Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial
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).
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).
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).
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
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).
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).
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.
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.
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".
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
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.
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.
BTW, Rittenhouse apparently did make those stupid comments about the looters, if I understand the situation correctly.
Presumably, it was on his mobile phone.
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.
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.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Stolen Japanese Art found and returned to Japan |
Yesterday, 2:58 pm |
MTG Says Trump Civil Trial Judge "Should Be Disrobed!" |
23 Feb 2024, 3:56 pm |