FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[PilotMan]

Yeah... if you follow him on twitter he's fighting people every day.

[sterlingice]

It's a shame to watch what he's devolved into. He was the best investigative journalist of the financial crisis, despite not knowing crap about finance and writing for Rolling Stone. Griftopia had five times the actual useful information of The Big Short, despite being half the length. Now it seems he's just another contrarian, picking fights with anyone he can find to remind them that he's smarter than they are.

SI

[RainMaker]

Police union ousts whistleblower cop who leaked death in custody video

[GrantDawg]

The jury has the case in the Rittenhouse trial, and it is interesting they haven't reached a conclusion yet. It does suggest there is at least one hold out. My guess the hold out(s) want to convict, but maybe the jury is swaying toward conviction on at least one of the counts. It is always hard to tell because you don't have the same perspective in isolation as they have. I imagine the verdict will come in today.

[Ksyrup]

This judge isn't just a MAGA, he might actually be Trump in disguise. The way he apparently goes home, reads all of the news about himself and then comes in the next day to get on his soapbox complaining about the coverage of him is uncanny. He doesn't have rabbit ears, he's got Trump ears.

[Lathum]

The black. What the actual fuck?

[SirFozzie]

Honestly, following the Abery case, I cannot fathom the defense's strategy. The only thing I can guess is "Try to piss off the judge enough that you get a mistrial" or "Hope you have a secret-KKK member on the jury to hang a verdict." delaying enough that Trump or someone of his ilk is elected in 2024 and pardons him.

I mean, complaining that there are different black pastors in the audience with the family going through a very rough time? Saying "How'd you like it if a bunch of folks in Colonel Sanders's masks were in the gallery"? (I'm pretty sure that wasn't his first thought, but saying "KKK Uniforms" would give the game away.

Not to mention "one of the defense lawyers has concerns there aren’t enough “Bubbas or Joe six-packs” in the group of more than 60 potential jurors." (a jury that has 11 whites and one african-american in a county that's minority-white.)

[RainMaker]

For podcast listeners, I'd recommend ALAB. Doesn't come out much but what they do put out is great. It's a group of lawyers who are pretty funny and cover different topics in the legal profession. Don't have to really know too much about law to understand.

Anyways, they did one on old judges which I found fascinating. Seems to be relevant in some of our big cases today.

400 Bad Request

For what it's worth, their response to the judge in the Rittenhouse case has been "that's sort of how old judges are". They haven't seen anything abnormal in relation to our justice system besides maybe there needs to be an age limit.

[thesloppy]

The one time I got selected for actual jury duty the judge audibly clipped his toenails behind the bench several times, so I can't claim to be too surprised at any of the antics of the Rittenhouse judge.

[RainMaker]

My jury duty was on a civil case but the judge spent most of his time on his phone. Looked like he was playing a game or something.

I guess it boils down to they are old and have a nice job they can't be fired from. Guessing a lot of people would take a job like that and treat it as a nuissance.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My jury duty was on a civil case but the judge spent most of his time on his phone. Looked like he was playing a game or something.

I guess it boils down to they are old and have a nice job they can't be fired from. Guessing a lot of people would take a job like that and treat it as a nuissance.

My impression is that they've rationalized that they are the person that makes sure the rules are followed, and the content/details of the case itself is completely inconsequential to their role & paying attention could/would only invite bias.

[GrantDawg]

The argument now about this video is confusing. Has the jury already seen the video? If so, then how can you stop them from seeing the video again? The argument whether the defense received the correct video in discovery should have been made before it was ever introduced into evidence, no?

[cuervo72]

Wait is this where we talk about bad judges?

Man who raped four teenagers gets no jail time, judge says: ‘Incarceration isn’t appropriate’

“I’m not ashamed to say that I actually prayed over what is the appropriate sentence in this case because there was great pain. There was great harm. There were multiple crimes committed in the case,” Murphy said, according to WKBW. “It seems to me that a sentence that involves incarceration or partial incarceration isn’t appropriate, so I am going to sentence you to probation.”

[RainMaker]

Props to the victim's attorney for calling out the bullshit. I know being a rich white guy helps, but letting serial rapists off with probation is pretty insane.

And also seeing that he was given probation before to earn youthful offender status and didn't comply. No consequences for that at all.

[sovereignstar v2]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Wait is this where we talk about bad judges?

Man who raped four teenagers gets no jail time, judge says: ‘Incarceration isn’t appropriate’

He's white and lives less than a half a mile from the country club. Nothing to see here.

[Thomkal]

wow I guess God told him to be nice to your neighbors. I can't read the article (thanks Wash Post), where was this, what were the parents of the raped teen's response?

