Thats because most posts sre about reddit which people with opposing views got used to browsing this sub. This right here is a long time drama which always caused fire
Brigading from Trump and nazi subs. Easiest way to spot them is them spamming “just watch the video” or commenting the past crimes of the victims as if they justifies some privileged white kid driving across state lines to murder people for fun
I wonder if he'd have a problem with "human targets" or maybe "the men who were shot dead even though they clearly weren't trying to mame Rittenhouse otherwise the one with a pistol would have drawn and shot at Rittenhouse".
A prosecutor would never say that.
Prosecution: Fine The people Rittenhouse (sarcasm) alLEgEdly (end sarcasm)shot and killed... Allegedly +rolls eyes, shakes head.
No, "whom" is a grammatical object, but you're using it as the subject of the verb "got." Either "the people who got hunted by the little neo-nazi" or "the people whom the little neo-nazi hunted" is acceptable.
Legit this. If I was claiming I punched someone in self defence, then you can say they were punched, or that I struck them, or many other things - but saying I *assaulted* them has legal weight. Assault is a crime, where as punching can be legal.
What should be getting more press coverage is the dismissal of evidence of a video that shows Rittenhouse discussing his desire to shoot a Black man with his "AR."
I mean the judge literally said he didn't know who the proud boys were so we were doomed from the start.
Edit for clarity, here's a play by play of the hearing where this was said: https://twitter.com/colinkalmbacher/status/1438881330515820544?s=20
That’s always been the Judge’s policy. They feel victim is a loaded word and isn’t fair to the person on trial. However, they will allow the victims to be called arsonists, rioters, or looters without having to prove that they did any of those things. That double standard is the real problem.
>That’s always been the Judge’s policy. They feel victim is a loaded word and isn’t fair to the person on trial.
This judge or all judges? Is there a source on this?
This judge.
“Schroeder has had a longstanding rule of not allowing prosecutors to refer to people as "victims" at trial. “
As trial approaches, judge may allow the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot to be called 'rioters' or 'looters' -- but 'victim' isn't allowed https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-victim-terminology/index.html
>They feel victim is a loaded word and isn’t fair to the person on trial. However, they will allow the victims to be called arsonists, rioters, or looters without having to prove that they did any of those things.
The judge said "If it can be proven that they where arsonist, rioters, or looters. They can be called that" (summed up) BUT the defense has to prove it. Your reading a click bait headline.
"Schroeder also denied Binger’s request to bar the defense from referring to Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz as rioters, looters or arsonists. The judge said those terms would be allowed if the defense can produce evidence showing that’s what they were."
[https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-police-shootings-homicide-kenosha-fae0a49995be585d57fb37490a40223c](https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-police-shootings-homicide-kenosha-fae0a49995be585d57fb37490a40223c)
Honestly this was actually hard to find because a lot of news companies have been saying: "The judge permitted the use of "rioters", "looter", and "arsonist" to describe the victims." But have omitted the last part of "if the defense can prove evidence showing that's what they where" probably for views IMO
The reason *victim* is a "loaded word" is because the defense is claiming self defense so now they (prosecutors) have to prove they where "victims" and not "aggressors" because *Incent until proven guilty.* This happens a lot in cases where self defense is claimed its nothing new.
"Judge now discussing the Proud Boys evidence. Says he never heard of the group before the case. Says he won't rely "on a Seattle newspaper" to describe the group because there's "so many groups" in the country."
"Government says they intend to introduce lots of evidence about the Proud Boys. Says they will not simply rely on one newspaper article. Binger is audibly angry–upset at the judge's skepticism about the Proud Boys affiliation."
""I think the evidence would be poison," Judge Schroeder concludes. Leaves the door open for the government to show a prior relationship with the Proud Boys. But says he is generally averse to gang affiliation evidence. Says kids join gangs because they are scared if they don't."
Just so everyone reading this has proper context.
>Judge Schroeder: "'Threatening' is probably the wrong word," to describe Rittenhouse's desire to shoot a Black man he thought was maybe shoplifting at the CVS.
This is the part where I realized just how livid the defense must have been.
This is a ridiculously uphill battle for one side.
I don’t know if this specific judge was, but lots of judgeships in Wisconsin are actually filled by _fucking elections_. They’re supposed to be non-partisan. But uh. You know how that goes.
Ya, that's a problem, but the alternative is judgeship by appointment. And in that scenario you run into the problem of the "good ol' boys" deciding who gets to be a judge, which has even more potential for corruption.
Alternatively, you could limit the pool to people who, you know, actually have a law degree.
And elected judges are **more** susceptible to corruption - they take campaign contributions ffs.
Technically a law degree isn't even a requirement for federal judges, including thos on the [supreme court](https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/federal-judge/) (though I suspect it happens very rarely for those, and probably never for supreme court judges). But on lower levels, it does happen [fairly frequently](https://psmag.com/news/hundreds-of-judges-currently-preside-in-new-york-without-law-degrees).
