Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Page 44 of 60 [ 954 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 ... 60  Next

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,574
Location: Northern California

04 Dec 2021, 10:20 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
To me, it was obviously a case of self-defense, once the facts were revealed


There was at the commencement of the trial a clear double standard being applied which in my view muddied the waters to begin with. Schroeder went out of his way to declare that the prosecution could not refer to the dead as "victims" yet he allowed the defense to apply pejorative terms such as rioter, looter or arsonist. This demonstrates the judge was not impartial and his interpretation was not based on evidence for Grosskreutz or Huber where there was no evidence either man was a rioter, looter or arsonist.

Judges should be held to some level of scrutiny and in my Schroeder paved the way for the prosecution to fail.


As I’ve pointed out before, a very progressive lawyer I know said that the permissible terms and instructions were not unusual at all.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,574
Location: Northern California

04 Dec 2021, 10:25 pm

cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I heard from a lawyer that the judge has a long history of being an advocate for defendants. So it also possible he was simply acting true to form, we just weren’t used to seeing it.


Then he is not acting impartially as his job description requires


As long as he is consistent across the board in all his cases, and stays within certain parameters, he will be deemed to be acting impartially. As progressives, we usually like defendant friendly judges. We shouldn’t be inconsistent just because the defendant is not the impoverished and systemically discriminated against individual we are envisioning when we push those reforms.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,841
Location: Seattle-ish

04 Dec 2021, 10:27 pm

Yes, there's a word for a judge who generally is seen to favor the defense: a liberal.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,792

05 Dec 2021, 12:25 am

Dox47 wrote:
Yes, there's a word for a judge who generally is seen to favor the defense: a liberal.


A liberal judge would never go out of their way to defend an armed vigilante



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,792

05 Dec 2021, 12:27 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
As long as he is consistent across the board in all his cases, and stays within certain parameters, he will be deemed to be acting impartially. .


Then why permit Huber and Grosskreutz to be labelled as rioters, arsonists and looters? he (Schroeder) introduced prejudice immediately to the jury (the very thing he claimed to be avoiding).



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,841
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Dec 2021, 1:13 am

cyberdad wrote:
A liberal judge would never go out of their way to defend an armed vigilante


I see we get to add "liberal" to the list of words you that you don't actually know the meaning of. It's getting to be kind of a long list.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,574
Location: Northern California

05 Dec 2021, 1:33 am

cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Yes, there's a word for a judge who generally is seen to favor the defense: a liberal.


A liberal judge would never go out of their way to defend an armed vigilante


A judge with liberal politics who is capable of applying the same standards equally to all defendants in his courtroom would. Especially since all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

Remember that the ACLU once defended the KKK.

Either you believe in some concepts, or you don’t. You don’t bend them just because the wrong guy picked them up.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,574
Location: Northern California

05 Dec 2021, 1:34 am

cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
As long as he is consistent across the board in all his cases, and stays within certain parameters, he will be deemed to be acting impartially. .


Then why permit Huber and Grosskreutz to be labelled as rioters, arsonists and looters? he (Schroeder) introduced prejudice immediately to the jury (the very thing he claimed to be avoiding).


Wasn’t that condition on the defense PROVING they were so engaged?

Again, like it or not, I’m hearing from lawyers it wasn’t unusual.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


TwisterUprocker
Raven
Raven

Joined: 24 Nov 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 116

05 Dec 2021, 2:26 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
As long as he is consistent across the board in all his cases, and stays within certain parameters, he will be deemed to be acting impartially. .


Then why permit Huber and Grosskreutz to be labelled as rioters, arsonists and looters? he (Schroeder) introduced prejudice immediately to the jury (the very thing he claimed to be avoiding).


Wasn’t that condition on the defense PROVING they were so engaged?

Again, like it or not, I’m hearing from lawyers it wasn’t unusual.


According to Legal Eagle, the defense wasn't allowed to use terms like rioters, arsonists and looters in the opening statement and could only use them in the closing statement after they were proven to be such.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,792

05 Dec 2021, 2:52 am

TwisterUprocker wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
As long as he is consistent across the board in all his cases, and stays within certain parameters, he will be deemed to be acting impartially. .


Then why permit Huber and Grosskreutz to be labelled as rioters, arsonists and looters? he (Schroeder) introduced prejudice immediately to the jury (the very thing he claimed to be avoiding).


Wasn’t that condition on the defense PROVING they were so engaged?

Again, like it or not, I’m hearing from lawyers it wasn’t unusual.


