https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/14...ics%2F79729418

thoughts onthe matter? this is going to be underway shortly as a very volatile case, not as volatile as chauvin but still.

what are your early thoughts on that? Is judge already siding it massively in one direction

Yes.

When you understand the judge has made a ruling that he won't allow the two killed to be referred to as victims as he finds that prejudicial but he is open to the defense calling those he killed "rioters, looters or arsonists.", I think it is hard to not think he is acting from bias.

The system is working as intended.

In 1967, Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take human life, "I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed Communists."

Yeah, Danny Cevallos a legal commentator on MSNBC and says that arguing not to use the words 'victim' in a self defense case is normal. But calling them rioters or looters does seem prejudicial.

Looks like the trial is over already.

Why shouldn't the defense be able to call someone a rioter or a looter, if they present evidence of them rioting or looting? It's outrageous that this case even went to trial, all of the shootings are clearcut self defense. There is ample video footage that proves Rittenhouse's innocence.

If I were on the jury, I don't think I could find him guilty of murder. I'd sure as **** find something to find him guilty of, though.

Luckily, there's zero chance you'd ever be accepted on a jury.

the prosecution's strongest charge is probably reckless endangerment of McGinnis. also Rittenhouse should not testify, him testifying would be a massive mistake.

well you kind of answer your own question in the way you frame it.

Of course IF they present evidence of those individuals rioting or looting it should be allowed.

And of course if there is evidence the people killed were victims they should be allowed to be labelled as such.

Anyway I agree Rittenhouse will not be convicted on the serious charges. He should get some type of charge for his minor offenses around the illegal gun and there needs to be more laws with regards to these type vigilante actions.

This is no where near the George Zimmerman case where the vigilante purposely defies all orders and provokes a confrontation where if Trayvon was a white male and Zimmerman was a black male following him with a gun that society would not have found that the White guy had a right to Stand his Ground and defend himself against a pursuing threat but with an increasingly polarized society there needs to be some type of public nuance ordinance that would allow Police to prevent these very obvious conflicts by demanding distance between parties.

And I see that going in each direction. So if you have a protest march of the 'jews will not replace us' white supremist going down the street a bunch of legally armed POC should not be able to walk right in amongst them, and when pushing and shoving starts open fire and blast away saying they felt threatened.

There needs to be some legal statute around 'foreseeable provocations' where the police can demand space and then remove and charge those who don't comply.

If you read the statute it seems pretty clear to me that someone who is` 16 or 17 can carry a rifle or shotgun so long as it isn't sawed off


here is some analysis, and the statute below. the last section is the most important, I have bolded it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/kotakuinact...ight_to_carry/



948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28

It's a self defense trial. Whether they are victims is exactly what the jury is tasked with determining. But until Rittenhouse is convicted, he is as a matter of law presumed innocent, hence the judge not allowing the people Rittenhouse shot to be described as victims.

So are you suggesting in Murder trials the Prosecutors never referred to the victim as Murdered and purposely use that language before the verdict comes in?

A Prosecutor would never say something like 'she was murdered in cold blood'? Until there is a murder FINDING by the jury?

The alleged “looters” have never been convicted of being looters.

All I am suggesting is that it is perfectly reasonable for the judge to rule that Rosenbaum, Huber, et. al not be referred to as victims in this trial. Also in a different murder trial, it wouldn't impact on the defense's presumption of innocence to refer to the victim as a victim, if there was no claim of self-defense, if they argued for example that someone else did it. Then presumably the fact that the victim was a victim would be stipulated by both parties.

Do you not believe in the presumption of innocence or something?

They're also not on trial. I mean if there is evidence of them looting or rioting I think it is entirely reasonable to refer to them as looters and/or rioters. I mean we could call them the serial child rapist (Rosenbaum) and domestic abuser (Huber) if those titles work better for you. They were convicted of those crimes.

So again, in another trail where we have an alleged murder victim and someone on trial for that murder, it is entirely possible the accused is pleading not guilty (thus why they are at trial) and may offer an alternative theory of the defense such as they committed suicide.

Are you saying that currently in those trials the prosecution cannot and does not refer to the 'murder victim'?

IF so are you not for the presumption innocence and a belief they should always wait unit we actually have a verdict that includes the words murder?


it seems you are cherry picking your reasons to see it as appropriate because as Trolly pointed out the defendants have every right to fight any charges they are Rioters or Looters and could WIN proving they did not take part in those activities but you are just fine with them not having that presumption on that. Just some 'evidence' and not a successful trial with a verdict should be enough.

Bush and Cheney have never been convicted of war crimes. Chessmate, libtards.

No, I'm not saying that, and I have no idea where you got the impression that I was.

Right so you are ok with 'looter' and 'rioter' despite no trial and no conviction even if they would deny it and fight it, if charged. Put aside the presumption of innocence no verdict required.

You are ok with 'murder victim' in a trial where the accused is not yet found guilty and is arguing it was not even murder. Put aside the presumption of innocence no verdict required.

But since Rittenhouse enjoys the presumption of innocence you are not ok with 'victims'. It must wait until a verdict.

It doesn't matter if they're on trial, it matters whether it biases the trial to talk in a certain way. I understand why calling them victims might be prejudicial and risks biasing a jury by having them hear the word "victim" over and over through the trial, but I'm struggling with why "rioter" and "looter" don't have a similar effect.

Well the defense has the constitutional presumption of innocence. Some random rioter, who is not on trial, does not. If there is evidence of them rioting, I think it is fair to refer to them as a rioter. If there is evidence of them jogging, I think it is fair to refer to them as a jogger. Should we just not use adjectives or something?

I mean everything that either party is going to do is an attempt to "bias the trial" / prove their side.