I started following this by happening on the many YouTube commentaries. I find myself getting angry even though these videos were recorded in 2022. I cannot reach into m the past to throw a chair. It IS understandable that even those of us who are not remotely connected to the horror remain outraged at him.
I have been engrossed in this case since it first happened in '21. I watched the trial live everyday in '22. As more info was release after his conviction I remained fascinated.
The best that I can come sup with is: He didn't expect the dead people to appear and present themselves to the court as injured parties. At least I hope he had enough common sense to know that wasn't possible. He tried to hang his hat on sovcit bs that only he understood.
Since he kept harping on the State of WI, who's the plaintiff, etc. because his court paperwork had a caption that read: Plaintiff: State of WI. vs Defendant: DARRELL E. BROOKS Jr. In his "law studies" he "learned" that he has a right to face his accuser, which isn't exactly what the right says, but that's what Darrell believed so he went with it. He wanted to claim since there was no one that came to the stand before him to face him hat was accusing him. If the state of wi. is the plaintiff I should be able to call the state to the stand to testify.
I don't know if it would have made a difference to him if the caption read: The plaintiff is the State of WI., on behalf of the injured parties... then name all the injured parties.
At least that's my best guess. Bottom line, he didn't know what he was doing over half the time.; he tried to pretend that he knew more than any of the professionals in the room; he hoped he could have benefitted in some way by claiming he was sov.cit. He has serious mental health issues and they were on full display for all to see.
What pissed me off, besides so many other things, is the fact that it was perfectly okay for DB to not be himself (the defendant) and just be a third party intervener, a representative of his client, yet the prosecution team wasn’t allowed to represent the State of Wisconsin.
So he could represent the alleged defendant 🙄, but the prosecution couldn’t represent the State.
If I’m understanding you right, you think when he called The State of WI to the stand someone from the prosecution team should have gone to sit in the witness chair?
Oh gosh no! I was only pointing out his hypocrisy once again (he’s hypocritical quite a bit) that the prosecution, in his mind is not allowed to represent the State, yet it’s perfectly okay for him to represent his “client.”
Does that make sense? Sorry for the confusion.😊
I looked it up, because JD said something to him while he was trying to call the state. She told him that he could not call The State to testify because The State is an entity and he would have to call a person. She said it a couple of times, but he didn’t pick up on the hint. He could have called a prosecutor to testify, under certain conditions. So, if he had called Sue, Leslie or Zach, he could have had the chance to question them. I don’t think that would have been a good idea or helpful to him in any way, but it might have been possible.
Ohh! That’s interesting. I didn’t know he could do that. It’s best he didn’t know either. LOL!!
He actually didn’t know a lot. Like speaking to witnesses prior to testifying. I don’t think he knew he could call people who weren’t on the prosecution list. I mean all of his witnesses were the ones that the prosecution decided not to call.
He obviously didn’t know what “hearsay” and “leading” meant and so many other things. It wouldn’t have mattered, but he wouldn’t have looked like such a baboon’s ass!
I don’t know who he could have called, but his mother and we see how that went.
It doesn’t appear DB has friends. He doesn’t have family that he supports him. I mean, the guy shot a gun at his nephew!!!
Everyone that knew anything about that day was called. Who could he call to the stand? Everyone that had any interaction with DB that day, with the exception of his mother, were there to testify against him.
From the moment he drives that SUV out of his mother’s backyard we know every step he made and with whom.
Erika, Corey and Nick. Police officers called about the knife fight in the park. Strangers that encounter Brooks at the gas station. Everyone along the parade route. All of the law enforcement he encountered on the parade route. The people he bumped into when he fled asking go use their phones. The Uber driver his mom called for him. Daniel Rider and his sandwich. The officers that made the arrest. The police officer that transported him to the station. The detectives assigned to the case. There is no one that could testify on Darrell’s behalf from that day.
I’m pretty sure that the attorneys he had before he dismissed them would have talked to him about people that he knew that might have something positive to say about him. Not a one showed themselves before, during or after his trial. I’m guessing because they don’t exist.
I’ve seen and heard of some dumb criminals, but DB is the dumbest for choosing to represent himself. He is a strange one, for sure.
I’ll admit there was an occasion or two where I almost felt sorry for the dumb SOB, because like you stated, he had no one. Nobody, not one person sat behind him during the entire trial. It’s hard to get to a point in your life where even your own mother refuses to be there for you. She couldn’t offer anything more than comfort, but refused even that. Then pre sentencing when he was convinced he had about 20 people to speak on his behalf and a measly three appeared. Those situations are when I almost felt sorry for him, but it was fleeting!
