Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

MonsieurGideon t1_it3oxl7 wrote

So far his defense has been (he's representing himself):

He has the right to face his accuser, and as the state of Wisconsin is the plaintiff, he should be let go because he cannot call Wisconsin to testify..

He honked his horn so it's the parade goers fault for not getting out of the way..

He swerved out of the way of some people, and had nowhere to go because side streets had flimsy plastic blockades..

The injured parties (the people he killed) are not testifying against him so those charges should be thrown out..

It wasn't him driving as he claims to be a sovereign citizen and no longer goes by his name..

His name was in capital letters on the charging documents, which isn't how he spells it, so it's not him..

No one he hit got the license plate so they can't prove it was the car he was in possession of.

279

fbtcu1998 t1_it3r4jj wrote

The judge deserves a medal for her patience. I think she feared he was just trying to delay everything by getting a contempt charge and removing him as his own counsel and she wouldn't do it. For anyone who hast followed the trial, It's worth taking a look at his antics to see how out of control he's been

172

MonsieurGideon t1_it3rhvy wrote

She has been a shining example of how a judge should act in the face of an out of control defendant.

She stroked his ego early on and let him think he was on their level, and now he has realized how absolutely put of his league he is and the amount of evidence against him.

All his tactics to get a mistrial or appeal later have been handled perfectly by the judge and prosecutors.

125

fancyFriday t1_it5vkcf wrote

Her statement when she let him represent himself was incredibly thorough and made it (in my opinion) far less likely anyone will entertain the idea of a mistrial based upon him representing himself. It was actually comical to watch it happen because that clown wouldn't stop objecting to anything he thought that he was needing to disagree with.

16

Mattbird t1_it40rtz wrote

Between this, the Jones case, and a trial I did jury duty for, I've learned that the legal system will give you absolutely every opportunity to get your own message out and speak whatever you like, however you want to be defended. It will bend over backwards to accommodate lunatics and the deluded. It's really given me a lot of hope.

46

MississippiJoel t1_it4jp6b wrote

That's sort of the rule of thumb of how any trial should go: let the defense make up most of the rules (within reason), and then when it tries to appeal later, just point to where either both parties agreed to a rule, or where the trial judge let the defense make the rule to begin with, and then say "so, what's the problem exactly?"

21

MeyhamM2 t1_it4zmrh wrote

Not always, but when it’s going right, yes.

6

prailock t1_it42n1g wrote

As a former public defender in Wisconsin, yeah, the sovereign citizen arguments are familiar. Surprised he hasn't pulled out the "I wasn't driving, I was travelling" as that's hella popular.

The right to face an accuser actually has a recently interesting ruling in the Jensen homicide trial relating to presumption which in no way, shape, or form applies here but it's a cool recent WI Supreme Court ruling relating to hearsay evidence of a dead person. If anyone's wants to learn about some interesting recent criminal rulings in Wisconsin.

37

Your_acceptable t1_it4wss2 wrote

Yup, I'm surprised too.

Do you feel the judge is being super lenient to avoid appeal?

I saw that stated in some comments online. Because man, his attitude deserves a reaming in court by a judge.

8

MississippiJoel t1_it3pw0w wrote

I haven't been keeping up with it, but I do remember something to the effect of there was video evidence that easily overcomes his defenses, and his response to that was to say it was inadmissible as evidence.

21

MonsieurGideon t1_it3qhfe wrote

He is playing lawyer and is objecting to every witness, piece of evidence and question from the prosecution. He is yelling about things not bring relevant that are literally videos of him committing the crime lol.

He is a complete moron who absolutely believes he is the smartest one in the room, even as the Judge has to correct his spelling and grammar.

While a tragic crime, it's kind of a funny trial due to how stupid he is.

62

nyclurker369 t1_ita99qs wrote

Omg, these arguments:

>He honked his horn so it's the parade goers fault for not getting out of the way..

>He swerved out of the way of some people, and had nowhere to go because side streets had flimsy plastic blockades.

>No one he hit got the license plate so they can't prove it was the car he was in possession of.

chefs kiss

Genius.

1

AlterEdward t1_it4bqc5 wrote

People shouldn't be allowed to represent themselves unless they've got a legal background. This man is effectively doing himself out of a fair trial, which should be everyone's right.

−19

MonsieurGideon t1_it4eudt wrote

It's a constitutional right. The Court and Prosecutors spent two entire days explaining to him how bad of an idea this was. He laughed at them and said he wasn't scared and wasn't backing down.

He doesn't get to complain about fairness anymore. They tried.

