💰 Grifter Boogie / Boogie2988 / "Francis" / Steven Jason Williams - Fat, Rapidly Declining Divorced "Nice Guy" Middle-Aged Youtuber, Former Edgy Porn Blogger, lied about having cancer and being molested. Cohost of fake drama show "Lolcow Live (LCL)". Just WILL NOT die.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
A big difference between Ralph and Boogie is that Boogie committed his felony with a firearm. That could be worth a little time depending on the judge.
I've been thinking about this a little more and can't help comparing Boogie's case to one that a friend of mine went through. This buddy had a spotless record with no priors, worked full time/was doing okay in life, and hired a lawyer that all-in-all cost him $10k~. The charge was for possession of coke <1G which amounted to a Class D state felony. He did everything that he was supposed to, paid all his court fines and made his appearances, and ultimately was able to cop a plea deal for a suspended sentence.

He was placed on felony probation for a few years, had 60~ hours of community service, and also had to spend 21 days in county jail. The time spent in jail was only on the weekends, so he'd go in Fri - Sun. Boogie's not going to prison, and it's unlikely that he'll be sentenced any jail time, but if the court decides it's reasonable I don't think a few weekends in county is entirely out of the question.

I'm obviously naïve as far as Arkansas and Boogie's local laws are concerned, but I feel like my buddy's experience could represent something like the maximum that Boogie might receive. It goes without saying that because it's a personal anecdote it's meaningless. However when breaking things down, taking his lack of priors into account, and looking at his case from a measured perspective, the above sentence sounds like it could be something like the maximum that we see Boogie go through. The suspended sentence allowed my friend to clear his record after years of probation and not fucking up by failing a drug test, getting arrested again, failing to meet his probation requirements, etc.
 
Last edited:
He's already been released. Only took about three hours.
View attachment 2163870
I remember when I worked as a jailer for a few years, that fat guys like boogie were always a pain to escort since they were always too slow. They were too big for wheelchairs, so what I would do is have the inmate workers bring over a pallet cart. The fat dude would sit on it as two inmate workers would push it to where he needed to go. Basically something like this

a-100-3420a-q85qmt-1920x0.jpg

It was also entertaining when we rolled past the holding cells, there was always startled reactions.

>"DAMN!"
>"NIGGA, WTF?"
>"HAHAHAHA"


I wonder if booger is getting cart rides in the jail.
 
Given the choice between completely avoiding Frank and actually shooting him down, Boogie took the middle ground like he always does. He is practically the only man alive who could make fence-sitting a criminal offense. The fence finally impaled him.
 
He appears to have some lolcow tendencies, and was involved in a bitter, protracted divorce that ended up in the Arkansas Supreme Court.


He apparently married another lawyer far wealthier than he is and was awarded, among other things, $3,787 a month in permanent alimony as well as $1.25 million purportedly for child support. The Supreme Court upheld everything but those two. I assume he had a good lawyer even to win something that ridiculous in the first place, because permanent alimony even for women is generally disfavored these days.
I took a read through the decision.

It appears boogie's arboreal lawyer has been having financial difficulties in regards to his private practice. He used to be a DA then left to start his own firm, which has consistently produced losses with brief periods of profit. He claims it is because he took time off and didn't take cases he could have so that he could care for the kids and go to their events. That could be true, but it seems that his firm continued to fail even after the separation. Perhaps I am cynical but his absurd 1.25 million claim (wife's father left her a 5 million inheritance primarily in stocks of a closely hold corp that are not easy to sell) on non liquidated assets, along with his claim for child support sound like him trying to bail out his failing business.

One has to wonder why a lawyer with 20 years experience across seemingly 5 different areas of law is resorting to attempts at legally pickpocketing his wife's inheritance to stay afloat. Perhaps he is just lazy, that seems to be the wife's argument. Perhaps he is incompetent. Either way, why hire this guy for your criminal issue? Boogie apparently used him for his divorce (which is ironic because this guy didn't even represent himself in his own divorce, maybe just following good practice), but this guys schizophrenic experience portfolio hardly suggests some expert in criminal law, besides the single year at the DA.

Perhaps this is why he was wrong when he told boogie everything was blown over (unless boogie lied about that, very possible), and maybe he might continue to error. Just a thought.
 
Maybe it's just because I would have found it funny but he really should have just shot Frank.

You’re actually on to something here. It depends on the location and state but shooting and killing somebody in self defense is actually LESS likely to result in a conviction than firing a warning shot and scaring the person away. The reason being that shooting and killing a perceived threat is done and over with. If you had time to fire a warning shot to scare the person away, then “you clearly weren’t in enough danger to warrant deadly force” on top of the risk of that shot ricocheting or veering off and hitting somebody in the distance. I don’t know the law where Boogie is but it’s very possible that he’d be able to get out of it all if he had just killed the dude and claimed self defense. Now he’s probably going to get a felony conviction and lose his ability to own a firearm all because he made the choice to NOT try to kill somebody. Shit’s fucked.
 
I took a read through the decision.

It appears boogie's arboreal lawyer has been having financial difficulties in regards to his private practice. He used to be a DA then left to start his own firm, which has consistently produced losses with brief periods of profit. He claims it is because he took time off and didn't take cases he could have so that he could care for the kids and go to their events. That could be true, but it seems that his firm continued to fail even after the separation. Perhaps I am cynical but his absurd 1.25 million claim (wife's father left her a 5 million inheritance primarily in stocks of a closely hold corp that are not easy to sell) on non liquidated assets, along with his claim for child support sound like him trying to bail out his failing business.

One has to wonder why a lawyer with 20 years experience across seemingly 5 different areas of law is resorting to attempts at legally pickpocketing his wife's inheritance to stay afloat. Perhaps he is just lazy, that seems to be the wife's argument. Perhaps he is incompetent. Either way, why hire this guy for your criminal issue? Boogie apparently used him for his divorce (which is ironic because this guy didn't even represent himself in his own divorce, maybe just following good practice), but this guys schizophrenic experience portfolio hardly suggests some expert in criminal law, besides the single year at the DA.

Perhaps this is why he was wrong when he told boogie everything was blown over (unless boogie lied about that, very possible), and maybe he might continue to error. Just a thought.
I've known @ a dozen USA lawyers personally. One characteristic they all shared was Sloth. Categorically the LAZIEST group of professionals I have ever encountered.
This was my experience. 12 is probably not a representative sample size.
Pine Log has a shit practice probably because he is lazy. My opinion.
 
You’re actually on to something here. It depends on the location and state but shooting and killing somebody in self defense is actually LESS likely to result in a conviction than firing a warning shot and scaring the person away. The reason being that shooting and killing a perceived threat is done and over with. If you had time to fire a warning shot to scare the person away, then “you clearly weren’t in enough danger to warrant deadly force” on top of the risk of that shot ricocheting or veering off and hitting somebody in the distance. I don’t know the law where Boogie is but it’s very possible that he’d be able to get out of it all if he had just killed the dude and claimed self defense. Now he’s probably going to get a felony conviction and lose his ability to own a firearm all because he made the choice to NOT try to kill somebody. Shit’s fucked.
I'm sure this has been posted many times, but in regards to what you're saying, how would this interview effect Boogie in that scenario? (also in regards to what he is facing in reality too?)
Key timestamps are roughly 3:09 , 4:07 , 6:20 , 6:35.
Boogie says multiple times that he wants to kill Frank, he wants to put him in a body bag, "invites" Frank over multiple times so he can shoot Frank.
I feel like if Frank gets dragged into court over this all he has to do is play these clips and it shows premeditation from Boogie. I'm not sure of the legality of all of this though.
 
I did some research to learn more about what rights Boogie might lose if they brand him as a felon.

Arkansas Felony Crimes by Class and Sentences (archive)

Arkansas Felony Crimes by Class and Sentences​


Felonies in Arkansas are crimes punishable by state prison terms.​

By Ave Mince-Didier



Felonies in Arkansas are crimes punishable by state prison terms. Arkansas's lawmakers designate felonies as Class Y, A, B, C, or D. Some felonies are unclassified and, for these crimes, the sentence will be set forth in the criminal statute. In Arkansas, the most serious crimes (capital murder and treason) are punishable by death or life imprisonment. (Ark. Code §§ 5-4-104, 5-4-401 (2019).)
Less serious crimes, known as misdemeanors, are punishable by terms of up to one year in county or local jail. For more information on misdemeanors in Arkansas, see Arkansas Misdemeanor Crimes by Class and Sentences.

Class Y Felonies​

Class Y felonies are the most serious crimes in Arkansas not punishable by death. A conviction for a Class Y felony can result in a prison term of ten to 40 years or life. Statutory rape is an example of a class Y felony. (Ark. Code §§ 5-4-201, 5-4-401 (2019).)

Class A Felonies​

Class A felonies in Arkansas are punishable by six to 30 years' imprisonment and a fine of up to $15,000. Possession of between ten and 200 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver is an example of a Class A felony. (Ark. Code §§ 5-4-201, 5-4-401 (2019).)

Class B Felonies​

Under Arkansas's laws, the sentence for a Class B felony is five to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000. Intentionally using a deadly weapon to cause serious injury to a family member (domestic battering in the first degree) is a Class B felony. (Ark. Code §§ 5-4-201, 5-4-401 (2019).)

