His closet probably contains hoods much older and more pointy than that.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Kyle Rittenhouse Judge rules link to proud boys would be poison at trial UPDATE: Verdict not guilty
- Thread starter purplemonkey111
- Start date
- News
No, but this looks interesting. What's a good episode to try out?
This morally bankrupt judge should be impeached and removed from office. This is the very definition of white privilege.
No, I meant literally I am unsure how a prosecutor would go about eliciting that information on direct without helping the defense.
I only ask because their episodes on the bastards who helped hitler to power (but weren't Nazis) goes into detail about how right wing judges behaved EXACTLY like this when Hitler was on trial before he took power. Uncannily similar!
It's a great podcast. I'd honestly just pick one that sounds interesting and go for it. History of concentration camps is interesting purely because of how little it's taught (episode 9). The hitler rise to power one (ep 13) I found disturbing with the modern similarities. Also Paul manafort (15 and 16). It's really all good!
It's so unsubtle too, which is maybe the scariest part about the whole thing. They feel no need to obfuscate their actions.
I'm not (usually lmao) a Godwin's law person, but this is about as parallel as you can get in a historical parallel.
I'll check it out, thanks for the rec. Gonna go slowly though, so I don't lose the little hope in humanity I still have left too quickly.
As a person without a good understanding of the law system it feels disgusting to me, but this defense attorney's explanation helps me understand why it's being done. Use of the word victim could prejudice the jury and it could be argued that they're making an emotional decision rather than one based on the evidence, and if found guilty under the circumstances of hearing victim too often could result in the Defense seeking an appeal and have the guilty verdict tossed. Still shitty that the defense isn't held to quite the same standard.
The judiary under Trump shifted significantly to the right, and that includes young judges and appointees, not just older. The judiary is going to be a right wing leaning branch of government for the majority of our lifetimes unless something happens to radically reshape it in another direction.
I heard this same argument for making a watertight case against Manafort. Then when it came time to sentence him, that judge gave him a slap on the wrist
It is standard for the prosecution to not be allowed to refer to alleged victims as "victims" during trials.
I wasn't allowed to do that.
Besides, in practice, we'd want to refer to the victims as "Ms. Smith" or "the accused's brother, Mr. Jones" anyway.
Some of the other stuff surrounding the judge seems a little suspect (especially the tweet above me), but this isn't one of them.
I wasn't allowed to do that.
Besides, in practice, we'd want to refer to the victims as "Ms. Smith" or "the accused's brother, Mr. Jones" anyway.
Some of the other stuff surrounding the judge seems a little suspect (especially the tweet above me), but this isn't one of them.
This is normal. During George Floyd's trial they referred to him solely as Mr. Floyd….. the problem here is they are allowing the other extreme of calling them rioters and looters. If this was an impartial judge he would not have allowed any descriptive language for the victims.
I haven't read the whole thread yet but i will here, but Is requiring AIDS tests for sex workers bad? I don't see how that is bad at all. I'm pro sex work but I'd say requiring testing is a good thing.
EDIT: Yeah the rest of his shit is bullshit, but i still agree with the AIDs and sti testing and see no probs with that.
Last edited:
Not necessarily, but according to the relevant article the ACLU were concerned a positive AIDS test would influence the judge's decision.
He actually said they can use it in closing (not throughout the trial) if there was evidence admitted during trial of their criminal acts.
From WaPo: "Schroeder said that while he advised Rittenhouse's team against using pejorative terms to describe the three men shot, such language could be used in their closing arguments if evidence shows the men participated in criminal acts."
It's easy to get hyped up about this stuff, especially with headlines like these that are somewhat misleading.
Judge Mandates Prosecutors Only Refer To Kyle Rittenhouse As ‘Hero’
The Onion brings you all of the latest news, stories, photos, videos and more from America's finest news source.
www.theonion.com
Judge Mandates Prosecutors Only Refer To Kyle Rittenhouse As ‘Hero’
The Onion brings you all of the latest news, stories, photos, videos and more from America's finest news source.
I can't stand the onion ever since they started reporting real news.
"Rittenhouse's white lawyer just dropped the hard r twice in a row, in a court of law."
"I want to be really clear here, the person he was quoting, from a video, did not actually use the hard r. This is a stylistic choice made by this murderer's defense lawyer."
This video doesn't paint either side in a good might.
Mod Edit: Removed alt-right source
Mod Edit: Removed alt-right source
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't believe you linked a video from this guy. Really?
Also., Rittenhouse was NOT LICENSED TO CARRY A GUN IN WISCONSIN.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dang, what a trustworthy and unbiased source you have there.
Last edited by a moderator:
According to one of the videos shown before the break where you see the murderer on the ground, the third victim didn't even touch Kyle. He was running by him, kind of stuck is arm out and got shot point blank. Fuck this "either side" BS.
Yea he wasn't, but he obviously felt threatened to use it. He was being chased by multiple people before he fired
Maybe if this murderer would have just stayed the fuck home then he wouldn't have felt threatened???
Also here is another tweet from JACK. Yep no bias here....
Mod Edit: Removed alt-right source
Last edited by a moderator:
User Banned (Permanent): Victim blaming, previous severe infractions
There were people with guns out there besides him.
Obviously if no one wanted to get shot or threatened, people should've stayed home.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is some real victim blaming bullshit.
You're literally telling the people who protested for BLM that they knew they'd get shot if they went outside and if they didn't want to get hurt they should have not protested.
Well that's Rittenhouse's defense. Dude has a chance to prove it.
He is the ONLY one who KILLED people. You are telling me other people who had guns weren't threatened???
FUCK KYLE.
I know when I feel threatened I cross state lines and illegally arm myself as a minor and practice self-defense to shoot unarmed people that I'm antagonizing. 🙄
What other side? The people who are dead?
Last edited by a moderator:
This has been known since last year and no it doesn't help Rittenhouse. Yes some people were messing with him but they were messing with him because he was a LARPer armed to the teeth who was only their to stir shit up and play soldier. His actions clearly did not constitute self defense and he created the dangerous situation himself by illegally carrying a loaded weapon on the streets during a protest.
Last edited by a moderator:
Can't really see anything revelatory here, just the same event from a helicopter. Rest of it is old, I think
Last edited by a moderator:
What the fuck is wrong with you? Think a little before spouting such BS.
So what if he got chased or got into a fight. Doesn't mean he was free to murder three people in cold blood.
Fuck outta here with this both sides bullshit. You normally also cannot claim self defense during the commission of a crime, which he was actively committing while brandishing an illegal firearm.