Question about the use of looters, etc. In closing arguments. The judge said the defendants could use those terms of they'd shown evidence that the killed people were such, but wouldn't the killed people have the presumption of innocence as well since they weren't arrested and charged with those crimes? How would the defendants prove those terms applied?
This is what I was wondering. I mean how is it not improper for the judge to declare that the victims of a crime can’t be called victims? And they claim liberals are all about censorship? This judge is fucking cracked!
isn't it an order of magnitude tho? Rittenhouse isn't being charged with killing two people who were committing a long running campaign of abuse against him, complete with beatings, gaslighting and threats against the lives of himself and his loved ones, he's being charged with illegally buying a weapon, crossing state lines and shooting people that had different political and social values to him. Hell, he didn't even know them, he wasn't even aiming specifically at them as people, just as moving targets he didn't like. So in that case they are his victims. And in the case of domestic violence, well the husband probably would be called the victim, but so would the person who feared for her life... or that's my take on the above point :)
'persons allegedly killed by the defendent', 'father and husband allegedly murdered by the defendent', 'beloved son allegedly gunned down while running away from the defendent', 'unarmed man allegedly shot to death while running from the defendent'
I'm not a lawyer so I won't presume to answer definitively, but: since the purpose would be just to establish portions of Rittenhouse's self-defense claim, it wouldn't be necessary to establish it well enough to convict them in a court of law, only that Rittenhouse had solid reason to think they were those things. Even then, I don't imagine that is sufficient for his self-defense plea to hold; presumably that might be a component of it, but there would probably also have to be an imminent threat to Rittenhouse's life or someone else's.
Based on how this is blown up, it's easy to infer that this is some fundamental of this trial: if Rittenhouse's attorney can say that they're looters then Rittenhouse goes free. I don't think it's that at all. This is more a matter of somebody on Twitter getting everyone up in arms about something that seems to be pretty ordinary, and it takes on a life of its own.
It hasn't come up in particular, but I have my concerns about this judge based on other aspects of this case, but: 1) these particular instructions don't trouble me, and 2) frankly I'd want to investigate those concerns about this judge in depth before making a thing of them, lest I become part of the problem.
"This is what I was wondering. I mean how is it not improper for the judge to declare that the victims of a crime can’t be called victims?"
See, that's the problem right there: it's not clear that a crime was committed at all. Rittenhouse's claim is that it was self-defense, which would mean no crime was committed. Yeah, you and I are pretty convinced that Rittenhouse is murdering scum, and the people he killed are victims of his murderous impulses. But trials don't start with any assumptions like that; indeed, they start with a presumption of innocence. So calling the people Rittenhouse killed "victims" would be just as prejudicial as calling Rittenhouse a "murderer".
Think of it this way. Suppose there were a woman who shot and killed her husband, and because you know the situation, you know the husband was abusive, and you believe the woman when she says he'd picked up a knife and threatened to kill her. Now, how would you feel about the prosecutor referring to the abusive husband as the "victim" in this scenario? It'd be prejudicial as hell, and you'd think it was wrong, right? The only real difference in the two cases is whether the term "victim" agrees with the verdict you hope will be delivered in the end.
Can't wait for the little bastard to be set free, then start painting American Flags, beat up his girlfriends, sell the assault rifle MURDER WEAPON he used on Ebay, etc etc.
We've seen all this before, and we'll see it all again, because I've just lost all faith in humanity these days.
Our side is addicted to outrage, and that hurts us a lot. It kills us on Election Day because we found some overblown "scandal" to be outraged about (e.g. Hillary's "corruption"), and it makes it difficult for us to process news that doesn't involve simple Good Vs Evil narratives.
If we calmed down just long enough to get the facts, we'd be a much better Liberal Wing.
Here is a public defender going into the details; I recommend watching it because she added a layer to this that I didn't understand. There are peculiarities of Wisconsin law that make it more relevant for the defense whether the decedents (a.k.a. murder victims) have violent histories. That'd be the "Jackson" part she gets into. I'll teal deer it though: she feels the judge made very sensible, reasonable calls, and he doesn't deserve the outrage.
when he goes out for dinner sometime.
Run-up to fascism and genocide, maybe?
