- Joined
- Oct 6, 2014
Now he's tweeting about Parks and Recreation. He doesn't even seem to give a shit that he's probably going to jail.
Inactive Nick Bate / Nickalaus B. Stoutzenberger (Thread 1)
- Thread starter Guy-in-Gherkin-Getup
- Start date
- Status
Atlas 95
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2014
That's pretty typical lolcow behavior, consequences are for other people
That and his mother seems to be defended him and telling him it'll be allright. Hopefully the father took this to the cops before she came into the picture
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
I really hope not, I hope she's just telling him that so he won't freak out and run away or try to an hero. If not, then she needs to be locked up along with him.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2014
In some ways, people who defend or protect a pedophile instead of the child in order to keep them from going to prison are worse than the pedo himself. They are the reason many children are left isolated without any help because no one will listen to them. They even are letting Nick near her, now, apparently.
From what we know of Nick's family, I would not be surprised if they're sick, immoral pieces of filth who will try to shut Amber up and keep Nick safe in his shit-infested apartment, but I will gladly take back anything I've said or thought about them if they do the right thing.
From what we know of Nick's family, I would not be surprised if they're sick, immoral pieces of filth who will try to shut Amber up and keep Nick safe in his shit-infested apartment, but I will gladly take back anything I've said or thought about them if they do the right thing.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Don't want to nerd out on this too much, but there are certain thresholds for whether something is good enough to be admissible. One is actually tying the admissions to the perp. Whether by computer forensics or the admission of the perp, it has to be established he actually said these things online. If the evidence can't be shown to be genuine, it just doesn't get in period because it isn't even evidence.
I'll spoiler the rest of this, though, as I did in fact go on at more length than many will want to see.
The next barrier to anything someone said outside of sworn testimony in court is hearsay. There are over a dozen listed exceptions to hearsay, though, so it is almost more a rule for what kind of hearsay gets in than otherwise. While many apply to these tweets/chats/etc the most important, I think, is admissions against interest. I.e. that Nick basically admitted to this. In its purest form, a confession is this kind of admission, and the reason for those Miranda warnings. But in this case, Nick spontaneously offered this. Hearsay is usually not admitted because it isn't considered reliable, but when someone admits something so terribly against their interests, it is considered reliable on the grounds that basically, nobody would make up shit like this.
Okay, so let's say we get past basic admissibility, and then past hearsay. Then there are two opposing rules. If evidence is probative, that is, if it tends to prove or disprove relevant facts, that weighs toward admission. If it is prejudicial, that is, if the fact-finder is likely to make an incorrect inference from it and come to an unfair decision, that weighs toward exclusion. For instance, if you are trying someone for shoplifting and they've been previously convicted of child molestation, that is probably going to be prejudicial, because people will find a guy like that guilty just for the hell of it.
However, in this case, the admissions are directly relevant to what Nick is actually accused of.
Other stuff, like talking about smearing shit on walls and so on, is so utterly revolting and not directly relevant that it might not be admissible. Any jury hearing this is going to hate this guy's guts and want to vomit at the sight of him. That said, if I were the prosecutor, I'd move heaven and earth to get this literal shit into evidence.
So IMO yes, if they can actually tie these statements to Nick, they're entirely admissible.
Now, even if they aren't admissible as part of the prosecution's case in chief, if Nick testifies to his own innocence, and bases it on things like that he is a person of good character who would never dream of doing these things, it falls into another hearsay exception, prior inconsistent statements. Basically an hours-long series of questions in cross examination of the prosecutor asking questions like "And did you previously say [one goddamn hideous disgusting thing after another]?"
Another reason that Nick could never take the stand in his own defense. He's just too fucking disgusting a shitstain. A jury would absolutely detest him and wish they could give him the death penalty even though it isn't available.
Okay, so let's say we get past basic admissibility, and then past hearsay. Then there are two opposing rules. If evidence is probative, that is, if it tends to prove or disprove relevant facts, that weighs toward admission. If it is prejudicial, that is, if the fact-finder is likely to make an incorrect inference from it and come to an unfair decision, that weighs toward exclusion. For instance, if you are trying someone for shoplifting and they've been previously convicted of child molestation, that is probably going to be prejudicial, because people will find a guy like that guilty just for the hell of it.
However, in this case, the admissions are directly relevant to what Nick is actually accused of.
Other stuff, like talking about smearing shit on walls and so on, is so utterly revolting and not directly relevant that it might not be admissible. Any jury hearing this is going to hate this guy's guts and want to vomit at the sight of him. That said, if I were the prosecutor, I'd move heaven and earth to get this literal shit into evidence.
So IMO yes, if they can actually tie these statements to Nick, they're entirely admissible.
