The "real" Nick is probably best seen in that stream where he goes after the mother of his children over the consequences of pregnancy to her body.
That was definitely one of his first mask-off moments as an absolute and utter piece of shit.
Tucker Max had his wild years, then gave up that lifestyle, got married, and had four kids. Tucker Max front-loaded his degeneracy in his 20s, wrote some books that received critical acclaim (and I thought were pretty funny at points even as a Scandinavian prude), and then grew the fuck up.
Tucker Max was definitely a degenerate, though he exaggerated some of that shit, but he was funny. And yes, if you're going to do incredibly dumb shit and maybe die of excess, pick your 20s for that shit. There's still time to get out once you've had your fun. If you're doing that shit in your 40s, when you have responsibilities to your family that you completely shit on by doing that, you're just a fucking loser and you look pathetic, not cool.
Why would anybody ask him shit, when all he does is lie?
That is both why HE wants people to go to him one on one, and why nobody actually wants to do that. Narcs pull that shit a lot. They think they're Machiavellian geniuses who can completely pull a Rasputin on you one on one where there's nobody to counter their stridently shouted lies.
Balldo fucked up doing that in public with SEEEEEEAN! SEAAAAAAAAN! SSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAN! and just looked like a retarded yelling psycho.
It's a giant red flag whenever some Balldo man wants to respond to you criticizing shit he did in public by taking it private. Anyone who does that, you can do without in your life because they're fucking scum.
They think they're smooth doing that, when they're basically advertising their evil.
(Interestingly the carveout doesn't explicitly or clearly limit the allowed testimony only to the specific charge(s) - it says it applies to "a criminal action or proceeding for a crime..." against their children (etc.), not just to that alleged crime. I have to think that that's been litigated or there's legislative guidance but idk and not feeling like hunting for that, plus my hand hurts from trying to lay out, align language, and format the privilege stuff - on phone as usual.)
Nice rundown on a complicated privilege hedged about with intensely arcane exceptions. In
this post, I quoted a case (
State v. Zais) and speculated about this specific issue and why trying to invoke the exception might open up a can of worms if, for instance, the testimony would be admissable as to the endangerment charges while more prejudicial than probative as to the other charges.
I didn't pick that case for being specifically notable but for having a pretty good section outlining the other cases addressing the issue too. I still don't know whether this would even apply or whether it has even been litigated.
I know one fairly common "solution" for a situation like this (if it even applies) is just to give a limiting instruction to the jury that they are only to use this testimony for one limited purpose and disregard it for others, but even with a conscientious jury, the ability of normal people to do this is questionable. Even a judge, presumed to be able to do that and look at matters dispassionately, is probably going to be angered by Balldo's conduct and in actual practice, you can't really disregard facts you know.
