LawTube - Lawyers sperging at each other on YouTube

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Nose guard spotted



Link | A

 

[Chug Smuckle]

The fallout was expanded on more by Andrew on his stream tonight:

the worst things Nick introduced into lawtube was bumpers/clips, anime and sex shit. God was that awful to sit through. Also you'd think, Gosney would fuck right off post sex book losing him his high paying job, but nope right back to clinging to Nick's dick while expousing his hypocritical religous bs.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

The indicia are not what is actually going on in the head of some dumb fuck kicking in your door. You're not expected to be a mind reader. The indicia are what a reasonable person would make of the situation.

He knows this. Is there some context here that makes it make sense?

He brought up if you knew it was a prank, like if someone had pranked other houses in the neighborhood, then it wouldn't be a defense from what I watched and understood (He could be weasel wording like Nick though, I had a hard time understand it).
I think if you shut up and say you were fear for your life they would be none the wiser.


Farmers, I bring you a terrible shoot by a civilian.

tl;dr Robbery/ theft with person restrained by bystanders, breaks free makes a run for it, shooter misses... Branca, you are a lolyer so ofc you would interchange these terms, one is a FELONY that justifies deadly force automatically in TX! A comment brings up a good point:

Careful taking statements that a criminal “was unarmed.” Often this term is interpreted as not having a firearm - as in “He was unarmed, he only had a knife.”

Branca brings up shooting at a thief/robber in Texas being 100% unjustified, despite there being a reasonable belief prong on him possessing the item (Jury trial issue). The argument of defense of property being improper rests on the argument that the following context has not been met because the robber is "just fleeing" despite committing robbery (and failed).

"(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and"

Don't know about you, how he makes the jump that "Fleeing after resisting citizen arrest" is not fleeing immediately after committing robbery. It is not like he had cuffs on and had been searched.

Shooter 100% retarded though because she could've hit the folks in the populated parking lot (STOP RUBBERNECKING SITUATIONS WITH FIREARMS FOLKS). There is a possibility of a brandishing charge (against the people citizens arresting the nigger), reckless endangerment (if it was an ND/shooting into people in the back ground) too.
That being said, this is Texas, and DA probably gives no shits because nobody was injured or killed, and the shooter was a woman.

She also fails the citizen's arrest deadly force statue:

(d) A person other than a peace officer acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make a lawful arrest, or to prevent escape after a lawful arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (b) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the felony or offense against the public peace for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to another if the arrest is delayed.
(e) There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force justified by Subsection (c) or (d).
(f) Nothing in this section relating to the actor's manifestation of purpose or identity shall be construed as conflicting with any other law relating to the issuance, service, and execution of an arrest or search warrant either under the laws of this state or the United States.
(g) Deadly force may only be used under the circumstances enumerated in Subsections (c) and (d).

Citizen arrest statue:

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.
(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.

Protection of property statue.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes 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.



Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

BONUS: !!Bootlicker in the comments!! (Notice the anti-facist profile picture)

...Chance to save some taxpayer dollars lady...

 

[Permanent Resident Cope]

Nose guard spotted

View attachment 6577709

Link | A

Gosney wasn't in the thick of it to really think of such a thing. I think he came in sometime later than the Depp trial, after the behind the scenes dust was settling, on a whim because he was in the chat and Andrew Branca knew him from outside youtube and said Nick should bring him on. He also wasn't actively trying to make it as a Youtuber. It seems that he was a bit intrigued at one point, but it was obvious to him that it wasn't a real option.

According to LegalMindset, Joe Nierman was mad that he wasn't given money by Nick. This surprises me because he always went out of his way to be overly gracious to Nick, especially regarding money. Now it makes me think that he privately resigned himself to being the bigger man and his simpering toward Nick was passive-aggressive. I wish I could grab the clip, but if it's still on Joe's channel it's Members Only. Joe laid it on thick, telling Nick that he's so, so enormously grateful to him and he wouldn't want to do anything at all to take even one dollar out of Nick's pocket.

 

[AnOminous]

According to LegalMindset, Joe Nierman was mad that he wasn't given money by Nick. This surprises me because he always went out of his way to be overly gracious to Nick, especially regarding money. Now it makes me think that he privately resigned himself to being the bigger man and his simpering toward Nick was passive-aggressive.

Nierman is pretty much a cow himself, as his litigation history shows.

 

[Sam Losco]

Nierman is pretty much a cow himself, as his litigation history shows.

Also a debt collector Jew so it'd only re-reinforce the stereotype for him.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Gosney wasn't in the thick of it to really think of such a thing. I think he came in sometime later than the Depp trial, after the behind the scenes dust was settling, on a whim because he was in the chat and Andrew Branca knew him from outside youtube and said Nick should bring him on. He also wasn't actively trying to make it as a Youtuber. It seems that he was a bit intrigued at one point, but it was obvious to him that it wasn't a real option.

