Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Delusional judge overseeing the trial of Kenosha terrorist Kyle Rittenhouse claims the trial is apolitical   (usatoday.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Jury, Supreme Court of the United States, Appeal, trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, national figure, handling of theRittenhouse case, Court, last year  
•       •       •

2602 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Oct 2021 at 11:35 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



299 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-10-28 8:47:29 AM  
Judge has a lot of Robes in his closet, not all black.
 
2021-10-28 9:28:20 AM  
If he's spouting nonsense like this already, it's time to make more popcorn.  Dis gonna be gud.
 
2021-10-28 10:19:21 AM  
Just wait until Rittenhouse is brought into the courtroom and the judge tries to get a slow clap started.
 
2021-10-28 10:34:33 AM  
Straw man purchase for someone not allowed to own a firearm then used in a shooting

He's doing fed time
 
2021-10-28 10:42:48 AM  

baka-san: Straw man purchase for someone not allowed to own a firearm then used in a shooting

He's doing fed time


And his mother.

/ who am I kidding, they're white
 
2021-10-28 11:36:55 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: If he's spouting nonsense like this already, it's time to make more popcorn.  Dis gonna be gud.


You mean an absolute farce of a trial that prosecutors should have the paper work for a mistrial filed before the ringing of the gavel stops echoing in the courthouse?
 
2021-10-28 11:38:34 AM  
When the kids gets away with it, shiat is really (and rightly so) gonna hit the fan.
 
2021-10-28 11:38:41 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Just wait until Rittenhouse is brought into the courtroom and the judge tries to get a slow clap started.


"Before we start this trial, let me just say, I'm a big fan of your work. . . "
 
2021-10-28 11:39:50 AM  
Any law-talking folks here who can chime in on what avenues of recourse the prosecution may have?
 
2021-10-28 11:41:09 AM  
Nothing in these rulings is out of the ordinary.
 
2021-10-28 11:41:10 AM  
I can be the judge of this!

He straight up murdered those guys.
 
2021-10-28 11:41:32 AM  
You mean the judge who said people shot by this guy can't be called victims also said this? I am sure the Bullet Receptacles shot by Rittenhouse feel the same.
 
2021-10-28 11:42:28 AM  
I don't see anything wrong here.  The three people aren't victims.
 
2021-10-28 11:42:30 AM  
Judge Mandates Prosecutors Only Refer To Kyle Rittenhouse As 'Hero'

(Seriously though: moving to avoid using the term "victim" is a pretty standard defense move that shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. Pretending there is not a political component to this when the whole situation was the result of people escalating a situation based on political beliefs about the motivations of those on the other side of the aisle is just setting up a second powder keg.)
 
2021-10-28 11:42:40 AM  
He normally bans the word victim? So you are only a victim after someone is convinced?  Well at least logic makes no sense.
 
2021-10-28 11:43:32 AM  

sprgrss: Nothing in these rulings is out of the ordinary.


That's the problem.
 
2021-10-28 11:44:20 AM  
I started to worry when the judge said Rittenhouse must be referred to as "valiant patriotic American defending the Constitution" and the people he shot were to be called "criminal Antifa shiatheads".

/ I might be paraphrasing
 
2021-10-28 11:44:37 AM  
I know this is a kind of preaching to the choir type question but, if he is committing some illegal act by being there and shoots people while in the commission of the crime of being there at all isn't that murder she wrote right there?  I don't understand why it is even being parsed down to did the people he shot do x before he shot them.
 
2021-10-28 11:44:40 AM  

MillionDollarMo: I can be the judge of this!

He straight up murdered those guys.


I didn't see the first one, but the guy with the skateboard was clearly attacking him.

There should have been a law against a dipshiat kid wandering around town with an assault rifle, but I think he's gonna get off on self defense.

Those cops that let him wander around should be fired though.
 
2021-10-28 11:44:42 AM  

No1farker: He normally bans the word victim? So you are only a victim after someone is convinced?  Well at least logic makes no sense.


Well when the purpose of the trial is to determine what actually happened.  At this point they are only alleged victims since no one has been convicted.

There is nothing out of the ordinary in the ruling.

that said, I never refer to my victims as victims.  I always refer to them by their name.  Much more impactful when you put a name and a face to your victim than just some bland term like victim.
 
2021-10-28 11:44:59 AM  
I'm not sure the judge is apolitical
 
2021-10-28 11:45:09 AM  

No1farker: sprgrss: Nothing in these rulings is out of the ordinary.

