Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#2,051
#2,051
clarksvol00 said:
How so?
Click to expand...

that you can't differentiate between a prosecutor violating a long standing rule of what type of questioning is allowed and a judge asking a courtroom to recognize a veteran who happens to be a witness.

why do you think there are long standing rules against one and no rules against the other?

do you honestly believe the impact on the jury is most likely to be equal or do you not want to admit that the you only seem to be bothered by one
 
#2,052
#2,052
volinbham said:
that you can't differentiate between a prosecutor violating a long standing rule of what type of questioning is allowed and a judge asking a courtroom to recognize a veteran who happens to be a witness.

why do you think there are long standing rules against one and no rules against the other?

do you honestly believe the impact on the jury is most likely to be equal or do you not want to admit that the you only seem to be bothered by one
Click to expand...
I'm confident in my belief that a judge shouldn't open a session of court and ask the crowd to applaud anybody.
Edit: especially a jury.
 
#2,053
#2,053
clarksvol00 said:
I'm confident in my belief that a judge shouldn't open a session of court and ask the crowd to applaud anybody.
Click to expand...

but you cannot opine at all on whether that is more, less or as inappropriate as what the prosecutor did. check.

seems to be the first time you can't opine but it is what it is.
 
#2,054
#2,054
volinbham said:
that you can't differentiate between a prosecutor violating a long standing rule of what type of questioning is allowed and a judge asking a courtroom to recognize a veteran who happens to be a witness.

why do you think there are long standing rules against one and no rules against the other?

do you honestly believe the impact on the jury is most likely to be equal or do you not want to admit that the you only seem to be bothered by one
Click to expand...

sooo this long standing rule seems to come from something I learnt in skool way back along time ago....
 
  • Like
Reactions: DynaLo
#2,055
#2,055
volinbham said:
but you cannot opine at all on whether that is more, less or as inappropriate as what the prosecutor did. check.

seems to be the first time you can't opine but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
What do you think? Was it appropriate for the judge to introduce this to the jury? If you think its on a continuum, what's your percentage?
 
#2,056
#2,056
clarksvol00 said:
What do you think? Was it appropriate for the judge to introduce the the jury? If you think its on a continuum, what's your percentage?
Click to expand...

If we are on a 10 point scale with 1 being no impact on the jury and 10 being maximum I'd put the judge at a 2-3 given that this was an expert witness just verifying prior evidence as accurate and the prosecutor at a 7 for violating a rule that is in place specifically design to avoid biasing the jury
 
#2,057
#2,057
volinbham said:
If we are on a 10 point scale with 1 being no impact on the jury and 10 being maximum I'd put the judge at a 2-3 given that this was an expert witness just verifying prior evidence as accurate and the prosecutor at a 7 for violating a rule that is in place specifically design to avoid biasing the jury
Click to expand...
Thats cool, but I'd prefer the judge doesn't interject any bias at all. I'm not sure why thats so upsetting.
 
#2,059
#2,059
clarksvol00 said:
The middle of a trial is not the place for it.
Click to expand...

I think it's ok for you to have this opinion. Just curious as to what your end game is? Are you calling for mistrial or conviction or Rittenhouse in this trial? Are you angry that the judge appears biased in your opinion towards Rittenhouse? Are you just wanting to argue in the forum?
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#2,060
#2,060
volinbham said:
It's not upsetting - it's just what appears to be your selective outrage that I'm asking about but you keep deflecting. Just like your last 2 posts on the topic.
Click to expand...
What am I deflecting? I don't think think judges should be having the crowd applaud a witness. Is that deflection? I've been pretty clear about my position. I can't help it if it offends you.
 
#2,061
#2,061
clarksvol00 said:
How many times has he been in court on Veterans day and how many times has he stopped a trial in front of a jury to point this out? Its relevant and neither of us have the answers.
Click to expand...

6 pages of search and it’s all the same regurgitated garbage. Somebody in that building will leak out if it’s normal behavior for that Judge.
It’s already been said by someone in the courthouse that he doesn’t blow up as bad as he did at Binger although I have to wonder if the Judge has ever had to specifically deal with that flagrant of a 5A violation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and StarRaider
#2,062
#2,062
clarksvol00 said:
What am I deflecting? I don't think think judges should be having the crowd applaud a witness. Is that deflection? I've been pretty clear about my position. I can't help it if it offends you.
Click to expand...

and #3

it doesn't offend me - it amuses me you keep dancing around the comparison of 2 actions you've acknowledged were inappropriate. one of those deflections was to ask me my view which I promptly provided.
 
#2,063
#2,063
tnmarktx said:
I think it's ok for you to have this opinion. Just curious as to what your end game is? Are you calling for mistrial or conviction or Rittenhouse in this trial? Are you angry that the judge appears biased in your opinion towards Rittenhouse? Are you just wanting to argue in the forum?
Click to expand...
My endgame is only that I don't think a judge should call out witnesses, whether they be patriots or horrible people. Its not his job. I think he should rule in objections and keep his mouth shut otherwise.
 
#2,067
#2,067
volinbham said:
not arguing - asking you a question.

let me help - why do you feel the judge's actions were wrong? what is the possible harm from his actions? now apply that to what the prosecutor did and compare the two.
Click to expand...
For some reason you're one of the posters that come across as a hard right-winger I respect. If you read my previous posts, you can probably figure out a little more about my views on this.
 
#2,071
#2,071
clarksvol00 said:
The fact that you can't acknowledge the judge in the Rittenhouse trial probably should **** up and let the trial play out.
Click to expand...

so you didn't read my posts - I specifically said this incident is the only action of the judge I've thought was out of line. I indicated on the comparison scale (that you still can't bring yourself to do yourself) that his actions could have some impact on the jury.

it's even crazier that you would consider the stance on the issue you imagine I have makes one "hard right"
 
#2,072
#2,072
BowlBrother85 said:
That depends on how you are defining "help". They do not want private citizens leaving their residences to go downtown and take up arms against other citizens during a riot. It will create more problems than it will solve. In order for vigilantism to be legally justified, there will be a threshold of self-defense to meet, and even then you can still find yourself the defendant in a trial, as Rittenhouse has.
Click to expand...
But this was and is the failure of federal and local government to keep law and order. I have no problem with the right to assembly and protest, but all this went way beyond with no response to lawlessness.

People losing their livelihood, being held hostage/detained unlawfully by protesters because government was too chicken shat to intervene as is their duty. When you fail to do that you invite, even create vigilantism. It was their duty under law and they punted, then want to step in and punish those who fielded the punt. Absolute chickenshats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL and StarRaider
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top