spike wrote:I had the same thought.simple schoolboy wrote:Weird choice by the defense. Depending on state law, having him testify might be required for certain jury instructions regarding self defense.spike wrote:Rittenhouse is on the stand now.
I guess he broke down and a recess was called. Maybe it’s all an attempt to humanize him.
Might be giving them too much credit. I'm not sure these people have ever tried a case.Bi_3 wrote:How many times can a jury be sent out because of prosecutor behavior until a mistrial? This is trying to get a mistrial right? So they can start over?
The possible downside is pretty massive. Are they worried the jury hates him and this is a hail mary?spike wrote:I had the same thought.simple schoolboy wrote:Weird choice by the defense. Depending on state law, having him testify might be required for certain jury instructions regarding self defense.spike wrote:Rittenhouse is on the stand now.
I guess he broke down and a recess was called. Maybe it’s all an attempt to humanize him.
BurtReynolds wrote:Might be giving them too much credit. I'm not sure these people have ever tried a case.Bi_3 wrote:How many times can a jury be sent out because of prosecutor behavior until a mistrial? This is trying to get a mistrial right? So they can start over?
Dev wrote:You're whole platform is about normalizing idiocy.
They want to recall the judge. Sigh.Bi_3 wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:Might be giving them too much credit. I'm not sure these people have ever tried a case.Bi_3 wrote:How many times can a jury be sent out because of prosecutor behavior until a mistrial? This is trying to get a mistrial right? So they can start over?
Edit: The gif is only because I am 100% sure that's what MSNBC will be going with tonight.
dimejinky99 wrote:Why is he crying in court?
Why is this even gone to trial??
tragabigzanda wrote:
Dev wrote:You're whole platform is about normalizing idiocy.
Mostly agree... though I am still an unclear why he gets to claim self-defense. nutjob twitter suggests that the law says everything that happened prior to Kyle being chased doesn't matter (i.e. bringing the gun, walking into the crowds, etc.) but that seems like exactly what should matter. I dunno.McParadigm wrote:This is basically where I’m at… …with the caveat that I don’t personally have any desire to see this person put in prison.
This is a 17-year old who was surrounded by positive adult feedback and encouragement about a very, very dumb idea he had (“I should go patrol an emotionally charged and potentially explosive protest in the dark! With a gun!”).
Like literally everybody else involved in this event, he was convinced that he was in the right and doing good. And I’ll say again: adults in his life and at the scene actively supported this perception. They, like him, were too stupid to contemplate whether a 17-year-old wandering the streets with a gun at night surrounded by eruptive political tension was safe for the 17 year old…or for anyone else. They, unlike him, didn’t have the excuse of being young enough to be that stupid. They just were. Heck, there are people in this forum so wrapped up in the political ideology of gun rights and protests that they can’t see that a child strutting around with a gun at night it’s just a dumb idea, period.
I would also argue with anybody who tries to say he hasn’t suffered for what happened. The whole world is watching footage of him bawl on the witness stand today. Everywhere he goes, for the rest of his life, he will always be “the guy who.” The famous Kyle Rittenhouse.
It’s always possible that he’ll end up falling upwards into conservative politics, but the fact remains that wherever he goes, for the rest of his life, the scope of acceptance and opportunity he faces will be shaped in part by something he did when he was 17. 35 year old Kyle Rittenhouse will still have strangers telling him he’s a killer, and I don’t doubt for a moment that he has spent (and will spend) many, many nights wishing like hell he had just stayed home.