I'm curious why you keep attacking my critiques of he judge when it is the same problem I have.
I dont subscribe to the the "somebody did something bad, therefore we should ignore something somebody else did," theory. Even so, I'm pretty sure I sad the prosecutor not calling out Rittenhouse for exercising 5th amendment doesn't fly either. What do I need to call out to gain message board cred to mention the judge in this trial?I'm not attacking them. I'm asking you to put them in context of other bad behavior in the trial. Presumably the critiques are based in some presumed potential for biasing the jury.
I've asked repeatedly and even given you my evaluation but every time I ask you there's some deflection.
If you don't want to answer it just say so.
I dont subscribe to the the "somebody did something bad, therefore we should ignore something somebody else did," theory. Even so, I'm pretty sure I sad the prosecutor not calling out Rittenhouse for exercising 5th amendment doesn't fly either. What do I need to call out to gain message board cred to mention the judge in this trial?
If you go back and read my posts its not this trial I'm concerned about, it shouldn't be happening in general.It’s largely irrelevant.
Not sure why you’re beating this drum.
I will always side with respect for those who paid the price to keep us free. It has absolutely positively zero impact on this trial.
We're gonna have to. I'm in no means denigrating anyone's service (i will be and have been accused of it because of my take on this and that hurts) but being a vet shouldn't afford anyone special status in front of jury, no matter which side that vet is testifying for.on the contrary I think it should happen in every court in the country on Veterans Day.
Agree to disagree.
They weren’tWe're gonna have to. I'm in no means denigrating anyone's service (i will be and have been accused of it because of my take on this and that hurts) but being a vet shouldn't afford anyone special status in front of jury, no matter which side that vet is testifying for.
I'm attaching meaning to the fact the judge acknowledged anybody. He should have kept his mouth shut. We're not going to agree on this.They weren’t
Everyone who served was acknowledged. On Veterans Day, as they should have been.
Edit: you’re attaching meaning to the acknowledgment that just isn’t there.
I’ll freely admit engineers aren’t “normal”. Our brains just process the world differently it’s how we are put together largely and then refined by training. It’s both a creative and mathematical/analytical profession especially on the design side.I doubt that's how it is in your working world, but its definitely how you guys come across with any non-engineer that has to deal with you. I dont mean that as an insult, but you know what I'm talking about. Especially with message boards. [Sunglasses emoji]
People are pro or anti-Rittenhouse? Why? The trial should be about whether or not he acted in self-defense. If I understand correctly, the FBI tapes paint a fairly clear picture it was self-defense. It's a shame so many want this trial to be a political event rather than a legal proceeding.He should stop. Doesn't matter if you're pro-Rittenhouse or anti-Rittenhouse.
Are you saying I want this to be a political event?People are pro or anti-Rittenhouse? Why? The trial should be about whether or not he acted in self-defense. If I understand correctly, the FBI tapes paint a fairly clear picture it was self-defense. It's a shame so many want this trial to be a political event rather than a legal proceeding.
I replied to you because you said people were pro or anti-Rittenhouse. It's not about Rittenhouse. It's not whether you like him or what he did. It's about whether he broke the law, and/or what laws he broke. It doesn't look like murder IMO, but maybe they can get him on a weapons charge? No idea what the law on that is. But it appears he did indeed act in self-defense.You replied to me so I made an assumption. Sorry if it was inaccurate.