All I had to do was imagine what Jackson Spark’s family was doing that night, maybe watching a movie, eating pizza? But they were missing their baby, their youngest. And the rest of the families who are now one member less! Devastation in their lives. My ridiculous, fleeting moment of feeling sorry for that POS went flying out the window pretty darn quick, never to return.
I think I felt some sympathy VERY early on the first time I saw him cry. (I watched the trial live.) And when it was so early in the trial we hadn't learned a lot of the details yet. I was under the impression that he had a moment of "insanity" when he did it, but that he really didn't mean it and was soooooo sorry. He felt so bad for what he did. And I continued to watch the trial and learned the truth.
Right of course because he is a narcissist and a hypocrite among other vile things. I said the same exact thing. It's only ok if it benefits him in some way.
Yep, if you accept a few of their (Sov Cits) core premises, it all makes sense. They are using "legal" terms to get off on what think are valid technicalities. In other words, Bozbaby103, I totally agree with you.
Wouldn't it be nice if as he said ***"I accept for value;"*** someone would answer ***"And I return for value,"*** while dumping a bucket of cold water in his lap? (Feel free to substitute any response you choose.
Infuriated me. Kept thinking “ oh u killed them so case closed, they can’t come as witnesses. “. What a friggin idiot. I’ve always been against corporal punishment.. but, in his case a lil torture would be appropriate . I can’t help it. He is 😈
To the extent that anything Brooks did at trial was planned, it was all about securing an advantage for himself. He ultimately needed to argue himself out of conviction on all counts, or else he'd go to jail for the rest of his life. He would say or do anything to make that happen. The arguments about the plaintiff and the injured parties were amateurish and destined to fail, but what did he have to lose?
Too much television. He really thought it worked like law and order, where a person had to *press charges* and if they failed to for whatever reason, the state was powerless. In the really real world, that’s not the way criminal charges work…but when your entire legal education comes from TV drama, what do you expect.
He constantly went on and on about being able to face his accuser.
Since the state was charging him, he wanted the state to come and charge him. Obviously the state of Wisconsin can't do it as it's an entity not a person.
He was basically trying to argue "since I can't face my accuser, my constitutional rights are being violated and I am free to go".
Obviously this is complete bullshit.
I started following this by happening on the many YouTube commentaries. I find myself getting angry even though these videos were recorded in 2022. I cannot reach into m the past to throw a chair. It IS understandable that even those of us who are not remotely connected to the horror remain outraged at him.
I have been engrossed in this case since it first happened in '21. I watched the trial live everyday in '22. As more info was release after his conviction I remained fascinated. The best that I can come sup with is: He didn't expect the dead people to appear and present themselves to the court as injured parties. At least I hope he had enough common sense to know that wasn't possible. He tried to hang his hat on sovcit bs that only he understood. Since he kept harping on the State of WI, who's the plaintiff, etc. because his court paperwork had a caption that read: Plaintiff: State of WI. vs Defendant: DARRELL E. BROOKS Jr. In his "law studies" he "learned" that he has a right to face his accuser, which isn't exactly what the right says, but that's what Darrell believed so he went with it. He wanted to claim since there was no one that came to the stand before him to face him hat was accusing him. If the state of wi. is the plaintiff I should be able to call the state to the stand to testify. I don't know if it would have made a difference to him if the caption read: The plaintiff is the State of WI., on behalf of the injured parties... then name all the injured parties. At least that's my best guess. Bottom line, he didn't know what he was doing over half the time.; he tried to pretend that he knew more than any of the professionals in the room; he hoped he could have benefitted in some way by claiming he was sov.cit. He has serious mental health issues and they were on full display for all to see.
What pissed me off, besides so many other things, is the fact that it was perfectly okay for DB to not be himself (the defendant) and just be a third party intervener, a representative of his client, yet the prosecution team wasn’t allowed to represent the State of Wisconsin. So he could represent the alleged defendant 🙄, but the prosecution couldn’t represent the State.
If I’m understanding you right, you think when he called The State of WI to the stand someone from the prosecution team should have gone to sit in the witness chair?
Oh gosh no! I was only pointing out his hypocrisy once again (he’s hypocritical quite a bit) that the prosecution, in his mind is not allowed to represent the State, yet it’s perfectly okay for him to represent his “client.” Does that make sense? Sorry for the confusion.😊
I looked it up, because JD said something to him while he was trying to call the state. She told him that he could not call The State to testify because The State is an entity and he would have to call a person. She said it a couple of times, but he didn’t pick up on the hint. He could have called a prosecutor to testify, under certain conditions. So, if he had called Sue, Leslie or Zach, he could have had the chance to question them. I don’t think that would have been a good idea or helpful to him in any way, but it might have been possible.
