Comments by "Newbie Prepper" (@newbieprepper8451) on "Judge Helps Kyle Rittenhouse’s Defense AGAIN" video.

looks like the right judge for any case, a judge that is biased towards the defense no matter who it is, works right along with the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra of the justice system. the same kind of judge that i would recommend for any case, because that case could be YOU.
7
@sebastianlavallee706 i would rather have a judge biased for the defense than a neutral judge, how many innocent people are sitting in prison because they had neutral judges? last i remember many years ago, many states suspended their death sentences because they found that some inmates that were executed were probably innocent.
6
lets see, they were shot after attacking him, so i dont think you can claim victimhood after attacking someone. but i guess you are OK with claiming that a PEDO is a victim.
4
@sebastianlavallee706 sure, i will elaborate. the judges ruling that the people who were shot can not be called "victims" is consisten with other cases where this judge has made similar rulings over the years, and none of those times the judge has been censured or removed with claims of bias. the judges ruling that the defense can refer to the people shot as rioters or looters or arsonists is consistent with the standards the left imposes on people with association. the prosecution claims Rittenhouse is a white nationalist because they can show he associated with some at one time or event, the people he shot were associating with rioters and looters and arsonist during the time of the shooting. other items the judge has ruled on such as evidence that can or can not be presented during trial relates to the relevance of the event in question. same way you dont think its relevant that one of the guy shot was a convicted PEDO is the same way the judge feels it is not relevant that Rittenhouse did things pre or post event.
3
@sebastianlavallee706 haha, you label him as a vigilante and then claim i have ulterior motives. yes, i do want him to get a fair trial, people died, i want a trial, there should be a trial. you dont, you want to punish a guy for interfering with a riot.
3
@sebastianlavallee706 ahh, so he punished "criminals", thank you for admitting that he shot "criminals" and not innocent victims. but you still cant point out how the judge is partial towards him.
3
@sebastianlavallee706 yes, words have meaning, such as the word "victim" which can have the meaning of being an innocent bystander, and so it shouldnt be used to describe the FELONS that were shot.
3
@StoveToTheFace they were attacking Rittenhouse right before they were killed, thats on video. are you saying that attacking people is not illegal?
3
@Avrysatos stop what bad guy with a gun? unless you are talking about Rittenhouse, then yes, he stopped 3 bad guys with a gun, case closed.
3
@grapeshot doesnt matter what Rittenhouse knew, those "victims" were shot while atacking him. you cant claim victimhood while committing a crime, PERIOD.
3
@emhu2594 seems like leftist rioters provide each other unconditional support too.
3
the shooter, definitely, we all know he was the shooter, absolutely no one is denying that. the murderer, first you have to prove he is a murderer, the killer, perhaps, after all, he did kill some violent rioters who were attacking him.
3
@wvu05 that is what i said isnt it? i did say that he killed some violent rioters, so the killer perhaps. funny how you dont acknowledge that he killed some violent rioters.
3
@grapeshot so this judge is clearly WS becaue what? he ruled that white people shot by a white person cant be called a victim? something that he regularly does? and that makes him WS? YOU ARE A RACIST.
2
well, at least one of them WAS convicted of child rape, so yea, not innocent, convicted PEDO.
2
@wvu05 yea yea, sure, value neutral statement. go tell your fairytales to someone who will buy them. victim is a loaded term that implies innocence.
2
@sebastianlavallee706 and thats where your argument falls apart, because YOU are full of bullshit and dont care about justice. i made the claim that the judge is being consistent because he CONSISTELY rules in his cases against the use of the word "victim". that is a ruling he consistently uses. do you know what the word consistent means? if he has used that ruling on multiple other cases then he is being consistent with using that ruling. as for them being referred to by criminal terms, why shouldnt they be? they acted criminally by atacking Ritenhouse in the first place resulting in them getting shot. they acted in a criminal manner by associating with rioters and looters and arsonists during a riot where rioting and looting and arson was being commited. doesnt matter if you convict them of it or not, they were in the process of doing it. same way if a guy is stabbing a person and you shoot them you say you killed a murderer even though you didnt convict him of murder. whats pure bullshit is that you are trying to defend pedophiles and claim they are victims which would indicate they are completely innocent of anything when in fact EVERY single one of them was shot WHILE they were attacking Rittenhouse, all the videos from every angle we have seen so far show that is the case. if you call them victims that would imply that Rittenhouse took aim and shot them for absolutely no reason while they were standing on the sidewalk minding their own business, which is not the case. and if Rittenhouse's actions pre or post event can very much be relevant to the case than so can the guys who got shot, including his convicion as a PEDO is is a pre event to the event of the shooting. funny how in the same sentence you can claim that ALL the actions of one person must be scrutinized but NONE of the actions of another person should be, that is bias. it is YOU who is not out for justice, you simply want to run around committing crimes and attacking people and loot and burn things down with impunity where no one is allowed to defend themselves. i would tell you to get off the internet but its already too late, you are a maniac. you find yourself in the peculiar position of defending a PEDO who attacked someone for no reasonand got shot for doing it. wonder how defensive you would be of someone who attacked your child and then claimed they were the victim after you stopped them.
2
@ToxicAudri actually yes, i would, because i still believe in the presumption of innocence. and if that child raping murderer was caught on camera, then that evidence would stand for itself and show guilt. but lets talk about cameras if you want. Rittenhouse was caught on camera shooting 3 people. you know what else was caught on camera, those 3 people who were shot were attacking Rittenhouse right before they got shot. funny how cameras work. here is a question for you. if you ever get accused of something, would you want a judge who is biased towards the prosecution and against you? didnt think of that one did you?
2
really? do you know that as a fact? from my understanding, this judge has not allowed the use of the term "victim" on many of his previous cases, that in itself establishes a pattern, and im sure this judge has presided over at least a few cases where the defendant was NOT white. so what does that say? it saying you are an imbecile.
2
@sunkillsmoon careful man, dont mess with the grammar nazi police, they might go on a tirade and cancel you and then take away your food like Chomsky has advocated for.
2
@darrenbutler9819 ah, so you learned that it was "dot" in Germany? the same Germany that lost 2 wars? to America no less? its called PERIOD.
2
@Demloki21 no, i just tried to defend a judge for using his prerogative that he has used on multiple occasions in the past. you on the other hand try to condemn a man by using terms that are politically biased. check your own spectrum. and im assuming you will be out soon rioting .... i mean playing out in traffic, but im not going to hope for the best outcome, remember, some states allow drivers to run over rioters .... i mean peaceful protesters.
2
well, those looters are dead, so no point in holding a trial to convict them of looting or rioting, even if they were in the commission of such acts. but one of those "rioters" that Kyle shot WAS a convicted pedophile, so maybe the defense should refer to them as child rapists.
2
@MichaelOnines sounds about right, the judge put constraints on labels that would paint anyone in a positive light, but no restraints on painting anyone in a negative light. and yea, i dont think they can label Rittenhouse a murderer until he is convicted, since the trial is to decide if he acted in self defense or if it was actual unsanctioned murder.
2
was there looting occurring? YES was there rioting occurring? YES was there arson occurring? YES where these "victims" part of the group committing the LOOTING/RIOTING/ARSON? YES AGAIN. the same way you can claim Rittenhouse is a white nationalist because he was photographed taking pictures with or associating with white nationalists is the same way you should associate these "victims" as looters and rioters and arsonists. stop with your double standards.
1
@jasons5916 true, very true. you cant go outside and shoot someone who is burning down your local gas station and claim self defense. but in this case, Rittenhouse is claiming he acted in self defense, so the case is about self defense. and the evidence they are presenting is that every person that was shot by Rittenhouse was attacking him which led them to being shot, not that he shot them before, or that he shot them after, but he shot them while they were attacking him, all the videos show this.
1
@chucku00 ahhhh, the old non sequitur fallacy or sophistry defense. maybe if you went to college and gotten a real degree instead of one for lesbian dance theory and underwater basket weaving then you would learn about other types of arguments than just that. but as the old adage goes, if it walks like a duck and it quask like a duck and it looks like a duck, then it must be a duck, but to you i guess its a cat or something. you are a dunce, can i prove it, yes i can, you completely disregarded the questions and answers to fit your own narrative. they were looters and rioters and arsonists, end of story, the judge even ruled on it, and it doesnt matter if some uneducated nitwit like you disagrees with it.
1
@wvu05 hmmmm, geeee, funny thing, being guilty of one thing doesnt make someone guilty of something else? funny how Rittenhouse is guilty of white nationalism because he took a picture with some, funny how Trump supporters are racists because they supported Trump. funny how the left and democrats claim republicans and right wingers are guilty of everything simply thorugh association but all of a sudden that cant be used for the left or democrats? the 3 people who were shot were out in a group that was rioting and looting and committing arson, by simple association they ARE looters and rioters and arsonists. end of story.
1
@ivandafoe5451 unless that murder trial comes back with a verdict of innocent on grounds of self defense. And since Rittenhouse hasn't been convicted yet, he is presumed innocent, so no, there is no murder victim, there is a dead PEDO rioter.
1
@ivandafoe5451 funny how the only people Rittenhouse shot were the rioters that attacked him first. Let's see, there was the PEDO that kicked him, he couldn't have kicked him after he was shot, so he must have kicked him first before getting shot. Then there was the skateboard guy that hit him, he couldn't have hit him after he was shot so he must have hit him before he was shot. And then there is the glock guy who lost his arm, funny how in the videos that everyone has seen he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. But I guess you don't care about any of that right? It's ok to go around kicking people and hitting them with blunt objects and pointing guns at people right? One good thing is that a PEDO is no longer among the libing.
1
you are right, absolutely right, lets have judges that are completely biased against defendants in EVERY case. when you get a parking ticket or a speeding ticket or any time you are in front of a judge, do you want him biased against you?
1
@sebastianlavallee706 well, this judge seems pretty neutral, so we will see.
1
thats a negative ghost rider. the judge has a history of not allowing the use of the word victim in cases he presides over.
1
@clenke0 funny, not all Trump supporters are racists, but yet thats what we have been hearing from EVERYONE opposed to Trump for the past 4 years. how does it feel now to be labeled? if you are a protester and the protest turns into a riot and you stick around "protesting", then you are a rioter.
1
@richardgrier8968 the unicorn i speak of? which unicorn would that be? please elaborate.
1