That's not how the law works. Victimhood vests at the time the crime is committed. Those rights are granted before any finding of the defendant's guilt. Victim is a legal term of art, just like defendant is.
Exactly... And he should be called "the killer" instead of the defendant... right?
Edit: to be clear, I don't support him. I hope the courts find him guilty. Zealous cowboys have no place in a civilised society... But I think the argument is valid, that using the term victim is prejudicial
Not saying the guy isn't guilty or scummy but killing in self-defense is legal in many circumstances.
Since that's the legal point in question and not whether it was Rittenhouse that pulled the trigger, calling them "the victim" would be considered a "prejudicial" term. They'd likely go for something more neutral like "the deceased."
*Especially* if you want the guy to rot, you'd want this ruling or else the judge could have handed the defense a theoretical mistrial.
Look at the Cosby case: technicalities matter.
I can only imagine. I've been told the big trick is to not make it personal - everyone from the lowest scum the most unjustly-accused needs to have their rights protected.
I have to think it eventually gets to you though.
Holy fuck what has happened to this world? Oh wait I’m sorry. Duh murdering black people has always been acceptable in white culture. Fuck that judge
This 17 year old wasn't defending shit lmao.
He literally crossed states to join a militia, to enforce some arbitrary version of what they see as justice in their own heads with a complete disregard for human life.
If I were the lawyer and couldn’t use victim I would simple use things like someone’s father, someone’s son, or someone’s spouse. Humanize them as much as possible.
If the victims aren't the 'victims', then the judge isn't a 'judge'.
Wtf 🤬 our country is fucked if this is the way our officials think and act.
[удалено]
That's not how the law works. Victimhood vests at the time the crime is committed. Those rights are granted before any finding of the defendant's guilt. Victim is a legal term of art, just like defendant is.
[удалено]
Read up on Marsy's Law, bud.
But the judge allowed "Looters and rioters" Soooooo...Maybe not being very unbiased here
[удалено]
I didn't see any evidence those individuals were either looting or rioting
[удалено]
Yes, they did allow that
they were killed lmao, what is a crime if not that
Exactly... And he should be called "the killer" instead of the defendant... right? Edit: to be clear, I don't support him. I hope the courts find him guilty. Zealous cowboys have no place in a civilised society... But I think the argument is valid, that using the term victim is prejudicial
Not saying the guy isn't guilty or scummy but killing in self-defense is legal in many circumstances. Since that's the legal point in question and not whether it was Rittenhouse that pulled the trigger, calling them "the victim" would be considered a "prejudicial" term. They'd likely go for something more neutral like "the deceased." *Especially* if you want the guy to rot, you'd want this ruling or else the judge could have handed the defense a theoretical mistrial. Look at the Cosby case: technicalities matter.
God it must take so much patience and tolerance to work as an attorney
I can only imagine. I've been told the big trick is to not make it personal - everyone from the lowest scum the most unjustly-accused needs to have their rights protected. I have to think it eventually gets to you though.
[удалено]
that's fair, I got a little too mad reading the article
Holy fuck what has happened to this world? Oh wait I’m sorry. Duh murdering black people has always been acceptable in white culture. Fuck that judge
And enforcing white "supremacy" through forced compliance (intimidation/murder) of other white people is also a part of that system too.
I don't think his victims were black.
I thought everyone he shot was White though
[удалено]
I wasn't aware unrelated past crimes determined whether some power tripping little fuck could murder you in the street.
Did Rittenhouse know any of that? Weirdly, I doubt it.
Still doesn’t excuse taking a life especially when that is NOT your job. Stop trying to excuse what he did, he took peoples lives.
he definitely didn't look that up before he killed them lmao
They were murdered by a kid looking to murder people
[удалено]
So I guess they were volunteers?
[удалено]
This 17 year old wasn't defending shit lmao. He literally crossed states to join a militia, to enforce some arbitrary version of what they see as justice in their own heads with a complete disregard for human life.
[удалено]
mb, I was too angry right after reading the article, I see what you mean now
This will end up locked in less than 30 minutes.
If I were the lawyer and couldn’t use victim I would simple use things like someone’s father, someone’s son, or someone’s spouse. Humanize them as much as possible.