Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse trial faces backlash from 'Asian food' joke: 'Definitely not okay'
Source: Washington Post
As the court in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse was set to adjourn for lunch Thursday, Judge Bruce E. Schroeder thought it was a good time to joke about whether their food would get there on time. I hope the Asian food isnt coming
isnt on one of those boats from Long Beach Harbor, he said. The comments, which appeared to refer to the supply-chain backlog at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif., were met with backlash from critics who said the judge made a thinly-veiled anti-Asian comment, questioning how Schroeder could oversee a trial with racial implications and make a joke at the expense of Asians and Asian Americans.
Maybe Im supposed to applaud him for not saying Oriental food, tweeted John C. Yang, executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, an advocacy group defending the human and civil rights of Asian Americans. During a trial that clearly has race implications, no less. Definitely not okay. The judges joke comes as closing arguments in Rittenhouses divisive trial are expected on Monday. Rittenhouse, 18, is charged with killing two people and wounding a third during unrest in Kenosha, Wis., that unfolded last year after a White police officer shot Jacob Blake, a Black man, in the back. The 18-year-old emotionally broke down on the stand in testimony this week, later saying he was attacked and in danger that night.
I defended myself, he said.Schroeder, 75, has gained national attention, and generated anger and confusion, through his rulings and comments during the course of the trial. When the trial began earlier this month, Schroeder forbade the prosecution from calling the three men Rittenhouse shot victims, which the judge has long called a loaded term. Schroeder, the longest-serving active judge in Wisconsins trial courts, prefers decedents or complaining witnesses. While Wisconsin lawyers say the ruling on victims has been long-standing in Schroeders courtroom, others pointed out the judge allowed the defense to call the men Rittenhouse shot looters and rioters, if the attorneys could prove they were involved in those acts.
Several other incidents put Schroeder in the spotlight. He dismissed a White juror after the man made a joke to a police deputy about the 2020 shooting of Blake. When Schroeders phone went off in court this week, many noted the ringtone sounded like the opening to the 1984 Lee Greenwood song God Bless the U.S.A., which became a music staple at rallies for President Donald Trump. The judges attempt to honor veterans on Veterans Day resulted in the courtroom applauding for a witness for the defense, who appeared to be the only veteran in the room.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/12/rittenhouse-judge-asian-food-schroeder/
HighFired49
(351 posts)Just because he said "Asian" does not mean that he was making a racist comment. Seems to me that it was more a joke about our not being able to operate our ports. Sheesh, some people try to make something of nothing.
twodogsbarking
(9,822 posts)Escurumbele
(3,403 posts)one can come up with the conclusion that having demonstrated he is a MAGAT, that his "joke" was also racist.
The other conclusion can be that his joke was not racist (although there was no need to make implications about "Asian food", could have been McDonalds who also imports meats and other stuff from Asia) that the judge is simply an ignorant and stupid man who should not be presiding over any case as judge.
I tend to believe, from all that has happened with that judge, that he is both a racist and an ignorant man who should not be presiding over any court case, least of all one where the accused is a white supremacist.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,234 posts)Every courtroom I've been to requires you either shut down personal electronic communications devices or put them on buzz. Guess the judge figures the rules don't apply to him.
Zeitghost
(3,871 posts)What makes the judge a racist?
And why would he use McDonalds if they were actually having Asian food? It seems to me this was clearly a joke about ports being overloaded.
JohnSJ
(92,422 posts)why bring Asian food into the picture? Wouldnt just lunch do?
If he inserted Italian, Irish, or another type of cuisine, would there have been the same concern?
I dont know, and I am pretty sure that much of this is because of his behavior in court, and why some are looking for any excuse to criticize him whether it is valid or not
I also think there is a lot of sensitivity about this in particular because of the anti-Asian attacks that have occurred around the country
SheCat
(34 posts)IzzaNuDay
(362 posts)Given current events, he didn't even have to specify an ethnic cuisine. Period.
You are obviously not paying attention. He has shown who he is day in and day out. He deserves zero deference and everything he says should be assumed offensive, ignorant, and racist, until proven otherwise.
Response to HighFired49 (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
paleotn
(17,989 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)paleotn
(17,989 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)truthisfreedom
(23,157 posts)A parade of bizarre behavior has marked this trial.
TheFarseer
(9,326 posts)Asia in this case refers to a location and not anything about race. We cant even talk about how Asia is in another location now?!
oldsoftie
(12,615 posts)Its going to backfire with the a lot of the voters we need
Jedi Guy
(3,259 posts)Sympthsical
(9,121 posts)Probably some kind of Asian food. So he makes some comment about lunch not being late. It's not like the port situation is super political. Only partisans would be sensitive to that.
But, you know, Asian food.
The man is practically burning crosses at this point.
Raine
(30,540 posts)MichMan
(11,977 posts)What is wrong with that?
Just curious if anyone know if they indeed had ordered Asian food for lunch or something else?
2Gingersnaps
(1,000 posts)What racial implications??? ***wink, nod, say no more*** /s
madville
(7,412 posts)What are the racial implications?
Raine
(30,540 posts)GETTINGTIRED
(330 posts)the judge has shown who he is .
LudwigPastorius
(9,178 posts)I'm more disturbed by the judge telling the jury and everyone in the court room to applaud one of the witnesses for the defense.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/kyle-rittenhouse-judge-schroeder-applaud-defense-witness-1256574/
Jedi Guy
(3,259 posts)Would you still be disturbed if that veteran was acting as a witness for the prosecution rather than the defense?
LudwigPastorius
(9,178 posts)Regardless of the thanks veterans deserve, this constitutes a prejudicial endorsement of the witnesses credibility by the judge.
Jedi Guy
(3,259 posts)AZProgressive
(29,322 posts)Usually I see you in police shooting threads but have noticed you a lot in Rittenhouse threads. It isnt only DUers that find the judge questionable.
Rittenhouse legal expert: I've never seen a judge act like this in a criminal trial.
In the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial, Judge Bruce Schroeder began the day on Thursday asking everyone in the courtroom, including the jury, if they had served in the military. As it turned out, the only military veteran in the courtroom who spoke up was the defense expert on use-of-force, John Black. Schroeder then motioned to the jury, and said that he thinks that everyone should give a round of applause to the people who have served, while gesturing back over toward Black.
I have been a criminal law attorney for 27 years. I was both a federal and state prosecutor, and defense attorney. In all my years of practice, I have never seen a trial judge during a trial put the jury in a position where they would have to applaud a defense witness right before they are about to take the stand and testify.
Bad behavior on the bench
A judge in any criminal jury trial should never put members of the jury in a position where they are asked to applaud for a witness about to testify for something that they have done in the past. I am a Marine Corps veteran. I certainly appreciate it when people thank me for my service. But trial judges must do everything possible to avoid any appearance that they favor or agree with one side or another in a trial. A judge must also not express a favorable personal opinion about a witness even to laud them for military service.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/rittenhouse-legal-expert-ive-never-seen-a-judge-act-like-this-in-a-criminal-trial/ar-AAQDzW7
I dont think it is safe for police for 17 year olds doing their own thing with assault rifles.
Jedi Guy
(3,259 posts)For instance, the bit about not allowing the word "victim" to be used? That's a longstanding rule in Schroeder's courtroom. He didn't just make it up for this trial, but that's how it's presented damn near every time it's brought up.
The bit about calling the victims "looters," "arsonists," or "rioters"? That gets brought up a lot too, and once again, damn near every time the bit about "if the evidence shows they engaged in those behaviors" is left out. The judge advised them against doing so but said they could if the evidence supported it. But it's presented as if the judge just shrugged and said, "Sure, whatever." That's not the case.
The "pinch and zoom" thing is presented as this huge outrage. The zoomed-in video the prosecution wanted to show was allowed the following day, and the judge admitted he didn't have a firm grasp of the technology involved. People mention the former, but not the latter.
People behave as if he's sided with the defense every single time, which is straight-up nonsense. He handed the prosecution huge wins in the jury instructions just yesterday by allowing them to consider lesser charges, which increases the likelihood of a conviction, and by allowing them to consider provocation, which undermines the claim of self-defense.
