That would've been the appropriate thing to do. Yes. Troubling that it wasn't done here. The judge didn't even issue a warning like he's supposed to. You don't entertain insane arguments about why someone who was possibly killed in self defense should be permitted to be referred to as a "victim". It's clearly a term that automatically assumes the guilt of the accused before the trial has even begun. It's so patently absurd that merely fighting the judge on it is contempt. Yet not even a formal warning was issued. If I was Rittenhouse, that's a scary thing to notice, this court is not operating as it should. The silence of his defense is actually not that bad, as they could possibly use this point as a way to get Rittenhouse retried under different circumstances by showing a clear bias. The court assuming guilt of the accused before tge trial, a clear case of it. That's a card you want to keep close to your chest.