Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta - Polysubstance enthusiast, "Lawtuber" turned Dabbleverse streamer, swinger, "whitebread ass nigga", snuffs animals for fun, visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold who lost his license to practice law. Wife's bod worth $50. The normies even know.

[Matt Damon]

This JP dude is redpill boomer comedy, but still funny

Yeah, the message is right, but the writing is a little too on the nose for me. There are other guys out there doing more clever parody.

 

[TheClappening]

The only Lawtube Nick will trust is Lawtube of just himself


EDIT: I originally tuned in when Nick was reading legal documents (i.e. Vic Mignogna). I can get into him writing legal(ish) documents like this Youtube counterclaim.

 

[Joggin Noggin]

"Go rape a gorilla you bonelipped ooga ooga. Who made donkey Kong a professor of philosphy?"
This stupid fucking quote made me laugh harder than it should have

 

[Kosher Salt]

I definitely get what Rekieta is saying about that kid who got shot by the cop technically having a deadly weapon (the moving car), but surely at some level of wanton disregard for policing procedure, the special legal privileges granted to cops must stop applying.

From the news I've seen, he was wrong about IDing the car and he went to confront him before getting radio confirmation. Then (at least from the video) he didn't appear to identify himself as a cop, flung the door open, told the kid to get out, and the kid panicked and tried to drive away. That's the situation based on everything I've seen, at least.

I'm going to take the contrary side here. Even if he was immediately justified when the car posed an imminent threat to his safety, shooting at the fleeing vehicle when it posed no more threat to him was attempted murder.

You cannot even argue that the kid posed an imminent risk of hitting someone else, because as far as we know he was trying to escape from an attempted carjacking, not resisting arrest by a uniformed, identified cop. The cop didn't identify himself, he just yanked the door open.

You cannot shoot someone in the back while they're trying to flee.

 

[ForTheHoard]

I'm going to take the contrary side here. Even if he was immediately justified when the car posed an imminent threat to his safety, shooting at the fleeing vehicle when it posed no more threat to him was attempted murder.

You cannot even argue that the kid posed an imminent risk of hitting someone else, because as far as we know he was trying to escape from an attempted carjacking, not resisting arrest by a uniformed, identified cop. The cop didn't identify himself, he just yanked the door open.

You cannot shoot someone in the back while they're trying to flee.

You can't just let a kid drive down the road with a bunch of bullet holes in him. It's dangerous. Better shoot him again.

 

[2lolis1cup]

I'm going to take the contrary side here. Even if he was immediately justified when the car posed an imminent threat to his safety, shooting at the fleeing vehicle when it posed no more threat to him was attempted murder.

You cannot even argue that the kid posed an imminent risk of hitting someone else, because as far as we know he was trying to escape from an attempted carjacking, not resisting arrest by a uniformed, identified cop. The cop didn't identify himself, he just yanked the door open.

You cannot shoot someone in the back while they're trying to flee.

You can if you have reasonable belief they will harm the public or commit more felonious acts. It's a legal grey area that juries tend to be extra unpredictable on.

This case is full of legal theories and murky facts.

 

[Kosher Salt]

You can if you have reasonable belief they will harm the public or commit more felonious acts. It's a legal grey area that juries tend to be extra unpredictable on.

This case is full of legal theories and murky facts.

That's what I was getting at with the 2nd paragraph. Even if the cop claims he was in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, he can't reasonably say that the kid posed the same threat to anyone else, except maybe to carjackers.

But I'll concede that a reasonable jury could come to the opposite conclusion, as you said they're unpredictable.

 

[Retink Retunk]

For those wondering, it's natalielawyerchick ( https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/natalielawyerchick )

 

[Potatoherder]

Anyone can

For those wondering, it's natalielawyerchick ( https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/natalielawyerchick )
View attachment 3749415

I was wondering as it was pretty close to Kurt and he has been a good boy so i didn't think Nick would just heel turn on him.

