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.

[Bitcoin Henchman]

Especially since the woman did nothing wrong preparing to defend her home and family from unknown intruders.

Well she did do two things wrong, she didn't clean her room and she didn't pull the trigger fast enough, truly tragic

 

[Confetti Meringue]

Homie, the cops don't have a right to sneak onto your property and shoot you if you're holding a gun.

And you don't want them having this as a right.

That was standard procedure where this guy worked at. That being the case, he shouldn't be held personally liable for following procedure.

I personally don't like this procedure. The city and police station should pay out big time and be forced to change it.

 

[Pelican Bones]

That was standard procedure where this guy worked at. That being the case, he shouldn't be held personally liable for following procedure.

I personally don't like this procedure. The city and police station should pay out big time and be forced to change it.

SoP and being a right are two very different things.

No one has the right to go onto someone's property and start blasting just because they claim they felt threatened. Not even cops. SoP or otherwise.

 

[TheClappening]

Well she did do two things wrong, she didn't clean her room and she didn't pull the trigger fast enough, truly tragic

The funny thing is, if the woman was a faster shot and put one in the cop (or, hell, if they nonfatally shot each other), she'd probably have a very valid self defense claim. Probably even stronger, since Texas has strong defense laws on personal property.

 

[AnOminous]

No one has the right to go onto someone's property and start blasting just because they claim they felt threatened. Not even cops. SoP or otherwise.

He didn't go onto someone's property because he had the right to go there and just start shooting people. He went there because he was ordered to do that and that's his job. The question is whether he thought it was a perp pointing a gun at him, because if he were in the performance of his duties and reasonably thought that, then he did have the right to shoot, even if he subsequently turned out wrong.

 

[TheClappening]

Jesus fuck. That was a whole lot of snooze fest just to reach the conclusion that body cams don't see what the human eye sees.

 

[Pelican Bones]

He didn't go onto someone's property because he had the right to go there and just start shooting people. He went there because he was ordered to do that and that's his job. The question is whether he thought it was a perp pointing a gun at him, because if he were in the performance of his duties and reasonably thought that, then he did have the right to shoot, even if he subsequently turned out wrong.

This is the part that I'm addressing...

Your life is at risk, you have the right to eliminate that threat.

Saying "you have the right to shoot a threat" is wrong. You have to have  both a fear of bodily harm for yourself or others and "clean hands". The cop likely didn't break any laws and almost certainly will not go to jail over this, but even at that, you don't want "just following orders" to be a catch-all for the cops.

If the jury finds that he didn't have reasonable fear for his safety he will go to jail. If that's what the facts bear out, then he should go.

But just because someone is pointing a gun at you doesn't mean you have the right to kill that person.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

It's because of Branca. Dude almost always sucks the cock of every cop charged, more fervently defending them than he seems to do for other cases. Dude probably has We love our cops blaring at home. Pretty fucking annoying

Branca is often a funny guy and almost always legitimately informative and unbiased regarding civilian self-defense cases, but you are 100% correct.

It's to the point where there's no value in considering his opinion on these cases because you already know what he's going to say. Sometimes I agreed with him and sometimes not, but it's very obvious he starts with the conclusion he wants and then works backward to develop an argument.

It'd be nice to see Nick to stand up for his lolbertarian values and press Branca a bit more often on this and maybe even point out that every take Branca has on these topics are always the same regardless of any facts involved. To demonstrate, here's an example from a different case from Branca. I picked an incident at random off the top of my head and I already knew what his take would be.


(Archive)

(Archive)

 

[AnOminous]

Saying "you have the right to shoot a threat" is wrong. You have to have  both a fear of bodily harm for yourself or others and "clean hands".

I didn't say that, it might not even need to be a threat at all, you just have to believe that reasonably. That said, it is fairly obvious someone pointing a gun at you who might be in the process of perpetrating a crime would be an actual threat as well as someone you would reasonably believe to be one.

Really, either of these two people could have shot each other and whoever shot first would probably have been justified, at least as regards criminal acts.

"Unclean hands" is also a civil doctrine in equity, it has nothing to do with crimes, and in any event, there is no indication the officer didn't have the right to be there investigating what he thought was an ongoing crime, i.e. exigent circumstances. I.e. one "who comes into equity must come with clean hands." It would be invoked in a suit in equity seeking an injunction or other equitable relief, not by the prosecution in a criminal case.

 

[Pelican Bones]

I didn't say that

Confetti Merengue said it. That's what I've been addressing.

"Unclean hands" is also a civil doctrine in equity, it has nothing to do with crimes

"Clean hands" in the colloquial sense that you aren't breaking a law or causing the self defense situation. "Clean nose" if you will.

