David Anber, Criminal Lawyer 🇨🇦

Unless there is a specific incitement to commit violence, WORDS ARE NEVER VIOLENCE. NEVER.

@ianmiles Why is nobody asking grok what happened to the guy ?

This man finds out the consequences of his actions after falling from the Winged Victory he climbed atop.

A great take by Scott Adams

@CTVNews When Floyd died, media spoke of grief, justice & “mostly peaceful protests” as cities burned. No “Left-wing anger surges” headlines. But Kirk is killed & suddenly it’s “Right-wing vengeance.” Same playbook: soften the left, inflame the right. Pure narrative engineering.

@JimboStanford @atRachelGilmore In reality she gets hate because she spent 4 years telling us her biggest fear was a journalist getting beat or worse for doing their job….. She was right it finally happened. There’s always a part of the story the left doesn’t know about.

I’m not saying assume. You are. If a person sets up a high powered rifle and aims towards a person, from a rooftop, comes close to hitting them, and add to that it’s a controversial political person, you can draw the rational inference he intended to kill. Is there another rational inference that’s non speculative, as a juror I’d say no. Every judge I know would say no. If there was a reasonable possibility of another inference then there would be a reasonable doubt. But there isn’t

@DavidAnber @PhilHollowayEsq We stopped issuing jury instructions that a jury should assume intent nearly half a century ago because it unconstitutionally shifted the border of proof to the defendant. 2/

There’s no chance he didn’t discuss his plans in advance He felt morally justified because Charlie was a “fascist” - so he advertised it Whether others are criminally culpable depends on whether they took an active role Merely providing encouragement is enough

@FactuallyDumb @PhilHollowayEsq Whether or not to draw an inference; and whether or not an inference is reasonably available is entirely in the purview of the trier of fact. Elements, including intent, may be proven by circumstantial evidence. The evidence here proves intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

@DavidAnber @PhilHollowayEsq We’re straying a bit here, but what you’re describing is the old rebuttable presumption standard that was common in the US until it was ruled unconstitutional in Francis v Franklin. A jury may still draw an inference, but the prosecutor must prove all elements, including intent.

@FactuallyDumb @PhilHollowayEsq That fact alone, is a complete answer to my question,

@DavidAnber @PhilHollowayEsq The weapon was capable of firing off more than one round, but as it was a bolt action rifle, it would take more effort than simply pulling the trigger again. 4/

@FactuallyDumb @PhilHollowayEsq (In other words, had Kirk survived, without further evidence, you could easily prove an attempted murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt, where the issue was the intent to kill.)

@FactuallyDumb @PhilHollowayEsq It’s not an “assumption”. It’s an evaluation of what are or are not reasonable inferences. No judge I’ve ever appeared in front of, even on a reasonable doubt standard, would infer that there was anything other than the intent to kill on the facts of this case.

@NicD903 @DWincheste55011 @PhilHollowayEsq This directly responds to my inquiry.

@DavidAnber @DWincheste55011 @PhilHollowayEsq It's a bolt action gun. Each bullet has to be manually reloaded. That takes enough time that he could have seen that his first shot landed and didn't need to take a second shot.

Isn’t the basic rule of people who shoot guns never point the gun and anything you don’t intend to destroy? Also, I find it hard to believe that there is an available reasonable inference that he intended to only wound Kirk. I’m not sure in that situation he could be sure that the shot was fatal and his goal was to get out of there, not pause and see what happened. If he had the ability to fire off more rounds like an AR would, then I believe he would have, but I’m told this gun could only fire one.

@DavidAnber @PhilHollowayEsq That presupposes that his intent was for the shot to be fatal. While likely, we don’t know that to be true. And even if it were, it would’ve been immediately apparent that Kirk’s injury was not survivable.

The issue I’m raising is not whether he could make the shot. The issue I’m raising is someone who decided to kill a man, and has never killed a man, would be unlikely — even for an avid hunter — in circumstances like these to only take one shot. If the gun could only hold one shot though, that answers that.

@DavidAnber @FactuallyDumb David -this is a shot many non-expert marksmen can make Hunters routinely make more difficult shots It was only ~ 150 yards And with that scope, the target appeared large and close in the field of view I’m no expert but I could do it given my general familiarity with firearms

@watkinssuzette1 @PhilHollowayEsq That would be a complete answer to my query.

@DavidAnber @PhilHollowayEsq The gun only held one bullet.

I just responded this to someone else but perhaps you misunderstand me. Your reply seems to address the skepticism that this kid would make the shot. I accept he could have made it. I was saying without experience killing a man and with the intention to kill a man, and without top level military training on discipline and experience knowing his ability, I doubt he would take a risk that he didn’t finish the job. I find it hard to believe he would have taken one shot only even if he was pretty sure he hit the first one.

@DavidAnber @PhilHollowayEsq Understandable in that case. This would be an easy shot to make at that distance with the weapon used, even for someone with limited experience. That he hit the neck would actually indicate that he was not a professional.

Being an avid shooter is not formal training as a sniper, experience doing it, or the discipline not to take another shot just to be sure in circumstances he’s likely never been in. Your response is a valid response to “how did this kid make the shot” but it doesn’t in my view explain why he didn’t fire off 3 or more shots.

@DavidAnber @PhilHollowayEsq We've talked about it exhaustively. Where have you been? The kid was raised in a shooting sports environment. He has plenty of experience and exposure to firearms and shooting. None of this was new to him.

@FactuallyDumb @PhilHollowayEsq Correct.

@DavidAnber @PhilHollowayEsq Your premise is faulty. Am I correct in assuming that you have limited experience with firearms?

@damienslash By his own words, he’s still not actually sorry he did what he did.

I just got fired

@NoLore Dishonest, arrogant, and devoid of any modicum of insight or self-awareness.

Smart, effective and and threatening to power?

I sincerely hope the threats stop. I also hope the vehement criticism of your deranged views continues. You don’t deserve the former. You certainly deserve the latter as amply set out in numerous replies to this message of yours. Serious question, do you even know the difference between these two categories of things? I’d really like you to demonstrate that you do.

Hi. I’m Rachel. My name is first on the website the North American far-right is using to target people they say “celebrated” Charlie Kirk’s death. There’s just one problem: I never did that. But the people sending me threats don’t seem to care. Let me tell you, in my own words, what happened: