Kyle's trial went well today
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (11)
sorted by:
Oh god, did it really? I've been listening to Rakieta's 10 hour livestreams of the first 3 days and then some (I'm at https://youtube.com/watch?v=Fxzpp6D_VxQ rn) and it was bewildering how fucking incompetent the defense been with their such an absolutely clear case. The judge is pretty based though.
Last two days have been fantastic for the defense. First full day of testimony was terrible from the perspective of the defense allowing the prosecution to ignore legal procedure, but even Nick admits that there are competent lawyers that disagree with his assessment (as to how bad it was for the defense, not that the prosecution ignored procedure) and gives Andrew Branca as an example.
I had considered posting summaries, but honestly I think shilling Nick and Branca's summaries/coverage is probably going to be more beneficial (as they're actually lawyers and have some experience with criminal trials, whereas I'm just a layman who's basically just watched this case and the Chauvin case. Still, I'd love to have some discussions here with other laymen (or people in the legal profession) to get some perspectives I'm not getting during the Rekieta streams (or while browsing the /pol/ threads for the reactions/memes.)
Just checked, first paragraphs at https://lawofselfdefense.com/rittenhouse-trial-day-4-two-state-blunders-create-opportunity-for-the-defense/
Oh Jesus Christ, no.
I hadn't yet had an opportunity to read through this portion of Branca's summaries yet. From the bits I did glance through I think he's a lot more negative on how the defense did today than Nick, but still believes the day was a win for the defense.
Can you quote any specific bits you were commenting on, as I'm not sure I'd categorize any of that to be paragraphs (there's technically a few, but most of the page is single sentences)? I think he's confused the facts a bit on the one thing he describes as a fumble by the defense, but he may be concerned about future narrative by the prosecution, not any actual facts and testimony before the jury.
Alos I don't think the jurors even can see the points made by the defense. They're not ckearly signaled, not explained (instead he explained what a cell phone is), not repeated, etc.
Compare to "the government" repeating all the time how there was "no gun, bo knife, no bat, no weapon of any kind but a plastic bag" on the evil midget while showing him dying again and again too. And other such easy tricks for the lay persons "of average intelligence".
question from a casual observer: why is anyone still trusting Rekieta after how he handled the Vic Mignogna case?
It's entertaining during parts of the trial that would otherwise be dull (there were multiple witnesses today that were dull or difficult to watch without commentary IMO.) I didn't watch any of his commentary on the Vic case (I wasn't interested enough to watch a three+ hour late-night stream live or otherwise), and aside from him disagreeing with what the judge ruled on that case (which is still waiting on appeal, IIRC) I don't recall any bad/biased takes being discussed in any of the KIA forums. What do you mean exactly by "how he handed" it?