LawTube - Lawyers sperging at each other on YouTube

[Permanent Resident Cope]

There are 4 lights.

 

[DuranceVile]

I fucking hope he's better, Uncivil was like watching a 4 year old.

Way back when Rekieta had him on for the first time, I subbed to Kurt's channel and jumped on a livestream he was doing. He was having technical difficulties, and his response was to start seething at chat about it like he was having a tantrum. I unsubbed pretty quickly after that. He's his own worst enemy on numerous levels.

There are 4 lights.
4lights.mp4

Mr Baldman in the closed captions is awfully close to Mr. Balldoman. Prophetic?

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Watching uncivil cover the dismissal and this guy is a fucking IDIOT, holy shit […] not understanding what HE JUST FUCKING READ and then saying "nah, I don't know if I agree".

That’s a habit of Kurt’s that I’ve noticed on the few streams of his that I’ve listened to. It’s something I found mildly annoying the first few times, but eventually I wanted to electrocute him every time he did it.

Kurt seems to have people around who care about him. They should tell him to knock it the fuck off.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Uh-oh!

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

View attachment 6228710

Uh-oh!

So did he lose his new job or did his wife divorce him?

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

So did he lose his new job or did his wife divorce him?

I lean toward job, based on entirely nothing. Unless the wife is a total nutter. She should have been aware of the book, I would have thought.

 

[Harm]

That's a pretty ridiculous post to be making if he simply lost his job. You should save that sort of rhetoric for a catastrophic family incident like an automobile crash or a random act of violence, not because your gross book cost you your new job.

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

That's a pretty ridiculous post to be making if he simply lost his job. You should save that sort of rhetoric for a catastrophic family incident like an automobile crash or a random act of violence, not because your gross book cost you your new job.

We could be way off base and whatever he's referencing isn't related to his book and the publicity drizzle surrounding it.

 

[bifftango]

View attachment 6228710

Uh-oh!

The dude had Thai food last night. These things happen...

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Unless the wife is a total nutter.

Excuse me Himedall but I was told by relationship "experts" like Nick (Now practicing lolyer) and LEEGUL MINDSET DICKSUCKERRR that all women are batshit crazy though?
Joke aside, he's not disbarred or anything according to the Florida Bar right now so that's one off the list.

Update on Gosney the degenerate:

I seem to recall Gosney going "MUH JERB is more important than ONLINE STREAMING (and the sex fantasy novel)" on Nick's show before. Or maybe I'm just retarded and gaslighting?


Any thoughts on the Soniya Massey case?
Bodycam footage:

Case docket (2024-CF-000909):

http://records.sangamoncountycircuitclerk.org/

(Go to case search, search by case number, select criminal felony, and 000909 as the number)
Appears that in Saginaw County this case has been sealed:

Sealed - Exhibit B Filed by Assistant State's Attorney: RODGERS

Extended Media Coverage - Notice of Request Filed by

Extended Media Coverage - Denied for Trial/Proceeding Signed Judge: CADAGIN

My thoughts on this:
This is a really bad PR fight for the cop not matter how much the law (IF IT) is on his side. Feels like one of those instances where on a traffic stop cop asks you to disarm yourself (Not something like doing) of a legal firearm and then shoots you because they got scared.

1) The cop appears to be the inital aggressor in this video.
2) Verbal threats alone are not sufficent for lethal force. If you tell me "Rebuke you in the name of Jesus " is a serrious threat (I am divided if she had set the pot down) to warrant drawing a firearm and saying "You better fucking not I'll shoot you" I don't know what to say.
3) 99% of this could have been prevented if this smartass cop didn't run his mouth.
4) He told her to check on the pot which was ambiguous instead of telling her to turn the burner off. Then threatening to shoot her for moving said pot is not a good look.
5) Maybe cop should just turn off the burner himself.
6) Cop has a consentual encounter with the woman (not being detained/arrested)
7) Cop went between six agencies in 5 years.
8 )If I see another person arguing that boiling water at 1AM is pre-meditation I'm going to rip their eyes out and skull fuck them. It's their propery and they can do whatever the fuck they want and boiling water isn't equivalent to setting VX and TAP traps on your sidewalk.

Takeaways:
1) Most US states are jackboots for taking away a common law right to resist unlawful arrest (even a blatantly obvious one). Jury nullfication.
2) Don't allow cops in your home.
3) Don't call the cops because you might get a retard (See 2)
4) Break police unions so trouble retards get booted permanently from the force.
5) News is still lying pieces of shit.

Branca's arguing that the black woman getting shot for the boiling water was a-okay (his video here). Branca's getting ripped by about half in the comments and is fighting back twitter style against several of those calling him a bootlicking faggot. Lmao.

@Lawofselfdefense that is it im done with you. this is so blatantly an abuse of police power that this take is unforgivable. first he threatens to shoot her in the face then he exacerbates the situation until he felt he had cause than shot her in the face. As far as I am concerned not only was this murder he premeditated it in the moments prior to firing the shots and deserves the death penalty.

I see several comments stating that the argument against the office is John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).
Specifically this portion:

'From the evidence as it appears in this action, none of the policemen who sought to arrest the defendant in this action prior to the killing of the deceased, John Kills Back, were justified in arresting the defendant, and he had a right to use such force as a reasonably prudent person might do in resisting such arrest by them.'