According to Legal Eagle, the defense wasn't allowed to use terms like rioters, arsonists and looters in the opening statement and could only use them in the closing statement after they were proven to be such.



I have never come across evidence Huber or Grosskreutz fitted those labels, The enthusiasm the judge had to point these things out is unusual and smacks of intent to cast the victims in the worst light.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

05 Dec 2021, 3:43 am

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
A liberal judge would never go out of their way to defend an armed vigilante


I see we get to add "liberal" to the list of words you that you don't actually know the meaning of. It's getting to be kind of a long list.


:mrgreen:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

05 Dec 2021, 3:46 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Yes, there's a word for a judge who generally is seen to favor the defense: a liberal.


A liberal judge would never go out of their way to defend an armed vigilante


A judge with liberal politics who is capable of applying the same standards equally to all defendants in his courtroom would. Especially since all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

Remember that the ACLU once defended the KKK.

Either you believe in some concepts, or you don’t. You don’t bend them just because the wrong guy picked them up.


Agreed.
It is called "Integrity".


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,792

05 Dec 2021, 4:11 am

Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Yes, there's a word for a judge who generally is seen to favor the defense: a liberal.


A liberal judge would never go out of their way to defend an armed vigilante


A judge with liberal politics who is capable of applying the same standards equally to all defendants in his courtroom would. Especially since all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

Remember that the ACLU once defended the KKK.

Either you believe in some concepts, or you don’t. You don’t bend them just because the wrong guy picked them up.


Agreed.
It is called "Integrity".


Integrity is an oxymoron when it comes to the US justice system
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/georgia ... 00523.html

When the shooter claiming he was standing his ground is black there's no job offers from republicans



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

05 Dec 2021, 4:29 am

TwisterUprocker wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
As long as he is consistent across the board in all his cases, and stays within certain parameters, he will be deemed to be acting impartially. .


Then why permit Huber and Grosskreutz to be labelled as rioters, arsonists and looters? he (Schroeder) introduced prejudice immediately to the jury (the very thing he claimed to be avoiding).


Wasn’t that condition on the defense PROVING they were so engaged?

Again, like it or not, I’m hearing from lawyers it wasn’t unusual.


According to Legal Eagle, the defense wasn't allowed to use terms like rioters, arsonists and looters in the opening statement and could only use them in the closing statement after they were proven to be such.



That was a fascinating video.
I must have been a lawyer in a former life. 8)

As TwisterUprocker mentioned, the defense team could use "terms like rioters, arsonists and looters" if it could be proven.
The terms were not used in the opening statements.

Also, it was interesting that this judge consistently gave a greater leniency to the defendant's lawyers, and this is not unusual overall.

Fascinating stuff. 8O

BTW, Rittenhouse apparently did make those stupid comments about the looters, if I understand the situation correctly.
Presumably, it was on his mobile phone.


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

05 Dec 2021, 4:36 am

cyberdad wrote:
TwisterUprocker wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
As long as he is consistent across the board in all his cases, and stays within certain parameters, he will be deemed to be acting impartially. .


Then why permit Huber and Grosskreutz to be labelled as rioters, arsonists and looters? he (Schroeder) introduced prejudice immediately to the jury (the very thing he claimed to be avoiding).


Wasn’t that condition on the defense PROVING they were so engaged?

Again, like it or not, I’m hearing from lawyers it wasn’t unusual.


According to Legal Eagle, the defense wasn't allowed to use terms like rioters, arsonists and looters in the opening statement and could only use them in the closing statement after they were proven to be such.



I have never come across evidence Huber or Grosskreutz fitted those labels, The enthusiasm the judge had to point these things out is unusual and smacks of intent to cast the victims in the worst light.


Not according to what was in the video.
As mentioned elsewhere, there was evidence that at least one of the three were engaged in property damage.

And the judge left it up to the defense lawyers.
It wasn't a dictate.


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

05 Dec 2021, 4:37 am

cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Yes, there's a word for a judge who generally is seen to favor the defense: a liberal.


A liberal judge would never go out of their way to defend an armed vigilante


A judge with liberal politics who is capable of applying the same standards equally to all defendants in his courtroom would. Especially since all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

Remember that the ACLU once defended the KKK.

Either you believe in some concepts, or you don’t. You don’t bend them just because the wrong guy picked them up.


Agreed.
It is called "Integrity".


Integrity is an oxymoron when it comes to the US justice system
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/georgia ... 00523.html

When the shooter claiming he was standing his ground is black there's no job offers from republicans


My comment was using the context of the judge, not the justice system. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!