17 Year-old Blue Lives Matter Activist with AR 15 Charged With Murder After Two Killed at Protest

And now the judge is siding with the defense that zooming in on an image on an iPad will distort the image and show the jury something that isn’t there? Wow. Geriatric judges making decisions on how zooming in with an iPad works... yikes.

“Is the image in its virginal state?” the judge asked.
Click to expand...
OK, Boomer.
 
Last edited:
SuperMatt said:
banning the word “victims”
Click to expand...
Well I would hope so.

but allowing the defense to call these non-victims “rioters” instead?

Wasn’t the requirement that the defense had to prove that they were actually rioting and that mere presence wasn’t enough? I might be misremembering.
 
yaxomoxay said:
Wasn’t the requirement that the defense had to prove that they were actually rioting and that mere presence wasn’t enough? I might be misremembering.
Click to expand...

Yup. One of the stipulations was that they could be called rioters and arsonists only if the defense provided evidence of them doing such.

I'm not sure if anyone has even uttered those words during the trial. I've just been watching random clips here and there.
 
Renzatic said:
Yup. One of the stipulations was that they could be called rioters and arsonists only if the defense provided evidence of them doing such.

I'm not sure if anyone has even uttered those words during the trial. I've just been watching random clips here and there.
Click to expand...
I might be wrong here, but I think they say it in general terms, as in the crowd, but they never used it for individuals.
 
yaxomoxay said:
Well I would hope so.
Click to expand...
What do we call somebody who dies in a car crash? Or a natural disaster? Yep, a victim.

The term doesn’t imply a crime, or that the accused committed a crime. The people that were shot in Kenosha are victims of gunshot wounds. That is just the truth.

This judge (and many others I have learned) err when it comes to this question, IMHO. There is no question these people died from gunshot wounds.

Definition from the Oxford dictionary: "A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action."
 
SuperMatt said:
What do we call somebody who dies in a car crash? Or a natural disaster? Yep, a victim.

The term doesn’t imply a crime, or that the accused committed a crime.
Click to expand...
colloquially, you’re right. In the legal system things are a bit different and carry some significance.

Suppose that someone punches you, and you punch back. The dude falls and dies. You go on trial for homicide. You don’t want the dude to be called a “victim” because he is actually the perpetrator even if colloquially I can say he’s the victim of your punch. Not saying that it’s equivalent, but using “victim” is potentially misleading the jury. The moment you’re found guilty, which means you committed a crime, he is a victim.
 
JayMysteri0 said:
He's performing testifying today I believe.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1458499587904192514/

Supposedly these tears were recently, since they weren't present when questioned by prosecutors.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1458479837992001539/

When actors are chiming in on your performance...
Click to expand...
Wow. He is really bad at this. Other than the fake crying, his body language just really amplifies how fake that breakdown is. Evolutionarily if you’re in the vulnerable position and being exposed you don’t have your arms up and keep your body wide open for an attack.

Which corroborates my actual prejudice, this guy doesn’t understand the gravity of what he did or what’s at stake.
 
yaxomoxay said:
colloquially, you’re right. In the legal system things are a bit different and carry some significance.

Suppose that someone punches you, and you punch back. The dude falls and dies. You go on trial for homicide. You don’t want the dude to be called a “victim” because he is actually the perpetrator even if colloquially I can say he’s the victim of your punch. Not saying that it’s equivalent, but using “victim” is potentially misleading the jury. The moment you’re found guilty, which means you committed a crime, he is a victim.
Click to expand...
I suppose removing the word victim is easier than requiring people to say what the person is/was a victim of? I don’t like it because in the name of removing bias, IMHO the judge is introducing bias.
 
P_X said:
Wow. He is really bad at this. Other than the fake crying, his body language just really amplifies how fake that breakdown is. Evolutionarily if you’re in the vulnerable position and being exposed you don’t have your arms up and keep your body wide open for an attack.

Which corroborates my actual prejudice, this guy doesn’t understand the gravity of what he did or what’s at stake.
Click to expand...
He needs to be rehabilitated. He is a danger to society.
 
yaxomoxay said:
colloquially, you’re right. In the legal system things are a bit different and carry some significance.

