Libs can't answer

libs can't prove he won't get off on Brandenberg. hear them crickets?

  1. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    frfr

  2. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    When LULZ worked right, all new threads showes up on page 1 for at leasr some users (typically)

  3. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    poop on the libs they are gay and eat poop

  4. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    Is this about his Minecraft post? You know he tried swatting the sheriff right?

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, the post, I have no info on that.

      Go ahead hunny. try an argument.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        spoiler. seems she couldn't.

        We all know women and troons are retarded. That's why they have to use the retard toilet.

        • 3 days ago
          Anonymous

          LIBERAL women are all retarded

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      I was thinking about this. I don't see how it was imminent.

      Has a sheriff ever been killed this way?

      >1) Intent to cause harm
      This one is subjective but they can likely argue the context was such that he intended to cause harm.
      >2) Express advocacy of harm
      This one is easy. He said multiple times that someone should be murdered.
      >3) Harm caused must be illegal
      This one is easy as well. Shooting someone in the head is illegal.
      >4) Harm caused must be imminent
      This one probably the hardest to prove out of all of them. There is probably precident for written/spoken comments and but imminentcy is a fuzzy concept and prosecutors could use it to their advantage
      >Advocacy must be likely to cause harm
      This is going to be somewhat hard to prove. They will reference shooters who posted on LULZ and try to argue using this website and writing such comments is enough to constitute likelihood.

      So it isn't clean cut but given the US's free speech laws he has a shot at getting off. The guy's life is likely ruined no matter what though (not that he had much going on but still).

      • 3 days ago
        Cletus The Wise

        The rule is because you are assumwd to be rational.But, if you were presaured you might make a rash decision.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      He never swatted anybody shill

  5. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    It's a known fact that if you shoot sheriff shitwood in the head that he wouldn't be a problem anymore.
    It's a simple fact

  6. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone knows this only works if the courts were constrained by the law.
    However, here in clownworld, the only thing that matters is the political ideology of the Judge.
    It always comes down to a crapshoot.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      yeah, law is retarded

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      It's not even a crap shoot. Judge will be selected specifically for political affiliation. It's not going to be random.

  7. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    Did Charlottesville, the Jogger and Flyod teach you nothing? It's a miracle Zimmerman and Rittenhouse got off as is.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      checked

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        lib women literally are retarded

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      >the Jogger
      that one was truly insane.
      a man got life in prison simply for filming the altercation.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        sweet mother of nagger moses homosexual israelite did this

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        That one was insane to me. Proof that there's no point even dealing with police. They'll put you away for anything.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        I Trump will pardon them I’d vote for him again

        • 3 days ago
          Cletus The Wise

          if trump promised to do something, it's 100% with the bookies

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        He deserved it. They were off scot-free, then he decided to post the video online and got everyone sentenced to life.
        Also, wasn't the district attorney (or whatever lawyerfag is responsible for that shit) who originally said it was self defense get charged?

  8. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    >he won't get off
    The 'process' is the 'penalty'.
    Our government is 'amoral evil'.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      True. the cops are the confederates of the browncoats. His Twitter is full of unprofessional antagonizing. He can dish it, but does so with color of law.

  9. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    If the legal/court system in this country were fair, this never would have been an issue to begin with.

  10. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    >1) Intent to cause harm
    This one is subjective but they can likely argue the context was such that he intended to cause harm.
    >2) Express advocacy of harm
    This one is easy. He said multiple times that someone should be murdered.
    >3) Harm caused must be illegal
    This one is easy as well. Shooting someone in the head is illegal.
    >4) Harm caused must be imminent
    This one probably the hardest to prove out of all of them. There is probably precident for written/spoken comments and but imminentcy is a fuzzy concept and prosecutors could use it to their advantage
    >Advocacy must be likely to cause harm
    This is going to be somewhat hard to prove. They will reference shooters who posted on LULZ and try to argue using this website and writing such comments is enough to constitute likelihood.

    So it isn't clean cut but given the US's free speech laws he has a shot at getting off. The guy's life is likely ruined no matter what though (not that he had much going on but still).

    • 3 days ago
      Cletus The Wise

      intent seems to be whatever the judge wants.

    • 3 days ago
      Cletus The Wise

      3 is a slam dunk, but it shouldn't be. moral codes are not subject ti change at law, eternally do they derive, homosexuality from aeons back is a crime like murder.

      so, if 2 is strong, 3 falls. 3 strong, 2 falls.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      >This one is easy. He said multiple times that someone should be murdered.
      In a video game. So not as easy as you might think.

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        >In a video game.
        You know saying "in Minecraft" is as real as asking someone whether or not they're a cop, right?

        • 3 days ago
          Anonymous

          We're about to find out. But I suspect this is a sticking point.
          Wanting to kill someone's minecraft character is not a crime.

          • 3 days ago
            Anonymous

            >We're about to find out.
            It's not a real defense.

