Shot dead but not a victim?
Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder has decided those who were shot by Rittenhouse cannot be called "victims" until or if he is convicted of a crime.
Yet two of Rittenhouse's victims (yes, I'm calling them that) are dead. Gunned down with an AR-15-style rifle. But Schroeder
will allow Joseph Rosenbaum, 36; Anthony Huber, 26; and Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, who was injured, to be referred to as looters, rioters and arsonists in open court.
Never mind that these victims – that word again – were never convicted (or even charged) of actual looting the night they were shot.
He was asleep in his car. Police woke him up and created a reason to kill him.
So tell me, what did they loot? Is there evidence to suggest they set things ablaze with criminal intent?
Do videos exist showing them rioting?
How is it that they're not "victims" but they're "looters"?
Taking the most generous view of the judge's ruling – he called victim "a loaded, loaded word" – he was trying to ensure a fair trial. Where I stumble with that view is when I remember that fairness and justice aren't supposed to be one-sided.
As I see it, disallowing victim but permitting the use of loaded terms such as looter and rioter could sway a jury to feel sympathy toward Rittenhouse – his victims were up to no good, they were menacing criminals, they
deserved it.
What a disappointing and enraging start to a trial that in many ways defines who we are, what we champion and who we are willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
Due process. The presumption of innocence.
This is our criminal justice system. This is why people kneel during the national anthem. This is why thousands of individuals took to the streets after the murder of George Floyd. This is why many Americans demand systemic reforms.
This is a travesty, and we are all the victims