According to LegalMindset, Joe Nierman was mad that he wasn't given money by Nick. This surprises me because he always went out of his way to be overly gracious to Nick, especially regarding money. Now it makes me think that he privately resigned himself to being the bigger man and his simpering toward Nick was passive-aggressive. I wish I could grab the clip, but if it's still on Joe's channel it's Members Only. Joe laid it on thick, telling Nick that he's so, so enormously grateful to him and he wouldn't want to do anything at all to take even one dollar out of Nick's pocket.

He has pretty much taken over Nick's old time-slot.


Not sure if this is LawTube or 'Lawyer on the Interwebs', but here is Marc Randazza doing Randazza things:



L | A

Full letter attached

 

[Pelican Bones]

He has pretty much taken over Nick's old time-slot.


Not sure if this is LawTube or 'Lawyer on the Interwebs', but here is Marc Randazza doing Randazza things:

View attachment 6580588

L | A

Full letter attached

Baller tbh

 

[SPCC Archivist]

I have seen this opinion brought up on the Nick thread, potentially here once or twice, but it bears reiterating at this point in time.

Given sufficient time, every vtumor retard and adjacent orbiters almost inevitably get tangled up in some deeply regrettable disaster; this fandom (smattering of mongoloids really) is accursed with the worst coomer tendencies and stunted emotional attachment to Chinese cartoons, therefore it is an inevitability that implosions happen on the regular.

It's for this reason that I refuse to take LEGUHL MAYNDSET (Legal Dicksucker more like it) seriously, due to his eagerness to associate with retarded animays with shrill voice changers to appeal to lolicons.

Legal Mindset can felt Rekieta and say exactly what I want to hear about that coke fiend swinger all day long, I still refuse to endorse the guy due to this gay shit. It's suspicious as hell.

Forget the allegations of sexual tourism in SEA, forget the rumors of trafficking, forget other similar skeletons in the closet; the thing that will mark the end of Legal Mindset's online career will have something deeply unsavory with some gay retard vtuber. Mark my fucking words.

I cannot wait for the day that the clip Ralph blessed us with will appear on the future OP on this guy, I'm here for it.

As for you vtumor-loving losers: your top hats only make me stronger.

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

Forget the allegations of sexual tourism in SEA, forget the rumors of trafficking, forget other similar skeletons in the closet

I'm not disagreeing with anything else in your post but are there rumors for sexual tourism or trafficking that didn't come from Rekieta/Barnes? The only people I've seen peddling those implications are those two who have an obvious axe to grind with him.

 

[TheRaptorJesus]

Did the dumpster mattress I doubt it trial ever happen? I was looking forward to listening to the commentary in the background. Not sure who I'd even listen to these days.

 

[East_Clintwood]

Did the dumpster mattress I doubt it trial ever happen?

Almost two years ago at this point. Dad got 14years, son was not guilty.

 

[Chirping Smoke Detector]

Did the dumpster mattress I doubt it trial ever happen? I was looking forward to listening to the commentary in the background. Not sure who I'd even listen to these days.

Awhile ago. The dad got 14 years and the son was not guilty. I think the dad got hosed since the dude they shot was a rage monster who got a bat.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Memecopium spotted in the comments getting slapped around ...

Awhile ago. The dad got 14 years and the son was not guilty. I think the dad got hosed since the dude they shot was a rage monster who got a bat.

The dad was also being combative ("Take ya swing" with the gun might have been what done him in) and the jury might have taken that as instigation.
The son was the smartest person in that confrontation and that says a lot.

 

[ForTheHoard]

The dad was also being combative

It still seems weird. It's the only country on the planet where owning weapons to defend yourself and your property is a God given right, but using redneck euphemisms while being credibly threatened with death disqualifies you from defending yourself from said threat. It's just more boiling the frog bullshit. 100 years ago, they'd kill you in the street for pickpocketing. 60 years ago, they'd kill you in the street for rape. 40 years ago, they'd kill you in the street for murder. Now, a jury of full of midwits gets to stare at snapshot of 1/60th of a second for 8 months to determine if the attacker's eyes were open or closed when the trigger was pulled. "Take yer swing" doesn't waive your rights, and the only judges that think the unwashed poors should have the means to stop violence.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

It still seems weird. It's the only country on the planet where owning weapons to defend yourself and your property is a God given right, but using redneck euphemisms while being credibly threatened with death disqualifies you from defending yourself from said threat. It's just more boiling the frog bullshit. 100 years ago, they'd kill you in the street for pickpocketing. 60 years ago, they'd kill you in the street for rape. 40 years ago, they'd kill you in the street for murder. Now, a jury of full of midwits gets to stare at snapshot of 1/60th of a second for 8 months to determine if the attacker's eyes were open or closed when the trigger was pulled. "Take yer swing" doesn't waive your rights, and the only judges that think the unwashed poors should have the means to stop violence.

The jury is to blame because they can't sympathize with having a literal sperg neighbor going after you in the street daily until you snap. From the whole mattress tossing.,being arrested like 30 times for being a sperg, shooting your windows out, etc.
I think if you pull a random group of folks on this forum 9/10 times they would acquitted because we've all seen what a full retard sperg (a lolcow) can do. Average person isn't exposed to that. Branca also says that was mutual combat and illegal (In TX you cannot engage in MC with deadly weapon/force). But even if mutual combat involves deadly weapons, you shouldn't be punished because you know, deadly weapons cause deadly results and both retards agreed to fight.

