Here we go again (Brunswick, Georgia)

[Gil Dobie]

I'm not shocked that these two Gomers are still free.

um... that might be the least shocking part about this whole thing



McMichael, son of Brunswick District Attorney walks away a free man at the end of this
if it hadn't been for the video footage this wouldn't even be a ripple on the radar

Justice prevailed in this one.

[AZGrizFan]

um... that might be the least shocking part about this whole thing



McMichael, son of Brunswick District Attorney walks away a free man at the end of this
if it hadn't been for the video footage this wouldn't even be a ripple on the radar

Justice prevailed in this one.

What was the result? Self Defense?

[AZGrizFan]

Legal question: How can the killing of ONE man result in FOUR felony murder charges against the triggerman? How does that work?

[JohnStOnge]

I guess it's bad but the thing I thought of most often while watching the recent high profile trials was the contrast between the professional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Georgia case and the clownish, completely unprofessional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Wisconsin case. The Georgia Judge conveyed an impression of dispassionate objectivity. The Wisconsin Judge conveyed the impression of substantial bias. But that wasn't all of it. Just the nature of the behavior. The Georgia Judge, to me, was an example of what Judges should be like. The Wisconsin Judge, to me, was the opposite. The Wisconsin Judge's behavior is the kind of Judicial behavior that compromises confidence in the system.

[SuperHornet]

Apparently, this was either a county or state trial. These three are also due to stand trial in a few months on a federal hate crime charge....

[AZGrizFan]

I guess it's bad but the thing I thought of most often while watching the recent high profile trials was the contrast between the professional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Georgia case and the clownish, completely unprofessional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Wisconsin case. The Georgia Judge conveyed an impression of dispassionate objectivity. The Wisconsin Judge conveyed the impression of substantial bias. But that wasn't all of it. Just the nature of the behavior. The Georgia Judge, to me, was an example of what Judges should be like. The Wisconsin Judge, to me, was the opposite. The Wisconsin Judge's behavior is the kind of Judicial behavior that compromises confidence in the system.

That's because the Wisconsin judge knew that case should NEVER have been brought before him--as evidenced by the demonstrated stupidity of the prosecutor and the complete absolution of Rittenhouse--and he (the judge) was exasperated from the get go. Conversely, video evidence fully SUPPORTS the GA prosecutors case and the judge there KNOWS it should have been brought to trial....much earlier than it was, in fact. Two COMPLETELY different scenarios and if I was the judge in both cases I'd have acted similarly to EACH of these two judges, given the circumstances.

[Gil Dobie]

Justice prevailed in this one.

What was the result? Self Defense?

This was not in reference to Rittenhouse, that was self defense.

[AZGrizFan]

What was the result? Self Defense?

This was not in reference to Rittenhouse, that was self defense.

Hence the joke. too subtle?

[Gil Dobie]

I guess it's bad but the thing I thought of most often while watching the recent high profile trials was the contrast between the professional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Georgia case and the clownish, completely unprofessional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Wisconsin case. The Georgia Judge conveyed an impression of dispassionate objectivity. The Wisconsin Judge conveyed the impression of substantial bias. But that wasn't all of it. Just the nature of the behavior. The Georgia Judge, to me, was an example of what Judges should be like. The Wisconsin Judge, to me, was the opposite. The Wisconsin Judge's behavior is the kind of Judicial behavior that compromises confidence in the system.

Prosecutor had nothing in Wisconsin. Just because you didn't like the verdict you attack the judge. Both verdicts, Wisconsin and Georgia, were good verdicts.

[Baldy]

I guess it's bad but the thing I thought of most often while watching the recent high profile trials was the contrast between the professional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Georgia case and the clownish, completely unprofessional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Wisconsin case. The Georgia Judge conveyed an impression of dispassionate objectivity. The Wisconsin Judge conveyed the impression of substantial bias. But that wasn't all of it. Just the nature of the behavior. The Georgia Judge, to me, was an example of what Judges should be like. The Wisconsin Judge, to me, was the opposite. The Wisconsin Judge's behavior is the kind of Judicial behavior that compromises confidence in the system.

Pretty much what AZ said, but the trial in Wisconsin was nothing more than a poor attempt at a political lynching.

What you saw was an exasperated judge who had his fill with an inept, unprepared, politically driven prosecutor.

[dbackjon]

Deep down inside, progtard Twatterverse is not happy.

No, we are all happy and relieved.

[GannonFan]

I guess it's bad but the thing I thought of most often while watching the recent high profile trials was the contrast between the professional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Georgia case and the clownish, completely unprofessional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Wisconsin case. The Georgia Judge conveyed an impression of dispassionate objectivity. The Wisconsin Judge conveyed the impression of substantial bias. But that wasn't all of it. Just the nature of the behavior. The Georgia Judge, to me, was an example of what Judges should be like. The Wisconsin Judge, to me, was the opposite. The Wisconsin Judge's behavior is the kind of Judicial behavior that compromises confidence in the system.

