[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Yeah that judge is having trouble speaking coherently. The "news articles" that quote him aren't quoting him in full. They're heavily editing what he actually was saying, so that their readers can make sense of it.

He forbade anyone calling the victims of the shooting - victims. In medical terms, that's what they were. Victims. They didn't die of old age. They were victims of fatal wounds from gunshots. Just like someone who dies from cancer is a victim of cancer. And someone who falls off a ladder is a victim of a broken neck. Someone who is killed in a car crash is a victim of massive internal injuries.

Victim is a 100%valid word to use for someone who is dead as a result of a gunshot. But the judge wants to minimize the "victimhood" of the victims by forbidding the word.

It was okay to call the victims rioters or looters, if it could be proven that they were. He actually pro-actively stated as such. But he pre-emptively forbade the word "victim." Even if it could be proven they were victims, they aren't allowed to call them that and when one witnessed used the word in his testimony the judge went ballistic.

(I was watching this on Fox News, at the time, in case anyone REALLY and SINCERELY gives a crap)

He is gaslighting a trial he presides over.

He is insisting on "legal" terms, not "medical" terms...