Men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse can't be called 'victims' at trial, but may be called 'looters,' judge

[muriel_volestrangler]

... says

Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder has a standard rule prohibiting use of the term "victim" until someone is convicted of a crime, and Schroeder said the people shot by Rittenhouse could not be called victims.

Schroeder was also not swayed by a request from Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger 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 the people shot by Rittenhouse engaged in any of those actions, and that Rittenhouse had seen it, the labels are even more "loaded" than what judge ascribes to "victim."

"Let the evidence show what it shows," Schroeder said. He declined to prohibit the defense from using the state's unwanted terms.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/26/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-victims/8557603002/

So the judge is hopelessly biased in favour of the killer. Fuck. The prosecution is, of course, right; "looters, rioters, arsonists" are extremely pejorative terms; there has been no trial to show they apply to the people Rittenhouse killed. 'Victim' is not that pejorative; accidents have 'victims'. Since there's no dispute that Rittenhouse killed them, it's only a question of whether his self-defense claim holds up; we know they were his targets. Here's hoping the jury tells the judge where to stick his attempt at poisoning the trial.

[Skittles]

1. can Rittenhouse be called a double murderer

because that is exactly what he is

[Walleye]

2. From the news reports the people he shot we're not looting or rioting. They were there for a protest

[MontanaMama]

3. What a sham.

I’ve got no words.

[Takket]

4. this is OUTRAGEOUS

i can understand not using the word "victims" because that implies their death was a crime, and it is up to the jury to make that determination.

but in the same sense, allowing the defense to directly say that the people this shitbag murdered were criminals? Where the hell is their due process? Why don't we just call them pedophiles and drug dealers too as long as we're allowed to assassinate their character because it helps justify them being shot? This is allowing the defense to assign in the court something as a fact that absolutely they have NOT proved and that is a miscarriage of justice.

EDIT: Sorry, i missed that they have to PROVE they were rioting before being able to say that.

[maxsolomon]

7. There's no indication that any of them were doing anything but protesting

and then attempting to restrain Rittenhouse after he'd already killed Joe Rosenbaum.

Gage Grosskruetz and his crippled arm better be put on the stand - although, as a medic who was armed, he'll get cross examined into being the New Face of Antifa.

[Nevilledog]

8. I've held off commenting on this because I'm ultimately lazy. However.....

The judge ruled that the defense could NOT call the victims criminals during the opening statements, and there would have to be SPECIFIC PROOF of any criminal wrongdoing by the victims before the defense could raise the issue in CLOSING arguments.

It's really not a bizarre ruling by the judge, and things come up during trial that are unexpected, and issues are ongoing.

The use of the word "victim" is a little more nuanced. Jurors are the finders of fact. The use of "victim" implies to many people that there was criminal wrongdoing. At a trial, that determination isn't reached until the verdict. It will be abundantly clear to the jury who was killed, and that won't be affected by not using the word "victim".

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. OK, a link for that would be helpful

because neither the USA Today nor their linked Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article mention opening or closing arguments.

[Nevilledog]

10. Here you go

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-murder-trial-looters-rioters-prosecutors-20211025-3vr7rdlo6zbzhmdsz3bvol4kxm-story.html

*snip*

Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder cautioned the defense team against using pejorative terms during opening statements, but he said they could use them in their closing arguments if the evidence suggested the men engaged in criminal acts.

*snip*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/26/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-victims/

*snip*

Schroeder said that while he advised Rittenhouse’s team against using pejorative terms to describe the three men shot, such language could be used in their closing arguments if evidence shows the men participated in criminal acts. Schroeder said Mark Richards, one of Rittenhouse’s attorneys, could “demonize them if he wants, if he thinks it will win points with the jury,” according to the Chicago Tribune, the first to report the news.

“If more than one of them were engaged in arson, rioting, looting, I’m not going to tell the defense you can’t call them that,” the judge said. Grosskreutz, the lone survivor of the shooting, has not been charged with a crime from that night.

*snip*



I think the reporting on this is sloppy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. OK, so this is about the closing arguments; but he's still banning "victims", and allowing "rioters"

and so on. That is despite this trial being about the shooting of these people, and the defense hoping to justify the shooting by showing the dead as "arsonists, looters and rioters". The judge is saying that he will put the dead on trial, and allow the defense to act as if they've proved their claims (in his idea of how words are pejorative), while, no matter how much proof the prosecution produce of the shootings being unlawful, he won't allow them, at the same stage (ie closing) to say "victim".

The reporting could mention "in closing arguments" more, but they're all correct in saying that, at a given stage of the trial, the defense will be allowed to call the dead (and, if they dare, the survivor) criminals, without a proper trial of them, but the prosecution won't be allowed to imply that a crime was committed against them (although "victim" does not always imply a crime), even after they've presented all the evidence, and the accused has had a chance to reply (which the dead won't get).

[Nevilledog]

14. Just came across this thread....says what I said, but more detailed (worth the read)

Link to tweet

Unrolled thread here
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1453065482655907854.html

[LetMyPeopleVote]

18. Asking for a legal opinion here: at what point does the rise to mistrial level weirdness?

Link to tweet

[Nevilledog]

19. Yikes!

I'd be making constant motions for mistrial. Not likely to win at the trial level when your grounds are "Judge, you're a nut job."

[stillcool]

11. Being shot dead in the street, on video

doesn't qualify for victim, I don't know what does. Republicans love pouring salt in the wound. I feel bad for the other victims. Those who loved the people the Judge has decided are guilty of crimes they were never charged with. Sounds really effed up,

[global1]

12. Can They Be Referred To As "The Deceased Men"?.....

They are men and they are deceased. What would be wrong with that?

[sakabatou]

13. This is case is going to be blasted, one way or the other

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. This judge needs to go

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

17. This judge is upset at his press coverage

This judge is making bad rulings and is upset that people disagree with these bad rulings

Link to tweet