            • 3 days ago
              Anonymous

              >ChatGPT pointed out
              Kek.

              Cite case law or rake yourself, leaf

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                >SOURCE?!?!?!
                You're the one making the claim so I think that's your job.

                The reason it doesn't work is that it's easy to argue the statement is still sincere (especially since he's using a well known meme and didn't say something like "if I were paying Counterstrike I'd shoot him in the head..."). Do you remember when Sam Hyde said he wanted to kill that Hassan guy "IN REAL LIFE!" The literal interpretation is that he wanted to kill him. However, given the context of the statement it's still defensible as a joke.

              • 3 days ago
                Cletus The Wise

                Minecraft is a popular hobby, your honor. Exhibit 911:

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                >in which you don't shoot people in the head
                It's not a defense. Again, it's a well known meme that retards think is true (like cops having to tell you they're cops). It's not.

                I didn't make any claim you stupid nagger. An anon said "we're about to find out" and you chimped out. Get a fucking grip LMAO

                >I didn't make the claim
                The claim is that saying "in Minecraft" is a legal defense that allows you to make illegal speech. It's not. The legality of such is in Brandenburg v. Ohio and the defense will not be basing its case off of a "Minecraft" defense you absolute retard.

              • 3 days ago
                Cletus The Wise

                Your honor, this is an oriental cartoons and gaming fansite. Nothing is very literal here. Let me show you /d/

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                Seriously, you guys are like that retarded kid in class who thought he could tell the teacher to "puck off" and get away with it because he changed a letter.

              • 3 days ago
                Cletus The Wise

                See the tentacles? Here a user account "Anonymous" says, "I just want to put my tentaclea in all her holes" and it continues from ther. Your honor, tentacle monsters are fantasy creatures.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody thinks it's true. Morons who don't understand sarcasm think others aren't using it ironically because they're morons

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't make any claim you stupid nagger. An anon said "we're about to find out" and you chimped out. Get a fucking grip LMAO

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                In minecraft itself is a statement of insincerity. It's saying "I know you really shouldn't talk like this because some people will think you're serious and I'm just joking." It's a fucking meme.

              • 3 days ago
                Anonymous

                Yes.

                Nobody thinks it's true. Morons who don't understand sarcasm think others aren't using it ironically because they're morons

                No.

        • 3 days ago
          Cletus The Wise

          ChatGPT pointed out the minecracaft defense could literally hapoen. please lmao

          • 3 days ago
            Anonymous

            >ChatGPT pointed out
            Kek.

            • 3 days ago
              Cletus The Wise

              chatgpt could pass the bar

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      lmfao, if what he said must meet all these points to be in violation of the law, then he’s def getting off.

      • 3 days ago
        Cletus The Wise

        if that was me id get my entire post history as evidence so i could read it all to the court (for contextual reasons of course)

        checked for masonic elements

      • 3 days ago
        Anonymous

        It seems like he has a pretty good defense but it depends on a jury. Another thing that retards don't understand is that convictions can be based on circumstantial evidence.

        • 3 days ago
          Anonymous

          Totality of the circumstance. He had almost no capacity to harm the sheriff and the sheriff is an intelligent, armed man. If this case had any merit, everytime someone said "i hope you die" or "kill yourself" would be prosecutable. There's no manifested intent or planning so we can assume it's just talk. This will probably end shitwood's career because of how bonkers stupid it is. It's not your employer seeing a facebook post and terminating you, it's a sheriff going beyond state lines with a vendetta.

          I hope shitwood get's ass cancer and bleeds out.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      You're overstating (1). Merely saying something of a harmful nature isn't "intent to cause harm"

      • 3 days ago
        Cletus The Wise

        itent is at the judge's discretion.

        • 3 days ago
          Anonymous

          It literally isn't. The prosecution would have to prove that

          • 3 days ago
            Cletus The Wise

            it's subjective, the subparts of intent are.

    • 3 days ago
      Anonymous

      Prove he typed it and no someone else on his computer.

  11. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    4,5 fail

  12. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    Oh, and (2) of the main is questionable.

  13. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    whatever chud we're still winning the GOP is cucked and fucked. You got fucked by Trump and u deserve it. Remember: Trump will ruin every election for the GOP until he gets his 2nd term. Joke is it will never happen XD

  14. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    Golden’s post hits points 2 and 3, they’d have to prove 1, I think it fails points 4 and 5.

  15. 3 days ago
    Cletus The Wise

    Your honor, you can do anything in minecraft. Let me show you the netherworld.

  16. 3 days ago
    Cletus The Wise

    Your honor, you could model Ivanka's feet in glorious detail in Minecraft, for example.

    Oh yes. And there's more.

  17. 3 days ago
    Anonymous

    if that was me id get my entire post history as evidence so i could read it all to the court (for contextual reasons of course)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *