He only testifies for his platinum members, and the last time he testified was a pro bono self defense case for his local public defense office, a BJJ dude who accidentally choked an attacker to death.
At least learn about people before attempting to shit on them.
He only testifies for his platinum members, and the last time he testified was a pro bono self defense case for his local public defense office, a BJJ dude who accidentally choked an attacker to death.
At least learn about people before attempting to shit on them.
I distinctively recall Branca saying he does a lot of expert testimonies for officer involved shootings. After all, he was hired by the state of Colorado for use of force training (See the earlier posts I made about him getting canceled because of retarded shit).
When?
He changed his business model after all the media, and streams he did during the Rittenhouse event/trial netted him a massive influx of paid members.
When?
He changed his business model after all the media, and streams he did during the Rittenhouse event/trial netted him a massive influx of paid members.
Didn't you just resolve your own question? See this linked post where has a bunch of evidence from cases he's worked that was "raycist" because it portrays officer involved shootings with fake guns that were justified. He's not testifying for the dead gangbanger obviously in these cases.
He also brought it up on livestreams with nick before in a officer shooting case.
Edit: I should mention I was not aware he had changed his business model. Does he not testify for Police unions at all now?
Aside from the obvious conflict of interest, he's a hypocrite like Nick. He literally argues that your "window" of self defense immediately stops when the person is no longer immediately attacking you (Kyle Carruth), despite being in reach of your firearm and have grabbed it before (still an imminent deadly force threat).
Notice how he tends to give civilians a higher requirement for self defense versus cops. It should be the other way around.
1) The reasonableness prong that he gives for officers is in my opinion overly broad for officers and too narrow for civilians. Police are given leeway over certain aspects because it is a standard part of their duties. Police (in general) are given training compared to the average civilians. Those exceptions of standard duty aside, the bar for civilian use of force should be LOWER than that of police, not the other way around.
2) His definition of imminence (this is backed up by a video of his take on the Kyle Carruth/ Chad Read here) is straight up retarded imho.
"Nipple rubbing" retardation aside, someone grabbing your firearm and flinging you off your porch after threatening to use your own gun against you is an imminent deadly force threat even if he is not with immediate reach of your firearm. It would be unreasonable to say that the window of imminence closes the second you are flung off your own porch (Castle doctrine) and no longer in physical contact with the person you were arguing is preposterous. That is not, "speculative fear" as Branca puts it. That is "forcibly removing" someone as defined under The Deadly Force statue of the Texas Penal Code, Title 2, Section 9.21 Subchapter C Subsection 1. Notice the past tense at the beginning of this portion.
In addition, someone who has demonstrated that they will grab another's firearm is an imminent deadly force threat unless he has fully retreated (in this case, OFF YOUR FUCKING PROPERTY).
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
This is equivalent to if for some reason I have my window open arguing at some roadrage tard who pulls me out of my car and throws me out the vehicle, placing himself between me and my car that 100% justified as protection of persons under 9.21 (C) (1). They have unlawfully and with force entered AND removed someone.
Even if it "defense of person" argument was not allowed, Texas has a defense of property statue under Texas Penal Code, Title 2, Subchapter D. You have been dispossed of your property and are thus authorized to use a reasonable level of force immediately or immediately after and the dispossesion was acomplished by using force/thread.
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
One is further justified in deadly force as per Sec. 9.42 as it would be reasonable (in my opinion) that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
A) Applies because the intruder is standing between you and your property and thus preventing you from recovering or protecting your property.
B) Applies because you have a firearm and using non-lethal force to protect your property incurs a susbstantial risk of death or serious bodily injury (They grab your firearm).
Of course this is my humble, non-practicing lawyer opinon.
I think a lot of people were chalking it up to "Texas culture" in this case which Branca was like lmao that's not a legal argument.
He literally argues that your "window" of self defense immediately stops when the person is no longer immediately attacking you (Kyle Carruth), despite being in reach of your firearm and have grabbed it before (still an imminent deadly force threat).
It's also why he refuses to predict outcomes, it's not the text of the law that matters, it's the precedent, prosecution, judge, and random dangerous animals on the jury.
Nobody should be killed like Daniel Shaver, any of the dudes opening their own door while armed at night, or while holding their hands up in their own home. Once they become criminal defendants, the only people sucking off the jackboots are the ones that don't care how the law absolves the former cops.
The standard for a clean shoot should be much more strict for government agents, than civilians, but it's not. That's on the retards complaining about jackboots, and race, and not attempting to change the law for government agents.
Except... It's not. See the entire post about being forcibly removed from certain locations justifying deadly force in the state of Texas where this occured.
The standard for a clean shoot should be much more strict for government agents, than civilians, but it's not. That's on the retards complaining about jackboots, and race, and not attempting to change the law for government agents
It is not mutually exclusive to call Branca a jackboot-licker while advocating through your legislature to change said law.
Also. Looks like a officer involved in the Massey shooting (The one charged) was discharged from the Army for Serrious misconduct per ABC (Source / Archive) but they won't publish the documents.
The Illinois deputy who fatally shot Sonya Massey in her home while responding to her 911 call was discharged from the U.S. Army for “misconduct (serious offense),” according to documents obtained by ABC News.
Sean Grayson, the former Sangamon County sheriff’s deputy, was discharged on February 24, 2016, after beginning service in the U.S. Army on May 5, 2014. He served for a total of one year, nine months and 19 days, Grayson’s certificate of discharge from active duty shows.
The U.S. Army, citing the Privacy Act and Department of Defense policy, said it is prevented from releasing information relating to the misconduct of low-level employees or characterization of service at discharge.
Grayson was a 91B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic) in the Regular Army from May 2014 to February 2016. He had no deployments and left the Army in the rank of private first class, according to an Army spokesman.
ABC News has also learned that Grayson, 30, was charged with two DUI offenses in Macoupin County, Illinois, in August 2015 and July 2016, according to court documents.
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.
The lady was all over the place in the bodycam footage, I don't know why he thought she should go turn it off instead of doing it himself. I can't say I blame him for assuming the worst in the situation, but he set himself up for failure there.
Something should be said about the fact that it's irresponsible to expect cops to have to abide by the same rules with normal people and with tweakers/career criminals. It just creates rules that suck for everybody.
He's also the biggest lolcow in Lawtube without a thread. Kurt's cooking videos can be funny at times but fit in this thread fine.
If it wasn't for the Balldoverse subforum, a thread about Branca would fit perfectly in Internet Tough Guys. Branca's Twitter presence is legitimately Patrickesque at times
Kurt is chimping live on stream right now at a person in chat. The topic is the Sonya Massey shooting body cam video. The chatter told him to move on (echoing chat) and Kurt has twice said “NO, I’m not moving on! You can’t make me!” Link
ETA: He just banned him and said “Fuck that guy.” Now Kurt is chimping at chat because he’s getting pushback on the ban.
ETA 2: Now he’s back on the video but being loud as hell and sarcastic about “that’s how I got to that factual conclusion, WOW!” The video is at the relative beginning so the show’s not over.
It is, especially because he is utterly incapable of giving commentary without responding to every line of chat that he perceives to be a challenge or criticism.
In this case, what happened next is that the chat is…chatting. With each other. Someone comments “He shouldn’t have shot her” and Kurt has a complete meltdown. “I’M NOT THERE YET. LET’S TAKE THIS ONE STEP AT A TIME, PLEASE.” Nigger, they weren’t interrupting you.
Kurt’s conclusion: “It’s legally messy. It’s tricky.” People pay for this “insight”?
I don’t know if @elb takes requests or if there’s even much of a market for Kurt’s effeminate meltdowns, but for anyone interested, Kurt takes the first step toward sperging out around 12:45 into the stream:
Kurt is well known for being unable to handle anyone pushing back on him. He also has instructed his mods to protect his hugbox. I would be curious to see how big the ban list is on his channel.
