Home » Judge issues interesting ruling in proceedings prior to Rittenhouse trial

Comments

Judge issues interesting ruling in proceedings prior to Rittenhouse trial — 20 Comments

  1. Yup… My non-legal opinion is in synchro with yours, Neo.

    Yeah, Binger is right, those terms are loaded, BUT, as you say, they are not on trial here (even though they clearly should be!).. So enough evidence to prevent a successful slander/libel charge is adequate.

    But “victim”, as you say, does presuppose what the trial is about.

  2. I’m surprised this “victim” distinction hasn’t been settled, one way or the other, in general law. It seems like an obvious point.

    How about “alleged victim”?

  3. Rittenhouse’s attackers were participating in a riot. Multiple instances of arson occurred by those rioters. Can’t say they were looting but the first two labels are valid.

    A term is only “loaded” if inaccurate. Their presence demonstrates the accuracy of the labels.

  4. If I was one the bench I would rule that they may simply describe them as individuals with allowance of first person observations of the actions they were engaged in that are relevant to the claim of self defense.

  5. There is a perfectly good word for the prosecution to use, but it is telling that they fight to use victim rather than decedent.

  6. In fact, that the prosecution fought this in a hearing tells me the judge was correct in his ruling.

  7. In the Viva and Barnes livestream, Barnes said that Rittenhouse was trying to decide between being a nurse or a cop. Thus far, my impression of the lad is that the worst that can be said about him is that he was at the time of the incident young, naive, overly goodhearted and impulsive. According to Barnes, a lot of impressive legal talent has come to work on his defense. I hope it all matters.

  8. I agree with the judge’s characterization of them being rioters (probably worse, since they were apparently stalking Rittenhouse). It’s nice to see the boot on the other foot occasionally. The fact that it’s the truth is icing on the cake.

    Not a lawyer, but surely the judge’s direction will be Exhibit A in a prosecution appeal if Rittenhouse is acquitted?

  9. Not a lawyer, but surely the judge’s direction will be Exhibit A in a prosecution appeal if Rittenhouse is acquitted ?
    prosecution cant appeal an acquittal

  10. @avi:prosecution cant appeal an acquittal

    Oh, I’m sure they’ll find some emanation or penumbra in the Fifth Amendment in cases of this sort! They come very close to double jeopardy with some of the Federal prosecutions. But the government does not get to appeal acquittals today.

  11. The traditional approach is to get a US Attorney to file a fed case of denial of civil rights – right to life in this case. It’s deliberate double jeopardy, but the judges club allows it. I also believe it has a lower burden of proof. Then there’s always a civil suit for anything ranging from intentional infliction of inferiority and hurt feelings to offense exhalation in the presence of a favored prog constituency.

    Basically anything and everything to inflict as much pain as possible, regardless of expected outcome.

  12. The fact that Rittenhouse was prosecuted at all is an indication that the Kenosha County DA is a fraud and he assigned the case to the most reliable fraud on his staff.

  13. Andrew Branca’s piece on it is up this morning (28th) on LI. He has been covering the trial with daily recaps of the events. He also puts them up at his site, Law of Self-Defense.

    Here is a link to his video (30 min) presentation of the day’s events (YouTube):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4d_3B5sSGQ

  14. Todd Z.,
    Thanks for that. Sounds like you speak from experience.
    ______

    SA = Sturm Antifa. I’m stealing that one.

  15. the prosecution will be allowed to refer the three who were shot as “victims’ during final arguments in its effort to persuade jurors that defendant acted in a criminal manner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>