One of my pet peeves in an adult lifetime of working in the criminal justice system is the misapplication of the term \u201cvictim.\u201d Traditionally, whomever was killed (or hurt the worst) in a violent encounter has been referred to as the \u201cvictim.\u201d This muddies the waters in the frequent cases where the innocent \u201cGood Guy,\u201d the intended victim of the criminal \u201cBad Guy,\u201d turns the tables and shoots \u2013 perhaps even kills \u2013 their attacker to save their own life. The original criminal perpetrator has been named the Victim, and the intended Victim is seen as the Perpetrator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Many years ago, I toured police headquarters in a city which had recently earned the dubious title of a \u201cmurder capitol.\u201d A huge chart in the homicide investigation office listed names, dates, locations and who killed who. I was saddened to see that even in cases where a police officer had killed a would-be cop-killer in line of duty defense of themselves and the public, the dead thug was listed as the \u201cvictim\u201d and the police officer as the \u201cperpetrator.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In such cases, I\u2019ve always thought it was the jury\u2019s job to determine who was the \u201cvictim.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I was delighted to see that a certain judge feels the same way. Judge Bruce Schroeder will preside over the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, much discussed in these pages, which begins this coming Monday. In the pre-trial motions, the issue came up as to whether the prosecution could characterize the defendant as a cold-blooded murderer, or whether the defense could characterize the men who were shot as looters, rioters or arsonists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you\u2019ve followed the news (the Chicago Tribune<\/em> in my case), you\u2019ve seen the judge\u2019s decision characterized as \u201cJudge says victims can\u2019t be called victims, but defense can call them criminals\u201d or words to that effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I wonder if those \u201cnews writers\u201d were actually listening <\/em>to the proceedings, as I was (and as you can) on Court TV. As I interpret it, what the judge says was the prosecution can\u2019t characterize the defendant as a criminal until they can show reason to believe that, <\/strong>and the defense can\u2019t characterize those who were shot as criminals until THEY can show reason to believe that.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Sounds fair to me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Attorney Andrew Branca has a solid take on that, with video clips of the proceedings, here: <\/p>\n\n\n\n