that is a 70% company

your page is a public square

hello spam

hello porn

also I detest treating differently sized companies differently

and I already made the constitutional argument

it is illegal to force companies to do this

just like it would be illegal to restrict a newspaper from deliverying you ads that might be illegal speech

or charging Fedex for delivering blackmail

Multiple arguments there, fave topic of mine, maybe we need a new chat lol

Can we have a Free Speech / Section 230 chat Mr Gruler plis? 😁

@realz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBy9L0gcqGY

@Doc pretty sure I've seen that

I didn't say anything (never helping out the) cops

I said I wouldn't speak to the FBI, even to help them without my lawyer

as for the cops, yes, follow his advice

(tldr; if you kill someone in self defense you want to point out all the evidence so the cops mark it down, and you don't want to come off as a jerk either)

ASP is great

I have Ayoob's books I think

ASP did a great analysis of the Atlanta story with Brooks

(I would speak to the cops if I thought I could help them catch a bad person)

(but I wouldn't do it for the FBI, except via a lawyer)

btw many lawyers disagree with Ayoob (IIRC he mentions that)

because people can't be trusted to say the right thing

that is why people like Ayoob basically tell people to "train" for the situation

i.e make believe shoot someone in self defense and imagine being in front of a cop, and rehearse things to say

I've read Branca's book on self defense (it's about legalities of self defense), and he says something similar IIRC

don't quote me here, but he basically tells people to train themselves to say rehearsed lines

read the book its pretty good (but IANAL)

I wonder if Robert has read it and what he thinks of it

Anyone else watch the video of his last hearing? I was confused as to why Huber's father and Grosskreutz were even there and their statements solicited by the court commissioner

A Kenosha reporter answered my question on Twitter - this year, the state of Wisconsin passed a constitutional amendment by ballot initiative called Marcy's Law which added a host of "victims rights" during court process

which seems...kinda odd to me, since a trial is about the State vs the Defendant, but, ok. One of those rights is that victims can speak at any and every hearing.

Of course, the logic is somewhat flawed because this law stacks the deck against the defendant by insisting that there are "Victims" and, therefore, a crime must have occurred against them because they are "Victims"

all of this before the defendant has had a chance to even make a statement about their innocence

@Neph (Nec) / Krystaps (War) If you are referring to the Rittenhouse case that change in Michigan law has no bearing on a Wisconsin state court.

oh woops i wrote Michigan, haha

I meant Wisconsin. 🙂

thanks for picking that up

as a New Yorker, I get those two states confused all the time. I'll edit my post

Just making sure