Kyle Rittenhouse - Courtroom Labels

Status
Not open for further replies.

PostPhobos

Loved Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Posts
75
Media
0
Likes
706
Points
93
Age
32
Location
Utqiagvik (Alaska, United States)
From the NPR article:

Prosecutors cannot call those shot by Kyle Rittenhouse 'victims.' But 'looters' is OK

"Prosecutors in the criminal trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who shot and killed two protesters last year in Kenosha, Wis., will not be able to refer to the people he shot as "victims," a judge has ruled, while defense attorneys may be able to call them "arsonists" or "looters."

In a proceeding about the ground rules for the upcoming trial, prosecutors and defense lawyers debated whether certain language, witnesses or evidence would be allowed. The trial begins next week.

"The word 'victim' is a loaded, loaded word. And I think 'alleged victim' is a cousin to it," Judge Bruce Schroeder said on Monday, asking prosecutors to instead use the terms "complaining witness" or "decedent" to refer to those shot by Rittenhouse. (Though not universal, it is not unheard of for judges to feel that the word "victim" presupposes the defendant's guilt.)

Meanwhile, the defense will be allowed to refer to the three people Rittenhouse shot as "arsonists," "looters" or "rioters" so long as they took part in those activities, Schroeder ruled — a decision prosecutor Thomas Binger called "a double standard."

(Click here for the full and complete article.)

I post this here with some assumption that it'll be deleted at some point. Even though it's simply a current event I'd like to discuss. My question is simply this: Is justice better served by the labels the judge permitted and omitted concerning this trial?
 
  • Like
Reactions: chicagosam and b.c.

PostPhobos

Loved Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Posts
75
Media
0
Likes
706
Points
93
Age
32
Location
Utqiagvik (Alaska, United States)
"Victim" is a loaded term, but "arsonist" isn't?

Fuck outta here. That judge should be unseated. Never allowed to practice law again.

I agree, seems oddly selective at best. Also I know this was a long time ago but it seems worth mentioning the context of all this.

This young man, Rittenhouse, traveled from a different state armed with multiple firearms and involved himself with the protests that were taking place in Kenosha. He is likely to claim that he only fired in self defense...but that feels to me like the after-the-fact excuse. Is it self defense if you go somewhere armed to be on the opposition side and then shoot someone?

The labels matter a great deal. They hold a lot of sway in the narrative of all this. Was he 'defending' himself from 'arsonists' and 'rioters' or was he shooting protestors and making 'victims'? Seems odd to me to slant the terms so much to the favor of one side in all this.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Posts
23,294
Media
0
Likes
11,402
Points
358
From the NPR article:

Prosecutors cannot call those shot by Kyle Rittenhouse 'victims.' But 'looters' is OK

"Prosecutors in the criminal trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who shot and killed two protesters last year in Kenosha, Wis., will not be able to refer to the people he shot as "victims," a judge has ruled, while defense attorneys may be able to call them "arsonists" or "looters."

In a proceeding about the ground rules for the upcoming trial, prosecutors and defense lawyers debated whether certain language, witnesses or evidence would be allowed. The trial begins next week.

"The word 'victim' is a loaded, loaded word. And I think 'alleged victim' is a cousin to it," Judge Bruce Schroeder said on Monday, asking prosecutors to instead use the terms "complaining witness" or "decedent" to refer to those shot by Rittenhouse. (Though not universal, it is not unheard of for judges to feel that the word "victim" presupposes the defendant's guilt.)

Meanwhile, the defense will be allowed to refer to the three people Rittenhouse shot as "arsonists," "looters" or "rioters" so long as they took part in those activities, Schroeder ruled — a decision prosecutor Thomas Binger called "a double standard."

(Click here for the full and complete article.)

I post this here with some assumption that it'll be deleted at some point. Even though it's simply a current event I'd like to discuss. My question is simply this: Is justice better served by the labels the judge permitted and omitted concerning this trial?
I agree, seems oddly selective at best. Also I know this was a long time ago but it seems worth mentioning the context of all this.

This young man, Rittenhouse, traveled from a different state armed with multiple firearms and involved himself with the protests that were taking place in Kenosha. He is likely to claim that he only fired in self defense...but that feels to me like the after-the-fact excuse. Is it self defense if you go somewhere armed to be on the opposition side and then shoot someone?
Regrettably, a subject best served elsewhere. But in a safe response, I agree with your thinking, Wisconsin is no longer the progressive state it once was because of minority rule through gerrymandering. In many cases, the courts of Wisconsin and its State Supreme Court, not unlike SCOTUS, has been realigned to serve the political affiliation that placed them.
 
Last edited:

PostPhobos

Loved Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Posts
75
Media
0
Likes
706
Points
93
Age
32
Location
Utqiagvik (Alaska, United States)
Regrettably, a subject best served elsewhere. But in a safe response, I agree with your thinking, Wisconsin is no longer the progressive state it once was because of minority rule through gerrymandering. In many cases, the courts of Wisconsin and its State Supreme Court, not unlike SCOTUS, has been realigned to serve the political affiliation that placed them.

