• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Rob Reiner and his wife apparent victims of homicide

Depraved.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonald Trump
A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before.

May Rob and Michele rest in peace!

The only thing more disgusting than this creature are the mindless, spineless sycophants that continue to genuflect before this monstrosity, no matter what vile crazy thing he says or does.
 
Variety reports:



Nick Reiner’s attorney Alan Jackson told the assembled media after the hearing it was a “devastating tragedy” for the entire family, and that seems to be putting it mildly! Jackson also said there's “very complex and serious issues that are associated with this case.”

View attachment 67167
Sketch of Nick Reiner arriving in court.
Let me guess, his attorney will ask for sympathy for his client on grounds that he recently became an orphan.
 
What kind of POS loser takes this tragedy and uses it an excuse for a political rant? Not that it surprises me on this site. Get a life.
I honestly thought you were referring to your president here, but the second sentence suggests that you were actually upset with people being shocked about your president using the murders as an excuse for a despicable political rant.
 
A man recovers from a fit of madness to discover his parents are dead by his own hand, but not by his own choice. Has he been punished enough, or should society try make it worse for him?
 
A man recovers from a fit of madness to discover his parents are dead by his own hand, but not by his own choice. Has he been punished enough, or should society try make it worse for him?
Retribution is not the only consideration here. If he is someone who is prone to these kinds of episodes then he should be incarcerated in some fashion for the protection of society. And the same goes for the types of people who could attack innocent commuters on public transportation.
 
Retribution is not the only consideration here. If he is someone who is prone to these kinds of episodes then he should be incarcerated in some fashion for the protection of society. And the same goes for the types of people who could attack innocent commuters on public transportation.
I agree. I just think the "sympathy for the orphaned parricide" argument isn't necessarily a disingenuous or cynical argument.
 
I agree. I just think the "sympathy for the orphaned parricide" argument isn't necessarily a disingenuous or cynical argument.
Maybe, but he’ll have an uphill battle partly on the basis that it sounds like a well-known (mis-?)attributed joke definition of a “hypocrite” by Abraham Lincoln.
 
Maybe, but he’ll have an uphill battle partly on the basis that it sounds like a well-known (mis-?)attributed joke definition of a “hypocrite” by Abraham Lincoln.
He'll have an uphill battle from anyone who chooses to give him an uphill battle. We don't have to give him one if we don't want to.
 
Retribution is not the only consideration here. If he is someone who is prone to these kinds of episodes then he should be incarcerated in some fashion for the protection of society. And the same goes for the types of people who could attack innocent commuters on public transportation.
I once saw a video in which a judge was sentencing a murderer. In delivering his sentence, the judge commented on what he called personal deterrence, saying the 50 years might not deter others, but it would sure prevent the defendant from harming anyone else.

This of course, overlooks what the defendant might get up to in prison.
 
Rob and Michele Reiner's son Jake and daughter Romy released the following statement yesterday:

"Jake and Romy Reiner remain grateful for the outpouring of love and support they have received. They will share information about a memorial service honoring their parents at a later date," read the statement, which CBS News received from a spokesperson for Jake and Romy Reiner on Tuesday.CBS News article link

Paul McCartney worked with Rob Reiner last year in the filming of Spinal Tap II: The End Continues. McCartney called Reiner "an upbeat, lovable man."

1766614707835.png
Paul McCartney and Rob Reiner on the set of Spinal Tap II last year
 
Also from the set of Spinal Tap II.

1766615334367.png
From left, Paul McCartney, Michele Reiner, Rob Reiner, daughter Romy Reiner and sons Jake and Nick Reiner.
 
Alan Jackson withdrew as Nick's attorney. Some have speculated it's because he was not gonna be paid, but I suspect it is more likely that he wanted to argue a not-guilty by reason of insanity defense and Nick would not go for that.
 
Alan Jackson withdrew as Nick's attorney. Some have speculated it's because he was not gonna be paid, but I suspect it is more likely that he wanted to argue a not-guilty by reason of insanity defense and Nick would not go for that.

Why wouldn't he, I wonder, the attorney? Assuming you're right?

Cause no jury would buy it? Because the son has no money that the attorney could seĺl his soul for, per his trade? Or because this is that rare attorney that, like Jim Carrey's character, refuses to lie?
 
Why wouldn't he, I wonder, the attorney? Assuming you're right?

Cause no jury would buy it? Because the son has no money that the attorney could seĺl his soul for, per his trade? Or because this is that rare attorney that, like Jim Carrey's character, refuses to lie?
I am saying the attorney wanted to argue his client was mentally ill, but Nick probably thinks he is sane and wants to argue some other convoluted defense (like the CIA planted microchips in his brain and directed him to murder) which Jackson could not in good faith do.
Not all attorneys lie, but it helps to lie to become a more successful attorney (which is one reason I quit after 5 years as a criminal defense attorney)
I doubt Jackson was in this for the money, he was in it for the publicity, the attention.
 
I am saying the attorney wanted to argue his client was mentally ill, but Nick probably thinks he is sane and wants to argue some other convoluted defense (like the CIA planted microchips in his brain and directed him to murder) which Jackson could not in good faith do.

Ah ok, got it.

Not all attorneys lie,

Is that true? In this adversarial justice system of ours, while you might, maybe, find the occasional completely honest attorney that's either living in penury else is privately wealthy, but can any attorney ever make a good living without resort to diluting to homeopathic levels the thing about "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? Can any attorney ever make a successful career without selling their intellectual integrity (regardless of whether they technically lie, and are technically liable for lying outright)?

(Just wondering idly, and tangentially. I take your point, that this doesn't apply to the present case: I'd clearly parsed you wrong there, as far as your speculations about the son's attorney.)

but it helps to lie to become a more successful attorney (which is one reason I quit after 5 years as a criminal defense attorney)

Cool. As someone who both was an insider, as well as someone that had the spine and character not to have sold their integrity in the process: What's your thoughts about my ruminations above?

(Actually I've had this very discussion with a cousin starting out in law. He was firmly of the view that it is myopic to view "integrity" as I did, in black and white terms, specifically when it comes to law, given our adversarial system. I didn't buy his reasoning. Misrepresenting is misrepresenting, no matter what, as far as one's personal integrity. It's dissembling to pretend you're not selling your integrity, when clearly you are. Do it if you must, up to you: but don't pretend you haven't sold your integrity, is my view. ...So, coming from there: Your thoughts on this?)
 
Cool. As someone who both was an insider, as well as someone that had the spine and character not to have sold their integrity in the process: What's your thoughts about my ruminations above?
Well I'm biased cause I ran from the law ;). Mainly cause I could not take the stress and did not want to die at age 40. But also because I felt, from doing a bunch of trials, that I could not be 'successful' in an adversarial system without at least bending the rules and compromising my sense of ethics. I refused to play dirty to get ahead. And I got sick of seeing decisions being made by stupid people. Probably why I never was interested in politics either. :p
 

Back
Top Bottom