Comments by "Psiberzerker" (@Psiberzerker) on "LegalEagle"
channel.
-
28
-
26
-
19
-
9
-
7
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
Grabbing guns, and a cameraman is pretty solid evidence of Intent. You grab guns, and hop in your trucks to go hunting, or to kill someone. That's it. "We were trying to arrest him for running, and on suspicion of burglary" is not an affirmative defense for vigilante lynching. That's what the facts of this case point to: Conspiracy to public lynching. It was in public. If you have 3 guys, and 2 pickup trucks, you don't need guns to perform a "Citizen's arrest" of 1 unarmed man on foot. "He reached for his gun!" What gun? You're gun owners, have you ever tried running in cutoff sweatpants, and a teeshirt? As gun owners you should have a reasonable doubt that anyone, dressed like that is running with a stolen concealed handgun. Period, even with a Holster, he didn't have it tucked into his waistband with his shirt flapping where you couldn't see it. Law Enforcement Officers, on duty shouldn't be able to use the "I feared for my life" defense in any case of 2 armed men against 1 unarmed man. Regardless of race, that's not a fight, it's an execution. You can not GANG up on someone, and expect them not to fight for their life when threatened, then say "We feared for our lives" after you attack him, with guns, and pickup trucks. These aren't really arguable facts of the case. Even if you turn the camera away so you think it looks like the victim had a fighting chance. You chased someone 3-0n-1, and killed him. You can't do that on skates, with hockey sticks, regardless of whether or not he's got possession of the puck. If Arbury was running down the street with a VCR, yelling "I just stole this from that house" you do not have the right to assemble a posse to take the law into your own hands. Period.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The thing is, this wasn't a Sexual Assault Trial. It wasn't a Civil Litigation. It was a job interview for the Supreme Court, and Justice Kavanaugh said some things that as a Judge, he would have thrown out of court, if not in jail for Contempt of court. "Answer the question." He's a judge. At the time, a Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals. Prior misconduct proving he's a vile impulsive reprehensible person not withstanding, he used his knowledge of the Law, to circumvent the law, to lawmakers, in order to cheat his way into a job, as a Supreme Court Justice. (Also, political connections made the proceedings a sham, with the outcome already decided out of spite for the previous President.)
2
-
2
-
Okay, hypothetically, change the scratchoff to a Reeded Edge Penny. You tip your waitress a penny, to be a smartass, and then it turns out to be one of 7, worth over a million dollars. You did not enter into an agreement to share the proceeds with the waitress. You gave her a penny. You didn't know what it was worth when you gave it to her, but the important legal distinction is YOU GAVE IT TO HER. Of your free will. No strings attached. Thereafter, for what it's worth, 1 cent, or $1.7 million, that's her money. You can't attach strings to it ex post facto.
2
-
it's pretty damned easy to prove Tax Evasion for the purposes of an Indictment. There's only several weeks of footage of him and Sara Sanders outright refusing to comply with federal agents demanding his tax records, as is standard for a Presidential candidate, and has been for half a century. For a Conviction (that would be a regular Judge, and Jury) or Willful Tax fraud, that might be another story, but he's gotten a $75 Million tax return. Seventy Five Million Dollars, from the government, basically for losing a lot of money on a losing Casino. If it's a "Jury of his peers," they just might see it as business as usual. Pretty much like his co-conspirators deciding that an attempted coup wasn't really that bad AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. (On Capital Hill) If it's a Jury of regular people, they might not be as understanding of how he gets paid 75 million dollars for sucking at real estate, and partially crashing the market.
2
-
Since I can already hear somebody typing their objections to calling January 6th an "Attempted Coup," let me state my case: They had kill orders for The Vice President, and The Speaker of the House. While trying to overthrow an election, because in the event that the President is killed, or Impeached, the Vice President takes over the Oval Office. In the event that the President is Impeached, and the vice president is hung by a lynchmob? The job goes to Speaker of the House, Nancy Polosi. So, if it wasn't an Attempted Coup, they sure had a plan B, and a plan C as if the intent was actually overthrowing the election, and making teflon Don unimpeachable.
2
-
One of the problems with "Vigilante Justice" is that burglary isn't a capital offence. If something like this goes unpunished for long enough, then it also sets a precedent, and greases up the Slippery Slope. Citizens, without Probable Cause, Due Process, the assumption of Innocence until Proven Guilty, and Miranda Rights can skip right past the police, and the courts, to make suspicion of Burglary a capital offence. Or speeding, or driving while unarmed... "I feared for my life" becomes an Affirmative Defense for gangbanging. That's what they're obviously guilty of: Gangbanging. Get the gang, bang bang bang, we said he's dead, let's go grab a beer. At some point, we won't even need the courts any more. The cops got away with it for so long that now your neighbors can decide to play Cops & Robbers, because you don't look right.