 

[HodgePodgeRogerDodger]

Branca has grown on me a lot, I initially wasn't too impressed by him.

On the other hand after watching Legal Vices cover the Brooks trial, holy shit he gets on my nerves. He's mentally a cringy 15 year old. Actually managed to make me switch to Law & Cuckery for coverage.

Sober Branca offers good commentary and will offer a witty remark to Nick’s jokes. Drunk Branca has the wit of Winston Churchill, so no filter and willing to insult people in the best way possible. I want Nick, Null, and Drunk Branca.

Silent 8 Pack is a faggot who shoves pinecones up their ass.

Yes, but Nick has AIDS. What’s worse a faggot or a gay faggot who sucks dick and has AIDS?

That's what I was getting at with the 2nd paragraph. Even if the cop claims he was in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, he can't reasonably say that the kid posed the same threat to anyone else, except maybe to carjackers.

But I'll concede that a reasonable jury could come to the opposite conclusion, as you said they're unpredictable.

From the video I’ve seen, it’s basically a cop being a dick head and ventilating a kid eating a McDouble. He didn’t run his plates, he opened his door and shined a light in his face.

 

[Retink Retunk]

Anyone can

I was wondering as it was pretty close to Kurt and he has been a good boy so i didn't think Nick would just heel turn on him.
View attachment 3749417

I didn't even think of Kurt as I can't imagine him saying something as gay as "I deserve more views", but I have no idea who this Natalie person is, and when I found her page I realized this whole time I was thinking of Emily. My first guess was LegalBytes, then Nate. Eventually I just brute forced it.

 

[Potatoherder]

I didn't even think of Kurt as I can't imagine him saying something as gay as "I deserve more views", but I have no idea who this Natalie person is, and when I found her page I realized this whole time I was thinking of Emily. My first guess was LegalBytes, then Nate. Eventually I just brute forced it.

I just remembered seeing Kurt hit 111k in the last few days.

 

[2lolis1cup]

That's what I was getting at with the 2nd paragraph. Even if the cop claims he was in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, he can't reasonably say that the kid posed the same threat to anyone else, except maybe to carjackers.

That is where the subjectivity of the cop's state of mind comes into play.

Does he believe he may have committed a felonious act?
Is there reasonable belief in the cop's mind that he will more than likely commit more felonious acts if he escapes?
If he fled from the cop before and is still fleeing now then how bad a crime did he commit already?
Why did he say nothing and only put the cop in danger with action? (regardless of what happened before)


The state of mind of the cop is dramatically important in the legal sense. He has most likely been trained to neutralize threats when deadly force escalation has occurred. If he believed he was about to be dragged by a fleeing subject that escaped him before, then that goes to his state of mind.

I'm not defending the cop's action. I am however thinking through how his actions could have been perceived through his eyes. The law is worded in such ways that give officers (and some citizens in some states) the ability use deadly force if they see a felony being committed and have a reasonable belief more will be committed.

Also here is some more stats for natalie the racist lawyer. It's not surprising YT is considering her channel dead.

 

[Matt Damon]

I didn't even think of Kurt as I can't imagine him saying something as gay as "I deserve more views",

You can say a lot about Kurt, but I think his borderline autistic mindset would be offended by the very idea of not gaining his success through personal effort and merit.

 

[ForTheHoard]

For those wondering, it's natalielawyerchick ( https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/natalielawyerchick )
View attachment 3749415

Never heard of her. She looks like a real winner though.

 

[Kosher Salt]

That is where the subjectivity of the cop's state of mind comes into play.

Does he believe he may have committed a felonious act?
Is there reasonable belief in the cop's mind that he will more than likely commit more felonious acts if he escapes?
If he fled from the cop before and is still fleeing now then how bad a crime did he commit already?
Why did he say nothing and only put the cop in danger with action? (regardless of what happened before)

I'll give you the first one. If the cop can state that he was in reasonable fear, you've got the felonious act, at least the cop's subjective perception of one. I'd argue that the kid's not guilty of it though, as we don't know if he knew, or had the presence of mind to see in the moment, that the guy yanking his door open and ordering him out of the car was a cop, or a carjacker.