Prosecutor had nothing in Wisconsin. Just because you didn't like the verdict you attack the judge. Both verdicts, Wisconsin and Georgia, were good verdicts.

I agree, both very solid outcomes given the details of both cases. Trying to throw shade at a judge in the case is just fishing for something to complain about. The Wisconsin case was always clearly self-defense, and the Georgia case was always a modern-day lynching. Luckily the mouth breathers in Georgia filmed their lynching and luckily it finally came to light or they may have gotten away with it. Still a lot of concern about how they might have been able to get away with it based on their familiarity with local law enforcement had it not been for the leaked video. Heck, luckily we had such large amount of video evidence in the Wisconsin one to see that clearly as self-defense. Video footage is very helpful.

Oh, and for Ibanez, the Georgia case is what vigilantism looks like. Not the Wisconsin one.

[AZGrizFan]

Prosecutor had nothing in Wisconsin. Just because you didn't like the verdict you attack the judge. Both verdicts, Wisconsin and Georgia, were good verdicts.

I agree, both very solid outcomes given the details of both cases. Trying to throw shade at a judge in the case is just fishing for something to complain about. The Wisconsin case was always clearly self-defense, and the Georgia case was always a modern-day lynching. Luckily the mouth breathers in Georgia filmed their lynching and luckily it finally came to light or they may have gotten away with it. Still a lot of concern about how they might have been able to get away with it based on their familiarity with local law enforcement had it not been for the leaked video. Heck, luckily we had such large amount of video evidence in the Wisconsin one to see that clearly as self-defense. Video footage is very helpful.

Oh, and for Ibanez, the Georgia case is what vigilantism looks like. Not the Wisconsin one.

THIS. Hopefully there's some LE folks that are going to see the inside of a cell for a period of time as well....that's unsat.

[SDHornet]

Prosecutor had nothing in Wisconsin. Just because you didn't like the verdict you attack the judge. Both verdicts, Wisconsin and Georgia, were good verdicts.

I agree, both very solid outcomes given the details of both cases. Trying to throw shade at a judge in the case is just fishing for something to complain about. The Wisconsin case was always clearly self-defense, and the Georgia case was always a modern-day lynching. Luckily the mouth breathers in Georgia filmed their lynching and luckily it finally came to light or they may have gotten away with it. Still a lot of concern about how they might have been able to get away with it based on their familiarity with local law enforcement had it not been for the leaked video. Heck, luckily we had such large amount of video evidence in the Wisconsin one to see that clearly as self-defense. Video footage is very helpful.

Oh, and for Ibanez, the Georgia case is what vigilantism looks like. Not the Wisconsin one.

[CID1990]

I guess it's bad but the thing I thought of most often while watching the recent high profile trials was the contrast between the professional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Georgia case and the clownish, completely unprofessional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Wisconsin case. The Georgia Judge conveyed an impression of dispassionate objectivity. The Wisconsin Judge conveyed the impression of substantial bias. But that wasn't all of it. Just the nature of the behavior. The Georgia Judge, to me, was an example of what Judges should be like. The Wisconsin Judge, to me, was the opposite. The Wisconsin Judge's behavior is the kind of Judicial behavior that compromises confidence in the system.

Judges tend to get impatient with prosecutors who violate one of our most sacred Constitutional protections like the 5th Amendment. Most sane people saw a corrupt and inept DA’s office and people like you saw a judge who wasn’t nice about borderline prosecutorial misconduct.

Why spill so much ink over a judge in a trial that never should have happened in the first place?

Because you aren’t sane


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

I guess it's bad but the thing I thought of most often while watching the recent high profile trials was the contrast between the professional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Georgia case and the clownish, completely unprofessional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Wisconsin case. The Georgia Judge conveyed an impression of dispassionate objectivity. The Wisconsin Judge conveyed the impression of substantial bias. But that wasn't all of it. Just the nature of the behavior. The Georgia Judge, to me, was an example of what Judges should be like. The Wisconsin Judge, to me, was the opposite. The Wisconsin Judge's behavior is the kind of Judicial behavior that compromises confidence in the system.

Judges tend to get impatient with prosecutors who violate one of our most sacred Constitutional protections like the 5th Amendment. Most sane people saw a corrupt and inept DA’s office and people like you saw a judge who wasn’t nice about borderline prosecutorial misconduct.

Why spill so much ink over a judge in a trial that never should have happened in the first place?

Because you aren’t sane


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What if I saw both? An inept prosecution and a judge who a little bit of a clown?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Prosecutor had nothing in Wisconsin. Just because you didn't like the verdict you attack the judge. Both verdicts, Wisconsin and Georgia, were good verdicts.

I agree, both very solid outcomes given the details of both cases. Trying to throw shade at a judge in the case is just fishing for something to complain about. The Wisconsin case was always clearly self-defense, and the Georgia case was always a modern-day lynching. Luckily the mouth breathers in Georgia filmed their lynching and luckily it finally came to light or they may have gotten away with it. Still a lot of concern about how they might have been able to get away with it based on their familiarity with local law enforcement had it not been for the leaked video. Heck, luckily we had such large amount of video evidence in the Wisconsin one to see that clearly as self-defense. Video footage is very helpful.