Suppose that someone punches you, and you punch back. The dude falls and dies. You go on trial for homicide. You don’t want the dude to be called a “victim” because he is actually the perpetrator even if colloquially I can say he’s the victim of your punch. Not saying that it’s equivalent, but using “victim” is potentially misleading the jury. The moment you’re found guilty, which means you committed a crime, he is a victim.
Click to expand...
Can you point to any source that establishes this as common legal practice? I asked my friends who have actual but non-US law degrees and they disagree with you.
 
yaxomoxay said:
colloquially, you’re right. In the legal system things are a bit different and carry some significance.
Click to expand...

It's also a good idea to keep in mind that this isn't the first time this particular judge has enforced this rule.
 
P_X said:
Can you point to any source that establishes this as common legal practice? I asked my friends who have actual but non-US law degrees and they disagree with you.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's common exactly, but it may still be kosher from a legal standpoint.

In a situation where no one is clearly guilty or innocent per the law, the world victim could be used to introduce bias against the defense. Since this judge has enforced this rule in similar situations previously, it's not something I'm overly hung up on.
 
P_X said:
Can you point to any source that establishes this as common legal practice? I asked my friends who have actual but non-US law degrees and they disagree with you.
Click to expand...
This provides some elements albeit from a different angle. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3213&context=sdlr

This is from a judge: https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/o...ding-the-term-victim-helps-ensure-fair-trials

If you allow me, let me bring a case. Just for friendly discussion. A case I read about a couple of years ago and is still ongoing
and a case that breaks my heart. Miss Chrystul Kizer was raped, and trafficked. Raped and trafficked. Raped and trafficked. Before she was 18. Imagine her life. Then, she kills her rapist and trafficker. A very sad and tragic story. She’s on trial from premeditated murder and risks life in prison. There is no question that she killed him. She admitted it, publicly. He was killed by her gun. She prepared the gun, and she shot him. Now, her only defense is that being trafficked and raped she had to find a way to defend herself (laws on the subject are kind of messy). Now, if you were impartial, or if you were the defendant, would you want her rapist and trafficker to be called “victim” over and over during the trial while she’s called “the shooter”? Colloquially yes, he’s is the victim of her shooting. Legally and for a jury? No. Not yet. And, personally, I hope never.
 
P_X said:
Can you point to any source that establishes this as common legal practice? I asked my friends who have actual but non-US law degrees and they disagree with you.
Click to expand...
I found the following documents in the McMichael trial (accused of killing Ahmaud Arbery).

A motion by defense to prevent the word “victim” being used to refer to Arbery:

The recommendation to deny the motion by the state:

I cannot seem to find the judge’s final order on this. I will keep looking. However, the judge preemptively banning the word without the defense filing a motion? That seems to be abnormal.
 
yaxomoxay said:
This provides some elements albeit from a different angle. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3213&context=sdlr

This is from a judge: https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/o...ding-the-term-victim-helps-ensure-fair-trials

If you allow me, let me bring a case. Just for friendly discussion. A case I read about a couple of years ago and is still ongoing
and a case that breaks my heart. Miss Chrystul Kizer was raped, and trafficked. Raped and trafficked. Raped and trafficked. Before she was 18. Imagine her life. Then, she kills her rapist and trafficker. A very sad and tragic story. She’s on trial from premeditated murder and risks life in prison. There is no question that she killed him. She admitted it, publicly. He was killed by her gun. She prepared the gun, and she shot him. Now, her only defense is that being trafficked and raped she had to find a way to defend herself (laws on the subject are kind of messy). Now, if you were impartial, or if you were the defendant, would you want her rapist and trafficker to be called “victim” over and over during the trial while she’s called “the shooter”? Colloquially yes, he’s is the victim of her shooting. Legally and for a jury? No. Not yet. And, personally, I hope never.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the links will check them at home.

Emotional strings aside, yeah. That guy is the victim of a homicide. It’s a fact. Just because the victim was impalatable won’t change that fact. The example isn’t great anyway because the dynamics of victimization are more bilateral.
 
