Man Claiming Self-Defense in 2019 Murder of Cyclist Cross-Examined

The man accused of the 2019 fatal shooting of cyclist Alexis Palencia on the Rickenbacker Causeway stood by his claims of self-defense during his cross-examination in court. Kadel Piedrahita, who is charged with murder and assaulting another cyclist, insisted that he acted in fear for his life, while prosecutors argued the shooting was intentional.

The 2019 Altercation and Shooting

In 2019, an altercation between Piedrahita and several cyclists on the Rickenbacker Causeway escalated into a fatal encounter. Piedrahita, accused of killing Palencia and assaulting another cyclist, admitted during cross-examination to threatening Palencia in a video taken before the shooting. In the video, Piedrahita can be seen live-streaming and screaming at Palencia, stating he wanted to “break him in two.”

When questioned by prosecutors, Piedrahita acknowledged making those threats but claimed he acted in self-defense after being hit by Palencia. He described a malfunction with his bike and said that the encounter turned violent when he was allegedly attacked by three cyclists, including Palencia. Prosecutors, however, played video evidence showing what appeared to be an argument rather than a physical attack.

Self-Defense Claims and Evidence Disputed

During his testimony, Piedrahita revealed he had a gun and multiple rounds of ammunition in his backpack at the time of the incident. Prosecutors argued that Piedrahita could have walked away from the conflict, but instead chose to engage with the cyclists. In one video shown in court, Piedrahita is heard calling for his gun in Spanish, saying “saca,” which translates to “bring out.”

Despite Piedrahita’s claims of being physically harmed, prosecutors pointed out that there were no visible injuries on his face or body. Piedrahita responded by saying he was hurt emotionally and mentally, even if there were no clear physical signs of the altercation. The defense maintained that Piedrahita was genuinely afraid for his life and that his actions were a result of being attacked by a group of cyclists. However, prosecutors countered by showing footage that they believe demonstrates Piedrahita had opportunities to de-escalate the situation but instead chose to pursue a violent outcome.

Defense Challenges and Jury Deliberation

As the cross-examination concluded, Piedrahita’s defense attorneys attempted to call a witness back to the stand, claiming there was a second gun present at the scene of the shooting. The defense believed this could provide further context for Piedrahita’s actions. However, the judge denied the request, preventing the defense from bringing the witness back for additional testimony.

With both sides presenting their final arguments, the jury is expected to return on Monday to continue deliberations and hear the closing statements. The key question they must answer is whether Piedrahita’s actions were truly a matter of self-defense, or if the shooting was an intentional act of violence fueled by anger and threats made before the incident. The outcome of the trial will hinge on the jury’s interpretation of the video evidence and Piedrahita’s claims of self-defense, as well as the prosecution’s argument that he could have walked away but chose not to.