Rittenhouse Trial

[H2O Man]

From time to time, there are criminal trials that help define an era. Sad to say that the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse appears to be one of these. As repulsive as Rittenhouse is, perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the on-going trial is the behavior of the judge, the Dishonoable Bruce Schroeder. Thus, people of my generation have been comparing the judge and the trial he is highjacking to other infamous trials of the past.

The first one that comes to mind is then 74 year old Judge Julius Hoffman, in thr trial of the Chicago Seven. The trial originally had eight defendants, but the case against Bobby Seale was declared a mistrial during the trial. Born in the previous century, Julius was a prime representative of the system that the defendants had been protesting at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. There was a police riot outside of the convention, and the defendants were charged with crossing state lines to start a riot.

The song linked above tells part of the story. Julius had Seale bound and gagged when he insisted on representing himself. Julius would put his utter contempt for the other defendats and their legal team on the record frequently throughout the trial. The defendants were aware that this would not be a fair and just trial, and so they made it theater. The judge's rulings were so bad that the convictions were overturned on appeal. But what was one of the strangest parts of the whole thing was that Judge Hoffman's treatment of Abbie Hoffman.

Although he expressed frustration with Abbie's antics, he tended to treat the YIPPIE! leader like a favorite grandson who was full of mischief. And this held true, even when Abbie insulted him in open court. Thus, Judge Schroeder's obvious affection for Rittenhouse reminds me of that: another self-righteous, cantankerous old judge -- one who doesn't much care for people exercising their Amendment 1 rights -- who cannot hide his concern for a defendant.

Another judge from a damous trial that comes to mind is Lance Ito, from the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson. Like Judge Schroeder, Lance was following the media's coverage of the trial. Schroeder has complained about legal experts strongly disagreeing with several of his rulings. He views himself a "victim," a status he denied those killed by Rittenhouse. Ito, on the other hand, was flattered by the "Dancing Itos" ( see the end of the below link). Both star in their own made-for-tv drama.

Generally, courts should be where a search for truth is conducted. In my opinion, they usually are. Even in high profile, tense cases, judges can keep the focus on the case at hand, rather than seeking the limelight themselves. One that comes to mind was the infamous Manson family trial. The original judge, William Keene, had at first allowed Charlie to represent himself. When Manson attempted to derail the trial, Keene reversed himself. Manson then filed an affidav of prejudice, which lead to Charles Older hearing the case. Few people today remember much about either judge, beyond their handling a terrible case with dignity.

When I've listened to Schroeder, I've thought that it isn't only jurors who should faithfully avoid any exposure to media reports on the case. Or talking to others about the case. This, despite his attempt at humor yesterday, when he attempted a joke about hearing from one of the few friends he has left. This trial is too important to let an ass-clown like Schroeder infect it with his prejudice favoring Rittenhouse.

[Saoirse9]

1. Do you think we'll end up with a mistrial?

[H2O Man]

27. I don't.

It is possible the jury won't reach a decision, but I think that they most likely will. Probably not the verdict I am hoping for, but one never knows.

[hlthe2b]

2. Thank you, H2O MAN. As I've posted prior, majority of my extended family are lawyers with a judge,

a couple of prosecutors, and the rest defense or civil law. (I'm the "black sheep" along with a few others in medicine--LOL )

But, we've had a running email conversation within the family for those interested on that trial and the judge (as well as a separate one on the Ahmaud Arbery trial).

They see it as you and I do (even the defense lawyers). That judge is as unprofessional and unbelievably biased against the prosecution (who have made mistakes, mind you, but insufficient for the response of this judge in general) as they come. There are some self-described legal beagles on DU who have castigated those suggesting this and conversely defended the judge to an unbelievable degree which has been disheartening. Even if they watched nearly any other trial (including the Ahmaud Arbery trial) they would see how glaring is the contrast between the Ritterhouse judge and nearly all others).

