As RedState reported, in a shocking and somewhat risky move, Kyle Rittenhouse chose to testify at his own trial today. The initial results from the direct from the defense team were positive, with Rittenhouse coming across as a sympathetic figure who had no intention of killing anyone that night.

Now, the prosecution has gotten their shot at him, and it turned into an absolute cluster.

At one point, the prosecution earned the ire of the judge again (the second time since the start of questioning) for eliciting irrelevant answers about Rittenhouse’s choice of gun. That was part of a ridiculous, surreal line of questions about playing the video game Call of Duty.

The prosecution questions Rittenhouse's choosing of an AR-15 because "it resembled the types of weapons that are used in first person shooter video games," in which gamers "pretty much shoot anyone who comes at you."

R: "I don't really understand the meaning of your question." pic.twitter.com/07iyKSrfyc

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 10, 2021

I can’t think of anything less relevant than whether Rittenhouse plays a video game that millions of other people play. His actions that night, as testified to by video and eyewitnesses, were clearly not the result of some premeditated intent to show up and shoot random people.

And on the topic of intent, the prosecution attempted to get Rittenhouse to admit he meant to kill people. He was prepared, though.

PROSECUTION: "Everybody that you shot at that night, you intended to kill. Correct?"

RITTENHOUSE: "I didn't intend to kill them. I intended to stop the people who were attacking me."

P: "By killing them."

R: "I did what I had to do to stop the person who was attacking me." pic.twitter.com/DXUYka2Yn3

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 10, 2021

Shortly after, the questioning was halted so the judge could just go nuclear on the prosecutor (RedState is covering the judge’s responses in another, concurrent piece).

The questioning then resumed with the prosecution pressing the issue of whether Rittenhouse drove a car without a license and the matter of if he broke curfew. The intent of the prosecutor seems to be to press the “he shouldn’t have been there that night” angle. Yet, that seems wholly irrelevant to the question of self-defense once someone is being attacked. You do not lose that right because you might have committed some largely unrelated, ancillary offense.

Then there was this.

The prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case just displayed confusion at the concept that you might need GPS to take you somewhere you have been before if your normal route is shut down. I am in awe of the basic incompetence.

— Amber Athey (@amber_athey) November 10, 2021

The issue of firearm laws also came out. Again, I would say that’s largely irrelevant to the question of whether he acted in self-defense or not, but I’ll let stronger legal minds speak to that in future analysis.

"You could have been carrying a hand gun instead of this long rifle."

"I would have had it been legal for me to carry a hand gun."

And then the prosecutor moved on. https://t.co/4VWxVdy7CR

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 10, 2021

When the topic of ammunition types came up, the judge and Rittenhouse had to correct the prosecutor multiple times.

This trial is such a clown show that the judge had to LITERALLY CORRECT the prosecutor on his understanding of ammunition types pic.twitter.com/cELfUElgrR

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 10, 2021

The questioning continues, and there will be a lot more to talk about regarding today’s events. Per my usual disclaimer, I’m not a lawyer, but man does this feel like the worst day yet for the prosecution. And given that, where do they have to go from here? It doesn’t appear a mistrial is in the cards since the judge resumed the questioning after he sent the jury out and lambasted the prosecutor. Rather, I think this plays all the way out, and barring something insane from the jury, Rittenhouse is likely to be found not guilty (as he should be).