Damnit, you’re right.
No, they mean the far right personality that is in the Bongino/Tucker mold.
Pretty much every deplorable acquaintance I still have on social media has psoted today celebrating the acquittal. Lock step fist pumping cause the white kid got away with multiple murders. Not sure what my point is, but I guess when all of the worst people I know are celebrating this I can be pretty confident that my disdain for the verdict is properly placed.
1 Like
We must be talking about two different trials then, because the consensus opinion in both mainstream press and among legal experts seems to be that he was yelling at the prosecution and that his behavior throughout the trial was, to put it it in the most benign way possible, highly erratic.
Certainly we’re talking about two different things, I’m talking about what I actually saw when I saw the judge briefly raise his voice. You’re talking about an unhinged judge screaming at the prosecutor, which I didn’t see. The whole trial was videotaped and is on the internet, if you know what part you’re talking about where the unhinged judge is screaming at the prosecution, please link it so I know what you’re talking about. This is what I’m talking about:
Were you trying to correct him without having read the books?
Blanket statement for here too. Rehashing drama or talking shit about your fellow forum members will result in a suspension. This place is wild today.
3 Likes
I’ve read the books many times. My consternation was that I misremembered it so badly. Also he corrected me, I didn’t correct him. I was just acknowledging that he was right.
That is pretty amazing. I considered that as a possibility. Then I thought there is no way someone could have read all 7 books and not known what it was. Lol me, I guess. It’s crazy the way one’s brain can play tricks on them.
1 Like
Can someone link me to this Rivaldo stanning? I guessed I missed it. And I didn’t find it with my mediocre unstuck search skillz.
Chads - I haven’t even been following this thread but everyone thinks they can just spill their bullshit from other threads into another one. It’s been 1 after the other all god damn morning.
I don’t understand your point here. If you think you can do it without eating a tilted ban, I’d be interested in an explanation.
I’d be very impressed if Tilted banned me TBH.
I only mentioned that because I really had no idea where you were going with that post. But since that’s apparently not an issue, perhaps you can elucidate.
I thought the link would embed and not just show as a link, I was pointing out that Chads criticizing CN for “never [saying] he’s stopped stanning Zimmerman” is akin to the classic loaded question example of “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
I edited the original to try to clarify.
Just to be clear since this statement kind of bothered me - I’m not talking about never calling out people for their deplorable views. I just didn’t want this thread invaded by the same petty nonsense the other threads were.
That’s where I thought you might possibly be going and it makes no sense. Chads covers it:
1 Like
I’m pointing out that your mischaracterization of the judge’s behavior is a low-level classification error given that it’s widely agreed upon by reputable sources who report on such matters.
WaPo
When Binger waded into the evidence in court Wednesday, the judge sent the jury out of the room before yelling at Binger.
NYT
Judge Bruce Schroeder often clashed with the prosecution during Kyle Rittenhouse’s homicide trial. At one point, Judge Schroeder shouted at the lead prosecutor, Thomas Binger, “Don’t get brazen with me.”
The Guardian
The shouting that unfolded on Wednesday in Kyle Rittenhouse’s homicide trial has thrust the presiding judge, Bruce Schroeder, and his style of unusual lectures and quirky questions in court under the spotlight.
Yahoo! News
“The problem is this is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant’s silence,” Schroeder yelled.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Both times, Schroeder excused the jury and dressed down Binger for the infractions, at times yelling at him and interrupting him.
If you didn’t interpret it that way then that’s fine, but it’s sort of like saying you didn’t understand an easy exam question that everyone else got right while also asking us to also accept your reasoning on more difficult questions.
Did you watch the video I posted? Did the judge strike you as unhinged in that clip? That’s the incident those descriptions are referencing as far as I can tell. I said that the judge yelled, which is what those descriptions say. None of them say he was erratic or yelling like a crazy person, which is what you said.
The problem is, many here don’t know the difference between stanning and an objective observation. I’m sure y’all think I’m stanning for Rittenhouse when I’m just pointing out what constitutes self defense and why the prosecution gave themselves the impossible task of proving beyond a reasonable doubt he did not fear imminent grave bodily harm. As such, acquittal was all but a slam dunk for the jury (I suspect the reason they took so long was because they were looking for ways to find a guilty verdict, but could not)
Why didn’t the prosecution include a lesser charge like reckless manslaughter that had close to 100% chance of conviction? I mean, even bringing an AR-15 into such a volatile environment could reasonably be construed beyond a doubt as reckless endangerment. But they went all in for maximum punishment
This whole case was truly LOL law