Turley on the officer who was fired for making an anonymous contribution to Rittenhouse's defense fund https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/...aking-anonymous-donation-to-kyle-rittenhouse/ excerpt If this was an anonymous contribution, it is hard to see how it violates any rule on public commentary. Reports indicate that Kelly was the victim of a security breach. It is also notable that Rittenhouse has not been found guilty and is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Rittenhouse insists that he was acting in self-defense after he was attacked. That is obviously a highly contested defense that has divided many. It is ultimately a matter for the court and the jury to decide. Police officers (and paramedics) should be able to make donations to legal funds without being harassed by the media or fired by their departments. The fact that Kelly added a message anonymously to a legal defense fund does not implicate his department or fellow officers. If the account of the breach is true, the comment was not intended to be made public. It would amount to the firing of an officer over a communication intended to be non-public — the same status as a private communication. The question is whether the department would fire an officer who made such a remark privately in an email to friends that was later hacked. In my view, the case raises very serious concerns over free speech and associational rights. The Utah case is particularly chilling as the media attempts to embarrass or harass public employees who donate to controversial causes or legal defense funds. more at the link
Didn't he use his work department email and didn't he say "every rank and file officer is in your side"? Turkey needs to probably read and research before he makes knee jerk opinions or else some people might accuse home of being the lowest IQ person on the planet
... but the judge said that prosecutors cannot refer to rittenhouse is on trial for shooting as "victims"... Judge rules men shot by Rittenhouse can be described as 'rioters' and 'looters' https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...y-rittenhouse-can-be-described-as-rioters-and
I get the argument that 'victim' is prejudicial. They aren't victims unless Rittenhouse is guilty, and it's the jury that's going to decide if he is. 'Rioter' and 'looter' are loaded terms and (as the judge says) shouldn't be used unless there is some evidence presented that they were rioters or looters. Still, they're going to be asking the jury if it is okay to kill a man because you think he's a looter and I think the answer is an obvious no (but we'll see what they say). I assume if they can be called 'rioter' or 'looter' they could also be called 'protester', 'activist', 'citizen', 'father', or whatever other positive identification the prosecution wants to use for them.
So nobody shot or stabbed by someone is a "victim" until the accused is convicted? I would think they are victims of a crime... and the undecided part is whether rittenhouse is guilty of that crime. What am I missing?
Does the judge not know what victim means? Why does he need to shield the jury from a common term with a known definition? victim - “a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.” It’s beyond a double standard. There is no proof that the victim of the shooting was a rioter or looter.
I think the judge is obviously biased but for clarity, the judge wants the term "alleged victim". By that standard, they should also be called "alleged rioters".
No, you have it backwards. We know the people were shot, we know they were shot by Rittenhouse, and the only part we don't know yet is whether their shootings were a crime. In common conversation, there is a way in which we can call pretty much anyone a victim. If you bend over to pick something up and hit your eye on the corner of a table, you can say you were the victim of your own clumsiness. But I can get how in court invoking 'victim' implies there's a transgressor, so it's more sensitive there.
Bottom line is this that kid murdered those people and should be in jail for the rest of his life under 21 what law can he be trying to enforce that judge needs to resign from this case.
I also think Rittenhouse should be found guilty. But, he needs to have a fair trial or his conviction will be a sham.
Two dudes with no guns went after a dude with a gun Didn’t one dude go after him with a skateboard ? Skateboard vs gun @Jontro Never bring a knife to a gun fight ??
This still doesn't make any sense, and if allowed here, would then open up every trial where someone claiming "self-defense" to require the person they killed were no longer "victims". Again, there is no denying they were victims of a shooting... the only question is supposedly if he was justified in shooting people. Either way the people he shot were shooting victims. Would the judge allow the prosecutor to instead refer to the people he shot as "the people Rittenhouse shot to death" instead of as "victims.'?
The Fix is in The Judge is in on it Never expected any justice here Once again we learn . .. there is little justice in this country He has the Complexion for the Protection Rocket River
I understand the fear of a fix, especially from African Americans who have seen this happen a thousand times before and white apologists like me saying, 'you need to have a "fair" trial!' If my wife sees this story, I'm sure she'll tell me the same thing. And honestly the case is a bit murky with shades of George Zimmerman and it won't be too surprising if this trial goes the same way. And folks will be quick to jump on the judge for his bias. But I don't think it necessarily is bias. I don't know what this judge does in other cases, but if a black man was on trial claiming self-defense and the judge insisted the victim be called an 'alleged victim' I'd be glad for his restraint. I'm not a law-talking guy, so I don't know what they do in other courts. According to this paper I found thru NPR, different courts handle the term differently -- I guess we're having the same debate the legal world has been having. But I guess it also shows this judge isn't doing something novel in avoiding the term. If there is unfairness in this decision, I think it's in not insisting on adding 'alleged' in front of things like 'looter' or 'rioter'. The alleged victims in this case were never convicted of those things, so it seems presumptuous to use labels like that without any qualifier. I think it's fair to call that a double-standard. I do like 'the people Rittenhouse shot to death' as a work-around.
white on white crime non-white people would not attack a dude with an assault rifle with a skateboard @Os Trigonum @pgabriel