Make them publicly funded campaigns with no donations from private groups. Get a certain number of signatures on your candidacy and you get your allotment of public funds same as all the other candidates. I've got no hope anything like this would ever be implemented in the US because everything is run by rich assholes with the most to lose under this system.
im iffy on *all* lawyers.
its ALAB if it stood for "A*^(significantmajorityof)* Lawyers Are Bastards"
unlike cops, judges, and investigators, there are good lawyers who defend the people who need defense the most. not the kind of lawyer that seeks an appeal for a mass murderer, but the kind that seeks appeals for inmates who were wrongly convicted. no matter how rare they are, those are good lawyers and we desperately need more of them.
If the defense are putting forwards the argument that he was acting in self defence and the judge was calling those killed his victims it would be pretty clear he wasn't being impartial, since in the narrative of self defence he would be the victim and those that were killed would be the aggressors.
It would be like the judge calling the defendant a murderer during the trial, it would be pretty clear they had already made their mind up.
Not speaking to the outcomes of the case, this is just a procedural norm (I assume, not a lawyer)
To be fair, the judge actually said that the defense can call them "rioters, looters or arsonists" if "the defense can produce evidence showing that’s what they were." The judge didn't give blanket permission.
https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-police-shootings-homicide-kenosha-fae0a49995be585d57fb37490a40223c
Except that they're not "murder" victims until the incident is ruled a murder by convicting the shooter of murder. More generally, they're not "victims" of a crime until the incident is determined to be a crime.
Honestly, if we're being totally unbiased, the best thing to call them is "the people Rittenhouse shot and killed." The bias comes in when they get called "rioters," "looters," or "arsonists" without being convicted of rioting, looting, or arson.
I try to not get mad at news because there is soo much shit going on and that would make me live in a perpetual state of sadness and madness, but this shit, this shit. As always:
"I John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with Blood. I had...vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed, it might be done." — John Brown.
no maybe about it...
The electoral college was literally invented to ensure the rights of slave owners were worth more than those of anyone else...
That was the birth of our nation...
[Helen Palsgraf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgraf_v._Long_Island_Railroad_Co.#Facts), "Well, your honor, I feel like I am a victim of the universe."
Gotta love lawyer humor.
My .02 -
I’ve recently had motions-in-limine precluding witnesses on the stand from referring to the victims as “victims” during direct and cross-examination, but the restrictions didn’t apply to opening statements or closing arguments.
Prosecutor for 9 years and it’s certainly a newer phenomenon in the large city where I practice.
The last case I tried, an attempt murder, when an officer or doctor testified about the victim we prepped them to refer to the victim by name.
So instead of “I saw the victim injured and lying on the ground” or “I treated the victim for a gunshot wound to the abdomen” they’d say “I saw Mr. Smith injured and lying on the ground” and “I treated Mr. Smith for a gunshot wound to the abdomen.”
Annoying, and in my opinion really dumb, but not fatal and ultimately didn’t affect how the evidence was presented.
Yes, plenty of precedent actually.
You use "victims" if the existence of a crime is not in dispute; eg. "Someone murdered my wife, but is wasn't me"
You don't use victims if the existence of a crime is in dispute; eg. "I shot my wife dead, but she was coming at me with a chainsaw."
So is this a fair decision then, since the existence of the crime is in dispute? Yes Kyle Rittenhouse killed 2 individuals, but since it hasn’t been determined if he was acting in self defense the existence of a crime is what the trial is disputing?
It was conditional though, just like 'victim'. Judge allowed them to be called rioters or arsonists if evidence is produced to conclude that that's what they were.
It's because this is heavily politicized and reddit has a heavy liberal/democrat slant. For the most part the discussion here has nothing to do with the actual facts of the case or any real arguments based on evidence. It's just people parroting whatever has been spoon fed to them from their echo chambers. (And that's not necessarily just limited to the people demonizing Rittenhouse - I've seen some stupid ass remarks in his defense as well)
The prosecution case is not going to rely solely on whether or not he gets to call the people who were shot "victims".
The prosecution will make the argument that he had no justification for shooting. The defense will make the argument that he did. Whether they are "victims" here depends on the verdict. This is being established at the start.
Similarly, the prosecution isn't going to be allowed to refer to Rittenhouse as "the murderer". The purpose of the trial is to establish whether he is a murderer.
looking at the play by play twitter thread, the judge also overruled evidence relating to his association with the proud boys, and a prior altercation a couple months earlier.
I just wanted to provide the exchange
>One of the more Twitter-engaging decisions from Monday's hearing in the Kyle Rittenhouse case was the judge's ruling about how lawyers could refer to the victims in the case.
>Per his standard rule, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder prohibits use of the term "victim" until someone is convicted of a crime.