Meanwhile the Branca bootlicking comments continue.

My trouble with the perfect self defense argument is that a reasonable, non-law enforcement civilian would not have thought the young man was drawing a gun. A reasonable person does not assume everyone is about to attack, and there was no indication from this young man's behavior to suggest hostility. It is only the paranoia trained into the officer that made him respond with violence, Anyone else would not be afforded the latitude Andrew is giving this officer.

Clearly the officer suspected an assault acorn was in or near the car. The victim here had walked past the officer and was facing away from the officer when the officer shot at the victim. This cop ought not be a cop after this event. "I'm sorry" wouldn't get me out of court and it should get this cop off! Sincerity is not sufficient for shooting at someone's back. I have to give you credit though, you are NOT shy about being boldly wrong on events like thi

Sure the only person who thinks it is on the face unreasonable for a trained, trusted, and armed officer to shoot at someone who actually didn't have a weapon and who demonstrated no immediate threat to the officer or anyone else.... Obviously any possible other story is the reasonable thing to take. If the justice system worked such a way Andrew, then there is no murder which couldn't qualify as perfect self defense. Obviously anyone who disagrees with your expert analysis is just a silly bird. Sometimes you actually are very wrong.

 

[ForTheHoard]

That doesn't have anything to do with it. You don't have to wait until your brains are being beaten it before you're allowed to kill someone. As soon as the rager with the bat says he's going to kill you and takes a step forward, he's legally killable in like 47 states. The jurors aren't stupid because they can't sympathize. They're stupid because they think you have to be mortally wounded before you're allowed to react. Some of this comes from the average juror being a retard, but a lot of it comes down to prosecutors and judges purposely misinterpreting the law to the point where laypeople have no realistic concept of what is and isn't legal. It all comes down to, "we don't want to deal with the hordes or screeching chimps every time a criminal is justifiably killed."

 

[Captain Manning]

I'm not disagreeing with anything else in your post but are there rumors for sexual tourism or trafficking that didn't come from Rekieta/Barnes?

No.

I think it's generally understood he has yellow fever, and is hoping to plow oriental bitches.

But the whole thing about sex trafficking and pedophilia is a pathetic attempt to smear him by a very desperate Rekieta camp.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree with @SPCC Archivist that the vtuber shit is gay. I'm sure there's an audience for it, but that audience isn't everybody.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

According to LegalMindset, Joe Nierman was mad that he wasn't given money by Nick. This surprises me because he always went out of his way to be overly gracious to Nick, especially regarding money. Now it makes me think that he privately resigned himself to being the bigger man and his simpering toward Nick was passive-aggressive. I wish I could grab the clip, but if it's still on Joe's channel it's Members Only. Joe laid it on thick, telling Nick that he's so, so enormously grateful to him and he wouldn't want to do anything at all to take even one dollar out of Nick's pocket.

He's literally the worst Jewish sterotype, being a debt collector lmao. At least Gabe Hoffman is funny and makes gunt seethe.

But the whole thing about sex trafficking and pedophilia is a pathetic attempt to smear him by a very desperate Rekieta camp.

There's the visa hopping allegations (in that he can't stay due to failing long-term residency requirements) but that can be adequately explained by the fact he's on the run from AMEX (See below bank stuff) and most of the desirable Asian countries residency is a difficult thing.

If he had a bank account with a permanent address (It's usually fucking required), the desired countries visit generally report them via their counter part to the IRS (Japan, HK and Maccau DIRECTLY report to the IRS from the bank as type II implementations). The countries that don't report via FATCA requirements are the PRC (Partially, depends on Sino-American relationships and a very complex issue) and Taiwan (Not "formally" law but will drop you like a hot potato, also Type II like Japan). Fucking Cambodia is a FATCA type I in compliance of all places and it has a huge sex trafficking issue.
Other non-signatories are Laos (Corrupt shithole aligned with China, sex trafficking issues), Burma (Civil war, sex trafficking issues to PRC), Best Korea (lmao) and Paupa New Guinea (lmao).

Were Esquire in Cambodia or Laos for an extended time (Or maybe parts of Thailand/Indonesia) there'd be more credence to the "muh sex tourist buying kid" allegations. Even then it would be really only circumstantial at best, there are people there for legitmate business reasons.

Plus in Indonesia if word got out he's getting headchopped by Muslims.

Branca covered "Your house my choice" Fuentes and the Trump "national ccl reciprocity"

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Fucking Cambodia is a FATCA type I in compliance of all places

Cambodia is a very promising emerging financial market and the government has been putting considerable resources into making it a safe and attractive place for foreign money. Of course they’re compliant.

I enjoy how Mindset pisses Nick off, but he also seems like a real creep and someone a discerning person would not want to be associated with.

Any of these lezzies partnering up for reaction streams tomorrow evening?