General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Newbie Prepper
The Rational National
comments

Comments by "Newbie Prepper" (@newbieprepper8451) on "The Most Revealing Clips From Rittenhouse's Testimony" video.

funny how you mention a black kid in a hoodie, im assuming you are referring to Travon Martin. Rosenbaun (the first person shot and killed) was stalking and charging Rittenhouse, in the same exact manner as Zimmerman was stalking and attacking Travon. this was shown in Video obtained by the prosecution from peoples cell phones AND on FBI drove. if you think Trevon should have been allowed to walk freely without being stalked and attacked then you cant have a different standard for Rittenhouse.
9
while i agree with you on that point, the prosecution should have already had a zoomed in version of the video prepared. zooming in on a video live during a trial can be construed as manipulation of evidence, the same goes for the defense, i would not allow them to zoom in on a portion of the video which shows Rosenbaum throwing an item at Rittenhouse. zooming in on an image or video after it was taken works in a way where already saved pixels are spread out and seperated by empty pixels, and then an algorithm tries to fill in those empty pixels with what it thinks should belong there based on adjoining pixels that are already filled in. with a black and white thermal immage, there is a limited color pallet that the algorithm can choose from, either black or white or a shade of gray. and so however inconceivable, it is possible, for a computer, to zoom in on a thermal image of a baseball player throwing a baseball and result in a zoomed in image of a baseball player throwing a hand grenade. this is one of the reasons that lots of zoomed in images have degredation and show up as blocky and pixelated. and that is a valid argument to not allow it based on it is tampering with evidence.
7
@idkmynametho8391 damn straight, and Zimmerman SHOULD have gone to jail, because he stalked and attacked a person for absolutely NO reason, and it resulted in that persons death.
6
@akumakorgar yes i can. Rosenbaung stalked and then attacked Rittenhouse. Zimmerman stalked and then attacked Trevon. Rittenhouse did nothing to provoke the attack same as Travon did nothing to provoke the attack.
5
@nrf91 valid point, and i tend to agree, Rittenhouse should not have been there. but given that Rittenhouse worked there, and had friends there, and there are some reports claiming he had family there, that creates a connection to the community in the same way that Trevon had a connection to the community he was walking through. in either case, it is wrong simply to attack someone for believing that person does not belong there, and it is disgustingly wrong to actually stalk someone because that shows intent to attack. what did Rittenhouse do to deserve being attacked? its all in the eye of the beholder, people say he was a threat because he had a gun, even though he never used his gun or even pointed it at anyone that was not directly attacking him. same question about Trevon, what did he do to deserve being stalked and attacked? he simply walked through a neighborhood where someone else perceived him as a threat. as for you trying to say that "If anything, Zimmerman, another cop wannabe with a gun who used it to kill innocent people, is the better analogy." shows that you think Rosenbaun was innocent, even though you admit in your first sentence that Rosenbaum was acting as the agressor. you cant have it both ways, either Rosenbaum was the aggressor or he was innocent, and if you think he was innocent then him stalking and attacking what he perceived as a threat was justified. and if stalking and attacking someone you perceive as a threat is justified then please go tell Trevons parents that Zimmerman was justified in stalking and attacking Trevon. the whole event boils down to this. Rosenbaum had several interactions with Rittenhouse that night before being shot, and at no point during those interactions did Rosenbaum try to attack Rittenhouse because he perceived him as a threat since Rittenhouse was open carrying the whole entire time. you cant argue that that someone who sees a man with a gun doesnt think of him as a threat and doesnt disarm him but then later decides that he is a threat when that "threat" has done nothing threatening the whole time. its like me sitting in a park and you walk by with a gun and i dont try to disarm you but later i try to disarm you even though you have done nothing to become a threat, i didnt perceive you as a threat the first or the second time i saw you with a gun, and you didnt use the gun in a threatening manner, so how can i argue that i seen you as a threat the 3rd time around?
4
your entire statement is a LIE. a blatant LIE. the IL state police did an investigation and declined to file charges against Rittenhouse because they found that the riffle Rittenhouse had WAS purchased and stored and used in Kenosha WI. next point is that an AR-15 is not a military weapon, and you cant point to any single military in the world that uses an AR-15 as a standard or even NON standard issue weapon.
4
@deadwingdomain no, its not going to open up ANY old cases, guaranteed.