I'm fortunate to live in an area where the legal profession is pretty strong and those elected judges are subject to a very systematic and hardnosed review prior to delivering a "retention or no" recommendation prior to every election cycle. And, the voters seem to listen to those assessments. I know I read through the available "blue book" recommendations/reviews very closely. Only through this kind of checks and balance can we avoid the likes of the preening for tv, highly unprofessional and systemically biased Judge Bruce Schroeder. Obviously the political climate of Kenosha, WI protects him--as it does the nasty little Kyle Rittenhouses of the world. That trial should have had a state-appointed special prosecutor and likely a change of venue. Sans that, it would be almost miraculous to find sufficient jurors willing to look past the "thumb on the scale" jurisprudence being delivered by that judge, not to mention his not-so-subtle derisive comments and jokes primarily delivered at the expense of the prosecution. And yes, to the naysayers defending him, the decisions made and especially the jury instructions given by the judge are paramount to the ultimate outcome--even with a totally unbiased jury. I have little expectation that such instructions will be of the nature we'd expect by the kind of unbiased professional justices available in other jurisdictions.
Thus, the outcome is foretold.

[Jedi Guy]

6. How are the jury instructions biased?

He allowed the jury the option to convict on lesser charges in some cases, at the prosecution's request; others he denied. He allowed the jury to consider provocation, again at the prosecution's request. If he were in the bag for the defense, then why is he granting requests from the prosecution?

And if he's made derisive comments at the prosecution, I'm fine with that. They deserve it. They lied about evidence in opening statements, they skated right up to the line of violating Rittenhouse's Fifth Amendment rights, and they tried to sneak in evidence that the judge had forbidden before the trial. They deserve all the scorn they got.

[hlthe2b]

9. Anything to defend Kyle. Gotcha.

Not worth my time of day to debate with those so strongly in the defense camp they refuse to see the issues. Don't worry. Little Kyle will walk. Buy your champagne now.

[Jedi Guy]

10. When unable to provide a reasonable response, dodge the question. Gotcha. N/T

[hlthe2b]

11. I posted a long detailed thread elsewhere. I no longer debate with those so clearly in the defense

and by extension Rittenhouser camp that there is no ability for productive discourse.

Let's all hear it for AR-15 vigilante "justice." "Might makes right," they say, correct???

[Jedi Guy]

12. So because I don't agree with your assessment of the judge, I support Rittenhouse?

You should give up medicine and go into mental gymnastics, friend. That was a bronze medal performance, at the least.

I think Rittenhouse is a moron. But the prosecution presented a weak case and much of the evidence is favorable to a self-defense claim under Wisconsin law. When it became apparent that this wasn't a slam-dunk case and the narrative was flawed, it became "let's drag the judge in advance because it looks like we're not getting the verdict we want."

And you only debate with those who agree with you? That's your idea of "productive discourse"? I guess I've never thought of echo chambers as productive, but you do you.

[hlthe2b]

13. I believe that I've had this discussion you in great detail previously...

That became an abject lesson in futility as it would appear any further discussion with you here. Your previous posts to me in prior threads were not a back and forth substantive discussion but an accusation-fest as your snarky comment to me in the post just previous demonstrates. Have a good day.

[Jedi Guy]

31. I don't believe you are correct.

I searched through all my posts going back to October 17th, and the trial began on November 2nd. I have no replies to any of your posts that I could find, so I can only assume you're mistaking me for someone else.

That said, the fact that you have the gall to berate me for being snarky after your "anything to defend Kyle, gotcha" remark is beyond laughable. I was perfectly polite to you in my response. I posed a question and cited examples of what I felt undermined the point that you were making. I fail to see how that's in any way "snarky."

Perhaps you'd care to apologize now?

[H2O Man]

53. Thank you!

It's curious that a few people want to argue about this. I use that word -- "argue" -- as one of them used it here earlier. There is no benefit to debate, much less argue, with them.

[Jedi Guy]

61. Hm. The very first definition of "argue" is...

ar·gue
/ˈärɡyo͞o/
verb
1.
give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.
"“It stands to reason,” she argued"

I feel like it's a bit peculiar that you think it's curious for people to argue (express and support) their opinions on a discussion board. Isn't that what you were doing by posting in the first place? Are we only supposed to respond if we agree with you? I'm afraid I don't understand the nature of your objection here.

[Jedi Guy]

60. Yeah, that's about what I figured. N/T

[JonAndKatePlusABird]

58. Give up medicine

You should give up medicine and go into mental gymnastics, friend.

😳 That stuck out to me, just…. Wow.

[Sympthsical]

25. Anyone who thinks the judge is biased should have watched yesterday's proceedings

He handed the prosecution victory after victory leading into jury deliberation. Two days ago, I would've said Rittenhouse walks on almost everything. Now I'm not so sure. And that's because of the vast room to maneuver the judge granted the prosecution.

