Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[Maybenaut]

Isnt that generally decided by a ruling on a Motion in Limine out of the jury's presence?

Generally, yes.

And in this case, it was. The prosecutor's request was made in a motion of limine. Out the jury's presence because there's no jury yet.

In this case, I think it was a good idea for the prosecutor to get ahead of this, instead of waiting for defense counsel to utter the words in front of the jury.

I will defer to the IAACrDLs' opinions on whether the prosecutor is setting a trap.

I think it’s unlikely that they’re setting a trap intentionally. But I think that they most certainly will have a plan for how to deal with it if the defense decides to start calling them rioters, looters, and arsonists.

[Dave from down under]

Any ruling yet on first name usage v surname usage?

[bob]

Any ruling yet on first name usage v surname usage?

Yes:

Schroeder sided with Binger on the state's attorney's motion to prevent the defense from referring to Rittenhouse by his first name, saying anyone of age will only be referred to via honorifics and last names.

I don't know the defendant's birthday, but it is widely reported that he's 18 (i.e., "of age") now.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I watched the hearing on the prosecutor's Motion in Limine. This judge has a "rule" in "his" court that the word "victim" is not used because it is "loaded". The prosecutor tried to get ahead of this problem by filing the Motion to prevent "looters, rioters, and "arsonists" from being used.

We can call the judge a nit picker who prides himself on his take on the English language and its usage.

The safest words to me are the victims' names which personalizes them and "the deceased" which is a constant reminder they were killed by Rittenhouse. Thanks, judge, for being so "precise".

[Foggy]

So am I following this? Victim is a loaded term, but not looter?

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

So am I following this? Victim is a loaded term, but not looter?

Yep! BUT defense must prove the deceased were arsonists or looters first or there is enough evidence to infer that.

[RVInit]

Thanks Bob for your knowledgable commentary.

[bob]

So am I following this? Victim is a loaded term, but not looter?

Yep! BUT defense must prove the deceased were arsonists or looters first or there is enough evidence to infer that.

Yes, and: Every ruling adverse to the defendant can be raised on appeal. But rulings that favor the defendant generally cannot be.* Especially if there is no appeal because the defendant prevailed (ob. "because of all those favorable rulings").

So there may be an effort to "protect the record" by not overly ruling against the defendant.


* A ruling intended to favor the defendant but actually does not may or may not be appealable, depending on too many factors to neatly summarize.

[scirreeve]

This thread says that this judge routinely disallows using "victim" (as mentioned above). Also says that the rioters looters arsonist language can only be used in closing arguments if evidence was presented supporting that description. Cannot use those words during opening or during the trial. IDK if true.

[raison de arizona]

This thread says that this judge routinely disallows using "victim" (as mentioned above). Also says that the rioters looters arsonist language can only be used in closing arguments if evidence was presented supporting that description. Cannot use those words during opening or during the trial. IDK if true.
https://twitter.com/fodderyfodder/statu ... 2655907854

Thank you, that was an interesting thread. It was well researched and documented. I feel smarter for having read it.

And a new follow on teh twitters!

[Gregg]

Seems to me that even if they were rioters, looters, and/or arsonists, those crimes aren't punishable by death and Rittenhouse certainly shouldn't have been the executioner. But I suppose the argument wouldn't be that, but rather that they were bad dudes and Rittenhouse had to protect himself from them. Which of course begs the question of why a minor would put himself in the middle of a riot armed with an AR in the first place.

He was playing GI Joe I'm telling ya!


As for the "victims", I say we call them "poor innocent bystanders who assumed room temperature shortly after the defendant ventilated them with his illegal assault rifle".

It has a certain ring to it.

[Foggy]

He was playing GI Joe I'm telling ya!

Yeah, and it's a lot more fun if'n you don't have to do boot camp first. I heard boot camp is hard.

[RVInit]

He was playing GI Joe I'm telling ya!

Yeah, and it's a lot more fun if'n you don't have to do boot camp first. I heard boot camp is hard.

A self appointed militia "medic" operating on the streets of America. Yeah, we need more of that.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

From scirreeve:

This thread says that this judge routinely disallows using "victim" (as mentioned above). Also says that the rioters looters arsonist language can only be used in closing arguments if evidence was presented supporting that description. Cannot use those words during opening or during the trial. IDK if true.

This is true. Actually both are but I forgot about the closing argument thingy.

[Uninformed]

[Patagoniagirl]

Isnt that generally decided by a ruling on a Motion in Limine out of the jury's presence?

Generally, yes.

And in this case, it was. The prosecutor's request was made in a motion of limine. Out the jury's presence because there's no jury yet.

In this case, I think it was a good idea for the prosecutor to get ahead of this, instead of waiting for defense counsel to utter the words in front of the jury.

I will defer to the IAACrDLs' opinions on whether the prosecutor is setting a trap.

I know there is no jury yet. I guess I misunderstood and thought the judge's ruling was that he would consider evidence of the victims "during the trial".

Back to funny cat videos for me.

[neeneko]

I have always been fascinated at where people draw the lines of 'if X had not been doing Y, then consequence Z would not have happened'.

If Rosenbaum had not been chasing Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse would not have shot him. If Rittenhouse had not been playing paramilitary with a weapon that Rosenbaum wanted, Rosenbaum would not have been chasing him. When exactly do people blame the victim for being a temptation and the perpetrator for their actions?

[Dave from down under]

Depends of if you identify with the one doing the shooting or with the one that was shot..

[Patagoniagirl]

So exactly what should we call the people killed or shot? We call the shooter/murderer/antagonist/perpetrator the Defendant, right? What is the proper name for victim/s, other than victim/s? If they arent victims, then what? I'm Corfused.

[Dave from down under]

2A collateral damage

[bob]

So exactly what should we call the people killed or shot? We call the shooter/murderer/antagonist/perpetrator the Defendant, right? What is the proper name for victim/s, other than victim/s? If they arent victims, then what? I'm Corfused.

You can use whatever language you desire.

But the prosecutor now has some limitations on language choices. And (reputable) media will continue to excessively use the adjective "alleged" and adverb "allegedly."

More seriously: For colloquial use, victim is fine (perhaps even preferred). If someone at the corner store or on social media pushes back on the term, whether to debate, troll, or move on is your choice.

[Gregg]

He was playing GI Joe I'm telling ya!

Yeah, and it's a lot more fun if'n you don't have to do boot camp first. I heard boot camp is hard.

I have much fonder memories of it 40 years later.

I enlisted Infantry, went to OCS, them IOBC, then Air Assault School at the 101st, spent 6 months as a real live Infantryman before I got into flight school and it damn near killed me when I was 20 years old.

[Gregg]

So exactly what should we call the people killed or shot? We call the shooter/murderer/antagonist/perpetrator the Defendant, right? What is the proper name for victim/s, other than victim/s? If they arent victims, then what? I'm Corfused.

"poor innocent bystanders who assumed room temperature shortly after the defendant ventilated them with his illegal assault rifle".

[p0rtia]

Former meatsacks.

[Patagoniagirl]

He was playing GI Joe I'm telling ya!

Yeah, and it's a lot more fun if'n you don't have to do boot camp first. I heard boot camp is hard.

I have much fonder memories of it 40 years later.

I enlisted Infantry, went to OCS, them IOBC, then Air Assault School at the 101st, spent 6 months as a real live Infantryman before I got into flight school and it damn near killed me when I was 20 years old.

In 1978, I learned a righteous respect for an M-16, etc. In Basic Training (Ft. Jax, SC - 45N) unlike this disrespectful, wannabe POS Rittenhouse. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to put a weapon of war in his pimply hands?