My understanding was that the politics section is locked till further notice. Forgive me if this is not the case, it seemed like a legal/current affairs interest post rather than "let us have a fight about the political issues related to BLM and guns in the USA." I do see your point entirely though where it's more or less impossible to talk about the legal/cultural relevance of the judge's instructions without the political context of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Posts
23,294
Media
0
Likes
11,402
Points
358
My understanding was that the politics section is locked till further notice. Forgive me if this is not the case, it seemed like a legal/current affairs interest post rather than "let us have a fight about the political issues related to BLM and guns in the USA." I do see your point entirely though where it's more or less impossible to talk about the legal/cultural relevance of the judge's instructions without the political context of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court.
Yes, lockup does continue. This article showed up today. Thought it might add to your premise and mine about the continued efforts to justify criminality through an alternative reality based on political affiliation.

 
Last edited:

Enid

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Posts
7,324
Media
10
Likes
17,459
Points
393
Age
52
Location
Arlington, Texas, United States of America
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Female
The judge in this case needs to be removed.

His rulings seem to be heavily biased -- he also ruled that his connections to the proud boys and other white supremacist groups couldn’t be brought up in trial....why would that NOT be relevant in this case.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Posts
23,294
Media
0
Likes
11,402
Points
358
Welcome to Wisconsin—a state that is currently undergoing a $680,000 taxpayer funded “fraudit” led by a “Stop the Steal” supporting former State Supreme Court judge. He has made national news for his gross incompetence and idiocy. On top of that, new “fraudits” will begin in the cities of Milwaukee and Madison all to appease a year long ongoing geriatric temper tantrum from Mag-a-loco. Milwaukee has already done a recount that was to have been by paid by the disgraced twice impeached former Oval Office resident. Like other audits and rallies, he has not paid. He owes money all over the state—not unlike all the other states he’s stiffed—and yet a gerrymandered GOP state legislature continues to indulge the lie and tantrum that should have been ended a year ago.

So a placed biased Wisconsin judge ruling incompetently in favor of Rittenhouse is no surprise.

Rittenhouse should be tried as an adult, convicted to the maximum, and sent to Oklahoma.
 

45f4w5

Loved Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Posts
151
Media
0
Likes
558
Points
213
Location
Hong Kong
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I think he's bang to rights on the first murder (Guy with bag) but the other ones seem like self defence
 

Scarletbegonia

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
May 2, 2013
Posts
8,324
Media
26
Likes
23,654
Points
508
Location
Purgatory (Maine, United States)
Sexuality
Asexual
Gender
Female
Welcome to Wisconsin—a state that is currently undergoing a $680,000 taxpayer funded “fraudit” led by a “Stop the Steal” supporting former State Supreme Court judge. He has made national news for his gross incompetence and idiocy. On top of that, new “fraudits” will begin in the cities of Milwaukee and Madison all to appease a year long ongoing geriatric temper tantrum from Mag-a-loco. Milwaukee has already done a recount that was to have been by paid by the disgraced twice impeached former Oval Office resident. Like other audits and rallies, he has not paid. He owes money all over the state—not unlike all the other states he’s stiffed—and yet a gerrymandered GOP state legislature continues to indulge the lie and tantrum that should have been ended a year ago.

So a placed biased Wisconsin judge ruling incompetently in favor of Rittenhouse is no surprise.

Rittenhouse should be tried as an adult, convicted to the maximum, and sent to Oklahoma.
I’d like to see this prosecuted federally. The crossing state lines with illegal gun to do it should help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chicagosam
D

deleted342096

Guest
He's gonna be sucking so much dick in jail.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Posts
23,294
Media
0
Likes
11,402
Points
358
I’d like to see this prosecuted federally. The crossing state lines with illegal gun to do it should help.
I agree. Underage. Crossing state lines with a weapon. Is there parental responsibility for an unsupervised then minor? He went with a mission supported by groups with a similar mission. It’s easy to get someone who will not think about the consequences of their actions to do the dirty work of a vigilante group and be the fall guy. Like Trump, he’s always got some fool in place to take the blame. Rittenhouse was not going to a church picnic, nor was he there to place himself in need of self defense. He was a fool—a little man pretending to be a big hero—for the vigilantes who played and manipulated him for a fool. And, per usual, we have the Trump world of alternative reality trying to rewrite history to cover theirs—and Rittenhouse’s —illegal actions. Now, he’s a real ‘Murican patriot. 1776! In the real world, he’s a victim of his own stupidity. He deserves what he gets.
 
Last edited:

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
He didn't cross state lines with a weapon, the AR has never left Wisconsin - watch the trial it's all in there

I'm not sure it even matters for the murder charges. You can't make a case for a homicide being a murder because it was conditioned on someone coming prepared to defend himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.