equinox_code wrote:

Not as poor as the judge though.

Is he though? Genuine question. I don't know much about legal formalities etc, but at a brief glance over the competing narrative summaries, I found the arguments justifying the judge's words/actions to be more convincing. That may well be because I haven't given enough time to looking into it, so if I've overlooked something, please do share it.

I'm not an expert at all, and I've not been following the case as closely as Griff, so I might be exposing myself a little here.

Apparently, he's the most experienced judge on his circuit (40+ years experience), and is known to be a judge that consistently upholds the rights of the defence. Tbh, these are probably good qualities. 

The most contentious of his two rulings (or whatever they're called) were the request that the victims, not be referred to as 'victims', and another request that a video of Rittenhouse saying that he'd shoot looters would not be admitted into evidence.

The first (the prohibition use of the term 'victims') would have been fine, if, for example, the judge was equally nervous about the use of the terms 'looters' and 'rioters'. Apparently, this is the type of thing Judge Schroeder does consistently as a way of redressing the balance between the defence and prosecution. I can understand the reasoning, but in the context of this trial, surely you also strike the term 'rioter', and force the defence to prove who the 'looters' are. 

That's probably one of the main criticisms of Judge Shroeder, and I think it's bad enough. It already prejudices the jury to think of 'self defence', even before the lawyers debate it.

This also feeds straight into the decision to strike out the video of Rittenhouse expressing a desire to act as a vigilante. Surely if the defence team are allowed to tell the jury about the criminal pasts of those who were shot and killed, then the prosecution should be allowed to raise evidence where the perpetrator himself describes the very crime he's been all but caught for.

So those are the arguments against the judge that I feel clearly show some bias. And as always, I'm pretty sure there are many other people who can pick up these two points, and provide a better argument than my own.

But aside from these two very serious, but admittedly subjective, points of view, you have the Judge and his gaffes... 
This guy might claim to be impartial, but some of the shit he's said and done in his courtroom, in front of the cameras, inspire no confidence in the idea of a fair trial at all.

At least two clunky racist gaffes. That pause during the address to the jury. The veterans day salutation. The ringtone thing...

I bet the prosecution are seething. You're fighting to admit fairly important material into evidence, all the while, this prick appears to be thumbing his nose at the sizable portion of society that want to see Rittenhouse prosecuted for murder.

You're right though. The prosecution team has been utterly stupid. So much so, you'd wonder if it was planned. 
So now, there's a very high chance of a mistrial.

Apparently, in a new development, there's a drone video of the very first shots fired, and it doesn't look good for Rittenhouse.
But, of course, there's some dispute over it's introduction. The defence want this new vid stuck out and, while they're at it, how about a mistrial?

That said, I think the Judge defence team has gone on record and said that he'd they'd take the heavy handed mistakes of the prosecution in good faith, so if there is a mistrial, they'll take the mishandled material as new evidence, and allow Rittenhouse to stand trial again.

But while it was supposedly said on record, I think it's still speculation.
So a mistrial could still mean Rittenhouse walks away and is never tried again.

Well, the jury's still out. So I'm guessing the judge can wait for the hung jury verdict, and stop making a prat of himself.

If there isn't enough premeditative evidence for first-degree, does a murder charge default to second-degree and continue down the line? Is it a thing to gamble on a higher charge as a calculated dodge, in other words?

In my limited understanding of US law this can't be third-degree because he knowingly aimed at them (unless he's claimed he intended warning shots?), nor involuntary manslaughter because there was no immediate threat when he started firing.

Voluntary manslaughter and a few years, d'ya reckon?

(Also, he looks like a wrong 'un. Tried and tested. Listen to the music, Marge.)

Glenn Greenwald?

His hatred of the liberal establishment seems to have blinded him to the danger currently being posed by the US right wing, and has led him to some very questionable positions.

Yeah, I stopped following him on Twitter a while back. He does seem to have gone off the rails.

There's ya Not Guilty then. Murica woo.

What a fucking horrible verdict.

I don't think the country will allow this verdict to stand. 

This decision is too cruel.

I actually do agree with keeping kids out of jail (where it makes sense). But is this the price?

I don't think that's a fair concession. How many people did you think about killing at the age of 17 (or threaten to kill), and how many did you actually kill?

Why didn't you kill them?

dynamiteReady wrote:

I don't think that's a fair concession. How many people did you think about killing at the age of 17 (or threaten to kill), and how many did you actually kill? Why didn't you kill them?

I'm super lazy, among other things.

I think I'm ok with 17-year-olds going to jail for killing people

If it wasn't so cold I reckon a good chunk of America would be burning this weekend.

GooberTheHat wrote:

If it wasn't so cold I reckon a good chunk of America would be burning this weekend.

If the verdict had been the other way around I think it would have.

On a straight up ethical analysis, it would have been better if someone had shot him, two lives saved and someone's arm.