Is the Rittenhouse judge as insanely biased as people are saying?
I haven’t watched any of the trial myself.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
49 Answers
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) said it was an example of “how not to be a good judge.”
“The selection system in Wisconsin is also badly flawed,” Dean stated. “They are elected after initial appointment and there is no retirement age. This is why we have intemperate and unfit judges like this all over the country.”
If the Judge gets wacky or senile or slow, why would he quit if he can keep his job and continue to get paid, plus have the status of being a Judge? It’s a little cray cray.
From what I’ve read about the trial – and I’m not following it closely – it certainly seems like he is biased. He said that the murder victims could not be referred to as victims but only rioters and looters. That alone sounds like bias to me.
He had everyone in the court applaud for a witnedd because he was a vet.
Yup, he’s biased.
@janbb They can’t be murder victims until it’s been determined by the jury if he acted in self defense. It’s a standard ruling in similar cases.
@cheebdragon I’ve never heard that they can’t be referred to as victims; I may be wrong.
Supposedly the judge said they have to be referred to as “looters or rioters.”
Which is still no justification for someone to play Wild West vigilante.
If the supposition is they can’t use the term murder victims because it hasn’t been determined by the jury if he acted in self defense, then how is the judge allowing the victims to be called rioters and looters if it hasn’t been proven in a court of law that they were, in fact, rioting and looting?
@chyna: It sounds like you’re a logical person and the judge in this case is not necessarily logical.
@chyna the judge only said that he’s not going to ban the defense from describing the people shot as ‘arsonists’ and ‘looters’ if they can prove it.
( Basically only applies to 1 of the 3 men because there is video evidence of him starting at least 1 fire)
I’ve seen some things that the MSM has gone crazy about, but when you look at what was being said/done by the judge, it really isn’t out of line. Example was chastising the prosecutor about trying to paint Rittenhouse in a negative light because he didn’t go out and blab about his experience. He didn’t talk to anyone about it, which is his right. Constitutional right. To try maligning a witness because they were exercising their Constitutional rights is just plain wrong. And the judge said so.
Another thing that was done was that the prosecutor tried bringing into evidence some video tape that supposedly had Rittenhouse on it, but was not of that night. It was from some other, unknown time. His face was not on it, only a voice they said was his. The judge denied it from being used in court because (a) it didn’t have relevant bearing and (b) didn’t readily identify Rittenhouse. The prosecutor later tried using it to make a point and the judge stopped him cold. The MSM tried saying that was bias in favor of the defendant. It was actually the judge again chastising the prosecutor for disobeying his earlier ruling on the video tape.
As @cheebdragon said, the part about not referring to the people shot as victims is absolutely sane and logical. The case is whether Rittenhouse went there with the express purpose of shooting some people or if he shot in self-defense. To refer to those shot as “victims” paints the picture to the jury that they were murdered and is biased in favor of the prosecution. To stop that merely keeps the case as even as possible.
The part that truly bothers me with this episode (as with so many things these days) is how the media tries painting a biased picture of things instead of just reporting news. They seem to be, in this case, trying to paint the picture of an unfair trial so that if Rittenhouse is found not guilty they can incite more rioting and violence.
@filmfann He had everyone in the court applaud for a witnedd because he was a vet
He apparently does that in every trial he presides over. The same with not calling the deceased ‘victims’.
Not defending him by any means, just sayin’.
Evidently he was. Kyley boy walked. Big Joke.
@cheebdragon Larry Knight
September 2, 2020 ·
From a military legal worker:
I’m seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I’m going to set the record straight from a professional legal position… as well as from a former military position. I’m going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.
Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can’t even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren’t even legally allowed to be driving.
That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.
Of course anything that doesn’t fit your ideas is rediculous. So go watch Fox “News” and be happy.
@Nomore_lockout Okay, let’s dissect your fellow’s statement. “Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone.” What crime was Rittenhouse committing? Your fellow says he was carrying a gun illegally. Yet that was addressed through the courts. You know, the actual legal experts in Wisconsin? The charges were thrown out because, according to the law, he wasn’t carrying the gun illegally.
So your fellow was just proven to be wrong. I didn’t prove it, the courts did. The law did. So the entire premise of his statement is no longer valid. Next!
OK so everyone has their own opinions and we can argue till the cows come home. Next!
Ok so now they have set a precedent for far right vigilantism. And the next time some cop shoots a Black guy 37 times for holding
his mouth wrong, and the riots start again, just pass up on state troopers and National Guard and send in the Rambo Brigade. Next! Oh never mind there is no next society has fucking fallen apart. Great idea.
I just saw a meme that read “I jumped the polar bear enclosure then had to shoot all the bears in self defense.”
@Nomore_lockout “Ok so now they have set a precedent for far right vigilantism” That is the view from the left. We on the right do not see vigilantism. We see self-defense…self-defense against mobs the left encourages and refuses to say that they did anything wrong.
I never said they didn’t anything wrong. I’m saying rule of law should prevail. Citizens can’t take the law into their own hands. Put any rightist spin on it you want. It’s still BS.
“Yes, rioting and looting are wrong and that type of behavior should be dealt with harshly if required”... My own answer on another of these endless threads about Rittenhouse. How do you infer from that, that I am saying they didn’t do anything wrong?