Class C Felonies​

A Class C felony is punishable by three to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. Theft of property worth $5,000 to $25,000 is a Class C felony. (Ark. Code §§ 5-4-201, 5-4-401 (2019).)

Class D Felonies​

Class D felonies are the least serious felonies in Arkansas, punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. Aggravated assault is an example of a Class D felony. (Ark. Code §§ 5-4-201, 5-4-401 (2019).)

Statutes of Limitations​

A statute of limitation is a time limit by which the state must begin criminal prosecution or the defendant can have the case thrown out. The statute of limitations begins to “run” when the crime is committed. In Arkansas, more serious crimes have longer statutes of limitations. Murder has no statute of limitations, while most Class Y and Class A felonies have limitation periods of six years. Class B, C, or D felonies and unclassified felonies typically have three-year statutes of limitations. (Ark. Code § 5-1-109 (2019).)

Obtaining Legal Assistance​

Felony convictions have serious consequences. In addition to time in prison, a felony conviction can result in the loss of the right to vote, own a gun, run for public office, or obtain certain professional or business licenses. If you are charged with a felony, talk to an experienced Arkansas criminal defense attorney. A good attorney can explain the legal process to you and help you obtain the best possible outcome in your case. The best way to protect your rights is to work with a qualified criminal defense attorney.

What Rights do Convicted Felons Lose? (archive)

What Rights Do Convicted Felons Lose?​


Convicted felons lose rights from voting to employment, depending on their state of residence. While some of the rights convicted felons lose may be restored over time, some of the rights are lost forever. Throughout the United States, some of the general rights convicted felons lose are as follows, varying state by state:
  • Voting
  • Traveling abroad
  • The right to bear arms or own guns
  • Jury service
  • Employment in certain fields
  • Public social benefits and housing
  • Parental benefits
Let’s take a look at each one of these rights convicted felons lose in more detail.

What Rights Do Felons Lose?​

Convicted felons are given restrictions within the law to help protect society. In addition to losing rights, convicted felons are also required to abide by certain regulations like regular drug screenings and sobriety treatment.

Voting Rights for Convicted Felons​

Can felons vote? Voting rights for convicted felons vary depending on the state of their residence and incarceration. In some states, convicted felons lose rights to vote temporarily while they are serving the length of their sentence. Upon release from jail, they are able to vote once again.
In other states, convicted felons do not lose the right to vote at any time, while some states do not restore a convicted felon’s right to vote unless further action is taken on behalf of the inmate. For instance, the convicted felon can apply for a governor’s pardon or withstand a “waiting period” after they’ve been released. They might have to complete terms of probation or parole, or pay any outstanding fines, as well.
You may have heard the loss of felons’ voting rights referred to as “felony disenfranchisement.” To see how felony disenfranchisement works in your state, check out this map from the American Civil Liberties Union.

Traveling Abroad​

Just as voting rights vary state by state, regulations dealing with traveling abroad vary by country. In the United States, if you are a convicted felon because of a drug-related felony, your passport may be revoked while you are serving out your sentence, including probation or parole.
However, the US is not the only country that implements travel restrictions if you are a convicted felon. Other countries enforce strict border control when it comes to allowing convicted felons into their territory. Canada, for example, has access to information about convicted criminals in the US through the US National Crime Information Center. So, if you are a convicted felon attempting to travel from the US to Canada, you may receive a background check before crossing the border. This could result in not being allowed to enter the country.
This is not the case for all countries, though. Many places do not have access to the same amount of information as Canada, so convicted felons can usually travel abroad without having any issues.

Felons’ Firearm Rights​

It is possible for a convicted felon to receive firearm rights, though the process of doing so is easier in some states than in others. Gun restoration laws often require a convicted felon to either apply for felony expungement, petition for restoration of firearm rights, receive a governor’s pardon, or receive a federal pardon in order to have the right to purchase a gun again.

Employment Rights​

Some of the most important rights that are impacted by a criminal record are employment rights. At the federal level, an employer is not allowed to use a prior conviction as a reason not to hire someone, unless the crime directly relates to the job. These include:
  • Public positions and employment with the U.S. Armed Forces
  • Law enforcement agencies
  • Teachers
  • Childcare professionals
  • Many other jobs that require a professional license
At the state level, however, employment rights can look a bit different. Employers are allowed to consider a convicted felon’s criminal history when deciding whether or not to hire him or her. Many private employers will conduct background checks and choose not to hire felons. They are allowed to discriminate in this way, but it is not a requirement.

Public Social Benefits and Housing​

In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits.

