Watching this testimony live. Very powerful - Kyle has been solidly on-point from the start, describing how he was there to help people with first aid and protect property. When they got around to the part when things turned bad and he went tactical, he flat out broke down, unable to speak through his emotions from recalling that terrifying situation...judge called a 10 min recess. A 17 (now 18) y/o kid right there with the heart of a mothafukkin full grown lion.
This isn't about ego. This is about exposing Rittenhouse to cross. The prosecution will get to impugn his character. They are also not limited to the scope of questioning by the defense; they can go into issues completely unrelated to this case in order to paint him in a negative light.
There really is no reason for Rittenhouse to take the stand here. It's unnecessary exposure when the defense already has an extremely strong case.
I figure if he can keep his composure and only take out his intended targets in a time of extreme duress, he should be able to handle the jokers who've so far failed at their job in proving his guilt.
This is not a good idea. Obviously we know he's innocent but the media will twist everything he says. He didn't need to do this. I can only pray it turns out for the best.
I don't like this idea at all. Seems pretty clear that he doesn't need to take the stand to be acquitted.
And if he thinks he's going to be able to tell the truth so that people can hear it, he's wrong. The MSM with twist and omit the fuck out of anything he says. I saw this on the NBC Nightly News just a few days ago. They left out the part about the attacker admitting to pointing a gun at Kyle before he responded.
I’m praying hard for Kyle, but if this goes south, we need to take a stand. We can’t let them screw a 100% committed Patriot. We will have to stand with him. I’m praying we will be celebrating with him, but am prepared for both.
If his testimony is the difference between guilty and not guilty we have some serious problems. Not “oh he shouldn’t have done that” but rather “why is his truthful testimony going to prove any guilt?” We know he is guiltless. He was defending himself. I do not agree that our country should only let the lawyers speak. Lets hear the truth from the mouth of the witness.
The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So from that position, you testifying in your own criminal trial leaves you only one direction to move the needle: towards guilt.
Not “oh he shouldn’t have done that” but rather “why is his truthful testimony going to prove any guilt?”
A skilled prosecutor can take your truthful testimony and turn it into an admission of guilt. For example, a person accused of battery when someone trips into him and he instinctively put his hands up to protect himself from being injured. The defendant takes the stand. The prosecutor asks him if he struck the victim. He truthfully answers "no." The prosecutor asks if he "made physical contact" with the victim. Truthfully, "Yes." Prosecutor asks if the victim knew he was going to touch him and gave him permission. Truthful answer, "No." Prosecutor asks if he raised his hands in front of him as he and the victim were in close proximity. Truthfully, "yes."
The defense asks all the right questions: Did you intentionally raise your hands? "No, it was a reaction." Did you move toward the victim? "No, he tripped." Did you intend to make contact with the victim? "No, contact was incidental."
In closing arguments, the prosecution gets to go last. So the last thing the jury hears is this: "The defendant in his own testimony admitted that he came upon the victim, and without consent or warning, raised his hands toward the victim and used them to make physical contact. That is the legal definition of battery and you must convict."
I do not agree that our country should only let the lawyers speak. Lets hear the truth from the mouth of the witness.
Let's hope that you're never charged with a crime and go to trial. If so, I hope you listen to your lawyers.
So his testimony isn't needed. Testimony is fallible.
Just look at what the prosecution is doing now. He asked Rittenhouse if he "told him the truth about everything he did." His answer was "Yes." So now they're using video evidence to show that he did, in fact, do something he didn't describe in his earlier testimony.
This is exactly why a defendant should never testify in his own criminal trial.
Watching this testimony live. Very powerful - Kyle has been solidly on-point from the start, describing how he was there to help people with first aid and protect property. When they got around to the part when things turned bad and he went tactical, he flat out broke down, unable to speak through his emotions from recalling that terrifying situation...judge called a 10 min recess. A 17 (now 18) y/o kid right there with the heart of a mothafukkin full grown lion.
This isn't about ego. This is about exposing Rittenhouse to cross. The prosecution will get to impugn his character. They are also not limited to the scope of questioning by the defense; they can go into issues completely unrelated to this case in order to paint him in a negative light.
There really is no reason for Rittenhouse to take the stand here. It's unnecessary exposure when the defense already has an extremely strong case.
I didn't. What happened?
Thanks.
That’s what I said … they have thermal drone footage for Kyle’s sake along with tons of other angles. What good does his recollection actually do ??
I heard 11 jurors were women. Maybe the crying was for them.
I figure if he can keep his composure and only take out his intended targets in a time of extreme duress, he should be able to handle the jokers who've so far failed at their job in proving his guilt.
Good point
This is not a good idea. Obviously we know he's innocent but the media will twist everything he says. He didn't need to do this. I can only pray it turns out for the best.
True, but even if he didn't testify they would've rioted anyway. Soros is probably writing out the checks now.
I don't like this idea at all. Seems pretty clear that he doesn't need to take the stand to be acquitted.
And if he thinks he's going to be able to tell the truth so that people can hear it, he's wrong. The MSM with twist and omit the fuck out of anything he says. I saw this on the NBC Nightly News just a few days ago. They left out the part about the attacker admitting to pointing a gun at Kyle before he responded.
His defense team is pathetic. The judge is the only person in the room raising any objections to the prosecution, whatsoever.
I’m praying hard for Kyle, but if this goes south, we need to take a stand. We can’t let them screw a 100% committed Patriot. We will have to stand with him. I’m praying we will be celebrating with him, but am prepared for both.
If his testimony is the difference between guilty and not guilty we have some serious problems. Not “oh he shouldn’t have done that” but rather “why is his truthful testimony going to prove any guilt?” We know he is guiltless. He was defending himself. I do not agree that our country should only let the lawyers speak. Lets hear the truth from the mouth of the witness.
Well.. Let's do some criminal law 101:
The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So from that position, you testifying in your own criminal trial leaves you only one direction to move the needle: towards guilt.
A skilled prosecutor can take your truthful testimony and turn it into an admission of guilt. For example, a person accused of battery when someone trips into him and he instinctively put his hands up to protect himself from being injured. The defendant takes the stand. The prosecutor asks him if he struck the victim. He truthfully answers "no." The prosecutor asks if he "made physical contact" with the victim. Truthfully, "Yes." Prosecutor asks if the victim knew he was going to touch him and gave him permission. Truthful answer, "No." Prosecutor asks if he raised his hands in front of him as he and the victim were in close proximity. Truthfully, "yes."
The defense asks all the right questions: Did you intentionally raise your hands? "No, it was a reaction." Did you move toward the victim? "No, he tripped." Did you intend to make contact with the victim? "No, contact was incidental."
In closing arguments, the prosecution gets to go last. So the last thing the jury hears is this: "The defendant in his own testimony admitted that he came upon the victim, and without consent or warning, raised his hands toward the victim and used them to make physical contact. That is the legal definition of battery and you must convict."
Let's hope that you're never charged with a crime and go to trial. If so, I hope you listen to your lawyers.
He has the truth....with pictures/videos to back it up.....on his side....
So his testimony isn't needed. Testimony is fallible.
Just look at what the prosecution is doing now. He asked Rittenhouse if he "told him the truth about everything he did." His answer was "Yes." So now they're using video evidence to show that he did, in fact, do something he didn't describe in his earlier testimony.
This is exactly why a defendant should never testify in his own criminal trial.
Thats what innocent people do...
That's also how a lot of innocent people get convicted and spend time in jail for a crime they didn't commit.
A couple million to the defense lawyer to not object too much to waiving the 5th would really grease the skids, don't you think??
God, would you just Romans 8:28 this situation in Kyle’s favor?