 

[TheClappening]

"Clean hands" in the colloquial sense that you aren't breaking a law or causing the self defense situation. "Clean nose" if you will.

Innocence, if you will.

You know, since Branca was on

 

[Captain Manning]

I don't know enough about this particular case to have an opinion atm, but I will point out how funny I find Nick and his chat. Under most circumstances they are all "Don't tread on me" and fuck the government and ATF, but when it comes to police misconduct trials they turn into the biggest boot lickers.

It's because of Branca. Dude almost always sucks the cock of every cop charged, more fervently defending them than he seems to do for other cases. Dude probably has We love our cops blaring at home. Pretty fucking annoying

I think it's backlash against the media always portraying these incidents as evil white racist cop versus innocent dindu. People get sick of it.

However, in the instant case, it's more helpful and truthful to see this one as a lawfully armed citizen defending their life and property against what they reasonably perceive as a threat. Dean likely thought she was a burglar, and Jefferson likely thought HE was a burglar. It's likely there was no malice on either side. Both had the right of armed self-defense. Especially in Texas. They take property defense VERY seriously there.

In any event, I agree Branca does come across as a bit of a bootlicker. I recall when the Daniel Shaver shooting happened, Nick was appalled by it. Diversity of opinion is fine, but it's gonna suck if Nick is gonna keep having Branca on, and Nick won't challenge him on anything.

Donut Operator broke down this shooting just over two years ago. He wasn't exactly kind to Dean.

I mention this because Donut definitely isn't a "fuck the popo" guy. He WAS a cop. I always figure if he's criticizing a police use of force incident, there's probably something to it.

He also had a REALLY humorous take on the San Antonio McDonald's shooting incident which will eventually be going to trial (SPOILER: The cop, now fired and charged with attempted murder, was acting like fucking idiot).

 

[Confetti Meringue]

Confetti Merengue said it. That's what I've been addressing.

"Clean hands" in the colloquial sense that you aren't breaking a law or causing the self defense situation. "Clean nose" if you will.

AnOminous essentially said everything I would've and more. I don't know what your citation is for why the officer wouldn't be allowed on the property or why he should've announced himself other than the personal belief he shouldn't (which I would agree with, but as far as I can tell the law doesn't). If the policy says do not announce, and there's no law or precedent saying otherwise, why would he break it? That move would put actual liability on his hands.

 

[Captain Manning]

Really, either of these two people could have shot each other and whoever shot first would probably have been justified, at least as regards criminal acts.

Yes, but it's interesting to note that under Texas law Jefferson might actually have the greater presumption of innocence.

A self-defense killing under Texas law is normally an affirmative defense.

Unless it's under the Castle Doctrine. Under the Castle Doctrine you're supposed to presume the shooting by the property owner is lawful, and the burden is on the state to prove otherwise.

Therefore it should theoretically be harder for the state to prove she was wrong in killing/shooting him than it would be for the state to prove he was wrong in killing/shooting her. So much so that I don't know if they would have indicted her.

I say theoretically because I think most juries are inclined to accept the affirmative defenses of LEOs. As I suspect they might do here. As to the issue of her raising the gun and presenting an imminent thread, I think they're gonna believe Dean over the nephew, and we might be headed for an acquittal. It's a controversial case because the body cam isn't particularly helpful on this point.

The Guyger case was sooooo much easier than this one. Dumb bitch wasn't paying attention to what she was doing, entered into the wrong apartment (unlawfully), and blasted some poor guy eating ice cream. Herp derp. 10 years imprisonment. All appeals up to the Supreme Court of Texas denied. Eat shit, Officer THOT.


I REALLY despise this stupid bitch. LOL.

 

[feral cat #6385]

Yes, but it's interesting to note that under Texas law Jefferson might actually have the greater presumption of innocence.

A self-defense killing under Texas law is normally an affirmative defense.

Unless it's under the Castle Doctrine. Under the Castle Doctrine you're supposed to presume the shooting by the property owner is lawful, and the burden is on the state to prove otherwise.

Therefore it should theoretically be harder for the state to prove she was wrong in killing/shooting him than it would be for the state to prove he was wrong in killing/shooting her. So much so that I don't know if they would have indicted her.

I say theoretically because I think most juries are inclined to accept the affirmative defenses of LEOs. As I suspect they might do here. As to the issue of her raising the gun and presenting an imminent thread, I think they're gonna believe Dean over the nephew, and we might be headed for an acquittal. It's a controversial case because the body cam isn't particularly helpful on this point.

