This isn’t far from the truth. According to Chris Hayes the Judge ruled prosecutors are not allowed to refer to the literal victims of murder in this case as “victims”. I’m not sure why that trial is even continuing.
Is anyone watching Hayes? The violence is coming and we are idiots if we don’t arm ourselves
If violence is coming, people need to think about whether it is better to be proactive or reactive.
satire game never been tougher
Actually, I kind of understand this approach. Are they murder victims? Then Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. No need to proceed any further. They’re not arguing that somebody else shot them. If they are victims, then Rittenhouse is the victimizer. Right?
Similar policies apply in journalism too. Let’s say person A is arrested for the murder of Person B. Person A doesn’t deny killing the other person, but says he did it in self defense. So then is it proper for a writer to refer to Person B as a murder victim? The cops say he is. But if the defendant is correct in his claim of self defense, Person B can’t be a murder victim since no murder was committed. Thus journalistically he becomes an alleged murder victim.
They are victims. Of gun shot wounds that caused death.
This I mean I don’t think the defense is arguing otherwise
I understand your points and appreciate what you’re saying, but what they’re doing is just how they do it sometimes in court. Words matter. If a guy shoots up his co-workers but then gets shot by a cop, is he a victim? A victim of gun shots? The word victim by nature implies he was subjected to some type of wrongdoing, and when the defense is claiming the shooting was justified, they are arguing there was no wrongdoing.
So what is the objectively neutral term that can be used to describe the people Rittenhouse killed? “The deceased” I guess?
People. Or their names.
“alleged victim”
Personally I think of this issue more from a journalistic perspective, since that’s where I was coming from back in the day. I think an argument can be made that its a bit much for a prosecutor to comply with this protocol when they are taking an advocacy position that Rittenhouse is criminally responsible. But I can see where the defense would object every time the term was used and it would result in unnecessary delays and so forth.
The alleged victim that was allegedly shot with alleged bullets that allegedly were propelled from an alleged gun.
Allegedly dead. C’mon people we know they were actors just like those little people in Connecticut. You know how long it took them to lean to lie still and appear not to breathe?
I’m reminded of Calvin Trillin’s novel Floater. The protagonist works at a news magazine and hates being assigned to religion stories. He gets removed from the beat by referring to the “alleged birth of Jesus” and the “alleged resurrection of Jesus.”
This defense attorney gives a pretty good description of the “victim” issue and says the judge is on solid legal ground with his ruling. She also explains how the defense can get away with calling the people who were shot “looters, rioters and arsonists”. She believes the judge is on solid legal ground there too, although that’s because of some legal precedent that is unique to Wisconsin state law. If you want to cut to the chase, start at about the 13:30 mark.
Gonna skip all that shit and go straight to “lol law”
This seems like a dangerous escalation and incitement toward violence by Carlson and Fox. Fear the “Patriot Purge”! It’s already happening!
The funny part is they really do think they represent “half the country” but I’m not sure eye rolling and laughing is going to end up being the right response to this shit. Just from a propaganda standpoint, it’s impressive.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1453517062073110540
From a reddit thread:
Nice thing about English is that we have so many lovely words. If we’re going about using presumptive language let’s get started with:
Heroes, martyrs, saints, kyle’s targets, kyle’s kill count, the bodies Rittenhouse dropped, the “innocent because they’ll never be able to defend themselves against the charge of ‘looter’ because of kyle”.
I don’t know anything about criminal law, but the no ‘victim’ language thing seems to be a standard move by defense attorneys.
Jesus fucking christ