Deep concerns arise regarding the bias of the problematic judge in the Rittenhouse trial

0
26

The Kyle Rittenhouse case dominated a large chunk of mainstream media this week. And why shouldn’t it? The case is not only important (do civilians also hunt for protesters thought to be rioters?), But it is also almost symbolically perfect, representing the political division in this country. Regarding this issue, the split arose out of protests over the murder of George Floyd, which led to protests over other racist police incidents and, more generally, protests. Trump fought the movement with dripping, palpable, contempt and contempt for those who wanted to be heard, even going so far as to check if he could call the military.

Given that the case arose out of political and cultural bias, including racism, it was probably wrong to hope that the court could rise from the fray and provide both sides (especially the prosecution) with a real chance to support their case.

But the anguished sentences against the accusation began early in the probative questions, in particular that concerning the statements made by Rittenhouse to friends, about wanting to shoot the looters. Also, the judge will not allow the deceased to be called a “victim” because the judge says it implies that they did nothing wrong, it is too “loaded” a word, but the judge allowed the defense to introduce a photo in which the police were friendly towards Rittenhouse after the incident.

Ongoing concerns increased dramatically yesterday when the judge sent the jury out of the courtroom to warn the prosecution that it was getting very close to a no-go area. (Previous statements about the shooting of looters). Some also believe that the prosecution might try to make such a big “mistake” that the judge has to call a mistral and prosecutors can start all over again … with a different judge. and a better organized case – part of that is about them.

Rittenhouse “cried” so hard that the judge had to interrupt the trial for ten minutes, despite the fact that Rittenhouse was composed at all times. The left suspects that the outburst was more than a miserable attempt at manipulation without sincerity.

But yesterday also saw a really bizarre development, so strange that no one really knew what to do with it, much less whether to do something about it or what. could do about it if one believed it really mattered.

The judge’s phone rang in the middle of an argument with the defense during the trial. Judges can turn people away from the courtroom, with humiliating growls if a phone rings in the audience. The lawyers receive a warning and from there the consequences increase. Most judges don’t even bring their phones to court for fear of looking like the world’s biggest hypocrite. Those who do, check their “silent” feature several times and generally keep the phone out of sight. But as mentioned, the judge’s phone went out and the ringtone was Lee Greenwood’s song “Proud to Be an American”.

The lyrics of the song are politically neutral, but every American knows that it has become the anthem of the right. It will almost never be played at a Democratic campaign feature, and it can’t be avoided at a Republican-MAGA event, especially a Trump rally. Then the phone rings, plays a snippet of Trump’s campaign anthem, and – as it rang, the phone was sitting on the judge’s desk, right next to his microphone.

It’s probably all a coincidence. But it is so strange that it is perhaps irresponsible not to consider the possibility that it may have been intentional. Most people simply focused on the music itself and the Trump association, what the judge’s alliances meant for the trial. Most haven’t bothered to ask if there’s any chance the message was intentional. Look below:

We can’t know why that phone was sitting on the desk next to the microphone. Nor can we know why it wasn’t silent, we don’t even know why a judge would choose what has become a polarizing song as a ringtone. ‘start .. What if it were a message?

Progressives didn’t start with high expectations. Now, given all the sentences, some weeks ago, others yesterday, all coming from a judge who seems almost disdainful of prosecutors, it makes it very difficult to have faith that the verdict is right, whatever the jury finds. In such a difficult case, a jury could legitimately find Rittenhouse “not guilty” based on the evidence and the burden of proof. But given the direction of the case and the almost undeniable bias? It would be impossible to trust a not guilty verdict.

And that phone … so strange …

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here