4
@sammylong3704 yea, imagine if he was black, we would be rioting in the streets screaming his name TRAVON MARTIN.
3
@thomaswashington5888 had Rosenbaum NOT threatene and stalked and attacked Rittenhouse Trevon Martin style.
3
and left wing logic is that you can make death threats against a kid (Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse on several occasions.) and then stalk and attack a kid in the same manner that Zimmerman stalked and attacked Trevon Martine, and then attack the kid by beating him with a skateboard across the head. thats left wing logic. if you think that Rosenbaum had every right to STALK and attack Rittenhouse , then you are also saying that Zimmerman had every right to stalk and attack Trevon.
2
@juggaloclownpreacher every news channel it was on? well lets see. it was reported on CNN and NPR, and Kenosha News, and various other outlets INCLUDING live trial coverage.
2
@maxsmart9116 yes, Rittenhouse crossed state lines, he never brought a gun across state lines, so your point is nothing but garbage. anyone can freely cross state lines at any time for any purpose.
2
@juggaloclownpreacher he killed 2 people that were in the process of attacking him, and the man he wounded was also in the process of attacking him, the wounded man himself testified to that fact on the stand.
2
@juggaloclownpreacher he shot multiple people who were attacking him. and the wounded man testified on the stand, that he had NO knowledge that Rittenhouse had shot anyone. in fact, he testified that he had thought he heard Rittenhouse say that he was working with the police. in video evidence AND in his own testimony, he was running alongside Rittenhouse and had asked Rittenhouse what happened, to which he said he thought he heard Rittenhouse say he was working with police, at that point he stopped and turned around and started running back to the crowd, then when he seen the crowd running in his direction, he turned around and started running back after Rittenhouse and drew his weapon. HE testified that he did NOT KNOW why the crowd was running in that direction. so he did NOT know if rittenhouse was an active shooter or if he had even shot anyone. he NEVER testified that he went after Rittenhouse becaue he knew Rittenhouse shot other people, NEVER. ive been watching the trial live coverage and seen exactly what he testified to and the lies he tried pushing that both the prosecusion AND the defense had caught him in.
2
you know what else are good points? 1. multiple witnesses on the prosecution side testified that Rittenhouse was being physically attacked when he fired shots. 2. multiple witnesses on the prosecution side testified that Rittenhouse was threatened at least twice by Rosenbaum (the first person shot) when he said "im going to f'ing kill you". 3. Groosskreutz (shot and survived) admitted that he was shot AFTER he pointed his weapon at Rittenhouse and admitted that Rittenhouse acted in self defense. 4. multiple videos obtained from the scene filmed by bystanders AND an FBI surveillance drone show Rittenhouse under physical attack before shooting anyone.
2
@AlanDantes76 of course David did not watch the trial, of course its obvious that him and practically every dimwit on here havent watched any part of the trial and are only listening to clips from liberal media. towards the end of this video David even says that Rittenhouse crossed state lines with the weapon in question, which is an absolute lie, and he should be permanently banned from Youtube for spreading misinformation and fake news.
2
@lizzy-wx4rx well, maybe if you genuinely look at the evidence in the trial, and actually watch the trial then it would be easy to follow. Rosenbaum STALKED Rittenhouse, that was admitted through testimony and through surveilance video. Rosenbaum stalked Rittenhouse in the same was that Zimmerman stalked Trevon.
2
@AlanDantes76 yea, he got it from his friend who lives in WI and bought it in WI, so anyone doing any news coverage should be doing due diligence and researching it. i heard people say that he did transport it across state lines and i heard people that said he did not transport it across state lines, so with 2 differing viewpoints and an absence of any charges to the transporting of firearms across state lines i decided to do my own research, and google came up with a link to an NPR article within 0.016 seconds, top of the search list. so i read the NPR article, which literally said that the IL state police declined to file any charges because in the course of their investigation they concluded that the weapon was bought, stored, and used exclusively in WI and has never been brought to IL, according to the IL state police statement. so at that point i figured ok, NPR quoted an actual police department that did an actual criminal investigation. another funny thing that made me question the whole transporting weapons across state lines was, why was Rittenhous's friend who lives in WI charged with gun charges related to this case. people dont do enough research, they listen to pundits who have an agenda, and they are twisted into wanting revenge and thinking it is justice. the same people who will claim that Zimmerman was wrong for stalking and attacking Trevon even though he perceived him as a threat are the same people that think it was perfectly OK for Rosenbaum to stalk and attack Rittenhouse because he viewed him as a threat. i believe that NO ONE is allowed to stalk and attack anyone else, stalking is a crime, at least here in Chicago, so is physically attacking someone, so is threatening to kill someone.