2
-
@phoenixnoire2435 LOL, I live in Waco, and I've been arrested in like 6 states (Including Pima County AZ) Also for being Transgender, in North Carolina. You know that weirdo freak they warned you about in the girl's room? You're talking to her. (The restroom was upstairs, at Jesse O. Sanderson.) If you want to play the Privilege card, I'll see you, and raise you, all day. So no, it's not technically illegal to be poor in these United States. It's not technically illegal to be Black, either. They can just stop you, frisk you, and shoot you for matching the description, and "I feared for my life!" to plead down from murder to payed vacation.
2
-
By the same logic, you could argue that it's "Illegal to be female." Because we don't have access to due process, freedom, nor even the right to free speech, when it comes to something like Sexual Abuse Allegations. In that case, he's presumed innocent until proven guilty, so you can argue that formal charges would ruin his life, and ruin his reputation. (Even all the way up to the Supreme Court/Senate Confirmation Hearings.) She doesn't have such protections, especially in a "He said/she's dead" situation. So, they can literally get away with murder, in a court of law, and it's all perfectly legal.
2
-
@phoenixnoire2435 Oh, it's discrimination, all right. It's just Legal discrimination. They can't legally make Poverty "Illegal." So, they lock you up for life, for Possession of Marijuana, and then profit from it. Legally, even after they decriminalize possession (In say California) they can keep blacks, and Hispanics in prison for it, because releasing them would be ex-post-facto. We can't legally get them released without first proving that the Marijuana laws were illegal, and racist to begin with. Of course they were, but good luck Proving that!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
Objection: In Egypt, Thuggery, Hooliganism, and Terrorizing by Intimidation are punishable by death, if preceded, accompanied, associated with or followed by aggravated or deliberate murder as outlined in Article 234 of the Penal Code. Meaning Indy was locally within his rights to Self Defense against the guy with the absurdly oversized Scimitar, waving it around in a public market, while the rest of the gang was in the act of Kidnapping Marion at knifepoint. Note the context here, he wasn't acting alone, he was acting in concert with thugs, and hooligans kidnapping Marion at knifepoint, and he was brandishing in public, with witnesses. So, if Indy hadn't shot him, he could have had any of the conspirators executed by the officials in Cairo for what basically amounts to attempted federal Murder, kidnapping, and terrorizing by Intimidation. I'm pretty sure that show of swordsmanship counts as "Threat of intimidation."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If there's gun owner's reading this, go to the Thunderwear website. If you haven't all ready, they start at $45.00. Even if you believe the good ole boys' story, think about it this way: He stole a handgun from a car, then bought a $50.00 (With Shipping and handling) Holster, so that he could go running with it, and defend himself, if he should need to. Right? That's the scenario that you're shopping for guns, and holsters for, right? Your right to Bear Arms? Arbury and everyone that looks like that don't have the right to go running, unarmed, without gangs hunting him, on suspicion of burglary. That's their defense. That's the fantasy of America they want you to live in. Every gun owner in America should be insulted, every time this happens. Every time they make you look like those stupid homicidal good ole' boys. Arbury Stood his Ground, because he had to. What other choice did he have? What else could he do, run?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Once is an instance, twice coincidence, 3 times a pattern." This is informally stated by some instructors at Quantico. The FBI Behavioral Science guidelines don't state it specifically for Profiling, but it's a good rule of thumb for "Connecting the dots" to establish a Pattern. For instance a Period and Escalation. If there's 2 murders a month apart, are they connected? You can't tell, because they're 2 murders, even if they're similar, you can't draw Conclusions from those similarities. If the first one got on the news, then there's every chance that somebody saw that and thought "That's really cool!" because they're psychopaths, and they think that sort of thing is cool. If there's another murder, exactly a month later, then you can say that there's a Period, a murder every month. RICO only requires a minimum of 2 acts to establish a Pattern. However, the more dots you can connect, the more detailed picture you can draw with them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would think you could Trademark "The Carlton." Carlton isn't a dancer, he's a fictional character,. The video in the Copyright claim is owned by the Company (Viacom? I honestly don't know.) Also, this is an Ex-Post-Facto claim. While it doesn't make it wrong on it's face, or dismiss it out of hand (Civil litigation, not Constitutional Legislation) it does further complicate the ownership of the "Carlton," because Alphonzo Ribiero didn't create the Character, either. However, he's a Singer, and a Dancer, so may have a claim for Trademark Infringement on his Intellectual property, because he created the "Carlton" as an Entertainer. (His Trade.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