30

Horknut1 t1_it4l8qu wrote

Are you saying rights should not be waivable by the party possessing such rights? Your rights should be forced upon you if you don’t want them?

He has the right to remain silent. The right to not testify. Should those be forced upon him?

He’s competent. It’s his choice to defend himself if his attorneys won’t make the stupid arguments he wants to make. That should be his prerogative.

15

SevenButSpelledOut t1_it3mj0c wrote

And he defended himself. Further confirming that he's dangerous AND stupid.

108

jimtow28 t1_it3pwr9 wrote

I had not heard about that. That's absolutely wild.

Lawyers have other lawyers represent them in their own cases. That should tell you all you need to know about how wise it is to represent yourself.

51

MonsieurGideon t1_it3qxcw wrote

Once he realized how badly he was losing he was trying to get pity from the Judge on how overwhelmed he was.

Which she warned him about prevoously, and he yelled about how he wasn't scared and to bring it on.

The DA brought it lol.

55

zs15 t1_it3us2g wrote

Nah, he came out that way from the start.

His opening argument was some SovCit bullshit and, when that was tossed, his next move was to ask for more time for a real legal defense. The judge ignored that saying he had adequate time, but chose to use it on a bad defense.

28

Horknut1 t1_it4lk3i wrote

He just gave his opening today. You’re talking about something else.

He cried all the way through his opening, and needed time after it to compose himself. The main thrust of his opening was, why is everyone being so mean to me?

24

Inquisitor-Eisenhorn t1_it3u4ux wrote

There’s an old adage on this subject: “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

16

[deleted] t1_it3r6ra wrote

[removed]

28

ACuteLittleCrab t1_it3znwc wrote

Basically his only defense has been to use SovCit nonsense to bring into question the validating of the case amd process and the jurisdiction of the court, which everyone has largely ignored except to basically tell him to STFU because all his arguments meaningless.

14

mcs_987654321 t1_it4jfij wrote

The most whiny and combative Sov Cit nonsense at that.

You’d think that he’d already be as repugnant a human as you could ever imagine because of his horrific actions …but holy shit, this guy’s behaviour is plumbing depths I didn’t even realize existed.

Just a despicable piece of trash, I only hope the families are getting good counselling.

10

Nihilismisanthrope t1_it3t4ql wrote

And he thinks his defense rests on him questioning the ethics of the prosecutor.

6

[deleted] t1_it3t0v7 wrote

[removed]

68

sweetpeapickle t1_it460ds wrote

We see a lot of it here(WI). Too much, as watching him "act" in the courtroom is infuriating. Glad I wasn't picked for the trial, as I probably would be laughing in horror at the spectacle. And besides, my mind was made up the day after it happened.

12

d01100100 t1_it4ci6s wrote

> The only coverage I saw since the event is him acting like a buffoon in court. I never see him grouped with the savage from Uvalde, Buffalo, Carolina, etc.

One would argue that this should be how it is treated to minimize the chance for copycats.

No press, coverage, notoriety, or infamy shall be given beyond the status of the case once completed.

5

deepeast_oakland t1_it429vt wrote

Has there been any evidence presented that this guy was trying to murder people that day? Did he get behind the wheel and travel to the parade with the intent to kill people?

−47

sweetpeapickle t1_it46evf wrote

He had the intent when he chose that street that specifically was blocked off for the parade.

31

deepeast_oakland t1_it4aa9a wrote

Is that what happened? Did the state present evidence to what the man "intended" to do when he chose that street to drive down?

−42

bannana t1_it4ce2e wrote

he doesn't have to have the intent early on or before turning down the street - he made the choice to harm when he saw people and kept driving and since he has a history of attempting to run over someone with a car this isn't new for him.

26

deepeast_oakland t1_it4hue6 wrote

The OP was wondering why this guy wasn't being talked about the same way as

>Uvalde, Buffalo, Carolina, etc.

I'm pointing to the difference between these crimes and the one committed here.

−25

Bocephuss t1_it5ewec wrote

He was driving through a crowd of people with a deadly weapon.

I’m not sure how that’s much different than shooting into a crowd.

13

vikingsquad t1_it4t2po wrote

That’s not what the legal definition of intent is. Intent in this instance refers to the fact that his actions had only one foreseeable outcome, which was death or grievous injury to the people along the path he drove his vehicle.

11

Horknut1 t1_it4nvwf wrote

You don’t understand what intent is, or murder (“first degree intentional homicide” in WI), in a legal sense. He doesn’t have to formulate the intent a half hour before the parade, 20 miles away. He injured something like 70 people and killed 6. Intent can be formulated as the act is occurring. If you choose to ignore barricades and police and PARADE FLOATS and drive full speed through a parade without stopping once, good luck arguing you didn’t have intent to kill.