That's the problem.


The rules of evidence and due process of law are not a problem.
 
2021-10-28 11:46:02 AM  

sprgrss: Nothing in these rulings is out of the ordinary.


Telling the prosecution they can't refer to murder victims as victims is pretty unusual.
 
2021-10-28 11:46:54 AM  

sprgrss: Nothing in these rulings is out of the ordinary.


c.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2021-10-28 11:46:58 AM  

sprgrss: Nothing in these rulings is out of the ordinary.


rudemix: You mean the judge who said people shot by this guy can't be called victims also said this? I am sure the Bullet Receptacles shot by Rittenhouse feel the same.



Here are two posts that should meet sometime.
 
2021-10-28 11:48:00 AM  
Is this the judge who said the prosecutors couldn't call the people who were shot and killed "victims" in court?
 
2021-10-28 11:48:45 AM  

Headso: I know this is a kind of preaching to the choir type question but, if he is committing some illegal act by being there and shoots people while in the commission of the crime of being there at all isn't that murder she wrote right there?  I don't understand why it is even being parsed down to did the people he shot do x before he shot them.


What illegal act would that be? Seems to me like this would be quite a giant loophole - "you technically broke the law doing X, so therefore any potential crime you commit after X you automatically become guilty of in the harshest degree possible."

Imagine if you applied this to an illegal immigrant. "You're technically breaking the law by being here, therefore what would be a 5MPH speeding ticket is now reckless endangerment and attempted vehicular manslaugher."
 
2021-10-28 11:49:32 AM  

hardinparamedic: sprgrss: Nothing in these rulings is out of the ordinary.

Telling the prosecution they can't refer to murder victims as victims is pretty unusual.


No it isn't. It's pretty common for a judge to disallow language like that. What isn't common is to disallow language like that *while* allowing language calling the victims "rioters" and "arsonists".
 
2021-10-28 11:49:49 AM  

sprgrss: No1farker: He normally bans the word victim? So you are only a victim after someone is convinced?  Well at least logic makes no sense.

Well when the purpose of the trial is to determine what actually happened.  At this point they are only alleged victims since no one has been convicted.

There is nothing out of the ordinary in the ruling.

that said, I never refer to my victims as victims.  I always refer to them by their name.  Much more impactful when you put a name and a face to your victim than just some bland term like victim.


Does victim have a different legal definition that differs from the dictionary?

I would think it would be even more impact full to say "Tom, was a victim" <legal bullshiat to follow>... but that is just me.
 
2021-10-28 11:50:06 AM  

hardinparamedic: Telling the prosecution they can't refer to murder victims as victims is pretty unusual.


No it farking isn't.

It's all depends on who the judge is, but it is pretty farking common.
 
2021-10-28 11:50:16 AM  
Heretofore, the 'victims' should only be referred to as 'the people whose insides were torn up by the bullets fired from the gun the defendant was holding'.
 
2021-10-28 11:50:30 AM  

misanthropicsob: Is this the judge who said the prosecutors couldn't call the people who were shot and killed "victims" in court?


That's not out of the ordinary. If someone is on trial for murder, calling the people they killed "murder victims" implicitly assumes the guilt of the person on trial.

I mean, in this case the kid is obviously guilty, but limiting prosecutors as a general rule is a good thing.
 
2021-10-28 11:51:12 AM  

No1farker: Does victim have a different legal definition that differs from the dictionary?

I would think it would be even more impact full to say "Tom, was a victim" <legal bullshiat to follow>... but that is just me.


Passive voice is bullshiat.

It's more impactful to say "The defendant shot Tom"
 
2021-10-28 11:51:14 AM  

sprgrss: No1farker: sprgrss: Nothing in these rulings is out of the ordinary.

That's the problem.

The rules of evidence and due process of law are not a problem.


So you can only be a victim once a person is convinced?  So people that are raped and they don't find the culprit they are not victim?
 
2021-10-28 11:51:51 AM  
They'll be allowed to use the words "sufferers of extreme bullet trauma."
 
2021-10-28 11:52:28 AM  
Politically motivated Judge calls trial non political?

That scans.

Will wait for a guilty verdict but I will not be be holding my breath in the process.
 
2021-10-28 11:52:59 AM  

Shaggy_C: What illegal act would that be? Seems to me like this would be quite a giant loophole - "you technically broke the law doing X, so therefore any potential crime you commit after X you automatically become guilty of in the harshest degree possible."