The Guyger case was sooooo much easier than this one. Dumb bitch wasn't paying attention to what she was doing, entered into the wrong apartment (unlawfully), and blasted some poor guy eating ice cream. Herp derp. 10 years imprisonment. All appeals up to the Supreme Court of Texas denied. Eat shit, Officer THOT.

View attachment 4059060
I REALLY despise this stupid bitch. LOL.

Sentence not harsh enough.

The only thing I remember about the case (besides she is a stupid bitch) was something or other about the Dude's brother. She might not be able to bring the dude's brother back, but she can be used as a breeding cow to make him a new one. That would be an appropriate add on to her sentence.

 

[DumDum Did Nothing Wrong]

Branca is often a funny guy and almost always legitimately informative and unbiased regarding civilian self-defense cases, but you are 100% correct.

It's to the point where there's no value in considering his opinion on these cases because you already know what he's going to say. Sometimes I agreed with him and sometimes not, but it's very obvious he starts with the conclusion he wants and then works backward to develop an argument.

It'd be nice to see Nick to stand up for his lolbertarian values and press Branca a bit more often on this and maybe even point out that every take Branca has on these topics are always the same regardless of any facts involved. To demonstrate, here's an example from a different case from Branca. I picked an incident at random off the top of my head and I already knew what his take would be.

View attachment 4056483
(Archive)
View attachment 4057479
(Archive)

Probably Branca's worst take imo.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

And the defendant needs to grow a backbone. Stop bending over every time the prosecutor says "That's not good police work, is it?" He shouldn't have been a police officer with this low of a constitution.

He realizes he messed up and zapped an innocent woman. That shit can weigh on a person.

If that were the case only the absolute bottom of the barrel would be dumb enough to take a job where the slightest mistake could get you sent to prison with the people who you spent a career putting there.

Most cops aren't bright and are hired because they will do what they're told.

That was standard procedure where this guy worked at. That being the case, he shouldn't be held personally liable for following procedure.

I personally don't like this procedure. The city and police station should pay out big time and be forced to change it.

Procedure isn't an excuse for criminal conduct. Procedures don't override the law.

"Yes suh, yes suh. I jus a sim pole polease folk. I dun dos what I am told and folloh the all migtee polis see. Them bauss man never punished us for folloh in the polis see."

 

[Captain Manning]

Sentence not harsh enough.

I agree, but it was within guidelines, so fuck it.

I'm just happy that a felony conviction means you can't be a police officer anymore. She can start a Pornhub or Onlyfans.

Did I mention I really fucking hate her? Her testimony on cross was infuriating.

Probably Branca's worst take imo.

He's had a lot of shit takes. At one point, Branca was (badly) defending Guyger.

Still, I have to say, while Branca's seemingly unwavering support for police violence against citizens is creepy, having him on is a hell of a lot better than having on LR again, or talking about Balldo. I said that Nick going back to practically any form of legal analysis is the best path forward.

 

[ForTheHoard]

Yes, but it's interesting to note that under Texas law Jefferson might actually have the greater presumption of innocence.

A self-defense killing under Texas law is normally an affirmative defense.

Unless it's under the Castle Doctrine. Under the Castle Doctrine you're supposed to presume the shooting by the property owner is lawful, and the burden is on the state to prove otherwise.

Therefore it should theoretically be harder for the state to prove she was wrong in killing/shooting him than it would be for the state to prove he was wrong in killing/shooting her. So much so that I don't know if they would have indicted her.

I say theoretically because I think most juries are inclined to accept the affirmative defenses of LEOs. As I suspect they might do here. As to the issue of her raising the gun and presenting an imminent thread, I think they're gonna believe Dean over the nephew, and we might be headed for an acquittal. It's a controversial case because the body cam isn't particularly helpful on this point.

The Guyger case was sooooo much easier than this one. Dumb bitch wasn't paying attention to what she was doing, entered into the wrong apartment (unlawfully), and blasted some poor guy eating ice cream. Herp derp. 10 years imprisonment. All appeals up to the Supreme Court of Texas denied. Eat shit, Officer THOT.

View attachment 4059060
I REALLY despise this stupid bitch. LOL.

She only got 10 years? Fuck they let women off easy.

 

[AnOminous]

Most cops aren't bright and are hired because they will do what they're told.

I once saw a study where cops were on average about a standard deviation above average while criminals were a little over a standard deviation below average. Two standard deviations is the difference between an average person and a retard, approximately. So they have to be smart enough to be reliably smarter than criminals, but not so smart they think they're too smart to follow orders.

She only got 10 years? Fuck they let women off easy.

It wasn't premeditated, just criminally stupid. Tbh I think the cunt was too fucking dumb to premeditate making a sandwich.