18

deepeast_oakland t1_it4uigi wrote

Sure, but do you see how that's different from the Uvalde, Buffalo, shooters did or the guy Carolina?

−5

Horknut1 t1_it4yf3s wrote

I think the difference between this and Rittenhouse is that there was a real question for the jury for Rittenhouse.

There is not an iota of question of guilt for this guy.

10

ExSphere t1_it4w0j0 wrote

Yeah, when he ran over the first person and didn’t stop and kept running over people. This is textbook terrorism and I’m not sure how you can defend this.

11

deepeast_oakland t1_itcq8r2 wrote

I’m not defending it.

The op asked why this wasn’t being treated the same as these other incidents.

>Uvalde, Buffalo, Carolina, etc.

Those two shooters woke up that day and decided to kill lots of people. The Carolina guy attacked people at a political protest.

That’s why this incident is being talked about differently, yes the guy is a awful terrible human being that deserves death or at least life in prison. But I haven’t seen any evidence that he was TRYING to kill people that day.

1

ExSphere t1_itcuewh wrote

“I haven’t seen any evidence that he was TRYING to kill people that day.”

Might wanna get your eyes checked.

2

broskie94 t1_it3kgwe wrote

Without a doubt. Guilty.

48

Nihilismisanthrope t1_it3umo6 wrote

I can't imagine this guy surviving prison. He'll just pick fights until someone snaps and offs him. I've started looking up videos of his trial and Jesus H. W. Christ, all he does is try to pick fights over stupid shit.

31

MonsieurGideon t1_it3y92p wrote

He has states he is in solitary for 22 hours a day when not at court.

He killed the elderly and a kid, he will get no respect on prison.

26

UncannyTarotSpread t1_it3upgl wrote

I imagine the jury is already prepared to deliberate, after his performance in the courtroom.

11

vulcan7200 t1_it5rkf9 wrote

The Jury is actually spared a lot of this. The Judge is quick to send them out of the room when Brooks starts becoming overly problematic. This Judge is on point with making sure that he has no case when he eventually tries to claim bias or mistreatment by the Judge or Jury.

15

LastExitToSalvation t1_it4hhul wrote

I'd bet every defense attorney he contacted said, "it's on video, you are fucked, you need to take a plea deal," and he said, ok then I'll defend myself.

9

ReactsBlack t1_it59uib wrote

The plea deal that was offered was 6 consecutive life terms with no parole. He has literally nothing to lose, as that will be the same sentence when he is found guilty. The judge has hemmed up (through excruciating patience) any possibility of a mistrial or winning an appeal, to the best of her ability. The state is assisting him by serving all of his subpoenas because they know that his own witnesses are providing damning and devastating testimony against him, and he has permanently soured the jury on him through his despicable behavior in court and zero remorse.

Truly a sad thing to watch.

25

vulcan7200 t1_it5rsfk wrote

My favorite thing about one of Brooks' witnesses today is that the Prosecution didn't even bother with cross examining him by the time Brooks was done.

17

Sapper12D t1_it4m465 wrote

If I'm not mistaken he actually has lawyers, probably public defenders, on standby ready to takeover the case if ordered by the judge.

3

SirThatsCuba t1_it6d03v wrote

I have the misfortune to have a felonious inlaw or five. This was the case when the idiot at the center of it all decided to defend himself, using sovcit bullshit. He got life. His public defenders handled all the paperwork, filings and pleadings for him. Everyone else involved went with the public defense, plea deals and all that, and got two years or nothing. Idiot should have taken my advice and gone with the lawyer, but I didn't really want him out so I gave it in a way he'd not take it.

5

Eyemjeph t1_it3y28g wrote

Why is it only ever "Wisconsin parade suspect" when alternatively all we heard for months was "Rittenhouse case" "Rittenhouse trial" "Rittenhouse verdict"? Why won't they name him in headlines?

45

sweetpeapickle t1_it45fq3 wrote

Well it's Brooks, which is a little more used name. Rittenhouse, not so much. It's what catches the eye the best.

5

ProfessionEuphoric50 t1_it4frxs wrote

what do the two cases have anything to do with each other?

−18

Eyemjeph t1_it4lg99 wrote

Coincidentally: They're both in Wisconsin

Substantially: They're both receiving media attention and both involve violence. They big difference is the defendant here is barely discussed and his motivations are being intentionally obscured whereas Kyle Rittenhouse was aggressively vilified by everyone to include the sitting President of the United States and there was wild, false speculations and attribution to his motives.