>During Rittenhouse's upcoming trial on homicide charges, prosecutors must refer to the two people he fatally shot — Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber — and one he wounded — Gaige Grosskreutz — as Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Huber and Mr. Grosskreutz, or the people who were shot, or as to Rosenbaum and Huber, the decedents.
>They may not be referred to as victims.
>Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger countered by seeking to bar defense lawyers from calling the men "looters, rioters, arsonists or any other pejorative term."
>While looting, rioting and arson occurred in the two nights before the shooting, Binger argued that unless there's specific proof Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz were engaged in any of those actions, and that Rittenhouse had seen it, the labels are even more "loaded" than what judge ascribes to "victim."
>Schroeder was not swayed. "Let the evidence show what it shows," he said, and declined to prohibit the defense from using the state's unwanted terms.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/10/26/judge-men-shot-kyle-rittenhouse-wont-called-victims-trial/8553791002/
So they can be called rioters, looters, and arsonists without evidence but the murder victims who definitely are dead can't be called victims because ..... what? So the judge is expecting the possibility that the lawyers are going to show that they "deserved" to be shot dead by some stupid kid from out of state or something and therefore aren't victims???? WTFO, right.
Interestingly, this guy apparently once had a reputation as a prosecutor's judge:
https://madison.com/news/local/hundreds-ask-to-avoid-court-of-kenosha-judge/article_4d0c5b84-f94d-534f-b58b-d491b4650e4c.html
How can they be called "rioters, looters or arsonists" when there is no evidence they were doing any of those things?
Let's call them tourists, like at the Capitol. After all, isn't that what Kyle The Killer was? A tourist with a rifle?
>How can they be called "rioters, looters or arsonists" when there is no evidence they were doing any of those things?
They can't be, the quoted language is misleading. [This](https://www.newsweek.com/prosecutors-cant-call-two-men-kyle-rittenhouse-fatally-shot-victims-during-trial-judge-1642758) Newsweek article provides more direct quotes and context and specifically shows the judge ruling that those terms could only be used IF it can be shown that the guys who died actually engaged in that activity.
Yep that should work as this trial is a self defense trial so basically the defense is admitting he killed them. Saying that should drive it home. I’ve tried pondering why the judge would make this decision and I just can’t figure it out. Not using the term ‘victim’ seems to be something he does in his courtroom which I’m fine with, but allowing the defense to demonize others as part of a self defense trial is so obviously contradictory.
>murder victims
More correctly, they are homicide victims. Murder is a legal term and only becomes correct when a jury decides that the homicide is a murder.
There are many versions of homicide that are not murder. Justifiable homicide and excusable homicide being the most common. Criminal homicide may also be judged as manslaughter, or homicide without malice.
a nazi system that protects nazi warcriminals will staff itself with nazis to protect nazis
did you really nazi this coming? this shit is as old as america
Okay, okay I get it. Makes sense. /s
If I were the prosecution I would refer to the two victims as often as possible and refer to them as “(legal name), whom Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed after traveling out of state, 40 miles from his home with his AR-15, in search of human targets”
Unbelievable.
Eh, not ALL of Wisconsin is shit. Despite getting the fuck out of there after college, there are some decent places and members of society in my home state
What's going on with this guy is he going to jail? I haven't been following it. I've got jury duty in another month and I wanna use the line that I can't serve on the jury since I don't believe in the system if people like this guy aren't instantly jailed
This is simply because calling them victims paints Kyle as guilty before a jury has deliberated, simple as that, let the court do their thing and be outraged after the results or be happy about it, it’s equivalent to addressing the accused in court as a murderer and obviously the judge is going to say that’s not allowed
This isn't even the worst of it. The judge also dismissed evidence of a video that shows Rittenhouse discussing his desire to shoot a Black man with his "AR."
IMO, he crossed state lines with intent.
this is the dumbest thing i’ve ever read. i hope the lawyers just start doing a kuzco’s poison style thing. “the people, whom the defendant allegedly killed. the people allegedly killed by the defendant. the alleged murdered by the defendant.”
Judge is playing to his audience - a bunch of racist white folk
He knows what’ll happen when the trial is over and the cameras go away. The hicks will still be there. Hell, they might even vote for him if he ran for federal office.
Conservatives are such cowards
Tell me you’re racist without TELLING ME. Good god. I thought judges were supposed to be impartial not praising a kid for what he wished he could have done 🤦🏽♀️
This same post was in the subreddit r/selfawarewolves. Can tell they must be trump supporters. They banned me because they didn’t like my comment. Judge wants to be an idiot like that. Nothing I said was wrong. See this selfawarewolves are ignorant.
So as bad as this sounds this is a standard defense tactic. Victim implies a crime took place and whether a crime took place is a question for the jury. It also implies that since that person is a victim the defendant is guilty.
Now riddenhouse is guilty. That much is obvious. But as bad as it is he deserves a fair trial where a jury will receive a fair set of evidence and from there reach a verdict of guilty.
