Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

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."


"Let the evidence show what the evidence shows," Schroeder said. "And if the evidence shows that any or more than one of these people were engaged in arson, rioting, or looting — I'm not going to tell the defense they can't call them that."

Jury selection begins Monday in the trial. Rittenhouse faces multiple felony charges of homicide and recklessly endangering the safety of others, along with one misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor.

Though not universal, it is not unheard of for judges to feel that the word "victim" presupposes the defendant's guilt.

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

If the shooting was self defense, the people who were shot were not "victims", they were in fact perpetrators, and as this trial is being held to determine whether the shooting was in fact justified, premature use of the term "victim" would prejudice the jury against the defendant, which could result in a mistrial.

That being said, after watching the video I think this is self defense and is going to be ruled such, and I have a bet riding on it, to put my money where my mouth is.

If the shooting was self defense, the people who were shot were not "victims", they were in fact perpetrators, and as this trial is being held to determine whether the shooting was in fact justified, premature use of the term "victim" would prejudice the jury against the defendant, which could result in a mistrial.

That being said, after watching the video I think this is self defense and is going to be ruled such, and I have a bet riding on it, to put my money where my mouth is.

There is no dictionary definition of “victim” I could find that requires the person harmed by another person be innocent. A person could be both a rioter and a victim. And according to the
paper referenced by the article “Courts generally allow accusers to be referred to as victims when it is clear they have incurred some harm.”. Why the exception in this case?

Though not universal, it is not unheard of for judges to feel that the word "victim" presupposes the defendant's guilt.

T. Why the exception in this case?

It's an interesting choice by Schroeder given Rittenhouse shot at shot Gaige Grosskreutz while he had his hands up. Hardly self-defense. Rittenhouse tripped and fell and then shot at the crowd. There's a very fine line here between puported self-defense and reckless endangerment. The defense are drawing on Wisconson lax gun laws and stand your ground laws to protect Rittenhouse playing vigilante with a loaded weapon.

Better hope you don't lose your money,.

Having followed this from the start, it has been quite apparent that the actions would fit within the requirements for"self defence" (Even the "probable cause" section of the "criminal complaint" at the time suggested the person who prepared it thought so)... The most "complex" charge appears to be the one about having the weapon and being "under age", where the law can be read in several ways - but which has no bearing on any other charge he faces.

My bet is no murder charges will stick, but I'm 50/50 on the weapons charge, as it does seem somewhat vague. What a lot of people can't grasp is that it's possible to have a case of righteous self defense with an illegal weapon, as may have happened here, and that the weapons charge is severable from the self defense charge, i.e. you can be guilty of possessing an illegal weapon you legally used to defend yourself.

There's already been a long discussion on this site about the events around Kyle Rittenhouse (legal details versus wishful thinking\fantasies\etc.) - To get an idea of what information has already been discussed, it is at https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=389886.

https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=389886.

If the shooting was self defense, the people who were shot were not "victims", they were in fact perpetrators, and as this trial is being held to determine whether the shooting was in fact justified, premature use of the term "victim" would prejudice the jury against the defendant, which could result in a mistrial.

My problem is that we don’t have another word for it. In the English language, the person who took a bullet is a shooting victim, without regard to his innocence or guilt in other matters, and without regard to whether or not there was justification for the shooting.