>> They [the jury members] need to see balance restored which means somebody has to accept blame. Richards did not dress that wound; he did not provide an alternate scapegoat. <<
I suppose he meant to place the blame on the attackers, who do deserve it, but the ones who were killed acquire some sympathy just from that. I thought Kyle did better when he looked genuinely pained as he said I didn’t want to kill them but I had to.
I was somewhat disappointed in what I heard from Richards, especially considering that the preponderance of the evidence is on the defense’s side — and common sense too. At times he exaggerated unnecessarily and gave openings to the prosecution. (I missed the first part of his closing argument, and he may have done better in that part.)
Also I didn’t like the way he phrased his final remarks to the jury, which need to be something that will stick in their minds. He said something to the effect that Kyle’s actions were “privileged” as self defense. That may be a common usage among lawyers, but “privileged” carries a negative connotation for most persons. He could have said “justified” or used some other more positive word.
In any case I was convinced from the evidence — actually just from the videos themselves — that Kyle should be found not guilty, and no way of phrasing things by the lawyers is going to change that. Let’s hope the jury has people on it who will view the evidence properly and reach a fair conclusion.
You're right, I remember that turn of phrase caught my attention but I think I dismissed it as lawyer-talk.,
Recalling it triggered another, more disturbing thought: they are referring to the exercise of constitutional rights "privileged" actions.
This may have been the manner of address long before, but seeing two starkly different characterizations brought so close together is disturbing.
You're also right about Kyle's testimony balancing Richard's summation.