- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Putting Rittenhouse on the stand wasn’t a good idea
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:45 pm
Case was made beforehand.
Why let prosecution cross examine Kyle?
Why let prosecution cross examine Kyle?
17
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:48 pm to Eli Goldfinger
It’s rittenhouse’s freedom at stake. Clearly the team thought it would help...
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:49 pm to Eli Goldfinger
He’s doing fine. Not sure why everyone is bitching about it. Showing he’s a kid with intentions to be helpful and was attacked and had to defend himself.
Shouldn’t have been there but he didn’t do anything wrong.
Shouldn’t have been there but he didn’t do anything wrong.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:51 pm to Eli Goldfinger
It is rough. How long has it been? I know he got on there before lunch..
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:52 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Kyle is crushing this idiot.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:52 pm to Eli Goldfinger
I will agree with you on this point.
He still walks but no need to over complicate things
He still walks but no need to over complicate things
This post was edited on 11/10/21 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:53 pm to blowmeauburn
quote:
Not sure why everyone is bitching about it.
Because it's a very risky move. Putting a kid on the stand is even riskier. A good litigator is going to try to trip up someone on the stand under cross-examination. That task is typically much easier to do with a scared teenager on the stand. Maybe it works out, but there's always going to be cause for concern when a defendant testifies in cases like this.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:53 pm to Eli Goldfinger
This trial was over at lunch. Just a matter of time now.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:54 pm to lsufball19
quote:
good litigator
No danger.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:54 pm to the808bass
the separate thread was needed.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:54 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Burden of proof lies upon the State to make the case, not for Rittenhouse to prove his innocence.
The State case was collapsing ( may have already collapsed ) so why do it ? No real reason. None.
The State case was collapsing ( may have already collapsed ) so why do it ? No real reason. None.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:58 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Because the burden of proof shifts to defendant if using an affirmative defense like self defense.
Although you could see from the video that it looks like self defense, he needed to ultimately testify that he believed he was in imminent danger. He needed to establish fear of harm. Would be hard to do without his testimony since Rosenbaum was not in possession of a weapon.
That’s my guess.
Although you could see from the video that it looks like self defense, he needed to ultimately testify that he believed he was in imminent danger. He needed to establish fear of harm. Would be hard to do without his testimony since Rosenbaum was not in possession of a weapon.
That’s my guess.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 3:58 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
The questioning is shite. He's obviously trying to put words in Kyle's mouth and take things totally out of context. This guy sucks arse. 
Posted on 11/10/21 at 4:00 pm to Eli Goldfinger
If I'm charged with some stupid bullshite, you better believe I'm talking the stand in my defense.
Only Democrats hide behind the 5th amendment bullshite.
Only Democrats hide behind the 5th amendment bullshite.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 4:00 pm to Eli Goldfinger
It was a terrible idea to do this. His attorneys are in on it.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 4:00 pm to oilattorney4lsu
quote:
Because the burden of proof shifts to defendant if using an affirmative defense like self defense.
I'm pretty sure in Wisconsin, the burden is on the State to disprove self-defense
Posted on 11/10/21 at 4:02 pm to SmackoverHawg
quote:
The questioning is shite. He's obviously trying to put words in Kyle's mouth and take things totally out of context. This guy sucks arse
There's no denying that, thankfully.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 4:02 pm to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
No fricking way I put my client on the stand when the prosecution is busy hanging themselves.....no way.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 4:04 pm to Eli Goldfinger
The fix is in on this case. There will be riots if he gets off and the jury knows that. You can bet the wrong people know jury identities and addresses. Word will get to the jury about the dangers to them and their families if he is acquitted. No matter how bad the prosecution botches the trial, he will be convicted.
Posted on 11/10/21 at 4:05 pm to oilattorney4lsu
quote:
Because the burden of proof shifts to defendant if using an affirmative defense like self defense.
Not in Wisconsin
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News