While defenestration isn't specifically noted in NY law, it's such a nifty legal term, I just had to bring it up, and as you pointed out, it's still Attempted Murder. Also, at the party, Bruce Wayne would be able to justify the assaults, because it was provoked, on his property by invaders. That gets down to the legal question of Batman, his alter ego, acting as a vigilante. So, if he took exception as Bruce Wayne, he'd be on the hook for the crimes of Batman, but in this case, he could argue self defense, and defense of property, from the robbery in progress. Just like Fichtner in the bank. Even using Deadly Force, with joker threatening Rachael at knife-point. You said that if you have the opportunity to flee (In this case to the safe room to change) then you are obligated, but not leaving a potential victim of murder, mayhem, and sexual assault in the hands of a terrorist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Someone has to come out, and state the difference between Malice Aforethought, and Self Defense. As in "I need this, this, this, this, and this, for Self Defense." Or honestly, YOU need this, this, this, and this... I fell down that rabbit hole recently. "Top 10 Self Defense handgun loads!" and "Is .22 Magnum powerful enough for self defense?"
1
-
1
-
Marion saves his life, twice, in their first scene together. Yeah, she gets captured, and need rescuin' later, but in her bar, she drinks a Sherpa under the table, calls the Nazi "Herr mack," and tells him to get lost. Then, she proceeds to fight along Indy, staggering drunk. Stops for a schwill from a bullethole in a cask, and saves Indiana Jones. Twice. "I'm your goddamned partner!" ~Marion Ravenwood.
1
-
What gets me isn't a National, or International Law, but a law of Physics. In the opening scene, Indy encounters a number of stone-age traps. Dartguns, and walls of spikes shooting out to impale you, that sort of thing. What gets me is the stone-age photosensor. If you stick your hand in a shaft of light, you get impaled on a wall of spears shooting out of the wall. How exactly did they rig that up, with wooden gears, vine ropes, and stone counterweights? The shaft of sunlight (Apparently, it's around noon) shines down on a featureless stone floor. Do the spikes shoot out again later in the day when the sunlight moves to a different spot on the floor, or is the whole thing somehow photosensitive?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Okay, beyond the Legal problems here (Many, many legal problems) there's also some major Logistical problems here. Who are you going to get to do the Labor, in the desert, without using Immigrants? White people? I've worked with white people, so let me say no. (As an European American myself.) Not enough of them that are willing to actually do that particular labor, and stick with it until it's end. The counter-argument is "Job Creator," but that's not just a Job, the way they rhetorically use it, in the term "Job Creator." Jobs aren't a resource, like Labor is. Or money is, he can appropriate the money for the concrete, and steel, but somebody has to dig the ditch, to lay the concrete, and set the steel in it. You ever been to Nogales? Yes, Backhoes are going to do it, but have you ever sat in a backhoe, anywhere in a border state? (Waves from Waco) The real limiting factor I see here, in practical terms is Wages. How much is the Government planning to pay for these "Jobs?" In a real estate scam right out of the Lex Luthor playbook for the purposes of embezzling from, overseen by Auric Goldfinger? I can't describe the Working conditions to you, but a backhoe operator starts at $25.00 an hour (Roughly what you'd expect as an EMT in an Ambulance in this economy) and if you do the math for the thousands of miles we're talking about here... Creating "Jobs" isn't enough. They have to be jobs a Mexican would find worth it for the money, enough not to walk off of, legal, or illegal. After you deport all of the cheapest, hardest working, and most tolerant of all workers on this continent.
1
-
Black people? Get the blacks to do it? Think about that, for 1 second. Okay, who else is left. The Chinese Ameri. Oh. No wait, what about the Native Am. Uhm... He just systematically alienated (Literally, and figuratively) everyone that would actually be capable of carrying out his Executive Order. Might want to build the wall, and Then kick out the workers, (That aren't demanding reparations for slavery, mass incarceration, and Genocides) next time. I don;t know if he's already considered this (But he did Pardon Joe) but unless his supporters, who pledged support actually show up to do Mexican work, at Mexican wages, he can;t use Slave Labor. So, he'll have to resort to the next best thing: Prison Labor. He's already got the Labor Camps.