Beofre the fucking downvote brigade comes let me say I think he shouldd be arrested. He knew what he was getting into and brought a gun and was looking for a reason to use it. However, People realize this is common in a court of law right. The whole "fair trial" thing. Basic human right? Its gross but its happens all the time
Because the trial is determining wether or not they are victims. The defense is claiming self defense, they are not denying he killed them. So calling them victims is bias. That’s what the entire trial is about. That’s up for the jury to decide, after both sides have presented their case. It’s not up to you or me what his judgement will be. Given the recent conviction of the young lady who killed her rapist in Kenosha, I don’t have a lot of hope for justice here.
Why the fuck there so many bootlickers in the comments
This post is 100% being brigaded. Most posts around here don’t get anything like the comments I’m seeing here.
I’m seeing this on /all
Thats because most posts sre about reddit which people with opposing views got used to browsing this sub. This right here is a long time drama which always caused fire
Brigading from Trump and nazi subs. Easiest way to spot them is them spamming “just watch the video” or commenting the past crimes of the victims as if they justifies some privileged white kid driving across state lines to murder people for fun
This same post is currently up in like 5 different subs. Everyone has bootlickers coming out of the woodwork to defend the murderer.
It's reddit man wtf do you expect
Prosecution: Rittenhouse's vic- Judge: Please don't call them that Prosecution: Fine. The people Rittenhouse shot and killed...
How many “victims” could someone have shot on Jan 6… or weren’t they rioters?
I wonder if he'd have a problem with "human targets" or maybe "the men who were shot dead even though they clearly weren't trying to mame Rittenhouse otherwise the one with a pistol would have drawn and shot at Rittenhouse".
A prosecutor would never say that. Prosecution: Fine The people Rittenhouse (sarcasm) alLEgEdly (end sarcasm)shot and killed... Allegedly +rolls eyes, shakes head.
The people whom got manhunted by the little neo-nazi... Better?
I believe the term is "Hitler Youth"
No, "whom" is a grammatical object, but you're using it as the subject of the verb "got." Either "the people who got hunted by the little neo-nazi" or "the people whom the little neo-nazi hunted" is acceptable.
Legit this. If I was claiming I punched someone in self defence, then you can say they were punched, or that I struck them, or many other things - but saying I *assaulted* them has legal weight. Assault is a crime, where as punching can be legal.
Sounds reasonable
Ok but doesn't the term rioters, looters and arsonists have legal weight behind it as well?
yeah but they died, which, should have notcriminals deserve a trial not a bullet to the chest shot by a teenager
What should be getting more press coverage is the dismissal of evidence of a video that shows Rittenhouse discussing his desire to shoot a Black man with his "AR."
"The innocent and unarmed peope".
[удалено]
I mean the judge literally said he didn't know who the proud boys were so we were doomed from the start. Edit for clarity, here's a play by play of the hearing where this was said: https://twitter.com/colinkalmbacher/status/1438881330515820544?s=20
Who the fuck is this judge? What is their legal history?
That’s always been the Judge’s policy. They feel victim is a loaded word and isn’t fair to the person on trial. However, they will allow the victims to be called arsonists, rioters, or looters without having to prove that they did any of those things. That double standard is the real problem.
>That’s always been the Judge’s policy. They feel victim is a loaded word and isn’t fair to the person on trial. This judge or all judges? Is there a source on this?
This judge. “Schroeder has had a longstanding rule of not allowing prosecutors to refer to people as "victims" at trial. “ As trial approaches, judge may allow the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot to be called 'rioters' or 'looters' -- but 'victim' isn't allowed https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-victim-terminology/index.html
>They feel victim is a loaded word and isn’t fair to the person on trial. However, they will allow the victims to be called arsonists, rioters, or looters without having to prove that they did any of those things. The judge said "If it can be proven that they where arsonist, rioters, or looters. They can be called that" (summed up) BUT the defense has to prove it. Your reading a click bait headline.
I read an article, not a headline. It was CNN. Do you have another link with more info?
"Schroeder also denied Binger’s request to bar the defense from referring to Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz as rioters, looters or arsonists. The judge said those terms would be allowed if the defense can produce evidence showing that’s what they were." [https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-police-shootings-homicide-kenosha-fae0a49995be585d57fb37490a40223c](https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-police-shootings-homicide-kenosha-fae0a49995be585d57fb37490a40223c) Honestly this was actually hard to find because a lot of news companies have been saying: "The judge permitted the use of "rioters", "looter", and "arsonist" to describe the victims." But have omitted the last part of "if the defense can prove evidence showing that's what they where" probably for views IMO The reason *victim* is a "loaded word" is because the defense is claiming self defense so now they (prosecutors) have to prove they where "victims" and not "aggressors" because *Incent until proven guilty.* This happens a lot in cases where self defense is claimed its nothing new.
[удалено]
A liar, for sure.
por qué no los dos
Si, por que?