Question about the use of looters, etc. In closing arguments. The judge said the defendants could use those terms of they'd shown evidence that the killed people were such, but wouldn't the killed people have the presumption of innocence as well since they weren't arrested and charged with those crimes? How would the defendants prove those terms applied?
That judge has an appeal about him.
This is what I was wondering. I mean how is it not improper for the judge to declare that the victims of a crime can’t be called victims? And they claim liberals are all about censorship? This judge is fucking cracked!
isn't it an order of magnitude tho? Rittenhouse isn't being charged with killing two people who were committing a long running campaign of abuse against him, complete with beatings, gaslighting and threats against the lives of himself and his loved ones, he's being charged with illegally buying a weapon, crossing state lines and shooting people that had different political and social values to him. Hell, he didn't even know them, he wasn't even aiming specifically at them as people, just as moving targets he didn't like. So in that case they are his victims. And in the case of domestic violence, well the husband probably would be called the victim, but so would the person who feared for her life... or that's my take on the above point :)
'persons allegedly killed by the defendent', 'father and husband allegedly murdered by the defendent', 'beloved son allegedly gunned down while running away from the defendent', 'unarmed man allegedly shot to death while running from the defendent'
I'm not a lawyer so I won't presume to answer definitively, but: since the purpose would be just to establish portions of Rittenhouse's self-defense claim, it wouldn't be necessary to establish it well enough to convict them in a court of law, only that Rittenhouse had solid reason to think they were those things. Even then, I don't imagine that is sufficient for his self-defense plea to hold; presumably that might be a component of it, but there would probably also have to be an imminent threat to Rittenhouse's life or someone else's.
Based on how this is blown up, it's easy to infer that this is some fundamental of this trial: if Rittenhouse's attorney can say that they're looters then Rittenhouse goes free. I don't think it's that at all. This is more a matter of somebody on Twitter getting everyone up in arms about something that seems to be pretty ordinary, and it takes on a life of its own.
It hasn't come up in particular, but I have my concerns about this judge based on other aspects of this case, but: 1) these particular instructions don't trouble me, and 2) frankly I'd want to investigate those concerns about this judge in depth before making a thing of them, lest I become part of the problem.
"This is what I was wondering. I mean how is it not improper for the judge to declare that the victims of a crime can’t be called victims?"
See, that's the problem right there: it's not clear that a crime was committed at all. Rittenhouse's claim is that it was self-defense, which would mean no crime was committed. Yeah, you and I are pretty convinced that Rittenhouse is murdering scum, and the people he killed are victims of his murderous impulses. But trials don't start with any assumptions like that; indeed, they start with a presumption of innocence. So calling the people Rittenhouse killed "victims" would be just as prejudicial as calling Rittenhouse a "murderer".
Think of it this way. Suppose there were a woman who shot and killed her husband, and because you know the situation, you know the husband was abusive, and you believe the woman when she says he'd picked up a knife and threatened to kill her. Now, how would you feel about the prosecutor referring to the abusive husband as the "victim" in this scenario? It'd be prejudicial as hell, and you'd think it was wrong, right? The only real difference in the two cases is whether the term "victim" agrees with the verdict you hope will be delivered in the end.
Please. I'm trying to eat.
Can't wait for the little bastard to be set free, then start painting American Flags, beat up his girlfriends, sell the assault rifle MURDER WEAPON he used on Ebay, etc etc.
We've seen all this before, and we'll see it all again, because I've just lost all faith in humanity these days.
I guess at this point the defense is sorry they chose a jury trial.
Thank you. I appreciate all the effort you've gone to in these discussions to calm things down.
Can't really appeal a "not-guilty" verdict unless new evidence comes to light.
Malfeasance by the judge?
Our side is addicted to outrage, and that hurts us a lot. It kills us on Election Day because we found some overblown "scandal" to be outraged about (e.g. Hillary's "corruption"), and it makes it difficult for us to process news that doesn't involve simple Good Vs Evil narratives.
If we calmed down just long enough to get the facts, we'd be a much better Liberal Wing.
Here is a public defender going into the details; I recommend watching it because she added a layer to this that I didn't understand. There are peculiarities of Wisconsin law that make it more relevant for the defense whether the decedents (a.k.a. murder victims) have violent histories. That'd be the "Jackson" part she gets into. I'll teal deer it though: she feels the judge made very sensible, reasonable calls, and he doesn't deserve the outrage.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...