2
trial ended with justice, NOT GUILTY verdict.
2
@willchristie2650 wise words indeed, hopefully when you are in court standing in front of a judge, he takes your words to heart and refuses to support you.
1
Rational National. at this point you SHOULD be removed from Youtube for posting FAKE NEWS and misinformation. towards the end of your video you state that Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon, that in itself is a LIE. Rittenhouse NEVER crossed state lines with a weapon. NPR did a news story about it where they reported that the IL State Police investigated the matter and declined to file any charges because they concluded that the riffle used by Rittenhouse was bought and stored and used in Kenosha WI and was NEVER in IL. your second point that he shot 2 unarmed men and killed them? the first guy was unarmed but attacking Rittenhouse, if you think that is OK, then you probably think that a man beating a woman is ok because obviously he is unarmed. and the second man WAS armed with a blunt object, which can be used as a weapon and has caused 393 murders in 2020, hands and feet caused 662 murders in 2020.
1
@AlanDantes76 Rosenbaum had also threatened to kill Rittenhouse on at least 1 instance as testified to by witnesses, and some people are claiming that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Rittenhouse on 2 occasions, although i have not seen the testimony of that, but i did see that there was testimony that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Rittenhouse at least one time, with Rittenhouse standing right there. in my book, you cant threaten to kill someone, that in itself is a crime all on its own, and in many municipalities is an arestable offense, but you cant threaten to kill someone, then stalk them and then attack them, as was shown on drove surveilance footage. anyone who has a threat against them and is being stalked and then physically attacked by that person can not claim to be the victim.
1
@AlanDantes76 ok, so Rosenbaum threatenned Rittenhouse just once, i know i heard testimony that it happened at least once, but i have also heard some people say that it happened more than once but i cant confirm that, all i heard was that there was one instance of a threat. as far as i know, threatening someones life was a crime in most jurisdictions, defined as assault. so yea, if someone threatens to kill me, and its not in a joking and friendly manner such as a friend smacktalking me that they will totally kill me and referring to a game or something, but literally someone i have never met before on the street threatening to kill me, i would take it as a serious threat.
1
@AlanDantes76 Rittenhouse can claim that Rosenbaum threatened him a million times, he has a motive for making that claim, its a he said she said kind of thing, i would not necessarily take it at face value, but i will take at face value where an independent witness testified that Rosenbaum threatened him at least once, its an independent witness with no motive to make any statements in favor or against the defense.
1
@varab6287 blah blah blah racism blah blah. funny how all this racism is running rampant in major cities where the same people that claim victimhood are the ones that keep electing the same politicians that they say are abusing them with rampant systemic racism. if you dont like the system, then work on changing the system, stop electing the same politicians that drive that racism instead of going out and attacking and destroying innocent people lives that just want to live their lives in peace. you ramble on about Fox news brainwashing people while CNN and MCNBC and the others have brainwashed you to believe that a man who authored the 1994 crime bill that disproportionately targeted young black men and put them in prison and a woman who used that law as a prosecutor to put young black men in prison for extended sentences were not racist and the real racist was a man who was in favor of gay marriage before most politicians ever thought of it and who was the first man in FL to open his club to minorities a decade before anyone else and who thought that illegal immigration should be stopped because it destroys middle and low income wages which affect minority groups more. take your racism and shove it, most people who cry and whine about it are the same ones voting for and supporting the politicians that push it. perfect example is here in Chicago, the democrats elected Rahm Emanuel simply becaue he was Obamas right hand man, and he turned around and in his first term in office he shut down half the schools on the southside which is mostly minorities. then to top it off, these ame people re-elected him. fuck them, if they cry about racism its because they brought it upon themselves and they get only laughter from me.
1
you got to love how a kid is found NOT GUILTY by a jury who clearly saw that kid defend himself.
1
@juggaloclownpreacher hahaha, its 12 people that came up with the verdict, not 1 judge, keep crying. NOT GUILTY.