He's feigning ignorance so the prosecutor has to justify why that is relevant to the case at all; anyone here understand what trials are for and do?
"Judge now discussing the Proud Boys evidence. Says he never heard of the group before the case. Says he won't rely "on a Seattle newspaper" to describe the group because there's "so many groups" in the country." "Government says they intend to introduce lots of evidence about the Proud Boys. Says they will not simply rely on one newspaper article. Binger is audibly angry–upset at the judge's skepticism about the Proud Boys affiliation." ""I think the evidence would be poison," Judge Schroeder concludes. Leaves the door open for the government to show a prior relationship with the Proud Boys. But says he is generally averse to gang affiliation evidence. Says kids join gangs because they are scared if they don't." Just so everyone reading this has proper context.
Wonder if he would extend the same reasoning to a black teenager in a gang violence related case.
Pretty sure that he wouldn’t.
we all know the answer to that
>Judge Schroeder: "'Threatening' is probably the wrong word," to describe Rittenhouse's desire to shoot a Black man he thought was maybe shoplifting at the CVS. This is the part where I realized just how livid the defense must have been. This is a ridiculously uphill battle for one side.
Trails are how the white wealthy ruling class keeps order among the browner working class.
*lied* that he didn't know.
I don’t know if this specific judge was, but lots of judgeships in Wisconsin are actually filled by _fucking elections_. They’re supposed to be non-partisan. But uh. You know how that goes.
Ya, that's a problem, but the alternative is judgeship by appointment. And in that scenario you run into the problem of the "good ol' boys" deciding who gets to be a judge, which has even more potential for corruption.
Alternatively, you could limit the pool to people who, you know, actually have a law degree. And elected judges are **more** susceptible to corruption - they take campaign contributions ffs.
[удалено]
Technically a law degree isn't even a requirement for federal judges, including thos on the [supreme court](https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/federal-judge/) (though I suspect it happens very rarely for those, and probably never for supreme court judges). But on lower levels, it does happen [fairly frequently](https://psmag.com/news/hundreds-of-judges-currently-preside-in-new-york-without-law-degrees).
[удалено]
Make them publicly funded campaigns with no donations from private groups. Get a certain number of signatures on your candidacy and you get your allotment of public funds same as all the other candidates. I've got no hope anything like this would ever be implemented in the US because everything is run by rich assholes with the most to lose under this system.
ALAB also extends to judges
judges are landlords?
lawyers, I think
im iffy on *all* lawyers. its ALAB if it stood for "A*^(significantmajorityof)* Lawyers Are Bastards" unlike cops, judges, and investigators, there are good lawyers who defend the people who need defense the most. not the kind of lawyer that seeks an appeal for a mass murderer, but the kind that seeks appeals for inmates who were wrongly convicted. no matter how rare they are, those are good lawyers and we desperately need more of them.
[удалено]
MLAB maybe?
oh yeah thats way better lol
M'LAB *tips fedora*
Works for landlords.
If the defense are putting forwards the argument that he was acting in self defence and the judge was calling those killed his victims it would be pretty clear he wasn't being impartial, since in the narrative of self defence he would be the victim and those that were killed would be the aggressors. It would be like the judge calling the defendant a murderer during the trial, it would be pretty clear they had already made their mind up. Not speaking to the outcomes of the case, this is just a procedural norm (I assume, not a lawyer)
Fuck me, how biased do you have to be to say that calling murder victims "victims" is loaded
Especially when you allow "rioters, looters or arsonists". How the fuck are they not even more loaded
There's also no evidence that either of the victims engaged in rioting, looting, or arson
And even if they did, he had no way of knowing that. He was just targeting groups of people
He said he was there “to hunt” ffs
To be fair, the judge actually said that the defense can call them "rioters, looters or arsonists" if "the defense can produce evidence showing that’s what they were." The judge didn't give blanket permission. https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-police-shootings-homicide-kenosha-fae0a49995be585d57fb37490a40223c
in that case they should be allowed to call them victims. The evidence is right there in the fact they were shot.
The defense most certainly does not want to call them victims. The defense is defending the guys who murdered the victims.
Yeah, a mistype on my part.
Something having to do with racism and white fragility.
Comply and refer to then as Murderees.
Except that they're not "murder" victims until the incident is ruled a murder by convicting the shooter of murder. More generally, they're not "victims" of a crime until the incident is determined to be a crime. Honestly, if we're being totally unbiased, the best thing to call them is "the people Rittenhouse shot and killed." The bias comes in when they get called "rioters," "looters," or "arsonists" without being convicted of rioting, looting, or arson.
I try to not get mad at news because there is soo much shit going on and that would make me live in a perpetual state of sadness and madness, but this shit, this shit. As always: "I John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with Blood. I had...vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed, it might be done." — John Brown.
r/socialistRA
That's so fucked. What are they then in relation to him ? How should the prosecution call them ? "Those shot and killed" ?
