Current Events > So the judge in the Rittenhouse case won't let them call his victims 'victims'

(+) Yeah! (+)

DuranOfForcena posted...

wtf, why?

this judge needs to be removed from the bench.

---

Deuceswild posted...

As I attempted to explain, it's because whether they are considered looters or saints, the purpose of the trial isn't to determine whether they are looters or saints. However, you can't call them victims because the purpose of the trial is to actually determine if they are in fact victims.

but calling them looters and rioters implies a negative connotation which the defense can use to their advantage. All the same, it gives them an unfair advantage that you don't give the people by calling these guys victims. Whether its legal or not isn't what's being argued. The morality of the judge clearly skewing things here is in question.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Whether its legal or not isn't what's being argued.

Um...

---

Fuck being fair, this is the law we're talking about

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

but calling them looters and rioters implies a negative connotation which the defense can use to their advantage. All the same, it gives them an unfair advantage that you don't give the people by calling these guys victims. Whether its legal or not isn't what's being argued. The morality of the judge clearly skewing things here is in question.

So just call the ones that died "the deceased" and the ones that survived "the injured." No matter what you think about Rittenhouse and his actions leading up to and on that night, he has as much of a right to a fair and just trial as everyone else, and using loaded words before the jury violates that right.

---

Paragon21XX posted...

So just call the ones that died "the deceased" and the ones that survived "the injured." No matter what you think about Rittenhouse and his actions leading up to and on that night, he has as much of a right to a fair and just trial as everyone else, and using loaded words before the jury violates that right.

yes, i agree, but the judge isn't doing that. he's allowing negative words for the defense. its a clear bias.

---

Or maybe the law is that such characterization is allowed in defense argumentation, but preconceiving the conclusion it is the purpose of the trial to reach is not.

---

Deuceswild posted...

Them being called looters or rioters has little bearing on the case as that doesn't make it legal to kill them.

Dude

it's blatantly prejudicial

---

self defense can't be claimed when the person claiming it illegally put themselves in a violent situation. you can't rob a store and claim self defense when the store owner pulls a gun on you and you shoot them.

murder is murder and shittenhouse is a murderer

---

Dark_Spiret posted...

he killed 2 people. he didnt murder them. both were in the process of being the aggressors which is blatantly captured on camera.

No, let's be clear here, he murdered them. It's called a felony murder. He shouldn't have been there, and he shouldn't have had that gun. He's a criminal and in the process of committing his crimes he ended up killing people. He can and will claim self defense, but it's not self defense, that's ridiculous. It's just like if I break into your house and you come at me and I shoot you. Then I turn around and go "he was going to hit me, self defense"!

---

shnangyboos posted...

For real, how these idiots try to paint him as the aggressor or bloodthirsty monster itching to shoot when we can all see that isn't the case is beyond me. And these same people think Martin is justified in beating Zimmerman because he was following him, yet the motherfucker chasing someone at a full speed run is defending himself in this situation.

The difference is that Martin wasn't committing multiple dangerous crimes involving a weapon.

But whatever, I don't think the guy chasing Shittenhouse was defending himself. Yeah, he was attacking Fatty McVigilante. Yes, the little pig was "defending himself", if you want. But even "defending yourself", even when there's a good chance you're going to lose your life if you don't defend yourself in some cases is not self defense. Not after you asked someone to buy you a gun to go to another town to play cop. Not when you're a fucking deranged mass shooter in his debutante ball.

---

Deuceswild posted...

Of course, so would calling them angels or saints, something that would also be allowed. You can also refer to Rittenhouse as a racist, white supremacist, transphobe, etc as the court isn't trying to actively determine if he's any of those things.

The point is, the court isn't seeking to determine whether these guys were good or bad people, but they ARE seeking to determine if the guys were victims or if Kyle was truly acting in self defense which is why the judge can't allow them to be called victims before the court has ruled them as such.

If the court allows them to be called victims, it assumes an outcome before its determined which could lead to a mistrial.

You cannot refer to someone on trial as a white supremacist.

I don't know where you're getting this from but prejudicial terns are forbidden and the judge will rule what can and can't be said before the trial

You watch to much TV

---

Consider this case beaten then.

---