°•»|THOR|«•°

@jaredlholt Bud in Florida another stand your ground state. A teenager threw popcorn at a man in a movie theater and the man shot him and was cleared by a jury.

@Swvggy3 @planefag Its literally not allowed bro Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

@Thor42o @planefag Um yeah that’s exactly what they’re gonna do 😭 your previous actions absolutely are brought up in a court case to diminish your character

That Chud guy handled the prosecutors office an awful lot of evidence for premeditation. If you're doing everything in your power to instigate a fistfight so you can end it with a gun, have said as much outright, and have documented your repeated history of doing so, you're hosed

@planefag @WitsecPaulie Its not and a judge won't see it that way. Plus the fact he's done this before and walked away peacefully every time, even being attacked before and not killing anyone doesn't show what you think it does.

@Thor42o @WitsecPaulie This isn't even "character evidence" you fucking shitwit. It's direct premeditation. A pattern of behavior showing he was trying to produce this exact result, not just general "he bad."

@planefag @dirkwrswhitesox @MarcusJ52151585 The killer. In self defense cases the defendant doesn't deny the killing. Instead the dispute comes from whether the killing is justified. A self defense case can still end in a murder conviction but it's different from a typical murder trial because the defendant doesn't deny it

@planefag @dirkwrswhitesox @MarcusJ52151585 You clearly don't understand what "self defense case" means. It doesn't assume Chud is in the right or justified. Its what you call a case where both sides agree on who "pulled the trigger". Unlike a typical murder case where the state has the burden of proving the defendant is..

@planefag @dirkwrswhitesox @MarcusJ52151585 Also remember the judge starts the question with the default answer of "its not allowed" meaning that the evidence of its probative value must be overwhelming and the risk of prejudicing the jury very low. In this case it's practically the opposite.

@dirkwrswhitesox @MarcusJ52151585 @planefag Essentially the judge looks at it and asks "is this more likely to shed light on exactly what happened that day, or is it more likely to prejudice the jury(make them think the defendant is a bad person)." In this case that question is way to easy to answer.

@dirkwrswhitesox @MarcusJ52151585 @planefag None of those exceptions apply here. Its a self defense case, videos of past behavior have no bearing on the relevant facts of this specific encounter. They will 100% be ruled more prejudical than probative. Especially considering how prejudical his past videos are.

@RichmondMaraudr @WitsecPaulie @planefag Past encounters don't matter. All that matters is this exact scenario and what happened here. Provoking people in the past doesn't mean you lose all right to self defense forever. In this situation there's no evidence to suggest he provoked anything. Time will tell

@Thor42o @WitsecPaulie @planefag You do realize that going up to strangers and saying obscenities to them to provoke reactions are exactly escalatory right?? Everything I’ve seen of this dude is just provoking random people to get them mad and react to him while he films.

@planefag @WitsecPaulie Its clear you have trouble understanding basic legal principles even when clearly spelled out(like confusing the exceptions listed above). You should maybe sit this one out champ. It clearly states "allows the defense to introduce" and you thought that meant prosecutor 😂

@planefag @WitsecPaulie Exceptions are for the defendant(chud) to introduce character evidence not the prosecutor. He can introduce evidence of his own good character or the victims bad character(if relevant). No exception exists for the prosecutor to use character evidence to smear the defendant.

@WitsecPaulie @planefag Thus the only evidence the prosecutor can use is evidence from that specific encounter. He can't be like "well look at all these other times, those other times he was provoking so even though he wasn't here he deserved it" that's the exact reason this evidence isnt allowed.

@WitsecPaulie @planefag No they can't its covered by rule 404: Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule…

@WitsecPaulie @planefag Saying "are you gonna chimp out" is not considered provoking or escalatory. "Go ahead punch me you little bitch" is an example of provoking. Escalating would be if they step back and you step forward and lean in to start yelling in their face.

@Thor42o @planefag Even in stand-your-ground states, provoking or escalating an altercation can seriously undermine a self-defense claim, even if the other person was first to use physical force.

@MarcusJ52151585 @dirkwrswhitesox @planefag Its called rule 404 here's a breakdown and relevant quote: Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that the person acted in accordance with that character. law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule…

@dirkwrswhitesox @Thor42o @planefag Right what that fool talking about

@dirkwrswhitesox @planefag No it's not. Evidence like that is considered prejudical evidence. You can't use evidence of past behavior to try and smear someone's character in a criminal trial. The only slim exception is if the past behavior is directly tied to the criminal incident.

@Thor42o @planefag Actually that's exactly how evidence works. If you have a youtube account that is just you jumping in front of cars so they might hit you so you can then sue them for money and use the video for more content, then I'm pretty sure it will be used against you as evidence.

@FearedBuck From the same community that defending stabbing a teenager to death over a push and called it self defense now says being sucker punched by a grown man doesn't count.

ChudTheBuilder shot a man who attacked him outside a courthouse in Clarksville & accidentally grazed himself in the process. Before it escalated, he asked the man if he was going to “chimp out” the man then walked up & sucker punched him. It is unclear if the man survived.

@jsin215 @WHHotCoffee @squarian24 @Franklin2point0 @FearedBuck The 1st amendment protects your right to say offensive shit in public. Passing a law allowing someone to be assaulted for public speech, or removing someone's right to self defense because of their speech are both violations of the 1st amendment. This isnt complex

@WHHotCoffee @squarian24 @Franklin2point0 @FearedBuck Your first ammendment right is between you and the fed son. If someone tapes your mouth shut they comitted assault not violated your 1st ammendment

@ImNotRashad @Franklin2point0 @FearedBuck Exactly. And so the government revoking your right to equal protection under the law(by removing your right to self defense, or failing to prosecute attackers) because of your speech is a violation of the 1st.

@Franklin2point0 @FearedBuck People don’t even understand freedom of speech is allied to the government restricting your speech😭😭