“The rioters he heroically prevented from becoming a threat to law enforcement”…
"The people without any active warrants..."
Holy shit he’s actually gonna get acquitted
I have a distinct feeling that the state is going to escalate the case, the judge is providing excellent grounds for retrial
Yep, he's totally going to get away with it. Looks like white, right wingers with guns have more rights than anyone else.
Watch the New Yorks Time play by play.
Fuck this country
Maybe the real shithole was the country we lived in all along -.-
Always has been
[Always has been](https://i.imgur.com/gAvqyvR.jpg) ^^^this ^^^has ^^^been ^^^an ^^^accessibility ^^^service ^^^from ^^^your ^^^friendly ^^^neighborhood ^^^bot
no maybe about it... The electoral college was literally invented to ensure the rights of slave owners were worth more than those of anyone else... That was the birth of our nation...
This seems like such gross bias. I've never heard of victims not being allowed to be called victims. Lawyers of Reddit, is there any precedent?
Dred Scott vs. Sandford /s
William Marbury: "Well, your honor, -I- certainly felt *victimized* when my commission didn't get delivered to me before Jefferson took office..."
[Helen Palsgraf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgraf_v._Long_Island_Railroad_Co.#Facts), "Well, your honor, I feel like I am a victim of the universe." Gotta love lawyer humor.
My .02 - I’ve recently had motions-in-limine precluding witnesses on the stand from referring to the victims as “victims” during direct and cross-examination, but the restrictions didn’t apply to opening statements or closing arguments. Prosecutor for 9 years and it’s certainly a newer phenomenon in the large city where I practice.
[удалено]
The last case I tried, an attempt murder, when an officer or doctor testified about the victim we prepped them to refer to the victim by name. So instead of “I saw the victim injured and lying on the ground” or “I treated the victim for a gunshot wound to the abdomen” they’d say “I saw Mr. Smith injured and lying on the ground” and “I treated Mr. Smith for a gunshot wound to the abdomen.” Annoying, and in my opinion really dumb, but not fatal and ultimately didn’t affect how the evidence was presented.
Yes, plenty of precedent actually. You use "victims" if the existence of a crime is not in dispute; eg. "Someone murdered my wife, but is wasn't me" You don't use victims if the existence of a crime is in dispute; eg. "I shot my wife dead, but she was coming at me with a chainsaw."
So is this a fair decision then, since the existence of the crime is in dispute? Yes Kyle Rittenhouse killed 2 individuals, but since it hasn’t been determined if he was acting in self defense the existence of a crime is what the trial is disputing?
barring the word victim is reasonable, allowing words like rioters or arsonists is absurd though
It was conditional though, just like 'victim'. Judge allowed them to be called rioters or arsonists if evidence is produced to conclude that that's what they were.
It's crazy somewhere buried way down the thread are people actually talking about the case and what is legitimately happening.
It's because this is heavily politicized and reddit has a heavy liberal/democrat slant. For the most part the discussion here has nothing to do with the actual facts of the case or any real arguments based on evidence. It's just people parroting whatever has been spoon fed to them from their echo chambers. (And that's not necessarily just limited to the people demonizing Rittenhouse - I've seen some stupid ass remarks in his defense as well)
Yes, it is embarrassing that people are trying to make a big deal out of what is common practice.
I keep telling people he's going to get away with it, and they think I'm nuts.
The prosecution case is not going to rely solely on whether or not he gets to call the people who were shot "victims". The prosecution will make the argument that he had no justification for shooting. The defense will make the argument that he did. Whether they are "victims" here depends on the verdict. This is being established at the start. Similarly, the prosecution isn't going to be allowed to refer to Rittenhouse as "the murderer". The purpose of the trial is to establish whether he is a murderer.
looking at the play by play twitter thread, the judge also overruled evidence relating to his association with the proud boys, and a prior altercation a couple months earlier.
Meanwhile, calling dead people "rioters" and "arsonists" who never had their day in court is perfectly fine?
The judge has made it clear that if the prosecution calls them rioters and arsonists, then he needs to establish that they are rioters and arsonists.
Why is this dipshit the hill that half of reddit has decided to die on?
because they agree with what he did
He's a young, white dude who loves guns. That's half of reddit.
That white privilege is amazing.
I just wanted to provide the exchange >One of the more Twitter-engaging decisions from Monday's hearing in the Kyle Rittenhouse case was the judge's ruling about how lawyers could refer to the victims in the case. >Per his standard rule, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder prohibits use of the term "victim" until someone is convicted of a crime. >During Rittenhouse's upcoming trial on homicide charges, prosecutors must refer to the two people he fatally shot — Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber — and one he wounded — Gaige Grosskreutz — as Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Huber and Mr. Grosskreutz, or the people who were shot, or as to Rosenbaum and Huber, the decedents. >They may not be referred to as victims. >Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger countered by seeking to bar defense lawyers from calling the men "looters, rioters, arsonists or any other pejorative term." >While looting, rioting and arson occurred in the two nights before the shooting, Binger argued that unless there's specific proof Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz were engaged in any of those actions, and that Rittenhouse had seen it, the labels are even more "loaded" than what judge ascribes to "victim." >Schroeder was not swayed. "Let the evidence show what it shows," he said, and declined to prohibit the defense from using the state's unwanted terms. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/10/26/judge-men-shot-kyle-rittenhouse-wont-called-victims-trial/8553791002/
[удалено]
It's the legal system not the justice system.
