Comments by "" (@4idhero798) on "UPDATE: Rittenhouse Murder Trial Heats Up After New Testimony" video.

  1. Your hero cried like a pantyboy on the stand because he couldn't fight with his fists. Some hero you got there.
    5
  2. All the Rittenhouse fanboys complaining in the last couple of videos before this one asking why tyt stopped covering this trial because they don't want to accept that he'll likely get off on self-defense. What do you have to say now? You heard Cenk. There's a moral and lawful component. By law, his self-defense seems justified for now. The moral component can be debatable, but it already doesn't stand because A) he doesn't have the authority to carry vigilante justice, he's a bit of a George Zimmerman wannabe. And B) he illegally obtained the gun.
    4
  3. I see civil lawsuits coming from the victims' families. If not sue Rittenhouse, the person who legally bought the gun and illegally gave it to Rottenhouse definitely should get sued.
    4
  4.  @hiarhu746  I said it's debatable then I gave my best judgment from a moral perspective. Take it or shove it .
    3
  5.  @hiarhu746  sorry dork. I do have moral authority to exercise on others. If I see a person abusing a child, I'm gonna intervene or call the authority. Im not gonna just stand there and be like "Im not moral Arbiter, so I'm gonna walk away." Morality is not subjective as you seem to assume, otherwise, you have no leg to stand on to even question my judgements.
    3
  6. What a race baiting moron you are. Nobody on the left or the right is even claiming this is a racial case. You're the first I've seen making it about race.
    3
  7. Morality is for society to judge. The law is for the government to carry out justice through due process.
    2
  8. As an independent, your rant is one-sided. Even after tyt blatantly sided with the defense, they are still "not getting it right." Go figure.
    2
  9. There are still things wrong with your rebuttals to Cenk's points. 1) If you think the right wing brought their guns just to show it off and had no intentions of using it, then what's the point of even bringing their guns. And as chaos ensues with people running around everywhere, they'll have a hard time trying to tell who's a leftist or a right winger amidst the confusion. So that'll typically discourage them to not fire as they may kill the wrong person. 2) where who came from where is irrelevant. 3) I'm not sure what the law is in regards to vigilantism, but vigilanteism encourages more violence, it can make investigations extremely difficult, and it can unintentionally lead to more criminal acts. 4) Where was the police? It's the policy's job to protect and serve.
    2
  10.  @chasenun5939  The person you're responding to isn't even implying what you said.
    2
  11. I think you lack proper education and listening skills. Cenk never said that Rittenhouse is legally guilty. I'm sure he eluded to its plausibility. He just said the defense has this case. But you seem to not understand the moral part Cenk was going after. There is a moral and a legal component to our actions. Cenk basically exonerated Rittenhouse of the legal component, which is intentional homicide. But the moral component does not involve any legal action. Rittenhouse can still be morally judged by society, so don't get too ahead of yourself in propping this guy up as your hero. It may look morally good on the surface in that Rittenhouse was doing the right thing protecting businesses and helping the wounded. But when you factor in other indisputable facts like how he obtained the gun illegally, and he could be convicted of some of the lesser charges. He forfeited any and all moral goods and good intentions. So, to some who are honest to themselves as good judge of characters there's no moral justification to Rittenhouse's actions that night. And vigilantism has no moral justification when he has no proper authority to carry out his actions.
    1
  12. Educate yourself more little Cindy. There is a moral and legal component to our actions. Rittenhouse is or will be legally cleared. But the moral component doesn't involve the law. He can still be judged by society. It looks morally good and all that Kyle was supposedly protecting businesses and helping other people. But to some and myself personally, he forfeited good morals because he obtained the gun illegally, and he may still be found guilty of some of the lesser charges.
    1
  13.  @dwayneb1047  OH. Then call out that specific person and not just say "you people." Got it, idiot,,
    1
  14.  @dwayneb1047  "Person" is singular, "People" is plural. Your stupidity just threw me off.
    1
  15. What is it that she said was so leftist?
    1
  16. What did they say that is nonsensical?
    1
  17. You took that take away from your a55.
    1
  18. In the midst of the chaos, it'll be hard to distinguish who the leftists or right wingers are. That's probably why they didn't get to fire their weapons because of the confusion.
    1
  19.  @sallyjackson8129  I see you pointed out the illegalities of using a skateboard or plastic bag as weapons, but totally ignored the fact that Rittenhouse is illegally possessing a firearm which he obtained through illegal means.
    1
  20. Tyt sided with the legal defense, psycho.
    1
  21. I think everyone lack a fundamental understanding. The acts you listed ARE morally good things. But given how Rittenhouse illegally obtained the gun, and doesn't have vigilante authority to counter the rioters, he forfeited any and all morally good acts and good intentions, therefore, there's no moral justification to his actions that night if you are an honest judge of chatacter. I'd give him praises and make him a hero if he would've done everything the proper way.
    1