After doing some research on this topic and talking to some lawyers about it, putting a defendant on the stand is very very common in self defense cases.
I would have asked the judge for dismissal if it wasn't out of order.
- Thread starter hollowoutadime
- Start date
I would have asked the judge for dismissal if it wasn't out of order.
You can stop arguing semantics. The trial is actually taking place and there's plenty of sworn testimony.
Spoiler alert!: Kyle is innocent or rather was in the act of self defense.
Please take your random 'what if' arguments to a thread where they are still viable for trolling.
Spoiler alert!: Kyle is innocent or rather was in the act of self defense.
Please take your random 'what if' arguments to a thread where they are still viable for trolling.
This. Self-Defense depends a lot on the defenders state of mind. Most of the time, they do testify on their own defense because only they can speak to their state of mind.
YUGE MISTAKE !!!……..
The prosecution handed the defense the win on a silver platter. This is either gross incompetence or nefariously intentional.
This is the best thing to happen to the prosecutor's case. It is a monumentally stupid decision.
Which was the same thing being discussed earlier in this thread, and to me, it makes sense, despite the evidence that seems pretty clear you can infer the danger; most people would, but I would think to be sure the jury understands the mindset of the defendant, you still need him to say, "He was acting insane, threatening to kill me, chased me, I heard gunshots and this crazy killer dude ran up to take my gun and kill me, I was gonna die. Then I'm on the ground, a mob swarmed me, they were all trying to kill me." Works even better for a teenager. Just need to be super careful during cross though; watch your words.
Well now, nothing like watching the defendant have a complete and total breakdown on the witness stand.
The defendant was doing so well (in my opinion) up to that point.
The defendant was doing so well (in my opinion) up to that point.
Jury should feel sorrow as Kyle is most emotional. Proceedings temporally halted.
Why the hell are they having him testify?
They decided to persue this for politics. Screw them. They need to eat every bite of the crap sandwich they made.
On further reflection, perhaps Kyle can flip the script, a la Samuel Jackson:
Q: Do you regret?
A: Hell no! I hope they burn in hell!
Jury return in 5 minutes: Not guilty!
Would it happen? Only in our dreams, eh? LOL
Q: Do you regret?
A: Hell no! I hope they burn in hell!
Jury return in 5 minutes: Not guilty!
Would it happen? Only in our dreams, eh? LOL
Because without it, there will be no evidence that the defendant feared death or great bodily injury, and he won't get the self defense instruction. A defense attorney would have to be an absolute moron to not put his client on the stand in this case for, at a bare minimum, the limited purpose of establishing his subjective fear toward the people he is charged with shooting or shooting at.
Yep, which I explained to people for page after page and everyone piled on me and said that his subjective state of mind can be inferred. Good luck with that kind of argument. I have never seen it work in real life, although I've seen many try.
Or maybe they did it so that a jury and not a bunch of bureaucrats can walk the guy, allowing the community to make the decision instead of them.
The real question we all should be asking (assuming Wisconsin has a grand jury), is why our citizens even allowed him to be charged.
I had thought that perhaps the actual evidence was more ambiguous than the media led us to believe.
After watching some of the testimony, this looks like a far weaker case for the State than I'd originally thought--and I never thought it was a good case for them to begin with.
No argument, just a question. Anybody know why (or if it would have value if it was), nobody has shown what kind of damage can occur with a Skateboard swung into a head or other body part? When I was a kid, and skateboards were fairly new, I used to ride one a lot. They are heavy, stiff, and have heavy trucks at each end, that gives "weight forward" (like a Kukri). Striking with the wheels can cause a depression fracture of the skull, and striking with the edge of the board along the neck can fracture the spine. There is enough weight and force if driven straight inward to rupture a spleen or fracture ribs or casue a cardiac contusion or lung contusion. Of course, an adrenaline (and drug) charged, man, would swing this with full force, so "deadly weapon"? Yeah, I'm sure THAT could be easily demonstrated to the Jury's Satisfaction.
Not sure how Kyle's breakdown will affect jury. Jury may be thinking he broke down because he knows his testimony now decides the course of the rest of his life.
Someone give me the cliff notes at the end of the day. He doesn’t seem like the most articulate person.
