You might get your news from a more reliable source than youtube.

NPR reports:

"Let the evidence show what the evidence shows," Schroeder said. "And if
the evidence shows that any or more than one of these people were
engaged in arson, rioting, or looting — then I'm not going to tell the defense they can't call them that."

The case revolves around the jury deciding if the shots were fired in
self defense. "Victim" would imply that they were not

On 10/27/2021 11:49 AM, S K wrote:

Case in point the kyle rittenhouse case.

The judge has ruled the victims of shootings in the case cannot be called "victims". But many other judges allow that.

but he has also ruled that the defense can call them "rioters", "arsonists" etc.

How can such arbitrary idiosyncratic actions by judges be permitted?

youtube says "That judge didn't just put his thumb on the scales of justice he slammed his whole body weight on top of it. This court case is so deeply tainted by this judge's politics, it should be thrown out due to mistrial."

A "guilty" outcome may trigger a civil war initiated by gun-rights activists - but they should have stopped the case from going to court if they were afraid of that.

The way the judge is being insolent and disrespectful to the prosecutor doing his job is a blot on the US judiciary system.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"S K" wrote in message news:feb37ce6-bcc0-468d-a843-1ceed98b2d9cn@googlegroups.com...

Case in point the kyle rittenhouse case.

The judge has ruled the victims of shootings in the case cannot be called >"victims". But many other judges allow that.

but he has also ruled that the defense can call them "rioters", "arsonists" >etc.

How can such arbitrary idiosyncratic actions by judges be permitted?

youtube says "That judge didn't just put his thumb on the scales of justice >he slammed his whole body weight on top of it. This court case is so deeply >tainted by this judge's politics, it should be thrown out due to mistrial."

A "guilty" outcome may trigger a civil war initiated by gun-rights
activists - but they should have stopped the case from going to court if
they were afraid of that.

The way the judge is being insolent and disrespectful to the prosecutor
doing his job is a blot on the US judiciary system.

The obvious remedy if you don't like a judge is work to make sure he/she
isn't re-elected. And if it is an appointed judge, work to make sure the
person who appointed the judge isn't re-elected.

And if you think there is malfeasance involved, contact the appropriate legislative body to work to have the judge impeached.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 2:59:20 PM UTC-4, Roy wrote:

You might get your news from a more reliable source than youtube.

NPR reports:

"Let the evidence show what the evidence shows," Schroeder said. "And if
the evidence shows that any or more than one of these people were
engaged in arson, rioting, or looting — then I'm not going to tell the defense they can't call them that."

The case revolves around the jury deciding if the shots were fired in
self defense. "Victim" would imply that they were not
On 10/27/2021 11:49 AM, S K wrote:

Case in point the kyle rittenhouse case.

The judge has ruled the victims of shootings in the case cannot be called "victims". But many other judges allow that.

but he has also ruled that the defense can call them "rioters", "arsonists" etc.

How can such arbitrary idiosyncratic actions by judges be permitted?

youtube says "That judge didn't just put his thumb on the scales of justice he slammed his whole body weight on top of it. This court case is so deeply tainted by this judge's politics, it should be thrown out due to mistrial."

A "guilty" outcome may trigger a civil war initiated by gun-rights activists - but they should have stopped the case from going to court if they were afraid of that.

The way the judge is being insolent and disrespectful to the prosecutor doing his job is a blot on the US judiciary system.

this is totally absurd. In the OJ Simpson case, the defense in the civil case called detective fuhrman "a scoundrel". it is absurd to ask that they "prove" he was a scoundrel. they just called him that.

"arsonist,rioter,looter" are not legal terms - they are just imprecise name-calling and for the judge to say he will decide at the time of closing argument whether these terms can be used is blatantly unprofessional - he might as well allow "the victims
had cooties".

ANYTHING that has no bearing on whether the defendant feared for his life is not relevant.

The judge shows clear evidence of dementia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)