@seawulf575 “mobs the left encourages and refuses to say that they did anything wrong”. Do you guys watch the news? We don’t encourage the mobs. The mobs are spawned by white supremacists, who seem to feel that out of control cops murdering Black people should not be an issue.
@Nomore_lockout Mobs are spawned by white supremacists?!? Really!?!?! You actually believe that? The mobs are generally right in line with the outrage BLM protesters stoke. Look back over the past few years. Pretty much ALL the rioting has been by left-wing entities.
Think about what you are saying. A cop shoots a black man and the white supremacists go crazy? Really?!?
No, but I don’t see them condemn it. You know it and so do I.
@seawulf575 And you just made my point – “The mobs are generally right in line with the outrage BLM protesters stoke”. As if they have no reason to be outraged. I’m done, hell with this. Have a nice holiday.
@Nomore_lockout The riots 100% of the time escalate from the protesters. It is the protesters that get carried away and decide to “burn it down” to make their point.
So shooting anyone that might be Antifa is OK and maybe “Cool” ?
Asking for an non- fright winger !
@Tropical_Willie Absolutely not. But shooting people that are attempting to physically harm you is called self defense. Protecting your life and body are not crimes, even when you are protecting them from Antifa.
He was carrying an illegal weapon (he was not old enough to carry) and across a state line and in a provocative area !
Ready to shoot any Antifa !
Which he did, he’s happy and I think I know someone is HAPPY too!
@Tropical_Willie To start with, he WAS allowed to carry it. That was settled in court and the charges for that were thrown out.
Secondly, yes it was a provocative area. Why was that? Oh yeah…because of the BLM/Antifa riots.
Thirdly he was ready to defend himself as was also proven in court.
Admit it…you are wrong. You are trying to assign feelings to others and then hold them accountable for your assignations. It really is a pitiful display.
The charges were thrown out by the Judge; with MAGA theme music on his ring tone . . . . I wonder what color MAGA hat he wears.
The “right wing ” judge that said the people he killed were not “victims” . . I know you agree with the judge and I know why.
@seawulf575
YOU HATE anyone that is not a Trump follower – - – - – - – admit it !
@Tropical_Willie you are a sad little thing, aren’t you? The judge threw out the charges after the defense brought the motion forward. And then he didn’t do it right away. It was quite some time. He, himself, said the statutes that applied were confusing. It all came down to an “AND” in the statute. It was perhaps a technicality, but that is how our legal system works. I saw many a legal analyst that explained it and agreed with throwing out the charges. It was just how the law was written.
You HATE anyone that doesn’t spew hatred of everything except the narrative…...admit it!!
So sorry . . . . not true, I’m a chaplain for civic group and back-up a third.
I don’t hate I just feel sorry.
The judge followed your agenda. . . so it okay with you.
@Tropical_Willie being a chaplain doesn’t mean you don’t hate. There are lots of “priests” and “ministers” that hate. just listen to them talk an you know they are rife with hatred. Much like your posts.
@Tropical_Willie Also, if you go back and look at the question about what charges, if any, Rittenhouse should be convicted on, my response was “About the only charge I know about that he should be found guilty on is the misdemeanor gun charge. He was a 17 year old in possession of a gun. No arguments there. There is a law against that in Kenosha so he should be found guilty of that. Everything else is hyped up garbage designed to appease a radical left base.” So your assignation of opinions to me so you can spew hatred once again shows its colors in your posts.
When a person gets up in the morning to hate people of color, hate Latinx, hate Asian, hate Muslims, hate LBQTs, hate Democrats, hate President Biden, hate, Dr Fauci, hate vaccines and hate masks they must be a stanch Republicans or right wingers of members of the alt-right.
Your fallacy in logic about me being a hater is just laughable.
Rittenden broke the law by carrying a gun; if you break a law you cannot claim self-defense and the judge knew that and also would not allow the prosecution to call the dead and wounded “victims” ~ ~ ~I wonder why ? J.K. I know why and so do you!
@Tropical_Willie most of what you just mentioned YOU assign as beliefs. Name me one person that has all those hates. Not to mention it opens you up to claims of people that get up in the morning to hate white people because they are white, hate Trump, hate Republicans, hate rich people, etc…they must be a staunch Democrats or left wingers or members of the alt-left.
As for the rest of your statement, it starts with Rittenhouse (not Rittenden) breaking the law by carrying a gun. That was proven to be a false statement, proven in a court of law. The fact you don’t like the proof has no bearing on it. Your belief is not the law. As for the judge not allowing the prosecution to call the people that were shot “victims”, I really don’t think you DO know why. The entire case was a case of whether Rittenhouse was a mad dog killer or a kid defending himself. If he is a mad dog killer, the people he shot were victims. If he was a kid defending himself, they were not…they were instigators and he protected himself. To allow the prosecutor to refer to them as “victims” is to allow the prosecutor to unfairly bias the jury.
BLM equals instigators I forgot – - – how dumb. SMDH
ANTIFA are instigators because they are against Facists !
How soon we forget. How ‘bout the instigators who tried to overthrow our Democracy on Jan. 3? Oh never mind they were BLM in white face. I knowed cuz
I done seen Obama and Hillary hiding out in thar!
Of course there is a great gulf between “instigating” over police judicial murders of people of color, and something mild and petty like an attempt to overthrow the Government over election results we don’t like. But I keep forgetting the Contitution only applies to the right to run around in public packing heat. The rest of it is irrevelant.
Answer this question 