1
-
How many allegations didn't ruin Chief Justice Kavanaugh's career, on his way to the highest bench in the industry, despite refusing to answer direct questions, repeatedly, when he himself would have imprisoned anyone for Contempt of court, where he ruling? Acosta lost his job, for this level of government corruption, and interference with due process of the Justice system? What has he been charged with? "Ruined his life." Right, tell that to the 30 victims, he kept in the dark, for decades, until they saw him on the news again. Oh right, he didn't lose his job. He resigned, to avoid prosecution. He basically retired, from getting pedophiles off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The biggest dent we can put in emissions is in heavy freight fleet vehicles. Electric tractor trailers, and container ships are also poised in industries where they could actually change-over, a lot more easily than consumer cars, and trucks. We don't have to put in the infrastructure of plug-in stations to replace gas stations. Fleet vehicles stop multiple times to transfer goods at warehouses, and even long-haul truckers can just jack up the trailer, then drop it in to a fresh fully charged tractor. You can't do that with your car, and the Companies like Amazon could see real savings in efficiency to pay for the change-over in a matter of years. Not to mention the fact that everything around you, right now, was shipped to you by a diesel engine. At least one, more likely several in stages, and the diesel for those trucks was shipped to them in a tanker truck. The motors that run the peckerhead pumps in the oil fields are run off diesel, delivered from the refinery, by diesel engines.
1
-
I'm not a Lawyer, I'm an Industrial Engineer, and I designed a single stage diesel still you can drive around on a 1 ton flatbed. An oil company (Can't say which one as per agreement) bought it, and the patent rights, to bury it. So, I'm glad that we have Lawyers like you on our side. Unfortunately, the politicians, and supervillains with real estate schemes right out of the Lex Luthor Playbook (Build a wall, he says. Right, who's subsidies were you planning one using, and embezeling from to build it there, Goldfinger?) have a lot of lawyers on their side, too. The problem is that it's not going to be profitable to clean up this mess, and the ones that made it also made a lot of money at it, to pay for their lawyers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Neither one is "Best." It's not Superman vs Homelander, "Who would win in a fight?" At the time the Constitution was written, a direct vote democracy wasn't possible, because the votes had to be counted locally, and a Representative had to go in and vote, later. Because we had Horses, sailing ships, and no nationwide Post Office, there was literally no way to reliably gather all the votes, and count them (Without some of them being lost, stolen, and destroyed.) So, we got a Democratic Republic, because of the limitations of voting on that scale. We took the island of Briton's laws, when we're not an island, where nobody lived more than 2 day's horse-ride from anyone else. We're 13 colonies spread across a coast from Maine to Georgia. Now, we have the technology to fly votes, securely from all over the country, and count them together (Probably in Kansas City, 200 miles from the geographic center of the continental US) on the same day. It's just a question of A, Manpower, and B, Precedent. Unfortunately, Precedent wins out, so we're stuck with a system that dates back to the Constitution, sailing ships from Maine, and Georgia to Philadelphia, and white male landowners over the age of 35 writing the best qualifications to chose a President, FOR THEM. Keep in mind, this was the "Best" system for the white male landowners over the age of 35, not for America. If women, and slaves could have voted, the first 200 years of Presidential succession could have gone a lot differently.
