Ok well you have sufficiently confused me to the point that I can no longer take a position

So you have no forensic investigation of the wife. Noone bothered to process her.

Maybe his blood was under her nails?

(that's my way of conceding)

That would have been what I needed to say to the court that in combination of scratches on his cheek it is more probable a result of her attack than something he did in his cell, as the prosecutor claims.

I am not giving legal advice. I am just communicating that to me, dabbling sometimes in forensics, it seems more complicated.

yea i can't attempt to give a counterpoint when i'm not sure what you're saying

I am saying, by not cooperating with police you are doing a good job at blocking them from investigating you. Which you want.

But you might also be doing a good job at blocking them from investigating someone else. Which you dont want.

Brancas book has a list of things

In a world where you have good representation, and a functional legal system, that may not be problem, as your council will eat the prosecutor for breakfast.

In a less optimal world, the answer is less crisp.

IIRC so does ayoob's book (he mentions the list in the video)

But yes obviously not having a good lawyer can just complicate everything

And not pointing out evidence can also complicate things regardless

actual case:

she says: "he hit me!"

But verbal diarrhea is a thing

he knows he didnt.

she says to the cops: "I took photos. I will send them."

dumb cop says: "great!"

It is impossible for me to measure the rates of verbal diarrhea versus this sort of situation

he says: "I will not speak until I have representation"

court says 9 months later: "the only evidence we have are these photos"

Ok well

I challenge you then to

Find a short catchy sentence

Which encapsulates what you just said

I did.

"If you represent yourself, your client is an idiot"

lol

But that doesn't really get the message across

It doesn't stop verbal diarrhea without also ensuring evidence is collected

it does not. Its a complicated world. You cant tell people: "point out to the cops what you think is relevant" They will not understand.

"Buy Ayoob's book"

and I agree that shutting up is *probably* more sound in a majority of cases where you are, or will have to expect to be, the defendant.

but I know a couple of guys who might have made it out, had they only said: "tell your guys I want her processed as well. She attacked me. I defended myself."

mhm

Id like to hear the Boss on this one, but I suspect him to be a busy man. Idealists often are.

If you own a gun

Or even if you don't

I do

You definitely want to read brancas book

And ayoob's

well, non appliable here.

Yea

US only

There is no circumstance at all, under our laws, where I can use my gun to defend myself and get away with it.

NONE

lol

Revolt

😄

Not even kidding that is revolt worthy

for an american. Remember, your legal system is based on the idea of free men.

Ours is not.

Ours is a hand down from the feudal lords of yesteryear.

I mean that I'd support anyone anywhere revolting over that issue

I appreciate your support, but Europeans are still in slave mentality on this issue.

The use of force belongs to the Duke alone.

The minions are to call for the magistrate to come, only.

This is why they view americans as "crazy".

(and yes, this is relevant to mr. Rittenhouse. Its the most fundamental right of americanism. To take responsibility and defend yourself, rather than calling for the Duke`s men.)

Everyone is aloud to voice/put forward their say/comment which would elicit some kind of fair response, but when you join a channel with a name like "Trump4jail", I would think you wanting something more... 😜

Anyway, back to the practical, everyone who has a gun should (almost say _must_) read books like branca's or ayoob's

I agree!

Gangbangers included!

(jk, the system can eat them)

what you should look out for in america is the "duty to withdraw"

that is what is pushed into the realm of impossibility here.

You can find yourself obligated to climb out of your bathroom window and get stuck half way, to avoid the conflict. Your duty to protect the rapist from harm is in the land of ridiculous.

I do believe some of your states already has this duty?

Duty to retreat yea

But not in your house

Most states exempt your house and some other special places

I think Branca highlights Ohio as bring unfavorable regarding this standard

And/or other issues in Ohio regarding burden of proof

Which is surprising to most people because their gun laws are relatively lax

But yea it feels like if you study the details of most government systems (such as the justice system wrt self defense) you get red pilled and jaded very quickly

Not just this sort of thing

Just the amount of people who don't get good representation and just get destroyed

This is what BLM should really be complaining about

It is a kind of tyranny of the majority

Most people never go through the system

Or they do and hate it with a passion but somehow assume it was only bad for them

And still trust in the system as a whole

And don't get me wrong, I appreciate that trust, because it keeps the world civil!

But the few people who go through it and get screwed, don't make the news

They get no coverage

No investigative reporting

No one else knows

So you can get an egregious situation where a state is routinely prosecuting people for "not retreating"

And if (the details of each case were) more widely known would be an outrage

But out of sight out of mind

Just as a side point though,

Even in states where you don't have a duty to retreat, if it is obvious you could have and don't, it might count against you IIRC

Branca basically warns against shooting unless you absolutely have to, even if you technically have the right

I should read it again

I agree 100%

Pleading the 5th is not the same as saying "I don't know what happened" when interviewed by police.

It's a right.