Almost all of the stuff about the judge is sourced to tweets or media posts capturing some moment out of the entire trial and blowing it up, ignoring the number of times he has aided the prosecution.

The man is an absolute trip. There's no doubt about it. When he made that comment about Asian food, I laughed incredulously and said aloud to the TV, "He just said that. Out loud." I know he was making a joke, but I could hear a million Twitter users hit their keyboards the second it was said.

But Rittenhouse will walk because of him? He's biased?

I just don't understand what trial people are watching here. You can't watch something by tweet, which seems like what a lot of people are doing.

[Jedi Guy]

32. Well, it's as we've discussed previously.

Going into the trial, the narrative was that this was a slam-dunk case for the prosecution. As evidence was revealed and testimony was given, however, that narrative began to fray at the edges. As a consequence, an acquittal began to seem likely. So rather than being objective about the facts and adjusting views accordingly, people doubled down on the narrative using "the judge is biased and helping the defense!" as the excuse to persist in a more palatable selective reality.

Few people are actually bothering to dig deeper than the headlines and the tweets, you're absolutely correct about that, too.

[H2O Man]

33. Part of it

might be that you are new here. In the past, there have been dicussions about judges that do a very good job. This has included trials with some conservative judges.

I've yet to see an example of the mythical DU post saying that Schroeder has only made bad rulings. He has made a few good ones, a few bad ones. Anyone unwilling to deny that obvious fact is biased, and incapable of meaningful discussion. That includes those who think he has done a great job, as well.

Those of us who find Schroeder's obvious bias, rooted in his deep emotional attactment to Kyle, prefer the many judges who allow for a fair trial with every ruling.

[Sympthsical]

35. "deep emotional attachment to Kyle"

This is a characterization created out of whole cloth to fit a narrative.

The judge has some good parts and bad parts. I really wish we saw less of his personality. Also, shut that damn phone off.

But the fabrication of story lines and "obvious truths we just know - no evidence required!" is depressing as hell.

After the prosecution lied in their opening, violated the Fifth Amendment, and then tried to sneak in banned evidence, the judge had every right to dismiss the trial with prejudice. If he had done it, he would have been wholly within his legal rights. If it had happened, after that behavior, I don't think I would've faulted him. They're egregious constitutional violations.

He hasn't. Every indication he's made has been that he'd rather a jury make decisions about things.

The fact that the arguments against him require made up fantasies of this judge's rich inner life is evidence enough that many of the arguments about him aren't particularly good ones.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating. When you have the facts, you argue the facts. When you have the law, you argue the law. When all you have is the narrative, you argue the narrative. And unlike facts, evidence, and law, narratives have no requirement that they be true.

[H2O Man]

38. I think that

I've identified the stumbling block here. Let's take a minute to review them, then see if that's helpful.

My OP was specifically about the history of judges, good and bad, in important cases. In my opinion, Schroeder is not good. Yet that does not mean, in any way whatsoever, that I am arguing that his every ruling was bad. That distinction is important, and without it, meaningful conversation is impossible. Make sense?

Next, you repeat the verb "debate" in your responses to my response to your response. But that very word would require the assumption -- incorrectly, by the way -- that this OP/thread is intended to "argue" with you. Or debate you. It isn't. For the past 18 years, I've played a tiny, insignificant role on this forum. I've made good friends with some people, and always enjoy interacting with them. There are many others who, at best, I am casually acquainted with, and who I respect as interesting, informed people. Their opinions are frequently very interesting to me, and I converse with them accordingly. And there is no one here I dislike.

There are, of course, people I don't know. Sometimes, their opinions are interesting. Other times not so much. When they are interesting, I sometimes comment. If they aren't of interest to me, I rarely do. It doesn't matter to me if someone I do not know, such as you, holds an opinion different than mine. I assume that they, like you, are nice people, here for their own purposes. But those purposes are not mine. Hence, it is not a matter of arguing or debating -- at least not for me.I have long enjoyed debating, and even arguing when it serves a purpose. But your opinion of Schroeder isn't anything that I'm interested in. It poses no challenge for debate much less argument. It's what you think, which is fine by me. I'm good with people having different opinions.