Which more felonious acts? You can't just speculate, you have to be specific. At the very worst you've got someone who apparently used deadly force in trying to resist an arrest. How does this person pose a threat to the public?

The only thing the cop's got him on reasonable suspicion is fleeing and resisting arrest.

I'll concede that a reasonable jury could definitely come down on either side of this though. I'm just saying, I'm right because I'm right. If the jury disagreed it wouldn't mean that they're unreasonable, I just think they'd be incorrect.

 

[2lolis1cup]

Which more felonious acts? You can't just speculate, you have to be specific. At the very worst you've got someone who apparently used deadly force in trying to resist an arrest. How does this person pose a threat to the public?

The only thing the cop's got him on reasonable suspicion is fleeing and resisting arrest.

I'll concede that a reasonable jury could definitely come down on either side of this though. I'm just saying, I'm right because I'm right. If the jury disagreed it wouldn't mean that they're unreasonable, I just think they'd be incorrect.

It is the idea that once a felonious act is committed that more will be committed if the individual is not arrested. This comes from idea of bank robbers, car jackers and the like fleeing. The act once it rises to a certain level is treated as general threat to the public at large. So when the person committing these acts tries to flee it enables the use of what would be other wise excessive force to stop them.

There is no guarantee a criminal committing felonious acts will continue to do so, but the act of fleeing has been given a rule.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.


— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

This is why it is a jury question about the cop's state of mind. It is implied with the fleeing of a felony stop (regardless of how proper) that more danger to public would occur afterwards. The nuance of what level of danger this person would present to public is subjective and the potential future felonious acts are as well. For the sake simplicity you can equate future felonious acts with "the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others."

With that framework in mind you can now see how the law on paper favors the cop if he simple says he was afraid for his life and others. That is why this is an interesting legal argument like the Kim Potter trial. The wording of the law is simple, but it leaves the interpretation of the state of mind of the parties involved up to a jury.

 

[Kosher Salt]

It is the idea that once a felonious act is committed that more will be committed if the individual is not arrested. This comes from idea of bank robbers, car jackers and the like fleeing. The act once it rises to a certain level is treated as general threat to the public at large. So when the person committing these acts tries to flee it enables the use of what would be other wise excessive force to stop them.

I'm familiar, and the critical language in that quotation is "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

I don't believe that there's any way to reach that probable cause in this scenario. There was no immediate threat to the officer once the suspect was fleeing, and no significant threat to anyone else other than the purely speculative idea that he's driving recklessly and might get into a wreck (which is insufficient; cops cannot just generally shoot someone for driving recklessly: they have to be able to state some imminent significant threat, not a general speculative one).

Shooting into the car when the suspect initially set it in motion and while the cop was within the vehicle's potential range of harm: probably justified. Shooting at him as he was speeding away, I say not.

 

[TheClappening]

I didn't even think of Kurt as I can't imagine him saying something as gay as "I deserve more views", but I have no idea who this Natalie person is, and when I found her page I realized this whole time I was thinking of Emily. My first guess was LegalBytes, then Nate. Eventually I just brute forced it.

She was brought onto the Rekieta panel for a few of the larger trials. I want to say for sure Rittenhouse, maybe Tasertasertaser. Also pretty sure she stuck around LegalBytes for Depp.

I remember she kind of looked unhappy sometimes, like the look of someone vehemently disagreeing with something but not speaking their mind because they're outnumbered, so to speak.

The truly cowish thing is that, instead of being an adult and agreeing to disagree (notice how Nick and Branca hold opposing views on the Dumpster Defenders and Chad Read shootings), she'll throw out words like unethical. Next, I expect bar complaints.

 

[DumDum Did Nothing Wrong]

I mean the ex cop and his attorney can try to make the use of force was justified but good fucking luck. That Dude is fucked. Donut Operator has a really good breakdown on it which is worth the watch.