P_X said:
Appreciate the links will check them at home.

Emotional strings aside, yeah. That guy is the victim of a homicide. It’s a fact. Just because the victim was impalatable won’t change that fact. The example isn’t great anyway because the dynamics of victimization are more bilateral.
Click to expand...
Yes he’s the victim of homicide. But the question is: is he victim of murder? Substantial difference.
 
yaxomoxay said:
This provides some elements albeit from a different angle. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3213&context=sdlr

This is from a judge: https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/o...ding-the-term-victim-helps-ensure-fair-trials
Click to expand...
SuperMatt said:
I found the following documents in the McMichael trial (accused of killing Ahmaud Arbery).

A motion by defense to prevent the word “victim” being used to refer to Arbery:

The recommendation to deny the motion by the state:

I cannot seem to find the judge’s final order on this. I will keep looking. However, the judge preemptively banning the word without the defense filing a motion? That seems to be abnormal.
Click to expand...
Thank you @yaxomoxay and @SuperMatt ! Excellent articles, each making a set of my points:
1. Avoiding the term victim is not universal practice
2. Avoiding the term victim is not part of the legal standard practice in most states, including Wisconsin
3. Avoiding the term victim is more debatable where victimization is alleged, less so where it's pre-evident
4. The utilization of the term victim does not necessarily imply that a crime was committed
5. The term victim is poorly characterized in law

Which takes us back to this matter, where my primary point is that this is highly subjective and we should avoid describing it as something objective. Just look at the "statistical" analysis on gender-based perceptions of guilt based on using "complaining witness" vs. "victim" in the Conklin article. The person who wrote that has no idea about how to conduct a study.

Rudy Giuliani once said about COVID that "there are many opinions in science, many state something and many state the opposite". I got a great laugh at it because he confused science with law.:D In science you can test hypotheses, in law; well, you cite precedents...:D But I digress.

Renzatic said:
In a situation where no one is clearly guilty or innocent per the law, the world victim could be used to introduce bias against the defense. Since this judge has enforced this rule in similar situations previously, it's not something I'm overly hung up on.
Click to expand...
And @Renzatic's point wins out. Internal consistency is the key. But that should be fully consistent.
 
Why would the judge prevent a video of Rittenhouse saying he wishes he had his rifle to deal with shoplifters at CVS just 15 days before he allegedly killed people with said rifle? Doesn’t that go to intent? I think this judge should have let the jury hear that. They allowed this type of evidence in the Jan 6 cases… in fact it was critical evidence, indicating the people planned to attack the Capitol. Not sure if the prosecution will appeal if they lose, but this judge’s decision alone could allow for it.

nypost.com

Kyle Rittenhouse dreamed about shooting people days before Kenosha: video

Prosecutors want to use a video at trial that caught Kyle Rittenhouse fantasizing about gunning down a man just 15 days before he shot three protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
nypost.com nypost.com
 
SuperMatt said:
Why would the judge prevent a video of Rittenhouse saying he wishes he had his rifle to deal with shoplifters at CVS just 15 days before he allegedly killed people with said rifle? Doesn’t that go to intent? I think this judge should have let the jury hear that. They allowed this type of evidence in the Jan 6 cases… in fact it was critical evidence, indicating the people planned to attack the Capitol. Not sure if the prosecution will appeal if they lose, but this judge’s decision alone could allow for it.

nypost.com

Kyle Rittenhouse dreamed about shooting people days before Kenosha: video

Prosecutors want to use a video at trial that caught Kyle Rittenhouse fantasizing about gunning down a man just 15 days before he shot three protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
Umm. So whose fucking gun was that again?
 
I bet this kid’s tears will dissipate quickly once he gets acquitted of all charges and is free to bask in his right-wing celebrity.

He’ll be a hero on Fox for a few months until he does something disgusting. I’ve seen this tape play out on Fox before with their previous heroes like Zimmerman and Cliven Bundy.

I would love to see a social experiment where people react to what they think is real footage of a similar circumstance Rittenhouse was in, where everything is recreated, except the underage person toting a rifle is a black teen.
 
Back
Top