With the horrible ruling by the judge in the Rittenberg pre trail hearing.....

[imanamerican63]

now maybe it also will apply to the January 6th rioters? The rioters can’t sat they were the victims? Our justice system is really messed up? A 17 year old can shoot down 3 people and they aren’t victims?

[sop]

1. The prosecutor should just refer to these victims as "the unarmed men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse"

over and over again during the entire trial.

[Journeyman]

3. Or just call them "targets" . . .

[madville]

8. One of them was armed with a handgun

So it would be incorrect to say they were all unarmed. I’m sure his defense will argue that the skateboard the other guy was swinging at him could be considered a potentially deadly weapon also. I think it’s 50/50 he gets convicted, gonna be tough to get a unanimous jury decision for sure.

[marybourg]

2. Innocent until proven guilty.

That means we don’t assume that he “shot down 3 people” until it’s proven in court. So we don’t know if there are any “victims”, only “deceased” and/or “injured”.

Please don’t attribute any ideology to me because I took the time to explain this to you. Civics classes in middle school should have taken on this role, but apparently don’t any more.

[sop]

4. It has already been established Rittenhouse shot these men. That fact is not in dispute, not even

by Rittenhouse's own defense attorney(s). So, yes, we can assume he "shot down 3 people."

The judge said the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in August 2020 can be referred to at his trial as "rioters" or "looters" since his lawyers maintain the kid "acted in self-defense" when he fatally shot two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. That's inflammatory, even an assumption of guilt. Perhaps the judge was sleeping during his middle school civics class?

The three protesters were shot during a demonstration against the police shooting of a Black man by an underage boy with an illegal assault weapon. Rittenhouse claims he was among armed civilians who said they were there to protect businesses after nights of arson and looting. That is vigilantism.

[marybourg]

5. I defer to your superior knowledge.

[Midnightwalk]

6. Is it really that cut and dry?

I’m not a lawyer so take this as an honest question.

If it was a general rule that prosecutors can’t use the term victim it seemed to me that the answer would have been “of course you can’t”, not that it was the judge’s general rule to not allow it.

So I did some googling. Yeah probably a dangerous thing for a non expert.

The first thing I found was that the defense in the Ahmaud Arbery case also tried to block the use of the word victim. I found other rulings by the judge but couldn’t find what the judge ruled on the use of “victim”. Oh well.

Then I found this. It’s from a victim advocacy group so may not be 100% objective

Generally, a prosecutor may not express his
or her personal opinion on a defendant’s guilt. Defendants often object to a prosecutor’s use
of the term “victim”, arguing that it reflects
the government’s belief that the defendant is guilty. Specifically, they argue that the jury will give special weight to this opinion based on the prestige of the prosecutor and the fact-finding facilities available to the office. However, courts have rejected this argument based on jurors’ knowledge of the criminal justice system and
the role of prosecutors in the criminal trial.27

Any reference by the prosecutor to a victim
will be viewed as merely part of the state’s contention that, based on the state’s evidence, the complainant was a victim of the alleged crimes.28

For these reasons, courts have concluded that
it is not reasonably likely that a jury would interpret the prosecutor’s use of the term to reflect a personal belief in a defendant’s guilt. Even courts that have found that the prosecutor’s use of the term “victim” was in error have concluded that a standard jury instruction – that the comments of prosecutor are not evidence
and should be disregarded – will remove any prejudice that may arise.2

[link:https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/21940-use-of-the-term-victim-in-crim-proc11th-edpdf|]

I will say I wouldn’t want the judge to follow their arguments if I were on trial, but would if I were the victim. Innocent until proven guilty is a strong argument but I’m not sure if that clinches this argument.

I guess I’m really asking for some perspective on how often judges rule one way or the other on prosecutor’s use of “victim”?

[Buckeyeblue]

7. I don't think it will matter

The first trial might be a hung jury. The second trial will result in a conviction. It's my understanding that he was in illegal possession of a gun. He put himself in the middle of the protest. And then he decided to shoot three people.

I don't see how he avoids taking the witness stand, especially since he is claiming self defense. He's going to have to explain his state of mind. And then he will be torn apart on cross examination. A 17 year old does not have the life experience to manage an aggressive cross examination.

And once in prison he'll be forgotten about.

[madville]

10. Him being in illegal possession of the gun doesn't matter

He can still potentially successfully claim self defense even while also being in illegal possession of the gun. Courts have previously found that even convicted felons in illegal possession of a firearm can have a legal right to self defense with a firearm.

[brooklynite]

9. The Jan 6 cases are Federal not State.