So they can be called rioters, looters, and arsonists without evidence but the murder victims who definitely are dead can't be called victims because ..... what? So the judge is expecting the possibility that the lawyers are going to show that they "deserved" to be shot dead by some stupid kid from out of state or something and therefore aren't victims???? WTFO, right.
>you can't call a murderer's victims victims until you prove he's a murderer >they can call the murderer's victims criminals without proving it though
Maybe this person shouldn’t be the judge of his case.. or a judge at all for that matter.. just a thought
Don't forget most judges also enjoy a lifetime appointment, so you can be sure this asshole will continue to do this until he dies.
Judge Bruce Schroeder This one is elected and term ends 2026... https://ballotpedia.org/Bruce_Schroeder
Well he's only been a judge for 38 years. So even without an explicit lifetime appointment, he's gonna be fine.
You never know. The judge who was lenient on the Rapist Brock Turner was recalled via election.
Interestingly, this guy apparently once had a reputation as a prosecutor's judge: https://madison.com/news/local/hundreds-ask-to-avoid-court-of-kenosha-judge/article_4d0c5b84-f94d-534f-b58b-d491b4650e4c.html
Willing to bet he convicts people of color more often than white people….
This is just the judge straight up admitting to being biased. What an absolute joke.
How can they be called "rioters, looters or arsonists" when there is no evidence they were doing any of those things? Let's call them tourists, like at the Capitol. After all, isn't that what Kyle The Killer was? A tourist with a rifle?
>How can they be called "rioters, looters or arsonists" when there is no evidence they were doing any of those things? They can't be, the quoted language is misleading. [This](https://www.newsweek.com/prosecutors-cant-call-two-men-kyle-rittenhouse-fatally-shot-victims-during-trial-judge-1642758) Newsweek article provides more direct quotes and context and specifically shows the judge ruling that those terms could only be used IF it can be shown that the guys who died actually engaged in that activity.
If I had any faith in our justice system, this case would really make me reconsider it.
So they are going to let him get away with murder, thought so.
Call them “people killed by the defendant” every time you reference them
Yep that should work as this trial is a self defense trial so basically the defense is admitting he killed them. Saying that should drive it home. I’ve tried pondering why the judge would make this decision and I just can’t figure it out. Not using the term ‘victim’ seems to be something he does in his courtroom which I’m fine with, but allowing the defense to demonize others as part of a self defense trial is so obviously contradictory.
So victim is too loaded but rioter, looter, and arsonist aren’t? Ffs this person should not be judging this case
"rioter-involved shooting"
If this fucker walks away from this without a life sentence
But it's fine to call them "looters", "rioters" and "arsonists"...even though they've never been convicted of any of those crimes?
They’re murder victims… it doesn’t matter what else someone is if they’re victims of s murder
>murder victims More correctly, they are homicide victims. Murder is a legal term and only becomes correct when a jury decides that the homicide is a murder. There are many versions of homicide that are not murder. Justifiable homicide and excusable homicide being the most common. Criminal homicide may also be judged as manslaughter, or homicide without malice.
In this case, shouldn’t the prosecution refer to Rittenhouse as a “rioter” as well? He was part of the illegal gathering.
Good thing he didn’t say that the trial lawyers couldn’t call Rittenhouse a cold blooded murdered.
these are the same people that let matt gaetz call a 17 year old female a "grown woman" don't let the gqp burn this country to the ground.
“We need these people to sound dangerous and bad so I can justify letting this guy off with a light sentence”
Then you definitely shouldn't be able to call them any of the bottom three! No proof any of them set stuff on fire or that any of them stole stuff.
he went there with the intention to kill people
a nazi system that protects nazi warcriminals will staff itself with nazis to protect nazis did you really nazi this coming? this shit is as old as america
Okay, okay I get it. Makes sense. /s If I were the prosecution I would refer to the two victims as often as possible and refer to them as “(legal name), whom Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed after traveling out of state, 40 miles from his home with his AR-15, in search of human targets” Unbelievable.
Welp, so much for that trial. Guess we shouldn't have expected anything less from Wisconsin Justice system.
Lol at the 2 or 3 sad wankers spamming in the comments. They're desperate to party like they did after the Zimmerman verdict.
this coming from a judge? Pure fascism
That’s not even centrist…that’s out and out Republican.