There's so many stories of people who were just with someone committing a crime where some terrible outcome occurred and they are charged with the same thing as the others because they were in the process of committing the original crime. Or cases where someone is running from the cops and the cops run over some bystander and the guy running is charged with their murder.
 
2021-10-28 11:53:32 AM  

Shaggy_C: Headso: I know this is a kind of preaching to the choir type question but, if he is committing some illegal act by being there and shoots people while in the commission of the crime of being there at all isn't that murder she wrote right there?  I don't understand why it is even being parsed down to did the people he shot do x before he shot them.

What illegal act would that be? Seems to me like this would be quite a giant loophole - "you technically broke the law doing X, so therefore any potential crime you commit after X you automatically become guilty of in the harshest degree possible."

Imagine if you applied this to an illegal immigrant. "You're technically breaking the law by being here, therefore what would be a 5MPH speeding ticket is now reckless endangerment and attempted vehicular manslaugher."


I'm pretty sure if you used gun while committing a crime it does change the severity.
 
2021-10-28 11:53:44 AM  
Judge just giving material for the prosecution to appeal if an acquittal occurs
 
2021-10-28 11:54:20 AM  
"The Good Land"  is neither good nor land.  Discuss amongst yourselves.

/Mike Myers Daily Double
 
2021-10-28 11:54:39 AM  

Kazan: Judge just giving material for the prosecution to appeal if an acquittal occurs


If only that pesky 5th amendment didn't prevent them from doing so.
 
2021-10-28 11:54:39 AM  
1.) You can't use the word victim because it insinuates a crime has been committed and that hasn't been proven yet.

2.) You can use "rioter" and "looter" provided evidence can be provided to support that.

I'm good with that as the evidence used to use the terms "rioter" and "looter" come out of a court ruling proving the victims were "rioters" and "looters".
 
2021-10-28 11:54:43 AM  

sprgrss: No1farker: Does victim have a different legal definition that differs from the dictionary?

I would think it would be even more impact full to say "Tom, was a victim" <legal bullshiat to follow>... but that is just me.

Passive voice is bullshiat.

It's more impactful to say "The defendant shot Tom"


And the reason you did not answers my direct question?
 
2021-10-28 11:55:06 AM  

Kazan: Judge just giving material for the prosecution to appeal if an acquittal occurs


The prosecution cannot appeal.  Try reading the 5th Amendment
 
2021-10-28 11:56:07 AM  

AcneVulgaris: MillionDollarMo: I can be the judge of this!

He straight up murdered those guys.

I didn't see the first one, but the guy with the skateboard was clearly attacking him.

There should have been a law against a dipshiat kid wandering around town with an assault rifle, but I think he's gonna get off on self defense.

Those cops that let him wander around should be fired though.


Yes trying to stop an active shooter means you were asking for it.
 
2021-10-28 11:56:23 AM  
The word is decedent.
 
2021-10-28 11:56:55 AM  

No1farker: sprgrss: No1farker: Does victim have a different legal definition that differs from the dictionary?

I would think it would be even more impact full to say "Tom, was a victim" <legal bullshiat to follow>... but that is just me.

Passive voice is bullshiat.

It's more impactful to say "The defendant shot Tom"

And the reason you did not answers my direct question?


Victim begs that question that a crime was committed.  That's the reasoning why judges who bar that word bar it.

Most prosecutors won't call their victims during their case in chief.  They'll use the victims name.  It's a tactic to humanize the victim.  It's not longer faceless victim.  But Tom, the store clerk who had two daughters and was married for 20 years to his high school sweetheart.
 
2021-10-28 11:57:48 AM  

misanthropicsob: Is this the judge who said the prosecutors couldn't call the people who were shot and killed "victims" in court?


Yes. Even worse, the victims are allowed to be called rioters and looters, even though they were never actually charged with those crimes.
 
2021-10-28 11:57:58 AM  

sprgrss: Nothing in these rulings is out of the ordinary.


And that's the reason people talk about "systemic racism".
 
2021-10-28 11:58:43 AM  

lilplatinum: Kazan: Judge just giving material for the prosecution to appeal if an acquittal occurs

If only that pesky 5th amendment didn't prevent them from doing so.


.... the 5th amendment doesn't prevent appealing a verdict because misconduct of the judge
 
Displayed 50 of 299 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.