Child Custody for Convicted Felons​

Depending on the crime, convicted felons don’t necessarily lose all parental rights, unless the person was convicted of a more serious offense – like murder. However, in situations where the convicted felon was the only parent involved in the child’s life, and the child was put into foster care for an excessive amount of time, the convicted felon may lose parental rights.
And while convicted felons may not legally lose parental rights at the time of a conviction, it may affect parental rights down the line, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.

Legal Help For Restoring Convicted Felons’ Rights​

Most felons’ rights that are lost during incarceration will be automatically restored when they are released from jail. However, if you are unsure what your rights, discuss this with a criminal defense lawyer. Since some rights are not automatically restored in some states, like the right to purchase a firearm, you may want to discuss how to appeal this with the attorney.
Another common reason convicted felons might need legal assistance is for child custody. If you have been in jail or prison and have lost your parental rights, speak to a child custody attorney to determine what you need to do upon your release.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person’s record. Even if these are not necessarily lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity. To learn more about the rights convicted felons lose, here’s a deeper look at employment rights and firearm rights.

This seems to be the list of rights, but depends upon the state:
  • Voting
  • Traveling abroad
  • The right to bear arms or own guns
  • Jury service
  • Employment in certain fields
  • Public social benefits and housing
  • Parental benefits
If he gets convicted as a felon, the human swine may find it difficult to "travel all around the world," as countries may deny him entry. It will also be harder for him to adopt a child to abuse. :story:
 
Last edited:
If boogie gets off easy it wouldn't be because he's a YouTuber. It would be more about the neighborhood he's in. He's been in the same suburb for decades with no incidents up until recently. He's been swatted, stalked and had wellness checks but not to this extent. Then there is the obvious he's old obese and visibly weak. He would get eaten alive in prison.
 
I'm sure this has been posted many times, but in regards to what you're saying, how would this interview effect Boogie in that scenario? (also in regards to what he is facing in reality too?)
Key timestamps are roughly 3:09 , 4:07 , 6:20 , 6:35.
Boogie says multiple times that he wants to kill Frank, he wants to put him in a body bag, "invites" Frank over multiple times so he can shoot Frank.
I feel like if Frank gets dragged into court over this all he has to do is play these clips and it shows premeditation from Boogie. I'm not sure of the legality of all of this though.
If anything that makes a worse case for Hassle. He escalated the situation to that level, he had the choice to not go up to Boogies home.
 
Sorry to armchair Lawyer againt but was doing a bit of reading for Arkansas law.

"The duty to retreat DOES NOT APPLY if you are in your own dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding your dwelling and you were not the original aggressor. That includes when the dwelling is also shared by the victim. See Thomas v. State, 266 Ark. 162, 583 S.W.2d 32 Ark., 1979"

So it would seem Boogie had no duty to retreat into his house.

Re: firing in the air. I can't find much law on firing warning shots as it relates to Arkansas specifically. Still don't think he will see jail time for it though.
This has been discussed to death. The duty to retreat is an entirely different thing from being entitled to use deadly force. Just because you don't have to retreat off your front porch doesn't mean you can just shoot guns wildly into the neighborhood like Yosemite Sam.
 
If anything that makes a worse case for Hassle. He escalated the situation to that level, he had the choice to not go up to Boogies home.
Is it illegal to knock on the door of a man who threatened to kill you the prior night?
I'm not trying to be a smartass. I'm genuinely curious what law Frank would have been in violation here, or the legal validity regarding Boogie's claim of Frank stalking/harassing him.
 
What would the "original aggression" be from Frank in this case? Knocking on Boogie's door?
It's an interesting question, but not really relevant to the duty to retreat. Boogie had the right to come out onto his porch and tell Frank to leave, even if the better choice would have been to tell him to leave from behind the door, call the cops (and don't bother telling Frank you did it) and just wait for them to come escort him off and maybe even arrest him.

What he didn't have the right to do was randomly shoot guns into a residential neighborhood.
Is it illegal to knock on the door of a man who threatened to kill you the prior night?
I'm not trying to be a smartass. I'm genuinely curious what law Frank would have been in violation here, or the legal validity regarding Boogie's claim of Frank stalking/harassing him.
It's an academic question. If he wasn't trespassing at the outset, as he had no legitimate business or any other reason to be there, he was definitely trespassing after Boogie unequivocally told him to leave the property repeatedly and instead he stood there for about two minutes hurling verbal abuse at him.
 
Is it illegal to knock on the door of a man who threatened to kill you the prior night?
I'm not trying to be a smartass. I'm genuinely curious what law Frank would have been in violation here, or the legal validity regarding Boogie's claim of Frank stalking/harassing him.
Escalation of violence. Hassle was provoking an aggressive response, especially considering he went out of his way to do so, when the better thing to do was either report Boogie or just stop interacting.
 
Back
Top Bottom