[sovereignstar v2]

Here is mommy (and I assume this piece of shit is next to her)!

[sovereignstar v2]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

wow I guess God told him to be nice to your neighbors. I can't read the article (thanks Wash Post), where was this, what were the parents of the raped teen's response?

You need to learn the browser refresh and X/kill/stop trick. I get by 95% of paywalls doing this.

[RainMaker]

Non-paywalled version here.

Man who sexually assaulted 4 teen girls in Lewiston home gets probation | Crime News | buffalonews.com

One of those cases you hope a family member gets justice their own way.

[Thomkal]

Thanks guys, I did the whole private window (with Firefox) and that works sometimes, but not always. About to get a new computer, so I'll be back to ask what I need on for things like this

[GrantDawg]

Rittenhouse defense calling for a mistrial.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[sovereignstar v2]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Thanks guys, I did the whole private window (with Firefox) and that works sometimes, but not always. About to get a new computer, so I'll be back to ask what I need on for things like this

I literally just stop news pages from fully loading in Chrome by using the refresh/X button. There is generally a brief moment between when the article text loads and the paywall code kicks in. It can take a bit to get the timing down, and it's different for different sites/paywalls, but it almost always works. I do this daily for my local news, oops. This does not work for the very advanced paywalls like WSJ.

[Thomkal]

read the article and man I get what the judge was trying to do here, but c'mon he already violated an earlier judge's youthful offender rules, doesn't matter much how remorseful he is, if he's mentally ill and just going to do this over and over. And maybe the adults who set all this up to happen will get just probation now too?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

read the article and man I get what the judge was trying to do here, but c'mon he already violated an earlier judge's youthful offender rules, doesn't matter much how remorseful he is, if he's mentally ill and just going to do this over and over. And maybe the adults who set all this up to happen will get just probation now too?

Yeah, seems like he was given a massive break early on by being offered youthful offender status. All he had to do was stick to the probation terms.

Instead, he felt he was above the law and apparently he ended up being right. Have a feeling this won't be his last brush with the law.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

The one time I got selected for actual jury duty the judge audibly clipped his toenails behind the bench several times, so I can't claim to be too surprised at any of the antics of the Rittenhouse judge.

Amateur

https://medium.com/sex-with-a-side-o...n-f05923a24b80

[GrantDawg]

Wrong thread

[thesloppy]

“The grandfather was getting real teary-eyed, and the judge was up there pumping on that pump. It was sickening.”

[Brian Swartz]

These comments about judges are disheartening. I thought, possibly naively, that my experience was more the norm. I've had occasion to be in a courtroom a couple times, once as a juror. Every judge I've ever interacted with was professional, as were the attorneys on all sides, the law enforcement officials involved, etc. I've literally never seen anyone do anything I would describe as disinterested or inappropriate, aside from a prospective juror who didn't want to be there and was quickly shown the door.

I have a hard time getting my head around what is really typical, how widespread misbehavior is. It wouldn't suprise me if we just don't really know.

[tarcone]

I wonder what this world will look like when the baby boomers are gone

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

These comments about judges are disheartening. I thought, possibly naively, that my experience was more the norm. I've had occasion to be in a courtroom a couple times, once as a juror. Every judge I've ever interacted with was professional, as were the attorneys on all sides, the law enforcement officials involved, etc. I've literally never seen anyone do anything I would describe as disinterested or inappropriate, aside from a prospective juror who didn't want to be there and was quickly shown the door.

I have a hard time getting my head around what is really typical, how widespread misbehavior is. It wouldn't suprise me if we just don't really know.

Oh man, my jury duty experience was an absolutely terrifying experience, in terms of ever being at the mercy of 'a jury of my peers'. Aside from the toe-clipping judge my jurors included: a co-worker, a young prospective pilot who spent the entire trial doodling pictures of planes in his trial notebook, a vocally unemployed dude who was waaay too happy to have a captive audience of 11 other people, two teenage girls that immediately bonded and ignored the entire proceedings, an old women who asked if she could hug the plaintiff, a bartender at a local restaurant notorious for its cocaine sales who wanted to deny the plaintiff any money because he "knew chicks that had been through way worse".

It was a multi-day, multi-million dollar civil trial and all of the lawyers involved were incompetent morons as well. At some point the judge opened up a defendant to any jury questions. I was like "they can do that?!?" Nobody raised their hand...but me and I had to scribble my question out on paper, hand it to the bailiff and then the judge asked it for me. "Any more questions?" asked the judge and I raised my hand again and he kinda half-sighed and said "Why don't you just ask him?", so I did, after which their attorney immediately asked for a recess, and twenty minutes later they settled.