1
@shybry3371 sure, lets talk about that point, WI is an open carry state, and the police can not arrest you for openly carrying a weapon.
1
@jessebianchi2631 well, thats your state, but in WI it will not get you cancelled, maybe you should move to WI.
1
@jessebianchi2631 you can claim open carry is a form of bullying and i can claim open carry is a deterrent to attack. and no, lets not frame it any differently than what actually happened, we are not going to play your stupid game of framing events to fit your garbage narrative. if you think it is OK for someone to threaten and then stalk and then attack someone for no reason, then please go tell that to Travon Martins parrents, that you thought it was OK for Zimmerman to stalk and attack their son.
1
@hectorhall82 Rittenhouse was not conceal carrying a firearm, Grooskreuts WAS, and he was doing so illegaly since he testified in court that his concealed carry permit had in fact been expired and was no longer valid. Rittenhouse WAS open carrying a weapon, which is allowed for people over 18, but there is also a provision in the law exempting people under 18 for certain provisions, and those provisions have to be argued in court to whether they apply or not in this case. as for him being under age, NONE of his attackers knew his age, not a single one, so them instigating an attack against Rittenhouse based on that is wrong.
1
@chikushodiz91 he was a problem because what? you decided so? i guess you think he is a problem because he is white, but we have a case of the same exact thing with a black kid. Trevon Martin was black, and he was stalked and attacked by someone for no reason. Rittenhouse is a white kid, who was stalked and attacked for no reason. the only difference between the two of them is that one i black and one is white. if you think one was wrong and one was right then you are a racist plain and simple. and no, you do NOT get to use the argument that Rittenhouse carrying a weapon was a threat because there were NO phone calls to 911 with ANY complaints of a kid carrying a firearm for the MULTIPLE hours that Rittenhouse was walking around with a riffle. multiple videos presented in court show Rittenhouse running around with his riffle and either administering first aid with his med kit or putting out fires with a fire extinguisher, and NEVER on any of those videos does anyone mention that as a threat. YOU are the problem.
1
@lynneanderson4255 wow, lets go over all 4 of your points. 1. being a minor is knowledge obtained POST event, and during the riot absolutely NO ONE knew his age, you cant attack someone because you THINK someone might be too young. 2. you are a fucking liar, plain and simple, he NEVER took a firearm across state lines. 3. you are still a fucking liar because ye never took any weapon across state lines, and the only people he killed were people trying to kill him first. but if you want to use hind sight, fine, the first person he killed was a damn PEDo which deserved being killed. throw a PEDO in prison and EVERY prisoner there will agree they need to kill the PEDO, even rival gangs will call a truce simply to work together to kill the PEDO. 4. Rittenhouse shoots and kills 2 people that were attacking him, and the 3rd person he shot WAS pointing his gun at his head ready to shoot, he even admitted on the witness stand that Rittenhouse shot him in self defense. whats obscene is that you think its ok for someone to be attacked and they dont have any right to defend themselves. hopefully a PEDO comes along and kicks you in the head a few times and then some wifebeater comes by to smash your face in with a skateboard and then a 3rd moron comes by and puts a gun in your face and squeezes the trigger, because you think all those things are acceptable.
1
Rittenhouse walked, declared NOT GUILTY. here is your dangerous precedent, you are no longer allowed to run around attacking people and destroying things without anyone putting a stop to it.
1
@rabadeuce814 if someone approaches you and tries to innitiate ANY kind of contact, hell yes, blow them away and claim self defense, and you will have people on the right defending your right to KEEP AND BARE ARMS for your defense. although you need to be careful, because now, if you go armed and you go with a group, and someone in that group sets a building on fire, you will catch fire for being an accomplice. dont think you can just go somewhere with your rifle to help defend people commiing arson.
1
@rabadeuce814 and there you start crossing the line, hopefully the FBI monitors these comments and decides to investigate you, because now you are starting to sound like you are going to go to riots and shoot people for no other reason that your own percieved threat, and since you are already planning it on here, thats pre-meditated, they call that murder 1. first, if you are going to go to riots in support of rioters, check the local jurisdictions laws pertaining to firearms, make sure you are allowed to carry and what you intend to carry is not banned under local law. and then with your reasoning, no, you dont get to shoot anyone who you feel threatens you, Rittenhouse didnt shoot anyone he felt threatened him, he shot at people that the prosecution demonstrated on video were already in the act of attacking him. but yea, you go off to a riot in support of rioters and then shoot at people you feel threatened you, see what happens, you might not even make it to a trial before law enforcement takes you out. its obvious you dont know anything about the law or about self defense law or justifications or cases. maybe you should talk to a lawyer before enacting your great plan. oh and by the way, dont do what you are planning to do in Chicago, we do not allow open carry, and we require a FOID and CCW for concealed carry of pistols, and you cant conceal carry any type of long gun.