Now, even if they aren't admissible as part of the prosecution's case in chief, if Nick testifies to his own innocence, and bases it on things like that he is a person of good character who would never dream of doing these things, it falls into another hearsay exception, prior inconsistent statements. Basically an hours-long series of questions in cross examination of the prosecutor asking questions like "And did you previously say [one goddamn hideous disgusting thing after another]?"
Another reason that Nick could never take the stand in his own defense. He's just too fucking disgusting a shitstain. A jury would absolutely detest him and wish they could give him the death penalty even though it isn't available.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
I haven't found anything in the Lancaster newspaper police logs yet, so I doubt the cops will be coming for Nick within the next 24 hours.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
To be fair, I'd be surprised if anything really happens. The sister has to report it to the police, they'll do a rape-kit if necessary/possible, and they'll take down her account of what happened. If there's no physical evidence, they have a hard time actually proving anything in court. It becomes a he said, she said... and from what it sounds like, Nick hasn't been alone with her.
He might be brought down for questioning, but actually going to court? As it is, heresy isn't going to put him in jail. WE know he's crazy, but a court isn't going to see it the same way because they don't have the information we have.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2014
Hearsay, not heresy. But an accusation isn't hearsay. (Unless you meant the Internet postings or chat logs?)
Who knows how anything will go? If the child's father believes her and not Nick, he may remember things that support her story.
Assuming this all happened (the girl making the statement, I mean) and it isn't Nick Bate looking for attention by being an edgelord.
Who knows how anything will go? If the child's father believes her and not Nick, he may remember things that support her story.
Assuming this all happened (the girl making the statement, I mean) and it isn't Nick Bate looking for attention by being an edgelord.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
IIRC Anna said that Nick's mom and aunt were pretty wretched people themselves. If that's true it wouldn't surprise me that they'd protect Nick because they want to avoid drama.
This assumes that this is actually going down and Nick's not trying to be an edgetard like @MrsFrizzle suggests.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2014
It is not unusual in cases of sibling/half-sibling/step-sibling abuse for family members to want to "protect" both victim and perpetrator in their own (usually ineffective) way rather than having the perpetrator face legal consequences.
The wild card here is the girl's father, who is only related to Nick by marriage and who may not give a rat's ass about what happens to him.
If this is really happening, I add again.
The wild card here is the girl's father, who is only related to Nick by marriage and who may not give a rat's ass about what happens to him.
If this is really happening, I add again.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
Can we get some Nick Bate arrest fanart going here?
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2014
I'm fairly certain nothing will come of this.
Most of his family enables his behaviour or lives in denial (his mother obviously knows about it since he is forbidden to be alone with her) and since they are Christian fundamentalists this will most likely be swept under the rug.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
Not mine, but I found this on ED:
I'm pretty sure that's Chris in blackface in the background.
T
TL 611
Guest
kiwifarms.net
*OPINION THAT ISN'T TOTAL NICK HATE*
I'm still doubtful he did it to be frightfully honest. Everyone's acting like we've never tried to get Amber help or tell the family the accusations. When Nick was discovered on /cow/, there was a long voicemail sent to Nick's mother a few years ago quoting what he said he did to Amber. People rang the police, all the family knew. I assume they spoke to Amber at the time to find out if it was true, and she didn't say a word. Now she's at an age where she's on the internet, and probably aware of her brother's presence (she's a tween now isn't she?), there's every chance (I'm gonna sound like an asshole right now) that she's just accusing him cuz awkward phase and Nick made it up.
The recall of the event is the biggest crock of horseshit ever. It'd be like if people got super offended and called the police about Deeker's insane stories. I don't believe either have any basis in reality.
"I was sat with this little girl and she asked to lick my butt!! and she did then i licked her butt, but not properly, cuz little kids shit themselves amirite." was pretty much the story and it never sounded true to me. Fucking seriously, no 8 year old will have a shitty asshole because they don't wipe. That's purely Nick fantasy.
If you read the log it's full of leading questioning. He recalls a story with a prepubescent girl (Speculation: I imagine he was provoked to tell that story by the other Anna in that chatlog. "so you like little kids then? How do you know if you've never downloaded child porn? Have you ever done anything with a little girl?"), then is asked "it was Amber wasn't it?" to which he just replied "yes." I think he was coerced into lying.
I think he just wanted to sound cool in front of his friend, in a way that normal people may lie about having had sex when they're virgins. "Of course I'm experienced in butt play! I'll make up a story so it doesn't look like I'm an inexperienced loser." I also think he's doing this regarding his "first ex" or some shit, the one he apparently knew IRL. From what I can tell (but feel free to totally correct me!) he's only started talking about this chick recently, coupled with the fact Arcani doesn't know wtf he's on about, pretty sure she's not real.