The prosecution straight-up lied to the jury about evidence that was to be presented. They skated riiiiiiiiiiiiight up to the line of violating Rittenhouse's Fifth Amendment rights. They tried to sneak in evidence that had been banned from the trial without asking if it was now okay to introduce it after certain testimony. The defense moved for dismissal with prejudice based on that behavior. If the judge was as biased as people claim, why didn't he grant the dismissal? He's not up for election again until 2026 and he's 75 years old, so what does he care? If he really wanted to aid the defense, that right there was his golden opportunity.
So he asked the people in the courtroom to applaud for a veteran on Veterans' Day. So what? Had it not been Veterans' Day I could see the objection. If he'd looked at the jury and said, "Now folks, we all know veterans are honest, so pay close attention here" I could see the objection. I'm sorry, I just don't see anything sinister there.
Do you see what I'm getting at here? My belief is that people thought this was a slam-dunk case, and when it became apparent that it wasn't and that an acquittal seemed possible or likely, people seized on "the judge is biased" as an excuse rather than actually paying attention to the substance of the trial, the evidence, arguments, and law.
Lastly, is there a particular reason you felt a need to bring up the threads I choose to post in? I used to work for a police department as a dispatcher, several of my friends are officers, and the fact of the matter is that most people don't have the first clue about police work or the laws/rulings that govern it. Does it irk me to see the broad-brush attacks on cops? You bet it does, so I'm going to post in those threads.
In the same vein, does it bother me seeing the deliberate distortion of reality so that people can cling to a false narrative? Yep, and so I'm going to post in those threads, too.
AZProgressive
(29,322 posts)And he never seen anything like that. What if the defendant is a veteran? Anyways Im a veteran and feel the judge is biased.
Jedi Guy
(3,259 posts)The defendant isn't a veteran, so your what-if scenario doesn't apply here. For the sake of argument, if that had been the case, I'd agree with you that it was inappropriate.
You can feel the judge is biased all you like, but as I pointed out in my response to you, the facts of the situation do not support that opinion from where I'm standing. I believe people are seizing on that idea to argue that the fix was in, in the event of an acquittal.
AZProgressive
(29,322 posts)Nor do I deserve it which is why I brought up the what-if scenario. It isnt one thing when it comes to the judge. Look at the OP. Not surprised a majority white and older board wouldnt find the same thing offensive as Asian-American advocacy groups but as a white male I admit I have a blind spot when it comes to some of these things.
Jedi Guy
(3,259 posts)I'm sorry, but it just isn't. He's a 75-year-old white dude from Wisconsin. As remarks from 75-year-old white dudes go, that was pretty damn tame. I don't think it was racist, I think it was the sort of joke one would hear from their goofy grandpa.
My point is that for nearly every allegation of bias that actually matters (i.e., on something that actually impacts the trial), if you actually dig deeper than the headlines and the tweets, you discover that there is no "there" there. But for those who don't look beyond the headlines and tweets, a false narrative is being constructed in advance of a possible acquittal.
Lunabell
(6,111 posts)After this gig, he'll be on fox noise. Probably making the conservative clown show rounds with his new buddy, Kyle.
womanofthehills
(8,774 posts)Link to tweet
?s=21
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)The judge made a biased statement. He needs to be removed.
tonekat
(1,820 posts)...and stinks as a judge in this case, but jumping on this food faux pas makes the left look like they're lost in the trivia. Criticize him for his egregious legal offensives.
BumRushDaShow
(129,543 posts)per the OP article, were actually Asian-American organizations and activists?
From the excerpts -
Also in the article -
The boats in the harbor are majority boats from Asia. And he said Asian food which further connects the Asian boats, he tweeted. He could have just said the lunch was late.
(the above guy is cited quite a bit on DU regarding COVID-19)
The "problem" in a system of racism-white supremacy is that the majority population demands to define what "they" think is "racist" or not. That's the very definition of "superiority" and it will never go away as long as this mentality continues.