JUDGE: Those Allegedly Shot By Rittenhouse Can’t Be Called ‘Victims’ During Trial, ‘Rioters’ And ‘Arsonists’ Both More Accurate

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You should also remember that I'm the one person who is A-political... meaning that I'm not interested in politics except to eradicate them.

Or.... maybe the things they say about you are correct...

Unfortunately for you, a lot of the poor logic and aggressive ignornace you are displaying has become a feature of politics, especially Republicans. So looks like you got swept up.

 

[braalian]

Oh, come on. The judge is right. It’s a trial to determine if KR shot those people in self-defense or not.

It makes perfect sense, the court can’t call them “victims” because calling them that is pretty much the same as saying it *wasn’t* self-defense. It would influence the jury.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, come on. The judge is right. It’s a trial to determine if KR shot those people in self-defense or not.

It makes perfect sense, the court can’t call them “victims” because calling them that is pretty much the same as saying it wasn’t self-defense. It would influence the jury.

Right. And at first blush, it seems wrong by the same token to call them arsonists, or looters. But the burden lies on the prosecution.

 

[Correll]

Right. And at first blush, it seems wrong by the same token to call them arsonists, or rioters. But the burden lies on the prosecution.

Except, they were rioters and arsonists....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Except, they were rioters and arsonists....

In any other setting besides this trial and private conversations, it would be required that they have been convicted of those things. For example, you can sit there and claim Grosskreutz was a arsonist, despite not having a shred of evidence of that. And that's fine. We are used to irrational liars here. Not a thing illegal about it.

 

[Coyote]

Except, they were rioters and arsonists....

Can you prove the three men shot were?

 

[JohnDB]

Except, they were rioters and arsonists....

Videotape of them smashing vehicles and setting fires is usually acceptable evidence

 

[westwall]

Right. And at first blush, it seems wrong by the same token to call them arsonists, or looters. But the burden lies on the prosecution.

Why, they WERE!

 

[Correll]

In any other setting besides this trial and private conversations, it would be required that they have been convicted of those things. For example, you can sit there and claim Grosskreutz was a arsonist, despite not having a shred of evidence of that. And that's fine. We are used to irrational liars here. Not a thing illegal about it.

They were certainly there to engage in street violence, ie riot.

 

[westwall]

Can you prove the three men shot were?

Yeah, they have video evidence of them engaging in arson.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why, they WERE!

Hmm, not really. You don't have evidence that Grosskreutz looted or committed arson, for example. And the defense does not plan to argue that he did either of those things. They are just going to call him arsonist and looter. Which is allowed, because it is the defense. They are painting a picture of Kyle's perception.

 

[Correll]

Can you prove the three men shot were?

I believe that there is video of Rosenbaum playing with fire, and all three engaged in rioting, ie street violence, when they attacked Rittenhouse.

The same way that it is not being denied that Rittenhouse shot them, it should not be denied that they attacked Rittenhouse.


What would you call them?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They were certainly there to engage in street violence, ie riot.

But not convicted of the crime of rioting. Which means that, for example, if you wrote a news article calling him an arsonist or looter, you and your paper could get sued.

The prosecution is outright claiming Kyle went there for street violence. But they cannot call him "rioter". There are different standards for the prosecution.

 

[Correll]

But not convicted of the crime of rioting. Which means that, for example, if you wrote a news article calling him an arsonist or looter, you and your paper could get sued.

The prosecution is outright claiming Kyle went there for street violence. But they cannot call him "rioter". There are different standards for the prosecution.

The Prosecution can CLAIM that, but it has to establish it. Which will be nearly impossible, since that speaks to internal INTENT of a person's mind.


We have extensive video of the three rioters, engaging in street violence, when they attacked Rittenhouse.

 

[braalian]

Rittenhouse is the one on trial. Not the men he shot.

Saying that the prosecution calling the shot men “victims” is the same as the defense calling them “rioters” is a false equivalency. It’s apples and oranges.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Prosecution can CLAIM that, but it has to establish it.

Exactly right. The can't point at Kyle and say "The Rioter". And they can't point at Grosskreutz and say, "The victim".

But this is not the same reasoning that allows the defense to call Grosskruetz an arsonist, or a looter. They have not a shred of evidence of that and don't plan to argue it one iota. They are just going to call him that, and do so from Kyle's perspective.

 

[JohnDB]

Exactly right. The can't point at Kyle and say "The Rioter". And they can't point at Grosskreutz and say, "The victim".

But this is not the same reasoning that allows the defense to call Grosskruetz an arsonist, or a looter. They have not a shred of evidence of that and don't plan to argue it one iota. They are just going to call him that, and do so from Kyle's perspective.

The judge actually said to call them by appropriate titles of "Mr" until such time as they can prove something different.

 

[Correll]

Exactly right. The can't point at Kyle and say "The Rioter". And they can't point at Grosskreutz and say, "The victim".

But this is not the same reason the defense CAN call Grosskruetz an arsonist, or a looter. They have not a shred of evidence of that and don't plan to argue it one iota. They are just going to call him that, and do so from Kyle's perspective.

Sounds like the Prosecution could try challenging it if they wanted to.


But that would lead into looking into whether or not it was valid. Which the prosecution would probably want to avoid, for obvious reasons.


Question: What WOULD you support calling the three attackers? Individuals? Individual one, two and three?

 

[Correll]

The judge actually said to call them by appropriate titles of "Mr" until such time as they can prove something different.

Works for me. There is no need for the defense to play the kind of "spin" games the left loves so much.

The video evidence speaks for itself.

 

[westwall]

Hmm, not really. You don't have evidence that Grosskreutz looted or committed arson, for example. And the defense does not plan to argue that he did either of those things. They are just going to call him arsonist and looter. Which is allowed, because it is the defense. They are painting a picture of Kyle's perception.

He was a prohibited person with a firearm engaged in street rioting. The video PROVES that.

So, you are wrong again.

You're batting 0 for 10.