30

arcosapphire t1_it557w2 wrote

> whereas Kyle Rittenhouse was aggressively vilified by everyone to include the sitting President of the United States and there was wild, false speculations and attribution to his motives.

You answered your own question.

14

ProfessionEuphoric50 t1_it4q98p wrote

"They're both in Wisconsin and involve violence" can describe hundreds of events that take place every week. The comparisons people make between Brooks and Rittenhouse are so tenuous I can't help but feel like they're being disingenuous. I don't know what you want people to tell you about his motives. He's insane and ran people over because he likes to hurt people.

−14

Eyemjeph t1_it4x4cc wrote

Excellent work making a compelling argument by ignoring the points you can't dispute.

7

ProfessionEuphoric50 t1_it4ydea wrote

I asked why you thought the cases were similar. You told me that they both involve violence and happened in Wisconsin. You then proceeded to claim that there's a conspiracy to obfuscate his motives for his crime. I don't really know what you're upset about. What do you want the media to do?

−7

Eyemjeph t1_it4yvyd wrote

And you completely blew past the fact that the media is treating them very differently to the point that the more malicious, more lethal case is getting swept under the rug. I'm not trying to argue with you because I'm kinda getting the feeling you voted for Biden and I don't like to argue with mentally challenged people. I hope you have a lovely evening.

7

SprinklesMore8471 t1_it3t3gd wrote

I'll never understand how a case like this doesn't garner any attention at all.

38

mcs_987654321 t1_it4l6o5 wrote

I mean, it was a really huge deal at the time of the attack (mass murder? Spree killing? Not sure what term best applies here).

In term of covering the case, I suspect (and hope) that it’s very intentional. Because this guy is a self-obsessed sociopath, is very obviously getting off on putting on a show, and he would no doubt love to have a media scrum outside the courthouse everyday.

It’s awful enough that the witnesses/family members have to endure that kind of disgusting disrespect, there is no upside widespread coverage (beyond basic daily rundowns).

13

SprinklesMore8471 t1_it4m0bj wrote

I see your point and I do wish more cases would be handled this way. But they're not, the media typically loves these happenings for the ratings. This case in particular though seemed to only be shared on local news though.

12

ProfessionEuphoric50 t1_it4jjl4 wrote

It's been in the news quite a bit.

0

[deleted] t1_it547ad wrote

[removed]

7

ProfessionEuphoric50 t1_it5504a wrote

I don't know what you people are so upset about, it's being reported in major news channels like everything else. It's just not a particularly controversial case.

−1

wonder590 t1_it5wxji wrote

What are you talking about? Its literally tens of thousands of viewers for the live stream every day for the past two weeks, and it was national headlines when it first happened.

−2

CosmoNewanda t1_it3ojp4 wrote

But do you see the state of Wisconsin in the court room now?

35

occy3000 t1_it3p0cj wrote

Has a sovereign citizen ever seen a successful day in court? If not it’s not starting with this trial.

37

MonsieurGideon t1_it3pslp wrote

No, their arguments are ridiculous.

If ever upheld, anyone could do anything without consequence.

22

prailock t1_it436w5 wrote

Former Wisconsin public defender, so many sovereign citizens in the rural areas. Funniest objection I ever saw was during a prosecutor's closing argument where the defendant said "Objection!" and when asked to elaborate said his grounds were "That's a load of bullshit."

Brilliant.

15

mmlovin t1_it47kk5 wrote

He doesn’t actually believe that sovereign garbage though. That “strategy” didn’t come up until like 1 day into the trial. Before that he had no problem going by his name. Even though in the interrogation tapes he pronounces it “Dah-rell” & now it’s “Der-rell.” Idk why no one has addressed that. & he says “relevancy” & “speculative” & called himself the “alleged defendant.” It’s driving me nuts that no one has pointed any of this out.

5

prailock t1_it47st0 wrote

I mean, the dude's competency report came back as "not crazy, just a major asshole" so it's not surprising.

12

mmlovin t1_it48il6 wrote

Ohh ya he is manipulative. It’s so evident after you watch the interrogation tapes. It’s just weird cause he does seem to be bothered by the fact he killed & injured by a bunch of people. There’s been teeny tiny amount of times where you can tell it bothers him a little bit. Then he immediately becomes an even bigger asshole.

This verdict is going to take like, 10 mins.

9

Horknut1 t1_it4m2m2 wrote

I would really like, after the judge reads the jury’s charging instructions, for the judge to then say the jury is dismissed to deliberate, and the foreman saying “No need, your honor. We’re ready.”

