This is such a fuck-up it makes we wonder if the prosecutor wants Kyle Rittenhouse to get off.

I’m going to quote Brown v. United States (1921):

“Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.”

Detached reflection really can’t be demanded in the presence of a guy shouting “fuck you” and reaching for a weapon.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

7 thoughts on “IANAL, but I think this establishes intent”
  1. McGinness is an honest-to-goodness street reporter who doesn’t mince words or play favorites, as far as I can tell from his appearances on Tim Pool’s “Timcast IRL.” It’s always interesting when he and his fellow reporters are on the show.

  2. I want to hear what the prosecutor said next. I find it hard to believe he’s that stupid. I wish it were so,, but life seldom goes as we wish it would.

  3. Well, I am a [retired] lawyer, and I would agree with you. “FY” and reaching for a weapon is unlikely to be mistaken by the average juror as signaling intent to give the witness or the defendant a nice hug. Your quotation from the Brown case is spot on.

  4. The prosecutor is clearly a moron and an incompetent buffoon.
    The jury isn’t necessarily all such.

    The longer this drags on from this point, the more pissed off they’re going to be at being dragooned into this fustercluck goatrope, and their time and lives wasted by a jackhole prosecution that should never have gotten to a grand jury.

  5. IANAL.

    Would it be a good tactic for the Defense Lawyer to get the Witness to repeat his statements on Cross Examination? Or would that just tick off the jury? I would think that pounding the critical points home would be so important that a little repetition would be worthwhile.

    My personal opinion is that Kyle R., was very restrained in the number of shots he fired in his defense. Only 8 shots, and he hit his targets with all but two.

  6. I almost literally lold when i heard that. So easy to flip it around using the prosecutors own logic…. sp your interpretaion of rittenhouses actions is complete guess work?

Comments are closed.