I'm guessing the judge's logic is that calling the victims "victims" would presuppose Rittenhouse's guilt in the mind of the jurors, while calling them "rioters" could technically be supported by evidence using the government's legal definition of a riot. I guess the psychological image the word "rioter" conjurers in most peoples' minds is just of no importance.
Is there even precedent for that? Have any courts previously held that prosecuters referring to victims of crimes violates a defendant's presumption of innocence? The job of prosecutor is the opposite of presuming innocence!
I think it's because in this case they are trying to prove a crime was committed. After all, it's legal to drive into protestors, so if he claims self-defense there isn't clearly a crime, and they therefore would be instigators or fatalities, not victims. The judge is having a really hard time here because no property was damaged, just human lives were violently ended by some miserable sack of dog turds whom I believe should be thrown into the ocean in a burlap sack with a brick in it, so he doesn't know if a crime was committed or not. If he were to accidentally hit someone's tire with a bullet, then the judge would easily be able to tell a crime was committed.
I'm guessing the judge's logic is that calling the victims "victims" would presuppose Rittenhouse's guilt in the mind of the jurors, while calling them "rioters" could technically be supported by evidence using the government's legal definition of a riot. I guess the psychological image the word "rioter" conjurers in most peoples' minds is just of no importance.
What rote legalism does to a mf
deleted by creator
Is there even precedent for that? Have any courts previously held that prosecuters referring to victims of crimes violates a defendant's presumption of innocence? The job of prosecutor is the opposite of presuming innocence!
I think it's because in this case they are trying to prove a crime was committed. After all, it's legal to drive into protestors, so if he claims self-defense there isn't clearly a crime, and they therefore would be instigators or fatalities, not victims. The judge is having a really hard time here because no property was damaged, just human lives were violently ended by some miserable sack of dog turds whom I believe should be thrown into the ocean in a burlap sack with a brick in it, so he doesn't know if a crime was committed or not. If he were to accidentally hit someone's tire with a bullet, then the judge would easily be able to tell a crime was committed.
The other article that's been posted here about this event notes that that is in fact common in potential self-defense cases.
Self defense is making sure this fucker isn't on the street by any means means necessary for a wide swath of people
deleted by creator
Judicial Realism was right and every other form of Jurisprudence is wrong.