Jump to content

Harrison Bergeron

Full Members
  • Posts

    1640
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Harrison Bergeron

  1. 3 hours ago, South Austin said:

    It certainly would.  But that goes to my question -- why do that for a witness whom the state should've have to induce to testify against the defendant?  It's not like cutting a deal with Henry Hill.  It's one of the guys who Rittenhouse shot.  Why wouldn't he testify for the state?

    If there's no deal needed, then the charges aren't admissible. 

    An earlier witness - do not recall his name - testified that the prosecution did some tomfoolery with him and his testimony. Obviously not evidence in the GG situation but points to a pattern / precedent. Maybe the deal was "if you say this maybe we can do something about that."

  2. On 11/10/2021 at 7:25 PM, Dutchrudder said:

    The diversity of every group of writers he pitches to is pretty funny. It's like they were trying to fit the most minorities possible into 3 seats on a couch.

    That's been the funniest subtle part of this season. The Netflix black, fat, handicapped girl was an amazing triple threat.

    Second More Leon.

  3. 7 minutes ago, South Austin said:

    You don't think he'll be acquitted?  Or is it the "mom's basement" part?

    The rifle thing ... I do not know if he lived in his mom's basement ... but he definitely didn't take a rifle from there.

    You can have all the masturbatory fantasies you want about the Capitol, MAGA, Russian hackers, white supremacy, etc. ... just get the basics correct.

  4. 4 hours ago, South Austin said:

    So I haven’t been following this in great detail, but I gather that this kid is going to be acquitted, and anointed a right-wing hero, with MAGA Marjorie Taylor Greene-wannabes lining up to bang him, all because he left his mom’s basement one evening with an automatic rifle to go play Army guy in some shit Wisconsin town.

    What else am I missing?

    As usual, the germane facts.

  5. 10 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

    Once again I don’t think it will affect the decision of the jury. But it’s a totally legitimate criticism of the judge. Which taints the process.

    Charging Rittenhouse taints the process. Not charging the other guy with a gun charge taints the process. Applause just gives the mouthbreathers butthurt.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 1
  6. 5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    Asking the court to clap for him is fine. Asking the jury to do so is unconscionable. Ask the sack.

    I'm not a legal scholar. As I noted - I think confidence in a juror to decide a complex case inherently means a juror can know when a cigar is just a cigar. I do think you had so much invested in this red meat, and it is hard coming to terms with the fact that you were lied to, so you're looking for any reason not to face reality.

    Spoiler

    I know ... "If you say so."

     

  7. 6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    To me it either shows the judge was biased or an idiot. It’s impossible to say if that affected the trial because I wasn’t there and any opinion one way or the other is based on incomplete information. But it’s still important to have an unbiased judge who is not an idiot. 
     

    I really don’t care whether or not this guy gets off but I do care that the trial is fair. To both sides. That’s my issue with the judge now, and I didn’t have it until today. 

    So asking the court to clap for a veteran on Veteran's Day is idiotic or biased? Is that what you're saying?

    How was the trial unfair to either side (I need specifics) - other than the fact that charges were even brought, which was clearly a response the the twatter lynch mob?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I wouldn’t be putting all my eggs in that basket.  After he perjured himself, admitted to several lies to cops, was illegally carrying and admitted to pointing a gun at Kyle’s head before having his bicep shredded.  He should be charged with aggravated assault of a minor.  

    Why was Rittenhouse charged with a gun crime but this guy was not?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

    Again I don’t think the incident itself caused one side to win or the other. Or that it even affected the trial. Most jurors make up their minds 30 minutes or so into the trial. That’s not the point.

    The point is the judge showed his cards so to speak, it was really Improper, and no I wouldn’t change my opinion based on who was facing trial. 

    You're going to have to connect your dots for me. If you do not think it affected the trial, then who cares? While I agree applauding a witness for any reason should be avoided, what cards does it show?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 53 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    When I first heard the story that the judge acknowledged Veterans Day and had the courtroom applaud the next witness, a defense expert, for being a veteran I had no problem with it because I simply assumed that this was done outside the presence of the jury.