1
-
Politically, the argument is that "X is best," so eliminate Y, entirely. That's not Partisan, it's Totalitarian. "Capitalism is best, so eliminate ALL Socialism from the country," McCarthyism, after the broad Socialism of FDR, the most successful president in History, just going by Votes, and won Elections. Anti-socialism, scare tactics, basically the biggest greediest richest Sociopath wins. Every election. That's not what we set up a Democratic Republic for, it was for the Republic to check the Democratic part, and the Democratic part to balance out the Republic. (Across the board, the 3 branches were supposed to be like a Tribunal, so no 1 had too much power, the other 2 could always step in to check 1, if they started gaining too much Power.) That's how the Constitution was set up initially, but now the Popular vote is "The President is more important than the Senatorial race, and the Senate is more important than the House of representatives..." Hierarchy, while we have to explain the Electoral College every 4 years, while we wait for the Olympics to start. When the truth is, the Senate is the most important race, every 2 years. Most Americans don't even know who their Senator is, let alone who he's running against.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrDrao So, he said/she said, without any witnesses. That's all you have to rely on, if he assaults her, she fights back, and wins, she goes to jail. Now, this is an extreme example, because she's a super-hero, and can level planets, but if she just Maced him, he sues her for assault, when he stepped into her face, harassed her, and yes, touched anything she is wearing or holding. That is assault, "I just touched her sweater" is not an excuse. The severity of it, whether you forceably rip them out of her ears, or gently tug on them to get her attention is assault. That's why they have Aggrevated Assault if it's a more severe case of it, but patting a little kid on the head is assault, and I got arrested for it. Went to jail for it, without witnesses, just on the word of a child. This case is no different, simply because she has the power to take on a space-armada.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phoenixnoire2435 Just 2 examples of how they can punish people for being poor (Or female, minorities...) without explicitly making it Illegal, because such laws would be unconstitutional. Kinda not unlike how they could start off one document with "All men are created equal," and keep owning men (And women, children...) for generations like Cattle. There is a very important difference between making something like Poverty ILLEGAL, and using something like Poverty to profit off of the people that prop them up on the top of their scrotum pole. If they make it Illegal, they have to charge you, and give you Due Process, in a court of law. If they don't, they can just take you away from your parents, and lock you up in Kidternment camps indefinitely, because "National Emergency." If you declare something illegal, or declare war, then you have to follow the law (Or international treaties, like the Geneva Conventions.) If they don't, then they can just make you go away, and never worry about being held accountable. With the law, what you say, and how you say it is critically important.
1
-
1
-
@phoenixnoire2435 There's no THE answer, because there's no THE problem. False Dichotomy. The rich can afford to buy the courts, the legislature, and the Oval Office, and they set it up in the first place. The Founding FATHERS made it so that you had to be a land (And therefore Slave) owner just to be elligible for the Continental Congress, or the Presidency. They wrote the 27th Amendment in 1789, and it was ratified in 1992, after the 13th, and 19th Amendments, just to name a few. This corruption isn't new. The disparity between wealth and power predates the Discovery and conquest of America, by Genocide for Profit, and Poverty was never "Illegal" throughout that entire history. The truth is that Poverty is Profitable. It always was, it's the cornerstone of Capitalism. If they criminalize it, they would jeopardize the power structure that's literally based on it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The preferred defense for Trump appears to be not showing up to Defend Himself. Instead, watching it at home, then coming out to read hearsay testimony back to Reporters, of what he was said to have said, by someone else. In other words, change of Venue from the House to the Court of Public Opinion. I can't think of any other time the accused just refused to show up for his own trial, and everyone was cool with that. Nobody's going to point out that he's not even there? You're the lawyer, can anyone else do that? In any jurisdiction, court, or legislature, anywhere in the world. In recorded history? Just try me In Absentia, I'll tweet my replies, and shout them from my front lawn with notes of what I said scrawled in Sharpie. Is there a word for that defense?
1
-
They abandoned their original charter. They weren't "Guns Rights lobby." They existed to teach people gun Safety, and Security. Basically, they got taken over by paranoiacs, who got into guns in the first place as a Security Blanket. It made them feel safer against teh aliens, commies, government, and/or lizard men. (Eventually, and unironically to defend against the "Terrorists." Until they started shooting up school kids, and changed the narrative to "Guns don't kill people..." What did you buy that gun for, to protect yourself? From what, school children?) Then, they felt Powerful, and then they became Powerful. The NRA went insane. That's what heppened to it, when originally, they just taught new gun owners to treat them as always loaded, and never point it at anyone you don't intend to shoot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The burglars have no expectation of safety committing the high risk act. The decision was on their part, and he turned the knob. The Brineys didn't wound him, he wounded himself. If he had slipped on a loose rug, and fallen down the stairs, then there would be no question. He knew what he was doing was dangerous, and considered the risk (Or arrest) worth the reward. I suppose he was wrong. It's their property, they can decorate it any way they want Assuming the decor isn't illegal in, and of itself. Does Iowa have any laws specifically against lethal force in a trap? (Some jurisdictions do, for Poachers.) So, it's not a question of the law, it's a question of State law, possibly county as well. On it's face, there's nothing federally illegal about it, in America. Local laws may vary on these fine points.
1
-
"It couldn't be murder, because they aimed at non-vital organs." It's still assault with a deadly weapon, and manslaughter. A lawyer would know that, in this case Pre-meditation is a factor, but intent to Kill is not, and nobody was murdered. This is not a legal argument. Say for the sake of argument that there was a gas leak, and the blast ignited it causing an explosion, and a wildfire that swept over the town. It could have happened, and would have posed a serious public danger, but 1: is unlikely, and B: Was not the homeowner's Intent.
1
-
1