Quote of the day—Erik Ortiz

When the trial opens of Kyle Rittenhouse, the Illinois teenager accused of gunning down two men and wounding a third during nightly unrest last summer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, one word won’t be allowed to describe those who were shot: “victims.”

Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder, however, ordered that other words could be used — “rioters,” “looters” or “arsonists” — if Rittenhouse’s defense attorneys can provide the evidence that they had engaged in those acts.

Erik Ortiz
October 27, 2021
Rittenhouse judge in spotlight after disallowing word ‘victims’ in courtroom
[More could be said about the wording of the article, but the bottom line is that this is great news for Rittenhouse.—Joe]


11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Erik Ortiz

  1. The article is very biased even from the clip given here.

    In a case where a person is using “self-defense” as their defense, it is normal for the judge to forbid calling the person shot/killed “victim”.

    That *is* the case. The case is: Was Kyle the victim or were these other people the victim?

    For the prosecutor to call the people shot “victims” it means that the question of who was the actual victim has already been answered. Thus, the judge rightly forbids the prosecution from referring to those shoot as “victims”.

    In a different hearing, the judge ruled that the defense can refer to those that were attacking Kyle and whom he shot as “looters, rioters, arsonists” if the defense can present facts that support those claims.

    So if the defense can present evidence of any of those shot starting a fire or preventing a fire from being extinguished then they can refer to those as “arsonists” and so forth.

    • ^^ THIS ^^

      The trial is, in part, to determine who the victim(s) was/were that night. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense should refer to Kyle or the three men as “victim”; who the victim(s) was/were is up to the jury to decide.

      And allowing the defense to refer to the three men as “rioters”, “looters”, and “arsonists” if they can show evidence to support those terms helps establish Kyle’s state of mind and their previous behaviors; the jury can weigh that in determining who was the aggressor.

      As I understand it (IANAL), all this is pretty normal for a self-defense claim, in which the dead/injured party might in fact be the bad guy(s). The media is attempting to feed outrage by being dishonest with the totality of context — telling only half the story.

      Put another way, they are lying by omission to spin The Narrative [TM] they want. But then, what else is new?

    • “The case is: Was Kyle the victim or were these other people the victim? For the prosecutor to call the people shot “victims” it means that the question of who was the actual victim has already been answered.”

      In law School this was rightfully condemned as “Conclusory Reasoning”, and could flunk you right out of law school.
      In undergraduate logic class, this was called “Begging the Question”, that is, committing the logical fallacy of assuming the truth of what you are attempting to “prove”. No one today seems to be able to understand that is not the same as “raising a question”.

      The issue in this case turns on who was the aggressor and who was the victim (as someone once said to me, “that is what we are here to find out”).

  2. Not sure about the legal of it all. As Therefor said. The politics is heavy in this one. Indeed the whole trial is politics. And maybe that’s why the judge is ruling in the manner he is.
    Also it would be hyperbole for the prosecutor to call anyone that was attacking Kyle a victim. No one can argue that everyone shot was attacking Kyle. Just wither the attack warranted deadly force is the question.
    On watching the court videos. One sees the prosecutor going more at Kyle having the weapon. And that if he hadn’t broken the law by possessing the weapon, no one would be dead.
    It will be the Pigdowndog prosecution. If their wasn’t a weapon. Never a problem there would have been. Kyle carrying the weapon is what set in motion the whole chain of events. Thus Kyle is responsible for those deaths.
    Video shows the first attacker shot, earlier verbally attacking Kyle for having the gun.
    What the prosecution won’t bring up is that the guy was a pedo. And as such, the boyish looks of Kyle, with the ability to defend himself, was the offence. And what truly set the ghoul off.
    God knows crushing some pedo’s fantasy world is something evil can’t abide.
    One good thing, the judge seems very comfortable with himself. And his rulings.
    And without saying so knows this prosecution is pure bullshit.

    • The judge is a former prosecutor himself, so we can presume he knows all the cute tricks. Good on him for not entertaining any of it.

      While it’s technically true that if Kyle hadn’t had the rifle, he wouldn’t have shot anyone. However, the prosecutor cannot say with any reasonable certainty that if Kyle hadn’t been armed, nobody would have died. He can’t even say with certainty that it was the rifle that provoked the attack; it could just as easily have been the first aid kit Kyle carried, or the pleasant conversation he was seen having with police officers, or that he was trying to protect a business they wanted to torch (and indeed helped put out a literal dumpster fire they started). It’s fully possible that Kyle would still have been chased and assaulted by those three men for any of those reasons, and — lacking the means to defend himself — been killed.

      The pedo’s history as a pedo is irrelevant. So is the pistol-wielder’s status as a felon — a “prohibited person”. (On that note, I’d like the prosecutor to explain how a kid having a rifle is provocative enough to draw attacks and negate his self-defense claim, but a felon in possession of a pistol somehow isn’t.) Neither of those histories are near enough to that night to have mattered much.

      But the rioting, looting, and arson that those three men may have engaged in that very night IS relevant, and shows their hostility and state of mind toward society in general and toward Kyle specifically.

      Another interesting point: The surviving rioter has an open lawsuit pending against Kyle for his injuries — he is seeking monetary damages. The judge is allowing the defense to call that out; that guy’s testimony is less likely to be neutral since he has a personal and financial interest in the trial’s outcome — a conviction would probably seal the deal on damages, but if Kyle is acquitted on self-defense grounds he’ll be less likely to prevail.

      Interesting stuff.

      • Mr. Bicep is the one act that was pure self defense on Kyle’s part. Not that getting kicked in the head, and hit with a skateboard couldn’t be deadly.
        But the guy could say nothing to the jury. That isn’t already said in the video.
        He was going to shoot Kyle. And Kyle got him first.
        I’m still in complete awe of that kids weapons handling under pressure.
        I agree that pedo guy’s history is not going to be brought up. But why didn’t the guy go after the older guys in the early video? He went right after the kid in the crowd with intimidation. And assaulting him that he was going to take the gun away.
        The videos show it all. The state has to go after the legality of the gun. It’s all they really have.
        To bad they couldn’t get the venue changed to Idaho. The last open and shut case like this the jury hung out for three hours, just so they would get fed lunch.

  3. Thus far the judge has dealt with the obvious ploys to avoid problems with an appeal.. The prosecution still has a lot of cards to play. These early moves may just be establishing a smoke screen for the later action(s) against Rittenhouse. It will be a long game.

  4. The judge also said that the prosecutor could refer to RIttenhouse as a cold-blooded killer if there is evidence indicating that. For some unknown reason, that is being left out of about 99% of the news stories.

  5. It appears the judge hearing this case is fair and honest….and understands the law.
    That is exceedingly rare these days. It also appears that Mr. Rittenhouse will get a fair trial…..if the defense can keep the DA from packing the jury. What is likely to also happen is that if Mr. Rittenhouse is acquitted the Fed Gov will roll up and charge him with every bogus manufactured Federal violation they can dream up.
    The left simply CANNOT ALLOW this young man to be exonerated. So he won’t be.

    • Reading your conclusion that the feds will dump on him after this trial, it occurs to me that Kyle encountered a current version of the “Kobayashi Maru scenario”.

      • As long as the left is firmly in control of the “system” we are ALL in a Kobayashi Maru” scenario.

Comments are closed.