I think it spread like wildfire after 9/11, understandably so. Calling it a “Trump campaign song” is reductive at best. It was played at the Naturalization Ceremony right after my oath as a new American. (President was Obama)
Yeah, the judge's behavior in this case is becoming increasingly a topic of this case, as much as the case itself.
I am sorry but no. The judge was 100% right in that instance. First going after 5th Amendment rights and then defying a direct court order? And then talking back pretending he didn’t know what it all meant? I am sorry but no, you can’t put that on the judge. The prosecution has been abysmal and what the prosecutor was doing went well beyond any legitimacy. I was appalled myself before even the judge intervened (on the V amendment issue).
The only song that should be allowed, for all candidates, is “Nixon Now”. It’s incredibly catchy, and if you don’t believe me just check it on YouTube. It will stay in your head until you die, or even after.
It was histronics that he made a scene of it. He may have been right according to him, but there's making a point, and there's showmanship.
Rittenhouse trial judge requests applause for veterans; critics howl
Wisconsin Judge Bruce Schroeder took some criticism Thursday after requesting during the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial in Kenosha that attendees applaud for the nation’s service members on Veterans Day.www.yahoo.com
Rittenhouse legal expert: I've never seen a judge act like this in a criminal trial.
In 27 years of criminal law practice, I've never seen a trial judge tell a jury to applaud a defense witness right before they take the stand.www.usatoday.com
It wasn’t showmanship. The prosecutor kept going, and kept interrupting. And each time, every single time, the jury has to be kicked out of the room. The prosecutor has to be thankful he wasn’t officially reprimanded with consequence. Asking someone - and insisting - why they wanted to keep the right to remain silent, in front of the jury. Insane. Utterly insane. I am left wondering how many times stuff like that happen in lesser trials. Then - with another witness - he proceeded into questioning why the witness wanted legal counsel. Dude should go back to law school. Insane, and insulting.
Yes. But he didn’t ask the applause “for the witness”. He asked it for all veterans and accidentally the witness was a veteran. I am not agreeing with the judge on the applause itself (useless, superfluous and inappropriate), but the claim that he did it for the witness is misleading at best.
Do it. Live the dangerous life. You’ll thank me. All of it, once. That’s all you need.
Please don't.
He was the only veteran.
Agree with this.
Probably. I am not among those. It was inappropriate in a court of law.
Which was part of the point of my post.
He also would have reviewed and approved any witnesses. So he definitely should have known that Dr. Black was a veteran. The guy’s website talks about his 30 years of military service. It’s part of the reason he qualified as an “expert” witness.
Welcome to America’s way of talking about trials. That’s why I agree completely with not having television cameras at the Supreme Court.
Didn’t know Steelers’ day was a nationally sanctioned holiday recognized by the government. It wouldn’t fly well here in Texas by the way.
Not a topic I was considering discussing. But does bring up the matter of being able to see this judge in action, makes one wonder what we don't see.
In reading that, the initial paragraph seems clear. But the 2nd paragraph (in brackets) circles back on itself twice. Then the other paragraphs seem to concur with the first paragraph. All in all, that document looks like it would confuse the jury more than help them. If the 2nd paragraph was taken out, I think it would be more clear. You can’t provoke somebody and then claim self-defense. Maybe this is a sign the jury can convict at least on some charges.