criticalcircuit

@LincolnKyle3 Sure sure sure. And you don't understand what a holding is. 😂

@CritEngineering Idk. 0 bar complaints. I cut my teeth in litigation as a criminal prosecutor. Since moving onto civil litigation, I’ve got several multi-million dollar settlements and jury verdicts under my belt. Nah, I’m pretty sure you’re just a moron 🤷‍♂️

Dipshit pretending to be a lawyer doesn't know what a holding is 🤣

@slantchev So what you're saying is that the climate scientists were wrong for the 70th year in a row. Must be nice to have no accountability.

What a fucking moron. The scientists updated the forecast and concluded the worst-case scenario is no longer likely because of faster than expected adoption of renewables. In other words, it’s precisely because some countries moved fast in adopting green energy that this scenario became unlikely.

@LincolnKyle3 A lot of low IQ workers enjoy their jobs. They're too stupid to realize all the shit they're fucking up. Like you. I'm not praying for you, dipshit. I'm praying for your clients who are going to get fucked by having retarded representation

@CritEngineering I love it. It never even occurred to you that maybe. Maybe, you might just be a moron who’s out of his depth 😂

@LincolnKyle3 If you are truly a lawyer, I will keep your clients in my prayers because they are absolutely fucked.

@CritEngineering Believe me. Being an attorney does not make me feel better about myself. I often get clients who are as dumb as you. It’s no picnic.

@LincolnKyle3 Either that or you can't read for shit.

@LincolnKyle3 You're trying to gaslight. Poorly.

All you've demonstrated is that you don't know what a holding is while you pretend to be a lawyer. Talk about fucking pathetic. What kind of absolute piece of shit has to go on social media and pretend to be something they could never dream of being to feel better about themselves. What a fucking loser

@LincolnKyle3 🤣. You're fucking retarded. Fuckin of, "lawyer."

What a fucking dick bag. Now you're just being pedantic. 1. The court rules on the case and the resulting opinion includes holding(s). You know exactly what I meant and pretending not to is in line with our retard persona. 2. The court did NOT hold that a jury may reject a self-defense claim. It simply noted that the jury HAD rejected the claim on these facts, with no analysis of self-defense principles. The court performed no legal analysis of self-defense. The passing reference to self-defense added nothing to the law on that subject. It's not a holding on self defense law. But keep saying idiotic shit. It's great.

@CritEngineering You say, “[t]he case does not make a holding ON SELF-DEFENSE LAW.” 1) Again, no case makes holdings. Courts do. 2) When the Court holds that a jury may reject a self-defense claim in those circumstances, it is, indeed, creating case law regarding self-defense.

@LincolnKyle3 You can just say that you were wrong and that you aren't a lawyer. We already know.

@CritEngineering If that’s true, then according to your logic, the only possible holdings are, “affirmed,” “reversed,” “affirmed in part + reversed in part,” “remanded,” and “reversed and remanded.” We would never even get to the merits…

You've jumped the shark, man. What the actual fuck are you talking about? You're just making shit up out of thin air. You'd rather be a lying retard than just admit you were wrong. Just stop. I'm embarrassed for you. No one believes you are a lawyer. You know you were wrong. No amount of lying, red herrings, or gas lighting changes the simple fact that my original statement is correct and you were wrong.

@CritEngineering So, you think the only way case law is made is by reversing lower court decisions? Affirming them doesn’t have a binding effect on the lower courts?

Jesus Christ it's like trying to convince a retard to stop humping a doorknob. I know what holding means. The conclusion of law here is on the conviction and on the sentencing. The conclusion of law here did NOT touch self-defense law at all. It references it, but the court didn’t interpret or change any rules about it.

@CritEngineering Your definition of “holding” is incorrect. Holdings are conclusions of law, and there are typically several in an appellate decision. And yes, when the court holds that the trial court did not err in rejecting his claim of self-defense, that’s a holding on self-defense.

@LincolnKyle3 THAT IS NOT A HOLDING ON SELF DEFENSE LAW. IT'S A HOLDING ON THE CONVICTION. YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING IDIOT.

@CritEngineering Here, the holding, or the “conclusion of law” is that given the fact that the defendant shot an unarmed person, the jury was within its discretion to reject the claim of self-defense. Whether that’s binding or persuasive in Chode’s case turns on what appellate division he’s in

@LincolnKyle3 Sure: How is it possible to be so fucking retarded? You've got one piece of the pretending to be a lawyer thing down pat - you know how to act like a dishonest sleezebag.

@CritEngineering Any questions, you fucking moron?

@LincolnKyle3 I didn't say the case made a holding . Now you're just pretending not to be able to read. I'm not sure that anyone can get lower, but I'm sure you'll try

@CritEngineering I see you need help. Cases do not make holdings. Courts (judges) do. And yes, that one is directly on point with regard to self-defense. If you expect the Court to draft a statute related to self-defense in a criminal context, that won’t happen. That’s the legislature’s job.

I'm coming around to the fact that you're not stupid. You're just incredibly dishonest. I know you don't genuinely think that because self-defense is mentioned, it's a holding on self-defense law. The holding in this case is on the sentence and on the conviction. You stated so yourself at the beginning of this exchange, before scrambling to backtrack when I pointed it out. You can keep playing stupid and pretending that you're a lawyer. The simple fact is that State v. Johnson does not make a holding on self defense law. You can keep trying to conflate the sections you are referring to or whether there is holding relating to a topic versus on a topic. It doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and your dip shit buddy was wrong. And you are so lacking in character - such prideful liar - that you would rather pretend to be retarded than admit it.

@CritEngineering Finding of fact: “Because there are facts in the record that defendant intentionally shot and killed an unarmed man, that is adequate.” Holding: “That the jury chose to reject both the notion of provocation and the claim of self-defense was within their prerogative.”

@LincolnKyle3 OMG omg omg. You're so fucking stupid it is literally painful. Yes, the case has A holding. The case does not make a holding ON SELF-DEFENSE LAW

@CritEngineering No, no. Don’t deflect. You don’t think that the above conclusion of law is a holding. Please don’t delete this thread once you find out it is. Other people can learn from your mistake. Also, learning how to handle it when you’re wrong will prove invaluable for you. I promise.

@LincolnKyle3 You're either intentionally conflating two different sections of the opinion or you're just fucking retarded. Which is it?

@CritEngineering That’s a holding, stupid. 🤷‍♂️

😭 @TheBrancaShow blocked me for calling out his use of AI.