The Judge needs to be impartial, favoring neither side. Otherwise, the trial is a sham. As this one one was.
That was irrelevant to the case, which is why the judge correctly dismissed it. Just as if Rosenbaum had survived his assault on Rittenhouse, his criminal past would not be relevant in a potential trial.
What is relevant is the video proof of an unprovoked attack on Rittenhouse, which justified him defending himself - something he did with the gun he was legally carrying. Even if he’d attended the event with the intention of killing someone, it doesn’t matter as he at no point attacked or threatened anyone. That’s not opinion, that’s fact, and there is video evidence and multiple witnesses - including the evidence of the guy who survived being shot - to prove it.
False. They need to ensure the necessary bias of the court in favour of the defendant is maintained.
There’s that right-wing spin that completely misses the point and the mark that we’ve all grown to love and expect from you, @octopus.
With very few exceptions, there is no one on the Left who actually thinks that the police should be defunded. What the Left wants is a smarter allocation of the funds given to police forces so that situations don’t arise where someone is killed by a cop instead of being taken into custody.
You really need to get a better quality of misinformation.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Judge’s only concern should be the law, not the players. Innocent until proven guilty is in no way bias or favor. Any Judge who shows favor, one way or the other, should be removed.
Yes. The Police dept had a racist liar giving testimony, which meant reasonable doubt. The jury was right.
The civil trial for the death went forward, as they do not have to prove a case beyond all reasonable doubt.
To me a tragedy is not planned. It’s like calling it an accident when someone intentionally drives against traffic.
So Rittenhouse says on video that he would like to travel to a riot scene with a rifle and shoot some people.
Two weeks later he travels to a riot scene with a rifle and shoots some people.
But you’re convinced that this is an amazing coincidence and Rittenhouse would not have shot anyone if three different people had not individually forced Rittenhouse to shoot them. Because apparently all of them wanted to be shot.
Do you also believe Jack the Ripper had no intention to kill anyone and he was just the blameless victim of a bunch of women throwing themselves on to the knife he happened to be holding? Those women after all had criminal records, so they must have been looking to get stabbed.
Well, if you mistakenly equate the words tragedy and accident, there’s not much I can do for you. Someone driving the wrong way in traffic intentionally or not is still a tragedy in the making.
Cite?
Sandman’s attorneys sought $275M in their suit. The suit was settled. Suits rarely settle for the amount originally sought.
So it’s very unlikely that he got (anywhere near) $275M.
But he definitely got something.
FWIW.
Thanks for the correction.
Sorry, I don’t give the opinions of idle playboys much weight.
Agreed. A personal definition that differs from the common usage is not something to take umbrage with. If I state that every pizza has to have pepperoni, and I yell at a pizza restaurant that they are not serving people real pizza if there is no pepperoni on it, that just means I’m wrong, an idiot, and possibly not mentally well.
A tragedy is an event that causes suffering. Many crimes lead to tragedies. This is frankly an ignorant position to take.
For crying out loud, Merriam-Webster uses a gunman shooting two people as an example of properly using the word in a sentence. You’d better write a stern letter to them to set them straight. 
They claim it shows Rittenhouse 15 days before the Kenosha unrest outside a drug store.
He watches people he believed were shoplifting.
“It looks like one of them has a weapon,” the man believed to be Rittenhouse says in the video. “I wish I had my (expletive) AR. I’d start shooting rounds at them.”
There’s no explanation in the court filing on where the video was shot or how prosecutors obtained it.
In a hearing Friday, Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder withheld a final decision on whether he would admit evidence that Rittenhouse said two weeks before the shootings that he wished he had his gun so he could shoot criminals. But Schroeder said he found the circumstance of those statements by Rittenhouse “so dissimilar” to the crimes he is accused of that Schroeder likely wouldn’t allow that evidence in the trial.
There is also no proof it was Rittenhouse.
Yes, I see how dissimilar those circumstances were. Rittenhouse says he wishes he had his rifle in the first situation because he wanted to shoot some people he saw in the street. In the second situation, he had his rifle and actually shot some people he saw in the street. So totally different.
I guess your point is we shouldn’t just judge Rittenhouse by the way he shot three people one day. We should consider all of the days when he didn’t shoot even a single person. Although, as he admits, on some of those days the reason he didn’t shoot people because he didn’t have his gun handy.
Where did this video come from? I watched it, expecting to see Rittenhouse, but he never actually appears in the clip. Did the video come from his phone, or that of a friend?
P.S. - The only one of your links I can open is the New York Post one, so apologies in advance if this question was answered in one of the other articles.
If there was no proof it was Rittenhouse then the circumstances of those statements being “so dissimilar” to the crimes he is accused of are irrelevant.
I guess I could see that the judge was 'crossing his 'I’s and dotting his 'T’s but not being able to positively identify it as Rittenhouse ends the question at the start.
Whether or not Rittenhouse wanted to shoot people is irrelevant. What is relevant - and the only thing that is relevant - is whether or not he killed these particular people in self defence, which he did. He did nothing to threaten them, noithing to suggest to them that he wanted to shoot them, and indeed tried to run away when attacked rather than shoot them. You want him punished for his political views, not for his entirely legal and moral actions.