[PilotMan]

I really want to know what that question was now.

[thesloppy]

It was a civil trial about sexual abuse in a storefront church (grim) that had some loosey-goosey parent organization, and I asked them if they had any kind of established process/program/oversight addressing sexual abuse when ordaining pastors (and they said no).


There was also a point where they kept trying to get the pastor in question on the stand but he claimed to be out-of-state until an informant called in during the middle of the trial and said they had just seen him at a local mall & they sent sheriffs down there to pick him up.


It was like some kinda Pauly Shore movie. A very sad & grim Pauly Shore movie.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I wonder what this world will look like when the baby boomers are gone

Utopia.....just kidding. We GenX'ers are pretty much crap.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Utopia.....just kidding. We GenX'ers are pretty much crap.

...and I took that personally.

ETA: , just in case you need it to know I'm kidding.

[BYU 14]

I can't speak for others of my generation, but this Baby Boomer is cool AF

[cuervo72]

Eh, everything is going to skip Gen X anyway.

[PilotMan]

I've given up on identifying with Gen X, I basically throw in with Millennials now.

[Lathum]

Judge in the Rittenhouse trial just said no one from MSNBC is allowed in the courthouse. Claiming he was told someone was attempting to take photos of the jury.

[Lathum]

Whomever let McMichael testify on his own behalf should never see a courtroom again. good lord was that a takedown by the prosecutor. She eviscerated their defense while also making the guy look like a total buffoon, talking like he felt threatened, acting like he was some kind of LEO and a mental health expert.

I don't agree with people who think Kyle should walk, but I can at least see the logic. If these guys walk it is because of a racist jury.

[NobodyHere]

I wonder if he testified based on seeing the reaction to Kyle Rittenhouse testifying.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I wonder if he testified based on seeing the reaction to Kyle Rittenhouse testifying.

Possible. I also think they thought the 11 white people on the jury would relate to him. He is like central casting of every blue collar country boy I run into on a daily basis. I listen to his early testimony and thought I felt like I knew the guy.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I've given up on identifying with Gen X, I basically throw in with Millennials now.

I think I'm technically a very young Gen Xer but I'm more like an old fart Millennial.

SI

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Judge in the Rittenhouse trial just said no one from MSNBC is allowed in the courthouse. Claiming he was told someone was attempting to take photos of the jury.

Apparently a freelancer claiming he worked for NBC News was behind the bus carrying the jury. He got stopped by the police after running a red light.

Maybe the judge went overboard but then again given the nature of this case I could see him erring on the side of protecting the jury.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Apparently a freelancer claiming he worked for NBC News was behind the bus carrying the jury. He got stopped by the police after running a red light.

Maybe the judge went overboard but then again given the nature of this case I could see him erring on the side of protecting the jury.

On it's own, sure, however, there haven't been more than a few questionable moments that felt like protecting one side, rather than neutrality.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

On it's own, sure, however, there haven't been more than a few questionable moments that felt like protecting one side, rather than neutrality.

Which "side" is the judge protecting in this decision?

[PilotMan]

You don't think his long diatribe about media and how he's being portrayed in the media was actually related to the outcome of the case? You think he needed to do that in order to determine whether or not the defendant was guilty or not?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

You don't think his long diatribe about media and how he's being portrayed in the media was actually related to the outcome of the case? You think he needed to do that in order to determine whether or not the defendant was guilty or not?

That's a separate and valid question.

My question isn't about that. It's about how throwing out MSNBC is beneficial/detrimental to the prosecution or defense, and whether it favors one or another.

[NobodyHere]

How long can the jury deliberate for before a hung jury becomes a feasible option?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

You don't think his long diatribe about media and how he's being portrayed in the media was actually related to the outcome of the case? You think he needed to do that in order to determine whether or not the defendant was guilty or not?

I think a lot of judges are massive narcissists and control freaks who let the power they have go to their heads. So when they get an ounce of scrutiny to which they can't control, they lash out in inappropriate ways.

You've seen the same thing from Alito lately. When his partisan rulings were scrutinized, he had a meltdown of sorts and cried at a bunch of speaking engagements.

[GrantDawg]

Nobodyhere, my understanding is usually the jury has to say they feel they can't come to a verdict. Even then, judge often push them to continue to deliberate to try to reach a verdict.
Juries will often go over the whole trial more than once before nqrrowi g down to a final verdict. The only thing the prolonged deliberation tells us is there wasn't a quick unanimous decision.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk