criticalcircuit

290 posts

criticalcircuit banner
criticalcircuit

criticalcircuit

@CritEngineering

Engineer in energy, defense, construction, and nuclear power.

Tennessee, USA Katılım Şubat 2009
477 Takip Edilen373 Takipçiler
criticalcircuit
criticalcircuit@CritEngineering·
@LincolnKyle3 THAT IS NOT A HOLDING ON SELF DEFENSE LAW. IT'S A HOLDING ON THE CONVICTION. YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING IDIOT.
English
0
0
0
2
Lincoln Kyle
Lincoln Kyle@LincolnKyle3·
@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
English
1
0
0
12
criticalcircuit
criticalcircuit@CritEngineering·
Dipshit pretending to be a lawyer doesn't know what a holding is 🤣
Lincoln Kyle@LincolnKyle3

@CritEngineering @bearded_blerdd1 @TheBrancaShow “Because there are facts in the record that defendant intentionally shot and killed an unarmed man, that is adequate. That the jury chose to reject both the notion of provocation and the claim of self-defense was within their prerogative.”

English
1
0
0
39
criticalcircuit
criticalcircuit@CritEngineering·
@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.
English
0
0
0
4
criticalcircuit
criticalcircuit@CritEngineering·
@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
English
0
0
0
4
Lincoln Kyle
Lincoln Kyle@LincolnKyle3·
@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.
English
1
0
0
7
criticalcircuit
criticalcircuit@CritEngineering·
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.
English
1
0
0
4
Lincoln Kyle
Lincoln Kyle@LincolnKyle3·
@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.”
English
1
0
1
54
criticalcircuit
criticalcircuit@CritEngineering·
@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
English
5
0
0
17
Lincoln Kyle
Lincoln Kyle@LincolnKyle3·
@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.
English
1
0
0
21
criticalcircuit
criticalcircuit@CritEngineering·
@LincolnKyle3 You're either intentionally conflating two different sections of the opinion or you're just fucking retarded. Which is it?
English
1
0
0
23
Andrew Branca Show
Andrew Branca Show@TheBrancaShow·
Prosecutors Could Use Chud The Builder’s Own Videos Against Him At Trial x.com/TheBrancaShow/…
Andrew Branca Show@TheBrancaShow

How Chud WINS on Self-Defense In Nashville Shooting! LIVE at 11 AM ET! youtube.com/live/kYlV406-H… Dalton Eatherly, known online as "Chud the Builder," recently shot a man named Joshua Fox in Tennessee. Chud has built a reputation for deliberately provoking confrontations in public spaces—calling Black individuals racial slurs, making inflammatory remarks designed to agitate, and seemingly looking for conflict, all for the purpose of creating social media content. That pattern makes context critical as we analyze the shooting confrontation with Joshua Fox. This is a case where legal analysis requires walking a difficult line. Whatever one thinks of Chud’s antics, he has all the same rights of self-defense against unlawful attack as the rest of us—no more, and no less. The outcome in this shooting depends entirely on facts: Did Chud reasonably believe he faced imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? Did he provoke the confrontation and acquire a legal duty to retreat in what is normally a stand-your-ground state? Provocation complicates a self-defense claim but doesn't automatically eliminate it. We'll break down the known and speculative facts, the applicable law, and explore the various legal outcomes. The purpose of all this? So you have a better understanding of the legal boundaries for the lawful use of force. Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET as I break it all down! Episode #1323. youtube.com/live/kYlV406-H…

English
1.2K
658
14.5K
470.2K
criticalcircuit
criticalcircuit@CritEngineering·
Are you really this stupid or are you being intentionally obtuse? No, shit for brains. That's not the comment anyone has been referring to. You're either genuinely retarded or you're trying to shift the goalposts. (Hint: the comment of reference was literally quoted in a reply within this thread.) JFC. You're not just a fake lawyer. You're a shitty fake lawyer. 🤣
English
1
0
0
32
Lincoln Kyle
Lincoln Kyle@LincolnKyle3·
@CritEngineering @bearded_blerdd1 @TheBrancaShow “Because there are facts in the record that defendant intentionally shot and killed an unarmed man, that is adequate. That the jury chose to reject both the notion of provocation and the claim of self-defense was within their prerogative.” Is that a “contemplative comment”?
English
1
0
0
82
criticalcircuit
criticalcircuit@CritEngineering·
I'm not attorney. I'm not pretending to be. Like you. You and I both know you aren't and you doubling down doesn't make it any more believable. You're arguing that an appellate court could include a contemplative comment in a footnote on a topic inapplicable to the case and it upends decades of precent established by the state Supreme Court. That is COMICALLY absurd. You're not an attorney. You're a lying, retarded clown
English
2
0
0
43
criticalcircuit
criticalcircuit@CritEngineering·
@_Mewda @Nonam18318088 @TheBrancaShow Nobody is saying words don't matter. The factual statement made was that mean words alone do not matter specifically to the point of exempt self defense. Keep up or move on.
English
0
0
0
7

Keşfet

@LincolnKyle3 @TheBrancaShow @bearded_blerdd1 @elonmusk @BarackObama @taylorswift13 @cristiano @BillGates