Despite the rather strange and inconsistent ruling by the judge in the beginning about "victim" being banned from being used by prosecution (while allowing rioter and looter to be used by defense),...
One thing I keep wondering about is why people keep bringing up the "talking point" used in the mainstream media about the judge allowing the use of "rioter" and "looter" exactly the same way the media said it, which is, WITHOUT including the rest of the judge's instructions about the use of the words "rioter" and "looter" which were, essentially, that those words could be used IF those actions could be proven.
"Victim" may not be used, UNTIL there is a verdict that a crime has been committed, I get that, easily. What I don't get is people ignoring the same judge's instruction that rioter and looter could only be used if those actions could be proven, as if he never gave them.
And then, arguing about how unfair it is to let the defense use those words.
The media originally reported exactly what the judge said, in full detail. Then a "legal scholar" or two stated how unfair the ruling was because of the defense being allowed to use rioter and looter and ignored the rest of the judge's instructions about those words in their "opinion" which they presented to the media, which of course has since repeated only the opinion of those "experts".
I consider this a "lie of omission" They know the truth, but are only telling the part of it that supports their agenda, omitting the part that doesn't.
What bugs me is people on the pro gun side of the issue repeating this when they should know better.