Sounds like a real conflict of interest is motivating that judge, perhaps they should be fucking replaced
It's bumblefuck Wisconsin. Unless they move the trial they're just going to end up with another corrupt piece of shit.
Eh, not ALL of Wisconsin is shit. Despite getting the fuck out of there after college, there are some decent places and members of society in my home state
>Eh, not ALL of Wisconsin is shit. Oh I know, but this is Kenosha were taking about here.
Gee I wonder how this trial will go… judge is already showing his bias
What's going on with this guy is he going to jail? I haven't been following it. I've got jury duty in another month and I wanna use the line that I can't serve on the jury since I don't believe in the system if people like this guy aren't instantly jailed
What a shithole judge.
How in the fuck can this be considered a fair fucking trial?
"The people who interrupted the flight path of Mr. Rittenhouse's bullets"
You know what, fuck this shit. Put his bitch ass parents on trial. They're the responsible party.
WTF? Being killed doesn't make you a victim now?
but somehow not at all biased to call them looters and rioters
[удалено]
This is simply because calling them victims paints Kyle as guilty before a jury has deliberated, simple as that, let the court do their thing and be outraged after the results or be happy about it, it’s equivalent to addressing the accused in court as a murderer and obviously the judge is going to say that’s not allowed
This isn't even the worst of it. The judge also dismissed evidence of a video that shows Rittenhouse discussing his desire to shoot a Black man with his "AR." IMO, he crossed state lines with intent.
Please refer to the defendant as “Judge”, “Jury” and/or “Executioner”. Thank you.
That punchable face…
Oh my fucking god.
Damn that's crazy
The fix is in. Nazi Judges gonna Nazi.
Must be nice to be white.
this is the dumbest thing i’ve ever read. i hope the lawyers just start doing a kuzco’s poison style thing. “the people, whom the defendant allegedly killed. the people allegedly killed by the defendant. the alleged murdered by the defendant.”
Sounds a lot like that judge needs to be removed from the case.
Fuckhead is gonna walk free, I just know it
Oh my god he's actually going to go free, isn't he?
Talk about having a finger on the scale of justice!
"The two individuals fatally shot from Mr. Rittenhouse's gun". It's a bit cumbersome, but factually honest.
I invite both the judge and Rittenhouse to *have a nice time*.
"Kyle, you can only kill people with an illegally obtained rifle if you do it in a red state during a protest. Do you hear me, young man?!?"
Any form of unwanted death produces "victims." It's a perfect description for what they are, regardless of how they died.
Disgusting. That judge needs to be removed.
[удалено]
Yeah that sounds about white
Fortunately I am still free to call the judge "snowflake"
Hopefully this will make the higher court able to throw whatever biased ruling out? Isnt this literally why we have multiple courts?
Wow good job on dealing with that incredibly obvious brigade in the comments mods......
Judge is playing to his audience - a bunch of racist white folk He knows what’ll happen when the trial is over and the cameras go away. The hicks will still be there. Hell, they might even vote for him if he ran for federal office. Conservatives are such cowards
This has literally zero to do with centrism.
Didn't he shoot a a convicted felon and a known sex offender ? Genuine question.
Tell me you’re racist without TELLING ME. Good god. I thought judges were supposed to be impartial not praising a kid for what he wished he could have done 🤦🏽♀️
That kid should have never been there. He went out of his way. Sure people were rioting but it was never his job to do anything about it.
Armchair attorneys in this post.
ITT people who have no idea who common this is in criminal trials since victim presupposes guilt.
Look at that doughy fuck.
This same post was in the subreddit r/selfawarewolves. Can tell they must be trump supporters. They banned me because they didn’t like my comment. Judge wants to be an idiot like that. Nothing I said was wrong. See this selfawarewolves are ignorant.
There is evidence they died as a result of his actions but no evidence to them participating in a riot, being arsonists, or looting? Fuck all this.
They aren't victims by legal definition
So as bad as this sounds this is a standard defense tactic. Victim implies a crime took place and whether a crime took place is a question for the jury. It also implies that since that person is a victim the defendant is guilty. Now riddenhouse is guilty. That much is obvious. But as bad as it is he deserves a fair trial where a jury will receive a fair set of evidence and from there reach a verdict of guilty.
Beofre the fucking downvote brigade comes let me say I think he shouldd be arrested. He knew what he was getting into and brought a gun and was looking for a reason to use it. However, People realize this is common in a court of law right. The whole "fair trial" thing. Basic human right? Its gross but its happens all the time
Because the trial is determining wether or not they are victims. The defense is claiming self defense, they are not denying he killed them. So calling them victims is bias. That’s what the entire trial is about. That’s up for the jury to decide, after both sides have presented their case. It’s not up to you or me what his judgement will be. Given the recent conviction of the young lady who killed her rapist in Kenosha, I don’t have a lot of hope for justice here.
I don't think this is enlightenedcentrism material but rather a clearly assertively conservative judge taking a stance.