Message from @realz
Discord ID: 774140335131328513
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? 😁
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)
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
This Marcy's Law has, apparently, been pushed across the country to other states by a billionaire in California
as in, it's not a homegrown initiative to amend the Constitution, just cookie-cutter text adopted by the states
However I think that Marcy’s law might be improperly being applied. Victim impact statements are generally applied to the sentencing stage. Anything before that would be unduly prejudice to the defense. Here in Washington state we have something call a Lacy’s law if memory serves that impact DUI incidents that add a provision to take the offenders car in an asset forfeiture kind of process and a case actually tested and the court ruled in favor of the defense that the entire law was unconstitutional. So we might see a legality challenge.
oh I agree. Victim Impact Statements are pretty standard at the sentencing stage.
Marcy's Law, specifically, gives "victims" the right to speak at ANY hearing....even, apparently, a pre-trial hearing like this to set bail
Hence i think that while some parts of the law are practical and easy to implement, parts of the law like this are wholly unnecessary and, perhaps, even unconstitutional with respect to he 6th Amendment
the*
I place "victims" in quotes because, well, it treats these parties as victims before it has been established that there are victims. The idea that there can be a victim before the defense has had a chance to make a case seems ethically questionable to me, but, hey.
I get the families of the people being heard but not on bail or in any proceeding other than sentencing. For instance a motion to suppress evidence a "victim" statement should bare no weight unless they actually witnessed the crime and not the videos online.
If 'Marcy's Law' as you describe is accurate, that is totally insane!