2

mmlovin t1_it4rkaz wrote

Well I hope they don’t do that cause that would mean they deliberated about it before they were allowed to lol

Them filing into the room & coming back out after like 2 minutes would be great. That’s just enough time to pick a foreman & count votes for guilty lol

It has happened before. I think the shortest I’ve heard is 10 mins or something

7

Your_acceptable t1_it4xafl wrote

"Would it be fair to say" the man is an idiot?

1

mmlovin t1_it4y7k0 wrote

Who is the man you are referring to? The alleged defendant? 🙄

2

Macdevious t1_it3xzdh wrote

No. It's not even a recognized defense in any US court on any level. There's a litany of stories on google from people who actually track these morons that try the sovereign citizen defense and it never works. Hell, even the SPLC even talks shit about the people who try it.

My personal favorite is when someone tries it and it usually boils down to them trying to quote the Articles of Confederation as the justification for it. Problem is that the articles haven't been a legitimate legal document since the south lost the civil war.

5

banjowashisnamo t1_it4ug99 wrote

How about when a Canadian or UK soc cit tried to invoke the UCC (United States Commercial Code)? That's always fun.

1

bannana t1_it4bxwy wrote

> Has a sovereign citizen ever seen a successful day in court?

The Bundy's had some pretty good days

2

DogVacuum t1_it43vy3 wrote

The state of Wisconsin stands up in the back of the court room, removing it’s sunglasses and fake mustache.

14

vulcan7200 t1_it5s3tn wrote

I wish the Prosecution would just bring in the Governor and be like "He was elected by the people of Wisconsin to represent the state" and just have him testify to try and shut him up.

1

Macdevious t1_it3ocwr wrote

Hopefully that miscreant p.o.s. gets 6 life sentences

26

iamslightlyupset t1_it42nsw wrote

If I took a shot for everytime he said "Objection", I'd be dead.

19

Horknut1 t1_it4mfwa wrote

The shots should be reserved for when one of his objections is successful.

Much less chance of dying.

8

fibonacci85321 t1_it3tlpx wrote

He is probably trying to piss off the judge, going for a mistrial (or at least grounds for appeal) and while no expert at law, he is an expert at patronizing and verbally abusing women. My guess is that at some point he is going to use one of the golden phrases, "relax" or "take it easy" or maybe even "no need to get hysterical".

10

Horknut1 t1_it4marr wrote

Every now and then his disdain for having to be in front of a female judge, or being opposed by female prosecutors, peeks through.

12

Your_acceptable t1_it4w604 wrote

Yup!! I see that too.

You can tell what he is like with women. I can not stand him. He's an idiot who thinks he's Perry Mason. 🙄

4

fibonacci85321 t1_it5154w wrote

The judge told him today that "you have been pushing my buttons" so I am glad she knows it too.

1

ImWicked39 t1_it3rbvj wrote

He spent to much time on YouTube. Dudes an idiot.

5

Dane_Gleessak t1_it50zb9 wrote

There was no cross examination from the prosecution for his first witness when he began his defense because in his line of questioning, they never discussed him driving through the parade. The event he was being charged for.

2

svensvenington t1_it5c8uo wrote

This is because he is a lunatic and is trying to use sovereign citizen rhetoric. Claiming he isn’t the guy being accused because the affidavit had his name in all caps. Claiming that he can’t face his accuser because it’s the State of Wisconsin vs. Darrell Brooks.

5

MissGoodbean t1_it6yhgo wrote

Actually thought the DA was going to jump over the table and choke him yesterday 10/20. She was so made you could actually see her B/P rising.

2

Shoddy-Flight5833 t1_it7tepo wrote

Watching someone who doesn't know the law try to act as his own attorney is funny.

2

[deleted] t1_it4dk6b wrote

> Psychologists have determined he is competent.

Those psychologists are, ironically, incompetent.

−20

svensvenington t1_it4vfl0 wrote

This man is STUPID yes. Insane? I mean that’s debatable. But he needs to spend the rest of his life in prison not some fucking mental institution

12

Generalbuttnaked69 t1_it635il wrote

Competency and insanity are two different things. And he’s neither incompetent nor was he insane at the time of the crime.

He’s just a cunt.

10

[deleted] t1_itc3gzh wrote

He's very clearly incompetent given the way he's representing himself.

In further irony, I don't think people know what competent means.

2

Generalbuttnaked69 t1_itclpgo wrote

No, he isn’t. Brooks being disruptive, combative and completely tanking his defense does not all of a sudden render the professionals opinion on his competency suspect.

1

[deleted] t1_itl9fwd wrote

If you don't think he's incompetent given the way he's representing himself...

...you are also incompetent.

1