    Then someone informed me the jury was actually present. So the judge had the jury applauding a witness right before he testified. That is unheard of and unprecedented.

    If that’s true then the judge is either actively trying to get one side to win or at best, is a complete moron. Since he’s 75 I think he would know by now how to conduct a trial. When the jury is in the box it is all business. Everyone who has ever tried a case knows that. It’s why he sent the jury into the jury room before he chewed out the prosecution.

    Before today I thought the judge made some wrong rulings but was generally ok, but after the stunt he pulled today I think he’s a total hack unfit for his job. I’ve noticed former lawyer and law clerk Johnny sack has yet to comment on that.

    I do see your point, but I think it's a little overwrought. If a jury can decide a complex legal case, I think that same juror can understand a specific, veteran-focused appreciation even if fuzzy.

    I'm 100% certain if this had occurred in the Chauvin trial you'd have a different POV.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  11. 1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

    I don't follow Fox/CNN/MSNBC/OANN but it's my understanding that a judge should ensure the defendant receives a fair trial while also *holding back. Regardless of how I feel about the outcome of any trial, leave the drama to the attorneys. I want a judge to be above that. This judge has had some moments (the cell phone thing was stupid and not that hard to corral) but is also under a microscope. I'm not willing to give him much more leeway than that. I can sit there in the box and think (to myself) that 'geebus that is a stupid line of questioning' regarding a prosecutor/defender but I'd be pissed if I thought the judge was trying to influence that. They fucking tell you (juror) what your role is and what you are to do so sit up there and make sure the rules are followed.

    I don't disagree with any of that. I am just pointing out that the spin from the ideological media and twatterverse will soon shift to "judge is a white supremacist" or some such. It is patently stupid that we have national media outlets doing long exposes on a judge that is president over a local self-defense case. And it is obviously one-sided - I do not recall reading similar critiques or exposes about judges in other cases. As it does, irony abounds here because for every one of those people bitching in a "blind taste test" they would to a person favor a pro-defense judge and have conspiracies about cops and prosecutors. I'm not a lawyer, but there does not seem to be anything legally that he's done poorly. I mean the mobile phone thing is silly that anyone would actually mention it. 

  12. 1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

    Bullshit. That's lawnmower beer. Leiney's (Leinenkugel) or Huber if he's worth anything. We used to get Huber by the case because of the returnable bottles but I don't guess anyone does that anymore.

    If y'all going to derail with politics, then I'm going to derail with beer because it's a helluva lot more fun to opine about.

     

     

    Spoiler

    The rioters brought Leiney's to the Capitol. ;)

     

     

  13. 9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    Once again I was tagged in this thread. Just like yesterday. This time by psycho Jonny trust fund baby who brought January 6 up. Scroll up and read it yourself. 

    At least don't keep given more public fodder to the general belief that you're woefully uniformed about basic history and facts of this case. If  you want to "but Capitol" fine, but at least try to not let your feelings get in the way of basic facts.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  14. 33 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

    If the cops had been out checking the IDs of the armed attendees, KR would have been busted for carrying across state lines. Not pointing fingers,  but suggesting that as a tactic for the cops in future situations. Just make damned sure that your own state laws are being adhered to. 

    So you're a big fan of stop and frisk?

    • Haha 4
  15. 18 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

    If the cops had been out checking the IDs of the armed attendees, KR would have been busted for carrying across state lines. Not pointing fingers,  but suggesting that as a tactic for the cops in future situations. Just make damned sure that your own state laws are being adhered to. 

    Turn off CNN. He did not carry across state lines.

    • Hook 'Em 4
  16. 16 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    Nope. More people who attacked the capitol should have been shot.  I was personally disgusted by the attack on our nations Capitol though. Something which had not happened since the British did it at the beginning of our nation.
     

    Attacks on used car dealership dumpsters don’t really bother me all that much.

    Thought you might find this helpful.

     

×
×
  • Create New...