Oh, and for Ibanez, the Georgia case is what vigilantism looks like. Not the Wisconsin one.

Say what now?

[AZGrizFan]

Judges tend to get impatient with prosecutors who violate one of our most sacred Constitutional protections like the 5th Amendment. Most sane people saw a corrupt and inept DA’s office and people like you saw a judge who wasn’t nice about borderline prosecutorial misconduct.

Why spill so much ink over a judge in a trial that never should have happened in the first place?

Because you aren’t sane


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What if I saw both? An inept prosecution and a judge who a little bit of a clown?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Fencerider.

Pick a side, Myron.

[93henfan]

What if I saw both? An inept prosecution and a judge who a little bit of a clown?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Fencerider.

Pick a side, Myron.

For real. Maybe UNI88 and Ibanez can open a Waffle House.

[AZGrizFan]

Fencerider.

Pick a side, Myron.

For real. Maybe UNI88 and Ibanez can open a Waffle House.

[Gil Dobie]

Judges tend to get impatient with prosecutors who violate one of our most sacred Constitutional protections like the 5th Amendment. Most sane people saw a corrupt and inept DA’s office and people like you saw a judge who wasn’t nice about borderline prosecutorial misconduct.

Why spill so much ink over a judge in a trial that never should have happened in the first place?

Because you aren’t sane


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What if I saw both? An inept prosecution and a judge who a little bit of a clown?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

You can see what you want, the verdict still came out correct.

[UNI88]

What if I saw both? An inept prosecution and a judge who a little bit of a clown?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

You can see what you want, the verdict still came out correct.

I agreed with the verdict, just thought the judge's histrionics were odd & over the top.

AZ and 93, no need to pick a side when I'm correct ...


Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I guess it's bad but the thing I thought of most often while watching the recent high profile trials was the contrast between the professional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Georgia case and the clownish, completely unprofessional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Wisconsin case. The Georgia Judge conveyed an impression of dispassionate objectivity. The Wisconsin Judge conveyed the impression of substantial bias. But that wasn't all of it. Just the nature of the behavior. The Georgia Judge, to me, was an example of what Judges should be like. The Wisconsin Judge, to me, was the opposite. The Wisconsin Judge's behavior is the kind of Judicial behavior that compromises confidence in the system.

Prosecutor had nothing in Wisconsin. Just because you didn't like the verdict you attack the judge. Both verdicts, Wisconsin and Georgia, were good verdicts.

I had no problem with the verdict. If you go to the first page of the Rittenhouse thread on this board you can find a post from me saying I thought he did act in self defense. Had I been on the jury the only thing I might have voted to convict him of is reckless endangerment.

The Wisconsin judge's behavior was just totally unprofessional.

[JohnStOnge]

I guess it's bad but the thing I thought of most often while watching the recent high profile trials was the contrast between the professional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Georgia case and the clownish, completely unprofessional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Wisconsin case. The Georgia Judge conveyed an impression of dispassionate objectivity. The Wisconsin Judge conveyed the impression of substantial bias. But that wasn't all of it. Just the nature of the behavior. The Georgia Judge, to me, was an example of what Judges should be like. The Wisconsin Judge, to me, was the opposite. The Wisconsin Judge's behavior is the kind of Judicial behavior that compromises confidence in the system.

Judges tend to get impatient with prosecutors who violate one of our most sacred Constitutional protections like the 5th Amendment. Most sane people saw a corrupt and inept DA’s office and people like you saw a judge who wasn’t nice about borderline prosecutorial misconduct.

Why spill so much ink over a judge in a trial that never should have happened in the first place?

Because you aren’t sane


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the judge's unprofessional behavior undermined confidence in the system.

[JohnStOnge]

I guess it's bad but the thing I thought of most often while watching the recent high profile trials was the contrast between the professional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Georgia case and the clownish, completely unprofessional behavior of the Judge overseeing the Wisconsin case. The Georgia Judge conveyed an impression of dispassionate objectivity. The Wisconsin Judge conveyed the impression of substantial bias. But that wasn't all of it. Just the nature of the behavior. The Georgia Judge, to me, was an example of what Judges should be like. The Wisconsin Judge, to me, was the opposite. The Wisconsin Judge's behavior is the kind of Judicial behavior that compromises confidence in the system.

Pretty much what AZ said, but the trial in Wisconsin was nothing more than a poor attempt at a political lynching.

What you saw was an exasperated judge who had his fill with an inept, unprepared, politically driven prosecutor.

There were a number of instances in which the Georgia judge could have been put off by, in this case, the tactics of the defense. Like for instance when the defense attorney made reference to Arbery's dirty toenails and stuff like references to Colonel Sanders. The Georgia Judge admonished defense attorneys at times. But when he did, he did so in a professional way. Never lost his cool.