Comments by "Newbie Prepper" (@newbieprepper8451) on "Kyle Rittenhouse Found 'Not Guilty'" video.

yes, very dangerous precedent set here, that precedent is, that is you go to someone elses neighborhood and try to burn it down and then attack people, you will get shot. maybe its time to take a step back and ask yourself a serious question. do you think your worthless life is worth going out and burning down someone elses home because you didnt like the way cops treated a criminal?
8
whats sharply terrifying? is it terrifying that you make face consequences of going out and destroying other peoples shit? and those consequences might mean your life? if thats so terrifying then stay your worthless ass at home, maybe then other people wont have to be terrified with the prospect of being burned out of their home or having their business and livelihood burned down.
6
so its disgusting to see a kid defend himself from a PEDO? glad to see you are a rollover and anyone can take a turn with you like a doorknob.
5
what the judge was doing? you mean what the prosecution was doing dont you? i mean the prosecution violated the defendants rights. the prosecution altered evidence in the case.
5
@Recloste31 no, he didnt shoot a guy dead, he shot a pedo that was attacking him dead, other people tried to disarm him because they support PEDOs.
4
@f3tsch906 ok, so lets see, all the points made at 2:25 1. refused to punish Kyle for violating terms of his bail - judges perrogative, plenty of judges do that plenty of times. 2. excluded evidence of rittenhouses behaviour before and after the shooting, same way the judge excluded evidence of Rosenbaums behaviour before and skateboard mans behaviour before, which would have characterized them both as having a pattern of abusive and violent behaviour spanning years. you should be happy the judge did not allow the defense to characterize the 2 people shot as violend wife beaters and PEDOPHILES, because that would make the jury hate them and clear Rittenhouse on day 1. 3. allowed the defense to charecterize the people Rittenhouse killed as rioters - BECAUSE THEY WERE, even the prosecution in its closing argument characterized them as rioters by listing all the things they did, such as tip over portapotties and set things on fire and flip over trucks and such. 4. yelled at prosecutors in front of the jury - judges tend to do that, especially when prosecutors break the rules set by the judge, or even worse, when prosecutors VIOLATE a defendants constitutional rights, or even more worse, when prosecutors TAMPER with evidence. he is lucky that all he got was yelled at, if i was the judge i would immediately slam the gavel down and declare a mistrial with prejudice, no matter who the defendant was, because you can not have a fair trial if the state violates your rights and then makes up evidence. 5. dismissed a gun charge - plenty of times judges dismiss charges in a case, sometimes judges even dismiss entire cases. if there is doubt to the intent of a law, then perhaps the law is flawed and the charges should be dismissed.
3
@AdamBladeTaylor well, its a better precedent than the one you had which said you can go and burn peoples homes and businesses down because racism wah wah wah.
3
@ruvienceyfelicia what does that have to do with the Rittenhouse trial?
2
@ruvienceyfelicia thats what i saw, a kid defend himself from a PEDO, do you think its disgusting to see a kid defend himself from a PEDO< i dont think so, but if you do, then perhaps you should join the clergy.
2
@lylebardwell6716 don't even bother trying to argue with them, they will make up whatever excuses they want to justify their case. They even claim that it was wrong for the judge to yell at the prosecutor for breaking rules and constitutional rights and evidence impropriety. Just don't bother arguing with them.
2
@kil2250 i know thats the reality of the situation, you cant argue it any different.
2
yea, except he doesnt have millions, hard to squeeze blood from a turnip. but i like the idea of suing people, maybe we should start suing anyone and everyone that shows up to these BLM riots, since its easier to win a lawsuit than to convict someone.
2
@briane596able screw you and your individualism. you want to group everyone together into nazis or white nationalists but then claim individuality for the rioters. if you are at a protest and it turns into a riot with smashed windows and burned buildings and dead people and you stick around, then you are an accessory to the riot and are responsible for it the same way a getaway driver is held equally accountable for the guards that his buddies shot during the bank roberry.
2
@injunsun apparently you failed reading, perhaps you can go to school and read. as i was replying to someone elses post about things being read at 2:25. 2. excluded evidence of rittenhouses behaviour before and after the shooting, same way the judge excluded evidence of Rosenbaums behaviour before and skateboard mans behaviour before, which would have characterized them both as having a pattern of abusive and violent behaviour spanning years. you should be happy the judge did not allow the defense to characterize the 2 people shot as violend wife beaters and PEDOPHILES, because that would make the jury hate them and clear Rittenhouse on day 1. im not arguing that Rittenhouse killed them for this, im arguing that it would prejudice the jury either for or against baed off information that was not pertinent to the events of that night. 3. allowed the defense to charecterize the people Rittenhouse killed as rioters - BECAUSE THEY WERE, even the prosecution in its closing argument characterized them as rioters by listing all the things they did, such as tip over portapotties and set things on fire and flip over trucks and such. you claim these particular men were not witnessed doing these things? THEN WHY IN THE HOLY HELL FUCK DID THE PROSECUTOR DESCRIBE THESE EVENTS AND REFERRENCE THEM FROM VIDEO? as for the protests being about an unarmed person being murdered by a cop? no, wrong again, either you are willfully ignorant or a damn liar. the Kenosha riots happened because Jacob Blake was shot by a cop after fighting with police AND going to retrieve his knife from his car. the police were called because he had RAPED a woman and was wanted and the woman had called the cops. even Blake himself was on a news interview and looked into the camera and SAID "i should have just never went for that knife". so here you are, making up lies for reasons for the riot, and then defending a PEDO who was rioting over a RAPIST getting shot by cops, and to top it off, you are claiming that things didnt happen that the prosecutor himself said happened because they showed video of it happening.
1
@f3tsch906 no, if i say its judges perrogative, then its judges perrogative, me pointing out that other judges do it to does not make it right, it just points out that its not some special case that has never occured before and its still judges perrogative. funny how the other stuff that i just bounce around is stuff that you cant even make an argument about, must be because im right on it and YOU cant make any argument about it.
1
@f3tsch906 you can have whatever arguments you want, keep listening to CNN, they will rot your brain, but in your case it looks like its already rotten. the whole case boils down to Rittenhouse acted in self defense and the people he shot were attacking him. he didnt shoot them for rioting or looting or any other acts they were doing, he shot them when they attacked him, and you dont have any argument for that. end of story.
1
@FirebirdCamaro1220 I guess that's a good thing.
1
@f3tsch906 not running, just you don't have anything important for me to respond to, I laid out my points, and the only response you had was "wah wah in upset so it's wrong wah wah". Go cry somewhere else, they might need your salt.
1
@FirebirdCamaro1220 yes it is. Unfortunately that's your take on it so you see it that way, others have a different take on it. Your take is that it's vigilantes, but other people's take is that it was self defense, and the court reaffirmed that it was self defense and a jury of 12 people said it was self defense and the witnesses said it was self defense and event the guy who survived getting shot by Rittenhouse said it was self defense. If you are too thick to get it at this point then that's your problem.
1
@f3tsch906 yep, that's all you got, salty tears over a biased judge, keep crying about insignificant things, the tears are marvelous
1
@f3tsch906 no, it's not a biased judge, you claim it's a biased judge, I claim what the judge did is insignificant and its the judges prerogative, but you keep crying, it's not going to change the fact that Rittenhouse is innocent and broke no laws.
1
@f3tsch906 no, my statement about your salty tears is using your own words claiming the judge is biased. and you havent pointed out anything at all that is significant in any manner that would point to the judge being biased. if there was any significant breach of protocal that judge would have been removed a long time ago since this is not the first time this judge has made such rulings. and you didnt make any points, you simply cried, "i didnt like that the judge did this so that means he is biased." boom, end of story. just because you dont like what a judge does is not proof of bias, and its insignificant since no prosecutor has ever brought it up to the bar for the other numerous times this judge has made similar rulings. it IS the judges perogative, if you dont like it, too bad, if the prosecutor had any complaints about it he could have brought it up to the bar which would investigate it, its been done before, judges have been reprimanded and even removed for overstepping their bounds. there is your counterargument, the judge did what he felt was appropriate, and he has done that before on other cases, and the fact that no prosecutor has ever brought this up and this prosecutor has not brought this up to the bar and had the judge censured or even removed or disbarred shows YOU have no argument other than whinning and crying. so here you are, defending a racist PEDO who was screaming racist obscenities and destroying a minority neighborhood and who attacked a kid that was there to help protect a minority neighborhood, by claiming the judge is biased and unfair. i guess you want racists and PEDOs to win and to destroy minority neighborhoods, says alot about you. cry some more salty tears, we love them.
