They can't use victim here because what is being questioned is whether the use of force that killed Rosenbaum was lawful or unlawful.

If it was lawful by reason of self defense, them Rosenbaum is not a victim but a perpetrator, Rittenhouse was the victim, who had rightfully defended himself with appropriate use of force.

If it was unlawful, but only in that the use of force was disproportionate, Rosenbaum could still not be called a victim, as Rittenhouse is still the victim here, and Rosenbaum still the perpetrator, Rittenhouse is merely a victim who had defended himself by means of disproportionate use of force in self defense against Rosenbaum who posed an immediate threat to Rittenhouse.

It's an offense, but a far lesser one than being a perpetrator of an act of violence against someone who wasn't a clear and present threat to him.

Using the term victim to describe Rosenbaum excludes both of these possibilities, and presupposes and guilty verdict for Rittenhouse for a charge of murder.

The (obviously jewish) lawyer here knows that, it's why he's so determined to fight the judge on this, using words that psychologically prime the jury to think of this as a murder case first, with the consideration of it being a case of self defense (by reasonable or unreasonable means) second, if at all, is their ticket to an easy win, simply due to the quirk of the human minds need for closure and easy answers.

The prosecution already knows that the jury has previously been primed by the media to treat this as a murder case, and they also know something else.

The self serving bias, another quirk of the mind that latches onto whatever favors themselves personally, they know that voting that Rittenhouse is not guilty of murder is going to cause them to face the widespread disapproval and enmity of the leftists who run the culture, they will be cast as villains who protected a neo nazi who killed a jew in a hate crime.

Even "merely" coming to the aforementioned lesser charge would be enough to make them enemy number one, and real consequences could follow for even this middle of the road verdict, as with George Floyd vs Derek Chauvin, there had need no shortage of jury intimidation to make this point very clear to it's jurors.

The jury will want Rittenhouse to be guilty of murder, and thus, they will be predisposed to interpret the information at the trial in a way that makes him a murderer, their brains will filter out evidence and arguments that go contrary to this notion, while amplifying and exaggerating the information that support it.

The studies are clear, the mind sees what what wants to see, and the prosecution knows that with both this and the effect of psychological priming, they have less work to do to convince the jurors to vote guilty, because the minds of the jury members are already doing a lot of the work for them before the case even begins.

Just a wording that supports the biases that already dwell prominently in the minds of the jurors is enough to to tip the scale quite a bit in their direction of getting the exact verdict they want, so they will fight and die on this hill before the case begins, one word is all they need to win this one on exactly the grounding they desire.

Is it dishonest to rely on psychological flaws to get a kid you know was innocent found guilty of murder? Yes, it is, it's prosecutorial misconduct, in fact, enough to get this lawyer disbarred, so he's either git some balls of steel in this case (unlikely), or he knows he's not at risk of being punished for this blatant and public act of misconduct, likely due to some form of corruption in the "justice" system (very likely).

Most people aren't aware enough to recognize this for the blatant malpractice of law that it is, and those who are aware are too apathetic and resigned to care about it anymore, I don't blame them, when there's a few problems, you can care, when everything is fubar, it's overwhelming and desensitizing. I know the feeling of fatigue that comes with paying attention.

This goes to show that our system is not worth saving, it's gone far beyond salvaging, it needs a reset, a hard reset, and not the one the kikes are interested in (quite the opposite), things cannot simply remain the same and continue on as they had for half a century anymore, things need to end, and they need to start anew, with seriously major changes being made to the foundational design of our countries.

Is anyone noticing that prosecutor is really snarky and condescending to the judge? There's no respect there at all