We think the court clearly erred in charging that the policemen had the right to arrest the plaintiff in error, and to use such force as was necessary to accomplish the arrest, and that the plaintiff in error had no right to resist it.
17
The evidence as to the facts immediately preceding the killing was contradictory; the prosecution showing a killing when no active effort was at that very moment made to arrest, and the defendant showing an intended arrest and a determination to take him at that time at all events, and a move made by the deceased towards him with his pistol in sight, and a seeming intention to use it against the defendant for the purpose of overcoming all resistance. Under these circumstances the error of the charge was material and prejudicial.
18
At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr. & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, § 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L.* p 15; 1 East, P. C. chap. 5, p. 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 Barn & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox C. C. 4; Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111, 18 Am. Rep. 601; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37. If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra.
19
We do not find any statute of the United States or of the state of South Dakota giving any right to these men to arrest an individual without a warrant, on a charge of misdemeanor not committed in their presence. Marshals and their deputies have in each state, by virtue of § 788, Revised Statutes of the United States, the same powers in executing the laws of the United States as sheriffs and their deputies in such state may have by law in executing the laws thereof. This certainly does not give any power to an officer at the Pine Ridge agency to arrest a person without warrant, even though charged with the commission of a misdemeanor. These policemen were not marshals nor deputies of marshals, and the statutes have no application to them.

Illinois statue states the following:

720 ILCS 5/7-7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-7)
Sec. 7-7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.
(Source: P.A. 86-1475.)

So I think that's thrown out legally the window unless somehow SCOTUS rules/ruled that's a right protected federally that applies in this case.

Other news:
Branca's got the whole wojack meme face tilesets in his videos now. May luls be had.

Oh, and he's showing off that watch in a few thumbnails that he (grifted off an argument from X?) lmao.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Branca's arguing that the black woman getting shot for the boiling water was a-okay

This is the take I would expect from him. The cop knew he fucked up based on him lying to the first responding officer and saying “She came at me with boiling water.” Branca never met an authoritarian white guy he didn’t like.

Let him hang. The cop, too.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

This is the take I would expect from him. The cop knew he fucked up based on him lying to the first responding officer and saying “She came at me with boiling water.” Branca never met an authoritarian white guy he didn’t like.

Let him hang. The cop, too.

Branca's Bootslurping aside I can see how the shoot can be justified, but I don't think this is one of those "100% certain cases'". I think in Illinois that cop is cooked on a jury trial especially with the race baiters out in force.
In a perfect world, he wouldn't be a cop but we live not in such a world.

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

Branca's Bootslurping aside I can see how the shoot can be justified

It's only justified if there was a gun in the pot of water. The cop was so unafraid of the water he got closer after he pulled his gun. If he was that scared of the water he could've just moved further away.

 

[Not Really Here]

Branca's take was based on the assumption the chick threw the pot at the cops.
This is a shit take because Police Activity released the bodycam of both cops, and no pot was thrown, the bitch had her hands up when she was domed.

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

Branca's take was based on the assumption the chick threw the pot at the cops.

Branca's take was based on the fact that he's a bootlicker. I don't think I've ever seen him say a cop was wrong for a shooting.

 

[Harm]

Cop's a murderer. Simple as.

Branca's take was based on the assumption the chick threw the pot at the cops.

Inexcusable that a lawtuber covering the situation hadn't seen the already available bodycam footage. Plus it still doesn't make much sense. If she'd already thrown the pot then what's shooting her going to do? Are the bullets going to divert the pot's course?

Retarded take.

 

[Not Really Here]

Plus it still doesn't make much sense. If she'd already thrown the pot then what's shooting her going to do? Are the bullets going to divert the pot's course?

His assumption was the throwing was in progress at the moment of the shoot.

Retarded take.

Correct.

Branca's take was based on the fact that he's a bootlicker.

He has the same take for most shootings regardless of occupation, or race. Reasonable threat of great bodily harm, or death? Clean shoot.

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

He has the same take for most shootings regardless of occupation, or race. Reasonable threat of great bodily harm, or death? Clean shoot.

Find me a cop shooting where he thought the cop was in the wrong. I haven't seen it yet. Then again Branca also said the guy that shot his wife's ex that pushed him off his porch wasn't justified and then a grand jury refused to indict the guy.

 

[Not Really Here]

Find me a cop shooting where he thought the cop was in the wrong.

You seem to have an obsession with pigs, he thinks almost every shooting is legal.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

You seem to have an obsession with pigs, he thinks almost every shooting is legal.

Well, Branca testifies for cops in officer shootings as an expert witness so its not surprising he'd protect his biggest client base.

It's only justified if there was a gun in the pot of water. The cop was so unafraid of the water he got closer after he pulled his gun. If he was that scared of the water he could've just moved further away.

Boiling water is still a deadly weapon. But like I said, regardless of the legal justification I think the cop is fucked on a jury for the reasonableness test unless you've got 12 retards (always a chance).
It's the equivalent of someone like me (legally) carrying a firearm getting pulled by a cop, who proceeds to tell me to disarm myself by pulling the handgun out of the holster , and then proceeding to scream "DROP THE GUN YOU FUCKHEAD" before shooting me for having said "deadly weapon" in my hand.

I fail to see how that is objectively reasonable at all.

Cop's a murderer. Simple as.


Inexcusable that a lawtuber covering the situation hadn't seen the already available bodycam footage. Plus it still doesn't make much sense. If she'd already thrown the pot then what's shooting her going to do? Are the bullets going to divert the pot's course?

Retarded take.

No Branca saw the video. In his explanation he says it looks like a throw to him (Which I objectively disagree with).