1
@injusticeanywherethreatens4810 no riots, rioters are now scared of getting shot.
1
@ezachleewright2309 well, thats a good thing, maybe if you civil rights protesters actually protest peacefully instead of riot violently then you wont get shot.
1
@ezachleewright2309 sounds like a great plan, it's a wonderful thing, best thing ever.
1
@patrickbranchini378 and what crime was Rittenhouse commiting? did anyone call the cops on Rittenhoue to report his criminal activity? no, no one did, becaue at the time no one had any credible or reasonable information that would point to Rittenhouse committing a crime. you cant simply claim someone is committing a crime and then use information gained after the fact to justify your actions, you dont want cops doing that do you? if a cop stops and frisks a bad guy you claim its a violation of that guys rigths even if the cop finds a gun and drugs on him, because he had no reason to assume the guy was committing a crime, but yet you flip the script around and all of a sudden its ok to stalk and attack a guy without any reason and then later get information to prove your intent. as for ill intent, please tell us what intent did the guy who fired off shots into the air as Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse? what was that guys intent on carrying a firearm at a protest? and on top of it discharging it negligently in the air too? woops, there goes another kid hit by a stray bullet because a peaceful protestor shot his gat in the air. and Grooskreutz, what was his intent for carrying a firearm at the protest, as he testified, he was carrying his firearm illegally, its cut and dry, he knew he didnt have a permit to carry his weapon concealed, yet he did it anyway. i guess those guys had ill will, but you wont look at them. you have no moral high ground to stand on. as for you carrying at a Trump rally, if the secret service doesnt stop you, then so be it. but just for the record, lets say you could bring a riffle to a Trump rally, and someone decided to stalk you and then attack you for no reason other then they perceived you as a threat and you had to shoot them, then i guess i would be on the witness stand doing the same thing that every single witness for the prosecution did, and that is to admit that you acted in SELF DEFENSE. i have always been forgiving of a persons right to defend themselves, no matter the affiliation or political bias or skin color, but with you i guess none of that matters, because a white kid being stalked by a PEDO and then attacked by that same PEDO is perfectly justifiable, and the real tragedy is that you cant even explain why its justifiable.
1
@lizzy-wx4rx soooo, you think threatening someones life on more than one occasion and then actively PHYSICALLY attacking them is just simple harassment? your argument is idiotic. would you say Zimmerman harassed Trevon?
1
@bnorberg988 you are right, i cant have two different standards for Rosenbaum and Zimmerman, and i dont. both Rosenbaum and Zimmerman stalked someone they wanted to attack for no other reason than they viewed them as a threat. both Rosenbaum and Zimmerman after stalking their prey then attacked their prey. the only differences are that Rosenbaum was not armed and his prey was while the exact opposite existed for Zimmerman and his prey. yet people here are willing to admit that Zimmerman was wrong for stalking and attacking his prey (which i agree, he was wrong and should be hung for murder) while at the same time claiming that Rosenbaum was justified in stalking and attacking his prey. thats the double standard, its not OK to stalk and attack someone you perceive as a threat but its OK to stalk and attack someone you perceive as a threat.
1
@joeyager8479 I don't give a funky where he was or what he had. The situations are similar, Zimmerman stalked and attacked Trevon because he viewed him as a threat. Rosenbaum stalked and attacked Rittenhouse because he viewed him as a threat. Up till that point Rittenhouse shot absolutely no one. So yea, travon didn't shoot anyone and Rittenhouse didn't shoot anyone, yet it's not ok to attack Trevon but it's OK to attack Rittenhouse. Your double standards are showing.
