(November 15, 2021 at 9:22 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: When the judge declares that those shot were "rioters and looters" but not "victims", the jury has to find not-guilty.  Rioters are bad guys, and that makes Rittenhouse the good guy.

But won't allow the fact Shittenhouse was hanging out with proud boys to be brought up. Yeah, this isn't pushing the jury in a certain direction.

Had Rittenhouse been black, the judge would have had an entirely different opinion on the matter.

(November 15, 2021 at 3:43 pm)Helios Wrote: The judge has been totally biased throughout this whole trial so it doesn't surprise me he gives Shittenhouse another freebie. He might as well just join the defense.

No shit. 

I get the concept in long term law of benefit of the doubt and presumption off innocence, and I accept that, and that is right. But this judge hamstrung the prosecution from the start. If I was Kyle's defense lawyer I would do the same things for him he has done. But a judge also at the same time should not act in bias, and this one blatantly has from the start.

(November 15, 2021 at 10:07 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(November 15, 2021 at 3:43 pm)Helios Wrote: The judge has been totally biased throughout this whole trial so it doesn't surprise me he gives Shittenhouse another freebie. He might as well just join the defense.

No shit. 

I get the concept in long term law of benefit of the doubt and presumption off innocence, and I accept that, and that is right. But this judge hamstrung the prosecution from the start. If I was Kyle's defense lawyer I would do the same things for him he has done. But a judge also at the same time should not act in bias, and this one blatantly has from the start.

Yeah, no shit.

So many people seem to be under the false impression that even relatively free countries such as the US and Oz have justice systems. We don't. We have legal systems.

From time to time justice is done and is seen to be done. This is due to happy accident, not intent.

(November 15, 2021 at 9:22 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: When the judge declares that those shot were "rioters and looters" but not "victims", the jury has to find not-guilty. Rioters are bad guys, and that makes Rittenhouse the good guy.

The judge cannot refer to those killed was victims because that is what the jury must decide. If the jury accepts the self defence claim then Rosenbaum, etc. were not victims but rather assailants. So if the judge declares them victims that would be bias.

Quote:The judge cannot refer to those killed was victims because that is what the jury must decide. If the jury accepts the self defence claim then Rosenbaum, etc. were not victims but rather assailants. So if the judge declares them victims that would be bias.

Bullshit  

Refusing to call them victims and refer to them in purposely negative terms was to bias the jury in Shittenhouses favor and nothing else.

Wouldn't a prosecutor also have to prove that they were rioters or looters or arsonists? I mean, those are serious allegations, each one a criminal offense. No pretense of leaving it to a jury -in their own goddamned trials- to decide on those, eh? I guess that does help. Why defend your murderous client when you can pretend his victims are on trial, instead. If the judge allows it, he's signalling..you know..to the jury. Sort of like when he advises them on how they can consider lesser charges, instead.

The judge is supposed to be pretty well known for being defense friendly (and eccentric, as we all now know), it's probably not out of character for him to insist on avoiding the term victim....but that's not really where the issue arises. If we want to believe that the effect of his running interference for the defense was unintentional, a product of an overabundance of caution - we'd probably have to concede that at some point that overabundance crossed some wires in his head.

Judicial misconduct is a thing. Plenty of these nuts brains have been pickled by spending too many hours stuffed in a trashbag. My favorite moment was when the prosecution, taken aback by being castigated for a line of questioning, reminded the judge that they'd actually addressed the issue, spoke about it pretrial and he explicitly left it open. Judge Judy explodes, at this point "Not for you! I left it open for me!"

cheffs kiss.

Ultimately, though, Neo. I want to ask you a question. Not the judge, certainly not the worthless shitstain weeping about how bad he had it. You. Is there any particular reason that we have to pretend that there was nothing at all out of the ordinary going on with the judge in this case? Pointless charade, if you ask me, regardless of how a person sees the guilt or innocence of the defendant..but I'd love to hear your take. I can't really see any cogent argument against the notion that this kid got lucky when they drew the judge they did. Be great if every defendant got that lucky, imo..kind of a shame it was wasted on a white supremacist who went out of his way to kill two people and maim a third with a straw purchased rifle.

I think we're all missing an important life lesson in this trial:

Find someone who loves you as completely and unconditionally as Judge Schroeder loves Kyle Rittenhouse.

Boru

Old white man in a robe and a young white boy. Seems very familiar.

A lot of people on this thread have called Rittenhouse a white supremisist. Could anyone please present the evidence for this opinion? Not saying he is not, but it has not been presented in the trial. Maybe I missed it.