Calling someone who was shot and killed a "victim" is too morally charged. Calling them "rioters, looters, or arsonists" isn't, even if they weren't rioting, looting, or committing arson.
Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Calling someone who was shot and killed a "victim" is too morally charged. Calling them "rioters, looters, or arsonists" isn't, even if they weren't rioting, looting, or committing arson.
That does seem to be a distinctly odd decision, given that someone can be a "victim" of many things that aren't crimes, or even human actions at all.
The bastard judge can go fuck himself.
www.npr.org
Protester shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha is now suing Wisconsin authorities
The lawsuit alleges that authorities in Kenosha not only knew that armed vigilantes planned to patrol the protest attended by Black Lives Matter supporters, but also encouraged their participation.
www.npr.org
The judge apparently has a standing rule to not use the word "victim" in his court in cases where the purpose is to determine if a crime was committed, as that pre-asserts the outcome of the trial before facts are established. He was then asked to bar the words "rioters," "looters," and "arsonists", which would be similarly prejudiced, and ruled that those words could be used only after someone had proven they were rioting or looting, so essentially the same standard applies.
To put this another way: The judge told all attorneys involved that they can call people whatever can be proven that they are, and if they successfully prove the people shot are victims, then the case is already over, so it's moot.
To put this another way: The judge told all attorneys involved that they can call people whatever can be proven that they are, and if they successfully prove the people shot are victims, then the case is already over, so it's moot.
That still does not explain that the judge does not seem to understand what "victim" means. It is an injustice against good language use.
I googled the issue at hand. If the judge's stance is wrong, it is not a unique wrong:
Calling the Complainant a "Victim"
Defendants sometimes argue, usually in sexual assault cases, that the complaining witness should not be called a "victim" during court proceedings. The
nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu
Dude tried to grab the gun from Kyle in what could be considered assault and got fired upon. Other people chased him down and were attacking him and got fired upon. Final guy tried a false surrender and then tried to draw his gun on Kyle and was shot in the arm so he couldn't fire.
Kyle was either a victim of people after him or a victim of poor circumstances happening. Hell we can't even be sue if the first person shot was shot by Kyle and not an accidental discharge while trying to steal the gun from Kyle.
That'll go no-where as Kyle and co were outside of the town guarding a garage and car lot that had seen part of it hit previously by arson during a previous protest. They were patrolling the protest itself or the area it was planned to be.The bastard judge can go fuck himself.
Protester shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha is now suing Wisconsin authorities
The lawsuit alleges that authorities in Kenosha not only knew that armed vigilantes planned to patrol the protest attended by Black Lives Matter supporters, but also encouraged their participation.
I can see the logic there when it has not been established whether harm came to the complainant. However, harm most definitely came about to the men Rittenhouse shot as we already know beyond reasonable doubt.
The question the court case is trying to answer is what kind of victims they are: e.g. of murder or self-defence. Thus "victim" is an entirely appropriate term.
The argument is if the harm was the result of their own actions necessitating a response or the response being entirely unwarranted. If a person tried to stab you and you grab the knife and redirect their hand so they end up stabbing themselves that's on them and they're only a victim of their own actions as such.
So, et's say there was a car accident involving a pedestrian who was killed. You can't say that pedestrian was a victim until after the charge was successfully prosecuted.
So... they are still a victim. What you just said disagrees with the judge entirely
One of the people in the side of the dead was firing his gun in the air before they died trying to attack this kid who was trying to move away from them when he killed em, so if anything they're less victims and more akin to bandits or raiders or something to that effect. You don't get to start shooting at the sky while lighting fires and breaking things but when someone calls your bluff while protecting people's lives' work you pretend you were just minding your own business and a crazed individual attacked you for no reason whatsoever. You can't be a victim when you put yourself in that situation, all you are is the losing party of a fight you picked. Why didn't they just....move away from the kid with the gun before he fired the first shot? Wouldn't you move away from someone with a gun in your daily life?
Things like "victim of circumstance" is just a turn of phrase, it's not meant to be taken literally, and I'm sure everyone knows this already.
Being a victim of your own actions makes you just self-destructive, not actually a victim. You have to be affected by someone else's actions in an unjust manner for you to be a victim, and people protecting themselves is just.
Things like "victim of circumstance" is just a turn of phrase, it's not meant to be taken literally, and I'm sure everyone knows this already.
The defense can make a case that this "harm" was fair just desserts which would not qualify as harm in the same way when an undeserving innocent is damaged. But if you call em victims you lock out that option.
Last edited:
Christ that shit ain't right. Though a silver lining perhaps, at least the judge outed themselves early enough for people to take appropriate action I suppose. But wow, that heavy partiality shouldn't be anywhere near such a position.
Boy oh boy do you have an attitude that is every fascist dictator's wet dream for their populace to have.
I can only describe this as sense-mangling doublespeak.
You shoot a bullet into someone, you harm them. It is just about the easiest thing to comprehend imaginable. It's not some sort of fake harm just because every fan of jackbooted authority thinks that disobedience to their sturmabteilung of choice merits lethal response. You can be harmed by and thus the victim of a tornado, or ebola, of circumstances or bad luck: it has nothing to do with any person's assumed guilt.
At the point you are dreaming up some weird contortion that it is not real harm, your view of this situation is utterly beyond salvage for a civilised society.
No... um, no. Victim of poor circumstances? He went to a riot with a gun, he made the circumstance for himself. Like, I agree that if you take only the last 30 seconds before the gun fired, it's an easy case of self-defense, but you can't instigate violence and then plead self-defense, and going to a riot and walking the streets with a gun is pretty much making the circumstances happen.
I'm inclined to agree with you, and If I were the judge, I'd probably allow it. I just also understand him choosing not to.
In this judge's court, correct. They've taken the stance that calling them "the victim" is loaded in the same way that calling the defendant "the perpetrator" is, and that the lawyers should stick to using their names or legal words like "defendant"/"plaintiff".
In a general note, I think it's important that words like "rioter" be allowed here, because the context of the riot is why he's guilty. If this weren't a riot, and the shootings happened exactly the same, self-defense would be entirely appropriate. Without the rioting, he's a person peacefully walking down the street who got attacked by people spontaneously and genuinely defended himself from being killed. That he chose to attend a riot with a gun is the reason why he's guilty.
If someone comes at you with a knife while saying he's going to kill you and you swing an old school cricket stick at him that smashes his skull in, do you think the guy with a knife should be called a victim?
If the one with the old school cricket stick is charged and on trail for the murder of the one wielding the knife, then yes, the knife wielder should be refered to as 'the victim'.