1
@f3tsch906 same can be said about you, you dont deal in facts do you. you claim that the judge is biased towards the defense and list some flimsy points, so lets go over those points again. 1. refused to punish Kyle for violating terms of his bail - judges perrogative, plenty of judges do that plenty of times. but lets dive deeper into that shall we. the judge also refused to punish Grooskreutch for lying on the stand, i believe its called perjury, and the judge refused to punish Grooskreutch for filing false statements on his innitial police report, looks like the judge was more biased towards the prosecution than the defense, but still, i leave it up to judges discretion. 2. excluded evidence of rittenhouses behaviour before and after the shooting, same way the judge excluded evidence of Rosenbaums behaviour before and skateboard mans behaviour before, which would have characterized them both as having a pattern of abusive and violent behaviour spanning years. lets dig deeper into that shall we. as i stated before, the judge didnt allow evidence of pre and post behaviour for ALL parties involved, so he didnt allow the jury to hear about Rittenhouses history, same way as he didnt allow the jury to hear Rosenbaums history, OR to hear skateboard bandits history. seems like thats 2 for the prosecution compared to 1 for the defense, looks like the judge was biased towards the prosecution more than the defense, AGAIN. 3. allowed the defense to charecterize the people Rittenhouse killed as rioters - BECAUSE THEY WERE, even the prosecution in its closing argument characterized them as rioters by listing all the things they did, such as tip over portapotties and set things on fire and flip over trucks and such. lets go deeper into that shall we? the people Rittenhouse shot were violent and WERE rioters and looters and arsonists, either by action or by association and accessory to those crimes, the same way a gettaway driver is charged with and convicted as an accessory to a bank roberry or a murder even if he didnt to the actual bank roberry or murder. 4. yelled at prosecutors in front of the jury. damn straight, and if you were the one on trial and your civil AND constitutional rights were being blatanly violated by the prosecution im pretty sure you and your lawyer would be yelling for the judge to stop them. and a prosecutor who has passed his bar and is a lawyer should know better as to which lines you can skirt and how to NOT blatantly cross those lines. judges do tend to give warnings to lawyers on both sides and if those warnings are not heeded then judges do tend to dress down the offending lawyers, its customary to scold someone who has flagrantly broken the rules set forth by the judge and by law AND by the constitution itself. 5. dismissed a gun charge. YES, DEFINITELY YES. especially if the prosecution agrees that the law is flawed to a point where multiple people can come up with multiple and valid arguments when reading the law and the arguments all contradict each other. in this case, the defense claims that reading that law allowed Rittenhouse the right to legally have that weapon, and the prosecution agreed that it could be viewed as that, and when a law becomes murky like that it is the judges JOB as a member of the judicial branch to throw out charges on that law if the law is not clear enough to warrant those charges. what was your argument ot any of those points? 1. wah wah the judge shouldnt have done that because feelings. 2. wah wah the judge should have double standards and allow for the prosecution what he wont allow for the defense because feelings. 3. wah wah the judge shouldnt have done that because more feelings. 4. wah wah more feelings bad judge wah wah. 5. wah wah salty tears wah wah because i dont like wah wah. cry some more salty tears, i use salt to make the gunpowder for my 5.56 ammo. NEED MORE SALT.
