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
His posts in this thread have seemed perfectly reasonable to me.
Edit to be more specific: I think the text of SK’s posts reflect exactly what he’s thinking, rather than an attempt to be intentionally inflammatory for the lulz.
Whether you agree with the substance of his comments or not is another matter. In this case, I think it’s kind of a silly argument whether the judge raised his voice vs. yelling vs. yelling in an unhinged argument - it’s somewhere on that continuum and it’s not like everyone is going to agree exactly where on the continuum it is. I don’t think it’s silly that the prosecutor was egregiously wrong in framing the defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt, and deserved a harsh reprimand.
Can we stop immediately going towards banning people over this shit?
Like jesus. If someone is being super awful etc I get it, but on an emotionally charged subject and being upset at someones take is totally understandable.
I totally get that shit ruins threads and its super annoying, but excise it. You don’t need to threaten to ban people over it.
The true answer to this question is that he is an expert troll. He knows where the line is and is careful to tiptoe around it. Keeed would likely tell you that his apparent “trolling” is actually good faith questioning. And that may be the case. That doesn’t really matter as the posts are more or less what an expert troll would write and almost never cross the line over to blatant trolling.
FWIW, I don’t think posting like this should be banned. And it often has legitimate content. But maybe that’s just me and I have a higher tolerance for trollishness.
Excise it to where? The fighting always, always, always just moves from thread to thread until finally one of the instigators gets a time out for crossing a line.
I’ve been trying the peace and love no bans shit for a while and it clearly hasn’t worked.
I posted exact quotes. What you’re basically saying here is “it didn’t seem to me like he was yelling.” You’re entitled to believe whatever, but again, it’s like missing the easy question that everyone else got it right. Your thoughts aren’t shared by professionals who work and report in this domain.
Look at these quotes by a retired Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice (Janine Geske) who is attempting to be sympathetic to this judge:
“You don’t scream at lawyers," she said. “My guess is he’s just probably exhausted.”
“This move with the veterans and a witness is really concerning,” Geske said. “I don’t know what he’s doing. My guess is he’s extremely tired. Those are tough, emotionally exhausting cases to try. But none of that excuses having the jury applaud for a defense witness. I just can’t even imagine.”
He was probably extremely tired when he made that racist joke to the court too.
I said he was yelling! He raised his voice for like two or three sentences. Maybe fifteen or twenty seconds of that clip. But I said that his yelling was understandable and a reasonable sanction to the prosecutor who was completely out of line. YOU said he was out of line/erratic/unprofessional. That he was yelling like a crazy person, right? That contention is completely unsupported by the news story snippets you quote and the actual video of the interaction.
As far as Geske…he simply didn’t scream at the prosecutor. Point me to the time stamp in that video where he screamed. It’s laughable. He raised his voice and took a sharp tone, but screaming? Yelling like a crazy person? That’s simply not what happened.
Because I’m not a regular here I miss a lot of the drama. My take on Keeed is definitely to the right of me on many issues, but is genuine and doesn’t intentionally mischaracterize others, which seems common debate strategy here.
I think it’s reasonable for me to assume I’m viewed as a Rittenhouse fanboy here, since many think the not guilty verdict was nothing short of racist and I agree with the verdict
Whats tuckers end game? It’s obvious he’s way passed grifting. He’s pushing harder than anyone for fascism and right wing violence.
I don’t think he wants to be president. Does he just like being viewed as the voice of this movement? Is fascism what he always wanted even back when he was a dork in a bowtie? Wants to be worshipped so he goes where ever he thinks the movement is going?
The thing to remember about Tucker is that he was an itinerant failure before he started stealing from the dotard’s white nationalist media playbook. Tucker had a prime time show on MNSBC 10-15 years ago that was terrible. He was a cohost of CNN’s Crossfire, the knockoff version, on at 4:30 that maybe had 10,000 total viewers. He was always a dork, and nobody ever gave a fuck about his William F Buckley jr. mini-me routine until he went full blood and soil to keep the Fox viewers engaged after the tall rapist guy was fired.
