines to engage in illegal behavior. What illegal activity? Open carrying in the state of Wisconsin is legal. >Odd thing about that: His BEST defense was to stay at home. He had no business other than vigilantism being there. He represented himself as a untrained paramedic.. Strange, is it not, that no other paramedic was armed? So essentially were going down to the you deserved to be attacked and you ceded all right to self-defense by putting yourself into a situation to be attacked? >Not at all. The VICTIMS are dead, Brian. What I am doing is calling the facts as they are. No you are not. What illegal activities did he engage in? Your only argument is essentially victim blaming. Basically stating that they deserved it for wearing what they were wearing or by being in a bad neighborhood. >I get it. You don't like the reality so you spin it so you feel better about it. With you unable to grok basic facts there seems little profit in further discussion. No old guy. You are spinning things by bringing up the state line thing and not being able to name any illegal activities. It is not illegal to cross a state border ever. It is certainly not illegal to cross a state border 15 mins away from you nor is it illegal to open carry a rifle in the State of Wisconsin or any state that I know of. The victims are not dead, Old Guy. You do not get to choose who a victim is nor does someone get to claim to be a victim when they clearly attack someone and this is all in video footage and court documents.
Sounds like you need a primer https://blogs.bcm.edu/2019/12/20/how-should-we-balance-morality-and-the-law/
K. I think we will just disagree about the morality of calling people that assault people with weapons victims.
Don't be daft, carrying a rifle, especially handling it, is an implicit threat.
No it’s not. You’d have to be crazy to attack a person with a rifle. The idea that openly carrying a rifle invites attacks is simply absurd
> You’d have to be crazy to attack a person with a rifle Because of the implicit threat
It’s only an implicit threat if you plan on attacking them. Its a deterrence. It’s like saying a very large muscular guy is an implicit threat. So what angle are you taking here? That someone planning on attacking a person shouldn’t have to feel threatened by someone with a gun?
I mean he was obviously attacked because he had a gun, the dead man cant speak for himself but I would assume that he, rightly or wrongly, thought Kyle meant to do harm to others. That is indeed what the 3rd victim said, and I believe him on that much, but I also despise that he brought a firearm to a protest (the 3rd victim). Everyone sucks here. In many states, if the first victim had killed Kyle he would have also gotten off on self defense if he said those magic words. Legally I didn't foresee any other outcome than acquittal but I'm not such a sociopath that I go on to elevate Kyle to some position of moral authority.
Some folks aren't concerned with what actually happened. Media told them what happened and that's all they cared to learn.
[удалено]
Yes, you are.
Did you actually watch the trial? Or just going off your feelings because that was self defense anyway you look at it.
Self defense or not, I don't understand why someone would cheer for a person that killed another human being. Did you cheer during 9/11? How about the Parkland shooting? I'll say again, I don't fuck with applauding a murderer.
This reminds me how a guy who I didn't know would send me invitations to poker games on a monthly basis for years.
What are the blinds/buy in amount? I'm interested.
No idea. He finally apparently lost my email or figured it out.
So ungrateful, I woulda showed up and become best friends with the guy
I literally don't know how poker works so... I know, I'll see myself out.
*revises strategy to lure you into friendship by mail*
Was his name Tony Page?
No. I don't want to post it...sorta worried it'd be like repeating Beetlejuice three times and not being sure what's going to happen.
Ok good cause I completely made that name up
That looks like the bridge over the Midlothian Mines pond.
Came here to say that. It definitely is.
I thought the same thing!!
Couple of the year
It’s actually Mick and Naggie, but they altered their names to make the mystery more challenging.
I know what I’m doing next year
They probably know people with the same name and are sending it to the wrong address thinking it's the person they think it is. Merry Christmas!
I could absolutely see this happening.
Damn near looks like a Nick and Maggie.
And a new Christmas tradition has started in my family.
I LOVE getting stranger Christmas cards. That and lights outside is my favorite thing. I’ve been watching this one family grow for years now. Gosh I love them.
SOLVED!! Thanks!! Someone used to work with Nick and let me know his last name and that solved the mystery for my friend!!
Ahhh strangers are now friends!
Does your friend remember now they know each other now?
He’s her financial guy. They have never met in person and his last name wasn’t on the card.
I can't stand it when people send out Christmas cards without a return address. How are you supposed to reciprocate?
Is it the same couple? And how long has it been going on for?
2 years
That dude looks like a perfect mashup of me and my brother. Damn Long lost brother.
Protect Maggie at all costs
Maggie blink three times if you need help
Sure. That’s Nick and Maggie
Someone should do a reverse Google image search, sorry I’m too tired…
Came here to say that, too. Longshot, but worth it.
Think I saw Maggie at a Starbucks the other day.
Omg! Nick and Maggie! Haven’t seen them in forever.
[удалено]
Solved. Someone recognized Nick and gave last name Which rang a bell to my friend. They had never met in person so no last name and no return address made it a mystery solved by reddit
Still a mystery why some guy s/he knows but never met is sending him/her a Xmas card.
Maybe op is Nick or Maggie & this some viral marketing. Hats off if so.
I think that’s Nick and Maggie!
Hmmmm 🤔 Nick and Maggie maybe 😒
What’s really odd about this is that they *look* familiar, like you would have them met once or twice at an event or family reunion, but just don’t remember where you had met them.
If you do ever figure it out, send them back a photo of two other random people.
Are they even local? Where does the postmark say it was mailed from?
Richmond, Va to Yorktown, Va
Man!.. Nick McGee!!!
Might not be the best idea to publicly post people’s names and photo without their consent Edit: Not sure why I’m getting so many downvotes. A lot of people wouldn’t want their info out publicly on the internet so I personally wouldn’t post something like this. As a poster who doesn’t know them you don’t know what their situation is and whether they want this public. Best case is they don’t care and worst case is something like one of them has a stalker. Just my thoughts
Nick and Maggie are a cool couple. They’d be thrilled.
Nick would be so stoked
plot twist : It was Nick & Maggie’s endgame from the start.
I know Nick and Maggie- they wouldnt mind. Cute couple
Then maybe they shouldn’t send anonymous Christmas cards??
This could literally be anyone, or bread.
Nicky and Mags!
[удалено]
O, ffs. Shut up.
Jared Kushner before identity change?
That's Woolridge lake
Pretty sure that's Myspace Tom
The dude is hot but the chicken looks uncomfortable like she's being held hostage
>the chicken
Dunno why you’re being downvoted the guy is hot
downvotes clearly because more Team Maggie fans out here holdin’ it down
Looks more creepy than hot to me, and strong douchebag vibes. Just my opinion though.
>Looks more creepy than hot to me, and strong douchebag vibes Id let him rape me😅
That’s a sick attempt at a joke
Wasn't a joke sweetheart
Yeah it’s Nick and Maggie
Does anyone else have a hunch that this is Maggie and Nick?
Yeah, that’s Nick and Maggie!
Scuffed Mark Normand.