[LiberalFighter]

26. It is astonishing it wasn't moved to a different county and appoint a special prosecutor.

Or handled by the state.

The judge's behavior was questionable before this. With the public able to view his behavior on the bench he will go out less respectable.

[H2O Man]

39. Right.

The ruling about the use of the word "victim" set the tone.

[Amishman]

62. The weak case under law probably is why

I've posted on it numerous time recently; but to summarize, when you dig into the actual statutes and compare against the evidence, there isn't much to support the charges. WI law allows self defense in almost all situations if the person fled / retreated first - which he did. The only exception is if their intent when provoking was to use it as an excuse to cause harm - the problem here is intent is extremely hard to prove in court and it does not appear the prosecution has come close.

[H2O Man]

29. I posted something

akin to the OP here in response to an old friend's post on facebook earlier in the week. Someone I don't know responded in a mild attack directed at me, asking why I was so "outraged"? My response was to hit the "laugh" thing, as I wasn't entirely sure if he was serious or not. A half-dozen others also "laughed," so I'm hoping he was joking. But these days, it can be hard to be sure.

We've had a wide variety of judges in this region over the decades. Overall, the quality is improving. Nothing so bad that I've needed to help anyone appeal since around 2000.

Over our many years on this forum, we've spoken of judges -- including some very conservative ones -- who do a good job. Thus, I think it is equally good when we point out that Schroeder is disgraceful. It's way, way too serious a case ...... the Kyle-ites are watching, hoping to get license to shoot people on the streets of America, and get away with it.

[Jedi Guy]

3. Everyone flips out when he sides with the defense on something.

But no one notices when he sides with the prosecution. For instance, the prosecution requested that, in his instructions to the jury, the judge offer the option to convict on lesser charges than what Rittenhouse was originally charged with. This reduces the likelihood of a second trial but increases the likelihood of conviction. If he were in the bag for the defense, would it make any sense for him to do so? No, of course not.

Furthermore, the prosecution asked that the jury be presented with instructions for provocation, which undermines the self-defense claim being made by the defense. After a lot of back-and-forth, he decided to submit instructions for provocation. Once again, if he were trying to slant things in favor of the defense, why would he do that? The common sense answer is, of course, that he wouldn't.

The much ballyhooed "pinch and zoom" thing was also a nothingburger. The prosecution wanted to present the images, the defense objected. The judge admitted he's not familiar with the technology behind the process and asked the prosecution to provide an expert. The very next day, after more discussion, the images were allowed into evidence. So once again, if he were trying to help the defense, why would he do that? Yet again, the common sense answer is that he wouldn't.

The fact is that in any trial, the judge is sometimes going to support a prosecutor's request and sometimes they're going to support the defense's request. People getting butt-hurt over the latter is ridiculous, especially without bothering to actually investigate the matter and read more than a headline or a tweet.

If Rittenhouse walks, it will be because the prosecution presented a weak case and Wisconsin's self-defense law is written in such a way that the prosecution must prove that Rittenhouse went there with the specific intent to kill people. Proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult without some kind of "smoking gun" evidence.

[Kid Berwyn]

17. Hard to do when prosecutors must call victims "rioters, looters or arsonists."

In limiting the vocabulary, Schroeder narrows the conversation and limits the picture that can be drawn.

PS: I have heard of a murder trial where the victims were first established to be the criminals.

[Jedi Guy]

20. Oh my gentle Jesus, really?

Hard to do when prosecutors must call victims "rioters, looters or arsonists."

That is not true at all, yet some variation of it gets trotted out on every thread for some reason. It's been debunked I don't know how many times, but it persists.

The judge did not tell the prosecution that they must call the victims "rioters, looters, or arsonists." He told the defense that they can call them that if there is evidence showing that they engaged in those behaviors. His literal words were, "Let the evidence show what the evidence shows." I don't believe the defense actually called any of the victims that when the jury was present. You are simply wrong.

Furthermore, people act as if the judge made up a rule about not calling people "victims" just for this trial. That's been a rule in his courtroom for a long time. So again, you are simply wrong.

This is what I'm talking about, though. The narrative is threatened, so up jump these half-truths and outright fabrications to excuse a likely acquittal because the evidence didn't match the narrative, and the prosecution presented a weak case. It's ridiculous. This habit of ignoring facts because they're unpalatable is the kind of bullshit that Trump supporters engage in.

