How then would the prosecution be able to make their case against Rittenhouse - which I assume is to get him convicted of a crime - if they're not allowed to refer in court to what he's done as a crime and the people who got killed as the victims of it? Not that I'm in any way a student of law, but would the defense then also not be allowed to refer to their client as 'innocent', seeing as Rittenhouse is not proven innocent yet either?
This. This seems like a very pointed instance of "This man is innocent" from this Judge.
They're allowed to call the people who he killed "the decedents" or even "the people shot by the defendant".
Usually, yes. The fact you get benefits notwithstanding.
The stumps are sticks, and occasionally may be called "sticks". It's a bit like calling the hilt of a sword a "handle": it is a handle, that's not actually wrong. But it's unusual to do so and in many contexts might get you odd looks. Calling the bat a stick (I guess also technically true) is pretty much non-existent.
My personal opinion is that when you intentionally go to a place where you know violence is high risk, for the purpose of engaging in activities likely to incite or contribute to violence, you merit no self-defence justification whatsoever. "Self-defence" in case of such behaviour is morally bankrupt and societally corrosive by condoning vigilanteism.
This.
If the damage is a prerequisite to those benefits, then it is not harm, but part of the totality that is a good which you are getting, part of the benefit. You can't divorce bits and pieces and single em out, it's all part of one act. If you get surgery which entails incisions be made, that is not the same as being just randomly stabbed. If you have to wear a cast to heal a broken arm, the loss of freedom of motion for the period of time the cast is on, while inconvenient, is not a violation of your rights. There's a million things which we do despite being unpleasant because they have a benefit that is worthwhile. Otherwise nobody would take bitter medicine or exercise or brush their teeth or a million other things. There are always sacrifices we make in order to get something worthwhile in exchange for them. You can't separate the two and look at them in a vacuum, divorced from their context. The damage caused in the pursuit of a benefit is not the same to harm caused because someone just wishes to harm someone else for no reason other than the harm itself.
One of the most absurd hyperbolic statements I've ever seen regarding a trial.
People said the same thing about George Zimmerman, and 8 years after trial he's still alive.
Except Rittenhouse did nothing to incite Rossenbaum to attack him. Rossenbaum himself was in fact trying to incite violence earlier that night by helping to push a burning dumpster into a gas station and taunting several other people with firearms to shoot him. We have had an eye witness since this happened that saw what happened before the videos of Rittenhouse being chased begin and he (A reporter) was talking with Rittenhouse before they saw Rossenbaum and some other people walking toward them. Rittenhouse then ran and Rosenbaum started chasing him.
Rittenhouse didn't use his weapon. He was 17. He used the illegally burrowed weapon, after having illegally traveled over state lines, to be an unlicensed illegal private security guard for an random business. During the course of this illegal power fantasy, he murdered 3 people with someone else's gun.
Ah, the 'but he was teasing me' defence, used in playgrounds around the world.
You're making us all older by stating facts like that. I feel personally victimized by this.
People keep forgetting it doesn't count as self defense if you've put yourself in a dangerous situation. He shouldn't have had a gun, he shouldn't have had live ammo, shouldn't have traveled over state lines with both, shouldn't have walked around with a loaded gun impersonating a security guard and giving people commands. Nothing he did that night was legal. At best he was an armed and dangerous unbalanced minor with violent tendencies, and he might be found insane. At worst, domestic terrorist openly and successfully murdering American citizens.
Technically he was on the edge of town where the protest / riot was happening and he didn't bring the gun himself he was given it. He also wasn't walking the street but in the area of the business / lot
According to a quick google search.
If through their own action they lead to their own injury then therefore restitution cannot be offered as they are responsible for the situations thus they cannot be the victims from a legal definition.
Because one side really really wants Kyle Rittenhouse made and example of because he's "On the wrong side of history" because he dared object to the righteous cleansing by fire being undertaken by the holy warriors who are of course "On the right side of history"
