Not enough Whisky for this Tango Foxtrot

[Inanna]

Argh; how horrible.

[elengil]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/27/us/kyle- ... index.html

As trial approaches, judge will allow the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot to potentially be called 'rioters' or 'looters' -- but 'victim' isn't allowed

Isn't victim a legal term??

So can they call him a terrorist??

[Dave_LF]

Whether they're his victims or not is precisely what is being decided by the trial, and to refer to them as such before a verdict is rendered presupposes the outcome. I'm told this is all very standard.

[elengil]

They are victims, they're dead. Maybe the question is whether he is responsible for their deaths, but how can it be argued they weren't victims?

[Dave_LF]

I am leaving what I know now and conjecturing: not all dead people are victims; only ones who die as a result of wrongdoing. My guess is that the defense plans to claim the killings were justified, which would imply that the person who *did* the shooting is the (would-be) victim, rather than the other way around.

[elengil]

But that argues that without a conviction they may not be victims, how can they be painted as perpetrators without likewise first having their trial to determine if they were "looters" or "rioters"?? This judge seems to be willing to accept their guilt without trial as a starter. That would seem to unfairly bias the jury in favor of the defendant if you can just call the ones he shot criminals right from the start.

[Dave_LF]

I don't know why those two terms were deemed ok. Perhaps because the alleged victims aren't the ones on trial. Or perhaps because the prosecution isn't contesting that point.

ETA: Check this twitter thread. Among other things, claims the terms "rioters" and "looters" will only be permitted in closing arguments, and even then only if the rest of the trial establishes it first. The prosecution likewise will be allowed to refer to R as a "murderer" in closing if they establish that. Also:

Victim in this sense is a legal term with a legal proposition that a crime has been committed. It’s prejudicial. This is the ruling that should be made on behalf of all defendants just never is in cases of poor BIPOC Black clients… that’s the upsetting part here.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't have a problem with the judge's ruling that the two men who were killed should not be referred to as victims; that does have the potential to have an unduly prejudicial effect on the jury. I do have a problem with the judge's ruling that the defense should be allowed to refer to them as "rioters" and even worse as "looters". There is no evidence that I am aware of that they were remotely engaging in looting, nor were they "rioting". They were protesting, and that is how they should be referred to as. Referring to them using those terms would be at least as prejudicial as referring to them as victims.

x-posted with Dave. I did not look at the twitter thread.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The tweeter does make a reasonable point that would the judge actually ruled is that the defense can use those terms in closing argument if they present evidence to support the terms in the trial. But, of course, evidence is in the eyes of the beholder. The key question will be if the defense simply tries to present the opinion that those men were engaging in looting or rioting and the judge allows that to be presented and then referred to in the trial. Time will tell.

[elengil]

I honestly don't understand how they can paint the people he shot as criminals without a trial (whatever 'evidence' they might present) while not daring to imply the people he shot were actually victims of being shot. If calling them victims is prone to biasing the trial, then calling them looters and rioters is moreso!

[Frelga]

I've also seen it mentioned that the judge barred mentions of Rittenhouse's alleged connections to white supremacist movement.

Onion is on the case.

[RoseMorninStar]

[Frelga]

Trick-Or-Treat With Former General Michael Flynn On Halloween

Among other monsters.

[Impenitent]

If they died of gunshot wounds are they not gunshot victims? Sounds like Newspeak to me.

[Inanna]

Very valid point, Imp.

[elengil]

If they died of gunshot wounds are they not gunshot victims? Sounds like Newspeak to me.

That was my point exactly - even if they are not *his* victims, they are victims. But really what this case seems to come down to is not if they were his victims - since his shooting them is not what is in question - but whether he was justified in shooting them. I can't help but think the judge has already made up his mind on that point.

[Dave_LF]

These terms have legal definitions. Those definitions matter. Seriously; there are tons of things to be worked up about in the world right now, but this is not one of them.

[elengil]

These terms have legal definitions. Those definitions matter. Seriously; there are tons of things to be worked up about in the world right now, but this is not one of them.

Because they are being denied the label victim, but not the label of criminal.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree with Dave. People are looking at this with a knee-jerk reaction without thinking it through. It is a bedrock principal of our legal system that a defendant is not only presumed to be innocent but is entitled to make a defense. In this case, Rittenhouse's defense is that the killing were in self-defense. Referring to the men that he shot as victims up front would prejudice his ability to make that defense. The bigger question is how much leeway the judge gives the defense to portray those men in a false light. If there is truly valid evidence that they were engaged in looting or some kind of rioting that was not protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake, the defense absolutely should be able to present it; it would be travesty of justice not to allow the defense to do so. But the defense should be allowed present a tapestry of speculation and non-fact-based opinion about what those men were doing. It remains to be seen how that plays out.

[Frelga]

What's the deal with the "Biden will pay illegal immigrants 450K" panic?