In my opinion the judge is right on the verge of dismissing this case and the prosecutor being charged with violation of Rittenhouse civil rights
That's a stretch even for Reed Richard's. Politicians choose battles they believe that can win...which in this case questions his level of intelligence...or brings to light his arrogance and degree of corruption.
Fill me in please. Violating his civil rights?
Kyle is embarrassing the prosecutor and the judge put his foot up his ass not once but three times.
It is a mistake to view prosecutors as "politicians." The ADA assigned to this case is not a politician in any sense of the word and would have nothing to gain from a conviction. It's not like we're talking about the Enron people here. The only people who care about this case are the families of the deceased and gun rights activists like us. Nobody else cares.
The judge is not on the verge of interfering with the role of the jury and "dismissing" the case or he already would have granted the defense a directed verdict when the state rested.
Prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit for carrying out their duties.
Your "opinion" is profoundly misinformed as to how the law works.
That is a very productive addition to the conversation. I bet your mother is so proud.
Ummmm............
Kenosha mayor has close family ties to lead detective, prosecuting DA in Rittenhouse case
“Lucky for John [the mayor of Kenosha], he has a lot of powerful family members in charge here in Kenosha,” wrote the Kenosha County Eye.
thepostmillennial.com 
We have elected politicians and appointed politicians. The first won a popularity contest test; the second sucked up to first.
AFA no one else caring...why so much vitriol from the left directed at Rittenhouser.
Ummmm............
Kenosha mayor has close family ties to lead detective, prosecuting DA in Rittenhouse case
“Lucky for John [the mayor of Kenosha], he has a lot of powerful family members in charge here in Kenosha,” wrote the Kenosha County Eye.
I don't know what the laws are in that specific jurisdiction but I know for 100% that in Texas we have "Official Oppression" laws.
Per Google:
"The Official Oppression crime in the state of Texas makes it a crime for a public servant to use their office to deny someone their rights, sexually harass or mistreat someone."
I would think pretty much every state has similar laws.
They will ask for dismissal right after the closing arguments. This happens in almost all criminal trials as a simple matter of practice. They will say the prosecution failed to make their case. Most likely the judge will still send it to the jury.
Prosecutor is now going after the AR-15 again and videogames and questioning why he bought that specific rifle. They're really trying to paint the picture he picked up the rifle and went looking to kill people.
The judge us LOOSING IT ON THE PROSECUTOR
See my post above about "Official Oppression". It definitely applies here in my view.
So your view is that prosecuting a case that is supported by probable cause, but subject to an affirmative defense, is "official oppression"?
I think it's more likely the judge tosses the case than it goes to decision at this point. Hope he gets some serious protection.
I would think it depends on how much the prosecutor knew before trial. If he knew then what testimony has revealed, he should face the same justice system as Kyle.
My point is that public officials don't have unlimited leeway to do whatever they want to do to whoever they want to do it to.
If you cause a defendant or anyone else to be drug through the mud and cause them severe financial and other harm to go after them for a political cause that is a moral as well as a legal violation.
Yet the rule for centuries has been that they are immune. So your point is wrong. It is not a legal violation. As to what is moral, I express no opinion other than to suggest that the law has been viewed as at least a floor of morality for centuries, and the vast majority of people who understand how it works would disagree with you.
It's fine if you think that, but not only is that not the law, nobody would become a prosecutor if that was the law. Prosecutors are immune because the government can accuse anyone of a crime if it is supported by probable cause. The large gray area between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't give a person the ability to go after the prosecutor because the proof doesn't amount to enough to convict. This "we don't like how the system functions so we're going to attack the characters" is pathetic, childish crap that guilty people do every day in courts in this country, and for good reason, it goes nowhere.
The current ass chewing, where the judge is explaining Rule 404(B) (literally the most litigated area of criminal trial evidence), to the prosecutor, is epic. It might not look at it, but the prosecutor is in deep shit right now.
If...
Prosecutors do NOT have unlimited leeway to do whatever they want. There is no such thing as unlimited immunity.
It's painfully obvious that the prosecutor wants a conviction regardless of innocence, or facts in the case, and is just grabbing at anything he can think of to save his own job.
Only when you need something from the defendant. The prosecutor has given him an acquittal. Now the prosecutor can open just about any can of worms during the cross. I stopped watching it after the first 5 minutes. I don't know how it will turn out, but I don't think this is going well. Maybe it's all over, I'll have to log back in to the trial.