[Kid Berwyn]

42. No, that's not what I meant or wrote.

Here’s how Forbes reported the instructions:

The judge has not allowed prosecutors to describe the two men Rittenhouse killed as “victims,” calling it a “loaded term,” but said he would allow the defense to refer to them as “looters” and “arsonists” if they can prove that they were.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/11/11/judge-in-rittenhouse-case-slammed-with-accusations-of-bias-heres-why/?sh=5e9427c64e9b

That’s closer to what I wrote:

In limiting the vocabulary, Schroeder narrows the conversation and limits the picture that can be drawn.

And, FYI, I’m no Trump supporter.

[Jedi Guy]

43. You wrote...

Hard to do when prosecutors must call victims "rioters, looters or arsonists."

Nowhere did the judge say that prosecutors must refer to the victims as "looters, rioters, or arsonists." So I'm not sure why you're trying to say you didn't make a claim that you very clearly made.

In limiting the vocabulary, Schroeder narrows the conversation and limits the picture that can be drawn.

And as I pointed out, that is a longstanding rule in his courtroom that has been applied to many, many defendants in the past. People (not necessarily you) are behaving as if he magically made this rule specifically to help Rittenhouse. That is not true.

And, FYI, I’m no Trump supporter.

I didn't say you were. I said you were behaving like they do in the way you twist or ignore facts that are inconvenient to what you wish to be true. If that stung, well... don't behave like they do, then. I dunno what else to tell you on that score.

[Kid Berwyn]

64. A hobgoblin of little mind.

“Please don’t hurt me.”

[H2O Man]

40. Respectfully disagree.

Schroder supporters seem intent upon making the same point that you are here. It's simply not accurate, as this OP/thread documents.

Obviously, he has ruled correctly during the trial. He has also made bad rulings. Most people here prefer judges that rue correctly, and do not mix in bad rulings. That shouldn't be too much to ask in an important trial. In fact, it is sad anyone has to say that.

[Jedi Guy]

44. Let's be clear here. By "ruled incorrectly" you mean "ruled for the defense."

He has ruled both for and against the defense, but people only flip their lids when he rules for them. He handed the prosecution huge wins in the instructions to the jury, but people persist in this nonsense of insisting that he's in the bag for the defense. If he is, he has a very peculiar way of going about it, particularly since he could've dismissed the charges with prejudice when the defense made the motion to do so. If he was "obviously concerned" about the defendant, why didn't he do so?

Your OP, in the main, was discussing other judges and other trials. But your claims about this judge being biased do not survive objective scrutiny. I gave specific examples as to why they do not survive objective scrutiny. Simply reiterating your assertion without addressing those points does not an argument make.

[H2O Man]

45. No.

You are simply wrong. No biggie, but when I say "ruled incorrectly," I am agreeing with what Paul Butler has said. Hence, your post does not survive objective scrutiny.

[Jedi Guy]

46. Simply asserting "you are wrong" does not make it so.

Neither does an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.

[H2O Man]

47. Exactly.

However, I suspect that Paul knows quite a bit more about law than you.

Note: you are also wrong about an appeal to authority. Speaks loudly about where you are coming from. Too funny.

[Jedi Guy]

50. I don't think you understand how debate/argument works.

You asserted something. I countered with examples which undermine your assertion. Your response is basically, "Nuh uh, because Paul Butler says so." I neither know nor care who Paul Butler is. If he's some legal expert, so what? I'm sure other legal experts disagree with him. You're simply choosing him as your authority because his opinion aligns with yours. His opinion is not the be-all and end-all. That is not an argument, that is a classic appeal to authority.

When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who is said to be an "authority" on the subject.

If you are correct in this judge being biased, you should be able to refute the points that I made... but you aren't. You're simply repeating your assertion over and over again as if it's established fact, when in fact it is merely your (or Paul Butler's) opinion.

[H2O Man]

52. Your foundational error

is thinking that what you think about this case, or say here, matters to me in the least. You've expressed your opinion. It is true that I cited an expert -- one I've communicated with in the past -- and said that I agree with him. The fact that Schroeder complained about what Paul said on the news makes my sourcing him important. Your opinion is not, just as you are convinced mine has no value.