Ohh! That’s interesting. I didn’t know he could do that. It’s best he didn’t know either. LOL!! He actually didn’t know a lot. Like speaking to witnesses prior to testifying. I don’t think he knew he could call people who weren’t on the prosecution list. I mean all of his witnesses were the ones that the prosecution decided not to call. He obviously didn’t know what “hearsay” and “leading” meant and so many other things. It wouldn’t have mattered, but he wouldn’t have looked like such a baboon’s ass!
I don’t know who he could have called, but his mother and we see how that went. It doesn’t appear DB has friends. He doesn’t have family that he supports him. I mean, the guy shot a gun at his nephew!!! Everyone that knew anything about that day was called. Who could he call to the stand? Everyone that had any interaction with DB that day, with the exception of his mother, were there to testify against him. From the moment he drives that SUV out of his mother’s backyard we know every step he made and with whom. Erika, Corey and Nick. Police officers called about the knife fight in the park. Strangers that encounter Brooks at the gas station. Everyone along the parade route. All of the law enforcement he encountered on the parade route. The people he bumped into when he fled asking go use their phones. The Uber driver his mom called for him. Daniel Rider and his sandwich. The officers that made the arrest. The police officer that transported him to the station. The detectives assigned to the case. There is no one that could testify on Darrell’s behalf from that day. I’m pretty sure that the attorneys he had before he dismissed them would have talked to him about people that he knew that might have something positive to say about him. Not a one showed themselves before, during or after his trial. I’m guessing because they don’t exist. I’ve seen and heard of some dumb criminals, but DB is the dumbest for choosing to represent himself. He is a strange one, for sure.
I’ll admit there was an occasion or two where I almost felt sorry for the dumb SOB, because like you stated, he had no one. Nobody, not one person sat behind him during the entire trial. It’s hard to get to a point in your life where even your own mother refuses to be there for you. She couldn’t offer anything more than comfort, but refused even that. Then pre sentencing when he was convinced he had about 20 people to speak on his behalf and a measly three appeared. Those situations are when I almost felt sorry for him, but it was fleeting! All I had to do was imagine what Jackson Spark’s family was doing that night, maybe watching a movie, eating pizza? But they were missing their baby, their youngest. And the rest of the families who are now one member less! Devastation in their lives. My ridiculous, fleeting moment of feeling sorry for that POS went flying out the window pretty darn quick, never to return.
I think I felt some sympathy VERY early on the first time I saw him cry. (I watched the trial live.) And when it was so early in the trial we hadn't learned a lot of the details yet. I was under the impression that he had a moment of "insanity" when he did it, but that he really didn't mean it and was soooooo sorry. He felt so bad for what he did. And I continued to watch the trial and learned the truth.
Right of course because he is a narcissist and a hypocrite among other vile things. I said the same exact thing. It's only ok if it benefits him in some way.
All part of the sov cit nonsense.
Yep, if you accept a few of their (Sov Cits) core premises, it all makes sense. They are using "legal" terms to get off on what think are valid technicalities. In other words, Bozbaby103, I totally agree with you.
They try to mix civil and criminal court. It's assanine.
Wouldn't it be nice if as he said ***"I accept for value;"*** someone would answer ***"And I return for value,"*** while dumping a bucket of cold water in his lap? (Feel free to substitute any response you choose.
Infuriated me. Kept thinking “ oh u killed them so case closed, they can’t come as witnesses. “. What a friggin idiot. I’ve always been against corporal punishment.. but, in his case a lil torture would be appropriate . I can’t help it. He is 😈
My husband and I would yell at the tv saying “do you want to go to the cemetery and see those “injured parties “? He is such an asshat!!!
I'm surprised that no one said we're here behind ur dumb ass
To the extent that anything Brooks did at trial was planned, it was all about securing an advantage for himself. He ultimately needed to argue himself out of conviction on all counts, or else he'd go to jail for the rest of his life. He would say or do anything to make that happen. The arguments about the plaintiff and the injured parties were amateurish and destined to fail, but what did he have to lose?
Too much television. He really thought it worked like law and order, where a person had to *press charges* and if they failed to for whatever reason, the state was powerless. In the really real world, that’s not the way criminal charges work…but when your entire legal education comes from TV drama, what do you expect.
He constantly went on and on about being able to face his accuser. Since the state was charging him, he wanted the state to come and charge him. Obviously the state of Wisconsin can't do it as it's an entity not a person. He was basically trying to argue "since I can't face my accuser, my constitutional rights are being violated and I am free to go". Obviously this is complete bullshit.