1
@f3tsch906 my arguments are still the same as in my original post. 1. why did the judge do that? i dont know, i cant give you a reason, can you give a reason other that "wah wah bias wah wah". ITS JUDGES PERROGATIVE. and no, thats not the problem you are talking about, you just want to be salty because you didnt get the verdict you wanted, thats all you care about. 2. you want to make excuses based on your own bias for allowing things for one side while disregarding things for the other side. who gives a shit how far back the history goes, a week or a month or a decade, it establishes a pattern of behaviour. Rosenbaum history goes back a decade or 2 because he has been in custody the whole time and that morning was his first day as a free man in society. if you want to argue that Rittenhouses history should be used in court to establish a pattern of behaviour then you cant argue that other peoples history is irrelevant to establishing a pattern of behaviour. 3. yes, the word victim is a loaded word implying that the person did nothing to deserve being shot, where as the words rioter or looter or arsonist is also a loaded word but they are more accurate in describing the activities of the people shot during that night. as for your comment about the one armed bandit being at the protest being a medic, THATS A LIE. he wasnt a medic, his medic license expired 4 years ago, he was a pretend medic and you LIE. but i like how you have a problem with the judge not allowing a word that could help the prosecution, hopefully one day you get your wish, and you have to stand in front of a judge that allows words that help the prosecution against you. 4. yes, prosecution tampered with evidence. they submitted a version of the video that had a lower resolution and was cropped and withheld the original high quality video with the original resolution. its the same thing as the prosecution taking a photo on paper, and cutting parts out with scissors and then taking a blurry picture of it and giving it to the defense. that is the exact definition of tampering with evidence, and the prosecutor should have been immediately thrown off the case and then disbarred and even charged. 5. are you a WI bar certified lawyer? no you are not. you claiming that the exemption is only for hunting is your opinion formed from listening to other talking heads making their own opinions. the judge and the prosecutor and the defense attorney all 3 came together and declared that the provisions of that law were confusing enough to make the law useless because it could be interpreted in either direction. but i guess you internet guy are smarter than 3 educated people who have made the law their career for multiple years, yup, ALL HAIL INTERNET SMART GUY. so on to your entire rant that the judge is biased. you made no point, you cant show any bias, just being salty over a verdict you dont like. too bad. you didnt prove any bias, other than your own. now enough of your salty tears, go back to the salt mines and replenish that salt you lost whinning about a biased judge that you cant prove was biased.
1
@f3tsch906 salty tears, more please 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
1
@AdamBladeTaylor well, we are in a sue happy nation, hopefully Rittenhouse sees this post from you calling him a murderer AFTER he has been foound NOT GUILTY. maybe he will sue you for LIBEL or is it SLANDER?
1
@phillipwilliamson727 lots of ridiculous things happen all the time. all that anyone needs to do is sue them and point out the various leaders of BLM making public statements in support of looting and burning and causing all sort of havok.
1
you should be very careful about throwing around the "murder" label, defamation lawsuits are going to be filed, and you could get sued.
1
@sebastianlavallee706 well, if someone had drawn a gun and shot Rittenhouse dead, i dont think legally you can claim self defense against someone who was defending themselves, kind of like EVERYONE was outraged at the Zimmerman verdict when he claimed self defense against someone Trevon who was defending themselves against Zimmerman. but if you think it was OK for a protester to shoot and kill Rittenhouse after he defended himself, then you should go and tell Trevons father that Zimmerman defended himself and shot Trevon after Trevon tried to defend himself. usually the courts frown upon people helping other people attack someone, its called accessory to attempted murder.
1
@AdamBladeTaylor no houses were burned down anywhere? there are tons of news stories from local news media outlets all over the country about appartment complexes being set on fire during the riots. Minneapolis was pullilng charred boddies out of burned down buildings 2 months after the riots. and take your white supremacist BS lies out of here, all those riots were done by BLM supporters. and yea, tons of people were arreted and then let go, hardly anyone got charged. i hope they come to your house and peacefully protest and they pull your charred carcass out of your home and people get arrested and then released without charges, thats justice according to you.
1
@brandonblanco8379 my point is simple, that you can not go out and attack people because they can defend themselves, and the court and jury upheld that.
1
@yoshismokey42 so what, i dont see what that has to do with the Rittenhouse trial or verdict?
1