[Jedi Guy]

57. You know what's really amusing about you clinging to Paul Butler's "expert" opinion?

I just read his opinion article in the Washington Post. You know, the one you're saying Schroeder complained about? And well he might, because your "expert" authority either A) deliberately distorted things by omitting information, or B) didn't bother to do any research whatsoever.

He presented the bit about the word "victim" being disallowed by the judge as if it were a rule that was created just for this trial. That is not true. The word "victim" being banned is a longstanding practice in Schroeder's courtroom, as confirmed by attorneys who have tried cases before him over the years. But Butler didn't deign to mention that in his opinion piece.

So which do you suppose is the case? Was he being deliberately dishonest by omitting information, or did he fail to do any research about this judge's practices before commenting on them? Whichever is the case, perhaps you'll forgive me for not cleaving to your "expert" authority's opinion in this matter.

Lastly, at which point did I say that your opinion has no value? I challenged your assertions, certainly, but that is not the same thing. I presented situations in which the judge sided with the prosecution in very important procedural motions, which undermine your claim of bias. Your response to that was "you are simply wrong," which is a slightly dressed-up version of the playground "nuh uh." So just who is devaluing whose opinion here, exactly?

[malaise]

5. Well said WaterMan

and he is ass-clown Schroeder

[H2O Man]

41. Thank you!

I know that those on anti-social media love Schroeder. They are hoping he grants license to shoot and kill "scary" people in the street.

[Hoyt]

7. Fortunately, most of Schroeder's junk was not in front of jury. And, he is allowing lesser charges,

which increases chances of nailing Rittenhouse on substantial crimes.

While he supposedly allowed defense to refer to the "victims" as rioters, arsonists, etc., his ruling said if the Defense has evidence of that. Don't think that happened.

He also prevented defense from introducing the "victim's" past legal issues.

The biggest travesty of this whole thing is a locality that allows someone to walk down the road at a protest with a damn rifle dangling around their neck and a volunteer medic to carry a pistol. That needs to change.



"Don’t Blame Judge Schroeder if Kyle Rittenhouse Goes Free"

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/judge-bruce-schroeder-rittenhouse-trial-villain.html

[Tomconroy]

15. I was surprised to learn that it's fine to walk down crowded city streets with a loaded AR

In Wisconsin. But that's just me.

[mzmolly]

37. Yet it's not ok to defend yourself against an assault weapon, with a skateboard.

Insanity.

[bucolic_frolic]

16. Thinking, and hoping, that a jury can still filter out judicial biases if they exist

Getting every benefit of the doubt is discernible. And a pillar of justice. If that doesn't help the defendant, nothing will. A jury may not be as easily led around as many fear.

[Traildogbob]

22. You mean

The jury of Bubba’s the defense insisted on. His term, not mine. The one black may or may not be a bubba.

[H2O Man]

48. Thanks!

I think that even with a good judge, it would have been difficult to get a conviction on the highest charge.

It is evident that Schroeder thinks the victims were rioters, etc. I'd agree that at least one was a troubled individual. But it's not okay to shoot someone because they are acting like a jackass.

The witness who was shot in the arm did not make an attractive witness, either. Tough case.

[tblue37]

8. I have been thinking of Ito's giddy preening throughout this trial.

[H2O Man]

49. Right.

I can think of no good reason for any judge to follow media reports during the trial.

[Kid Berwyn]

14. It's like Schroeder can't wait to adopt Rittenhouse.

“When can we go huntin’ agin’ now, paw? I like huntin’. When, paw?”

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. Wow, it's like they had the same father and mother. . . . nt

[H2O Man]

51. Thank you!

When a judge decides that the three human beings shot -- two dead, one wounded -- cannot be called "victims," but can be called "rioters and arsonists," that judge has shown his hand.

I'm happily surprised that this OP has attracted a few Schroeder supporters. Reminds me of those old fly strips. Their position is based on the fact that not every ruling has been horrible. I have yet to see anyone say that every ruling has been bad. Instead, people want good rulings, rather than a combination of good and bad. The Schroeder fans put the bar far too low.

[ms liberty]

18. I'm not seeing a link that you mention in paragraph 3, the 1st sentence

The one that comes to mind for me I'd "Please Come to Chicago," CSNY?

Kinda off topic, but wasn't Sasha Baron Cohen amazing as Abbie Hoffman in the movie about it from last year?

[yardwork]

21. Schroeder reminds me of teachers I had in rural Ohio in the early 70s.

Same kind of bigoted antics disguised as being folksy. Same bedrock principles of authoritarianism, white American exceptionalism, and above all, fear of communism.

I would bet that this judge thinks Rittenhouse is a hero for killing the anti-American protesters. He's going to do all he can to get Rittenhouse off and signal his belief that the protesters got what they deserved.

The trial this one is reminding me of is the trial of the perpetrators of the 1979 Greensboro massacre. The victims were Communists. The murderers were acquitted.

[malthaussen]

23. I confess, I am not following this thing at all.

If convicted, the defense will appeal. I pay almost no attention to lower court proceedings these days. And it is such a politically-charged trial, that the most saintly an unprejudiced judge on Earth (which certainly doesn't apply to Judge Schroeder) would be unable to avoid accusations of partiality and incompetence.

And it's a joke from the start: the kid is being charged with Reckless Endangerment, when it is a near moral certainty that it was premeditated murder, with malice aforethought. He went to Kenosha hoping to kill somebody and be a big man in the eyes of his mother. (Clearly, if I were the judge in this case, I would be obliged to recuse myself; and if I were in the pool of jurors for selection, I should beg to be excused)

-- Mal

[happy feet]

24. False equivalence

Ito and Schroeder.

[Sympthsical]

28. Have you been watching the trial?

I'm genuinely asking.

I've been watching the trial daily (work from home privilege). The characterizations of this judge are so off the rails, it's unfathomable to me. I have seen where he rules in favor of the defense. I have seen where he rules in favor of the prosecution.

If Rittenhouse is convicted of lesser charges, it will solely be because the judge allowed that scenario to happen. He allowed the prosecution to get lesser charges and provocation into the jury instructions. It's a disastrous decision for the defense.

Where is the acknowledgement of this?

I think, should the Narrative fall apart, there will have to be a villain to buttress the Narrative. The Narrative can never be wrong. So we must find something else. In this case, it's the judge.

Not facts. Not evidence. Not the prosecution bungling things. No, it has to be this judge now.

I can only say it is a very, very, very good thing we don't have trial by social media.

[H2O Man]

34. Perhaps if you

read the OP, your genuine question would have already been answered. Maybe not, of course.

[Sympthsical]

36. I meant the whole trial

Not bits here and there.

Because having a whole picture is essential to making accurate judgements, much less characterizations.

[Bristlecone]

30. I think that regardless of outcome, Rittenhouse will be hailed as a hero to the maga-class

He will make money and gain fame by it-infamy by any other name is still infamy.

And that very fact repulses me. It is a gross caricature of life in America for the last 20+ years. One that is moving from caricature to portrait in oil.

[egduj]

54. Who am I to judge.

I don't know what constitutes a good or bad ruling. There's plenty enough armchair judges already.
But I'm sure, as with any other trial, if your guy wins the judge is great, and if your guy loses the judge sucks.

[H2O Man]

55. "Your guy..."

Interesting. I don't have "a guy." But I surely appreciate your interesting comment.

[JonAndKatePlusABird]

59. Copy-paste error!

Happens to the best of us!

[Calista241]

56. I've struggled with this case.

On one hand, walking around with an AR-15 down the street is just crazy, especially with as little weapons training as he had. And in the middle of a protest, the whole idea is just unfathomably crazy.

On the other hand, Rittenhouse initiated none of 3 encounters we've learned so much detail about. He was actively trying to dis-engage from all three people he ultimately shot, Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz. The prosecution is trying to say that getting hit in the back of a head with a skateboard is not an attack with a deadly weapon, and having a pistol pointed at you is in fact not a real threat that you should take seriously.

The best part of the prosecution's case relies on a single purple pixel in an enhanced photograph that the prosecution says is Rittenhouse raising his rifle and pointing it at someone. This is the threat that initiated a 30 yard chase with the victim (Rosenbaum) chasing down Rittenhouse and cornering him up against some cars.

[Martin Eden]

63. The Chicago police riot outside the 1968 Democratic convention

Afterwards, Mayor Daley uttered the famous malapropism (the 2nd part was all too true):

"The police weren't there to create disorder; the police were there to preserve disorder."

Did you intend to post a link to Graham Nash singing "Won't you please come to Chicago"?

I don't see it.