In a criminal case, like anything else, words matter. A defendant can call you a looter to justify shooting you, but if you demonstrate for your rights, should anyone around you engages in looting, you can be summarily be classified as a Looter, but not a victim, if killed.
Prosecutors cannot call those shot by Kyle Rittenhouse 'victims.' But 'looters' is OK
Is the word victim anymore loaded than the word looter?
Message Board Archives
A looter cannot be a victim, if killed.
Pretty insane. I'd be livid if I was the family of said victims.
In reply to Casper
It's probably because Rittenhouse has raised self defence as justification for his acts.
If the Prosecutor refers to the people killed as "victims" during the trial then it may imply to the jurors that the accused person didn't have justification to shoot them and therefore not acting in self defence.
The case, with the help of the judge, is being primed to get Rottenhouse a light sentence, if found guilty.
#murcanproblems
In reply to Casper
How did the judge conclude the persons shot were indeed looters?
In reply to nitro
The best rhetorical question you have ever asked. Indeed everything we see on tape suggests otherwise. The boy
left the area he claimed to have been protecting and entered the area of street demonstrators. Those demonstrators
in concern or panic that an anti-demonstrator was in their midst with a gun unwisely tried to get it from him.
That is all that happened. Saying he was in fear of his life is nonsense because a mob did not attack him. at no time
were there more than 2 people close to him.
In reply to dayne
he will not be
In reply to nitro
Bullseye. The deceased have not been charged or convicted of looting, so that judge's statement is a load of bollocks.
Search
Live Scores
- no matches