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.

What would the outcome of the harassment restraining order be?

  • A WIN for the Toe against Patrick Melton.

    Votes: 65 14.3%

  • A WIN for the Toe against Nicholas Rekieta.

    Votes: 6 1.3%

  • A MAJOR WIN for the Toe, it's upheld against both of them.

    Votes: 111 24.3%

  • Huge L, felted, cooked etc, it gets thrown out.

    Votes: 83 18.2%

  • A win for the lawyers (and Kiwi Farms) because it gets postponed again.

    Votes: 191 41.9%
  • Total voters
    456
Kosher Salt said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is a perfectly legitimate point of view.

I once again simple state there is a sound legal argument against it. You can make a reasonable argument that the cop tried to make a felony stop on a suspect that evaded him before. The act of dragging the cop elevated it to a deadly threat and a danger to officers and public at large.

The only acts that are material are:

The lawful commands to step out of the vehicle.
The act of fleeing.
The danger the officer was in.
The danger the officer perceived.

The distance and direction of the vehicle are not as important as these factors. There is an argument for the use of deadly force even from a fleeing suspect if the officer can prove the requirements.

You have a poorly executed felony stop which gave a legal command. You can argue whether or not it is a justified felony stop or not. Then you have a suspected criminal fleeing a lawful command. The officer perceives himself in mortal danger while being dragged. When the officer has the ability to shoot, the suspect is driving with the door open still. You can say that when he is driving away those shots are not protected, but the argument for the first shots are the same for the last shots. It will be, "a danger to the officer and public in general."

Screenshot from 2022-10-19 04-38-52.png

First shot takes place when the officer could easily get hit still and after he just got dragged a few feet. This is why the argument for felon fleeing protection would be a compelling legal theory. You can also take this still frame and argue how reasonable the officer's actions are. The shooting when it starts is also very hard to say the ending shots are unjustified. That is because the officers often will often claim, "They were neutralizing a threat."

I personally think he's fucked, but to deny he has legal standing is not right. We as armchair lawyer monkies can throw shit theories around all day and nobody cares. Branca calling other lolyers out for doing the same is funny as hell.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ForTheHoard
TheClappening said:
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.
Click to expand...
I always thought Natalie would be an interesting cow, and was surprised at how little she's talked about here. Many viewers drop her because of her incessant use of race or racism in analysis. Her sovereign citizen videos were the only thing worth watching.

I only remember her appearing once for the Rittenhouse trial, and Nick's chat hated her. She was laying against Rittenhouse's case, at the time. She always, always leaves saying she's busy with work. Not sure how she's supposed to follow any of these trials when she's this busy.

I couldn't be bothered to raise my blood pressure hate watching videos to gather info on her.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Fat Gay Riker, Matt Damon, Sitaw and 4 others
Matt Damon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even if you can excuse the first shots, the second are still criminal.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Kosher Salt and Puff
Last edited:
Confetti Meringue said:
I always thought Natalie would be an interesting cow, and was surprised at how little she's talked about here.
Click to expand...
It's probably because she's horribly uninteresting and not very memorable. I think I have a vague recollection of her now that I'm thinking about it, but I couldn't remember her at all, even if I remembered some of the more obscure people Rackets had on his show when I was trying to figure out who he was talking about yesterday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt and Joggin Noggin
Retink Retunk said:
It's probably because she's horribly uninteresting and not very memorable. I think I have a vague recollection of her now that I'm thinking about it, but I couldn't remember her at all, even if I remembered some of the more obscure people Rackets had on his show when I was trying to figure out who he was talking about yesterday.
Click to expand...
I only remember her because of her interactions with Ty and Branca and thinking that she was bland and disappointing. I don't even remember what the disagreement was about, but I somehow thought that she came off more dense than Ty, which was quite the feat
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Rainbow Idiot, Not Even Twice, Matt Damon and 1 other person
I'm a couple of hours behind in the trial stream but I really wish the court would put this moron on notice for his repeated and persistent misstatements of the law to the jury and threaten to cut off his cross exams if he continues to do it. His "are you aware that a case has to be brought by a living person?" is getting really tiresome. The court does not have to allow him to misstate the law, it's the judge's job to determine whether the charges were brought by a proper legal entity and the court shouldn't entertain his constant trying to re-argue jurisdiction, particularly in front of the jury.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ConSluttant, Mexican Molotov Marauder, Markass the Worst and 3 others
Kosher Salt said:
the court shouldn't entertain his constant trying to re-argue jurisdiction, particularly in front of the jury.
Click to expand...
She's frankly being so deferential towards his bullshit because of the latent fear of prejudicing the jury against him based on her tone and interactions with him rather than the evidence that he's a massive pile of shit. She probably thinks that a simple once over during or before jury instructions later on will remedy it, but there's always that one of chance that a retard is on the jury who genuinely thinks the judge is trying to hide something from them.
 

Nick is on this channel right now:

Ok, first off, I'm going Live RIGHT NOW with Koolfrogg and Jessica Reloaded and others to talk about what happened to Koolfrogg:

As it happens, I need to pick up some of my kids at midnight tonight, so the Rumble stream won't work anyway. I WILL be moving to twitch.tv/rekietalaw tonight for some movie watching...around 12:30AM Central.

JOIN THE DAMN CHAT, PEOPLE. This chat will persist through the night.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
Reactions: 5t3n0g0ph3r, Fat Gay Riker and Markass the Worst
Kosher Salt said:
No-tie Branca going to town on a german shepherd? Sounds good, I'm down.

Nick said that it'll be a special Saturday night show btw, that's why he's not streaming currently.

edit: he just went live on Twitch for a watch party https://www.twitch.tv/rekietalaw
Click to expand...
Half of me believes internet slapfights are gay.

The other half believes no-tie Branca is hilarious and I just want some laughs.

EDIT: Movie is Tucker and Dale vs. Evil
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rainbow Idiot and Kosher Salt
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back