1
@joeyager8479 considering that for the multiple hours that Rittenhouse was at the riot with his rifle and no one bothered to confront him before or attack him before or make as much as a 911 call before even though Rittenhouse interacted with multiple people including Rosenbaum, then I would have to say that no one viewed Rittenhouse as a threat. If you see a guy walking around with a gun and you feel he is a threat, then you do something about that threat, but if you do nothing for multiple hours, then you must not see it as a threat. As to my comparison to the Travon case it boils down to me calling people hypocrites who justify that Rosenbaum could stalk and attack Rittenhouse because he believed him to be a threat but have the exact opposite view of the Travon case. It doesn't matter who was armed or who had what Weapon or where they were. Rosenbaum did not see Rittenhouse as a threat for hours before stalking him and attacking him. My point is that you do NOT have the right to attack someone simply because you think he was a threat. And Rittenhouse was not viewed as a threat because no one acted on him being a threat for multiple hours he was there.
1
@Idolikethis Rosenbaum stalked and hunted down Rittenhouse over flimsy resposne to fearing the boy badly enough to want to kill him, a child that was RUNNING away.
1
@joeyager8479 of course the situations were different, but the basics of the situations were the same. Trevon, a black kid walking along not attacking anyone is stalked by another person and then attacked by the person that stalked him because he viewed that kid as a threat. Rittenhouse, a white kid walking along and not attacking anyone is stalked by another person and then attacked by the person that stalked him because he viewed him as a threat. same type of situation, the only differences are that Travon is black and did not have a weeapon while Rittenhouse is white and had a weapon. and having a weapon is not a cause to attack someone since plenty of people have weapons and WI is an open carry state. im pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard on these threads where people will claim that Travon should not have been attacked and Rittenhouse was justifiably attacked and giving no other reason that Rittenhouse had a weapon. i dont believe that anyone is allowed to attack anyone else unless that person becomes a direct threat, just carying a gun in a non threatening manner is not a threat, and in some states where it is legal to open carry a weapon, attacking someone for openly carrying a weapon could get you shot and then on top of it sued for violating civil rights. these are the same types of people that would say that if Ritttenhouse was black and carrying a weapon the cops would gun him down, implying that it would be wrong, but at the same time deffending attacking Rittenouse because he is not black.
1
@keirfarnum6811 how nice of you to completely disregard that Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse on at least one occasion confirmed by other witnesses and at least twice claimed by Rittenhouse long before Rittenhouse pointed a gun at anyone.
1
@keirfarnum6811 again, what Rittenhouse did was AFTER he had been threatened on at least one occasion and then physically attacked. at that point Rosenbaum was a threate and you DO point your weapon at a threat to serve as a detterent.
1
@keirfarnum6811 Rosenbaum was being aggressive towards Rittenhouse long before Rittenhouse pointed a weapon at anyone, Rosenbaum threatened to Kill Rittenhouse, that is the first agressive move and that is what created the situation in the first place. im glad to see you ignore that in order to try and defend a PEDO. trying to argue that Rittenhouse was carrying illegally or shouldnt have been there is a moot point because plenty of people were there that shouldnt have been there and plenty of people were carrying illegally.
1
@dnate697 you want to claim that Rosenbaum was not armed, fine, i give you that, that doesnt mean that an unarmed person can not cause harm or even kill someone, its as if though you are willfully grasping at any straws out there to defend a man that attacked someone else simply because you agree with their ideology. as for where Kyle went, who gives a rats ass where Kyle went, Rosenbaum went there too, so did Grooskreuts (illegally armed survivor). i dont see you complaining about them being there? you trying to argue that Rittenhouse shouldnt have been there with a gun is like a rapist trying to argue that his victim shouldnt have been in the dark alley with a miniskirt. as for the ambush being a poor joke, guess the joke is on you, because in DAY 1 of the prosecutions testimony they revealed FBI drone footage of Rosenbaum clearly stalking and ambushing Rittenhouse. but i get it, you think its OK and justified to attack someone if they have a weapon, glad to see that you agree that the cops who shot Jacob Blake were justified since he ADMITTED he was going for a knife (weapon) and therefore these riots in his support shouldnt have even occured in the first place.
1
being a security guard at McDonalds doesnt make you a corporate security expert. Rittenhouse is NOT GUILTY.
1
funny how the judge also excluded evidence that showed the character of the people he shot, like for example that Rosenbaum was a PEDO, or that the skateboard guy was a habitual wife beater. either way, NOT GUILTY verdict came in.
1
@vik05 viif yea, i know.
1