Nick doesn't understand CP and abuse is wrong. His psych report says so, he has a very bad moral compass. He didn't understand he'd go to prison for possession of child pornography, and doesn't see anything wrong with underage sexual interaction. So it's unlikely he'd lie and say he didn't do it if he had actually done it, because well there's no reason to. He didn't do anything wrong in his eyes.
Nick's creepy as shit but I still have a hard time seeing him as dangerous. I think he would've gotten himself into more trouble if he was. As evidenced by Chris recently, once you snap and become truly dangerous, you're removed from society very quickly. Nick had a job in a shop until recently where prepubescent children would be, if he was as much of a predator as his twitter implies then surely he would've been arrested by now for some horrifying shit.
Nick is just a mentally ill fucktard with no social filter and some strange philias.
I'm still doubtful he did it to be frightfully honest. Everyone's acting like we've never tried to get Amber help or tell the family the accusations. When Nick was discovered on /cow/, there was a long voicemail sent to Nick's mother a few years ago quoting what he said he did to Amber. People rang the police, all the family knew. I assume they spoke to Amber at the time to find out if it was true, and she didn't say a word. Now she's at an age where she's on the internet, and probably aware of her brother's presence (she's a tween now isn't she?), there's every chance (I'm gonna sound like an asshole right now) that she's just accusing him cuz awkward phase and Nick made it up.
The recall of the event is the biggest crock of horseshit ever. It'd be like if people got super offended and called the police about Deeker's insane stories. I don't believe either have any basis in reality.
"I was sat with this little girl and she asked to lick my butt!! and she did then i licked her butt, but not properly, cuz little kids shit themselves amirite." was pretty much the story and it never sounded true to me. Fucking seriously, no 8 year old will have a shitty asshole because they don't wipe. That's purely Nick fantasy.
If you read the log it's full of leading questioning. He recalls a story with a prepubescent girl (Speculation: I imagine he was provoked to tell that story by the other Anna in that chatlog. "so you like little kids then? How do you know if you've never downloaded child porn? Have you ever done anything with a little girl?"), then is asked "it was Amber wasn't it?" to which he just replied "yes." I think he was coerced into lying.
I think he just wanted to sound cool in front of his friend, in a way that normal people may lie about having had sex when they're virgins. "Of course I'm experienced in butt play! I'll make up a story so it doesn't look like I'm an inexperienced loser." I also think he's doing this regarding his "first ex" or some shit, the one he apparently knew IRL. From what I can tell (but feel free to totally correct me!) he's only started talking about this chick recently, coupled with the fact Arcani doesn't know wtf he's on about, pretty sure she's not real.
Nick doesn't understand CP and abuse is wrong. His psych report says so, he has a very bad moral compass. He didn't understand he'd go to prison for possession of child pornography, and doesn't see anything wrong with underage sexual interaction. So it's unlikely he'd lie and say he didn't do it if he had actually done it, because well there's no reason to. He didn't do anything wrong in his eyes.
Nick's creepy as shit but I still have a hard time seeing him as dangerous. I think he would've gotten himself into more trouble if he was. As evidenced by Chris recently, once you snap and become truly dangerous, you're removed from society very quickly. Nick had a job in a shop until recently where prepubescent children would be, if he was as much of a predator as his twitter implies then surely he would've been arrested by now for some horrifying shit.
Nick is just a mentally ill fucktard with no social filter and some strange philias.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
Nick hasn't updated his Twitter in a while. Here's hoping the party van finally showed up at Nick's house...
He does, though. It's true that he doesn't understand why they're wrong, but multiple people have informed him that those things are illegal. He may not understand why those laws are in place, but from both a legal and a moral standpoint, that's no excuse for breaking them.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
I wonder if this will end with Nick, his mom, and his aunt barricading themselves in their creepy fundementalist compound and getting in a shootout with the police.
I mean, that's the kind of thing a bunch of backwoods fundamentalists would do, right?
I mean, that's the kind of thing a bunch of backwoods fundamentalists would do, right?
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
No, this will end with Nick barricaded in his shithouse desperately flinging his faeces at the SWAT teams and news crews outside while his mum and aunt try to reason with him.
Roosechu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2014
Nah, his family wants him to go away for good in my opinion.
If this weren't the case, they would have told Amber to shut up.
If this weren't the case, they would have told Amber to shut up.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
Idle note, have you ever noticed how many of these pedophile warning signs Nick exhibits?
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2014
It is a possibility but that would be a pretty fucked up and malicious thing to do. American prisons don't have a reputation for being safe places where people can get the help they need, Amber would likely be aware this accusation has a serious possibility of fucking Nick's shit up really hard. I would like to think the chances of Amber being that malicious and edgy are slim, but she does come from a really screwed up family so who knows.
- Status