Spongebuck Breakerpants
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 18 de Jun, 2024
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but his "analysis" comes across more as how he'd personally try to weasel his way out of that situation, considering that Balldo has had his share of traffic stops which have likely spawned a few outbursts or retarded comments, given his demeanor in the documents we've been able to see. He probably has little difficulty in seeing himself in this scenario, and will naturally try to argue in defense of behavior he's likely to display.This is the kind of naive business plan I would unironically expect him to come up with. 'Go viral', is not a valid milestone target.
In othet news, I happen to have hours of extar time sat in one place, so I skimmed Nick's last member stream:
- Nick found a case of a fat lawyer that intimidated his mistress and spread revenge porn. He made many vibes at Kurt and Sean, and struggled for minutes while live to see if documents were available on PACER. He eventually gave up.
- Nick mocked Kurt's appearance, clothing, and diet plan while saying he was genuinely happy for him to reach his 1000 pound combined lifting goal
- He spent a while watching Kurt's reaction to Lead Attorney's reaction to a traffic stop of an annoying and disrespectful black woman. Many times he paused to belittle Kurt's analysis as 'bootlicking' and make fun of the policeman. He also made several weasel word justifications and hypothetical arguments he would make in court beciase things were 'unwise' but not 'illegal'.
The most ludicrous was that when the woman exited her car after being told she was free to go and threatened to shoot the policeman it was 'illegal' and not necessarily a terroristic threat because the officer antagonists her first. When the officer threatened to arrest her if she did not go back into her vehicle, that was a terroristic threat because it was an illegal arrest with no basis. It was stupid, 'I will shoot your ass' means I will literally shoot you IN the arse.
I will try to clip this later.
ETA: OMG! He said 'no probable cause'! LMAO!
ETA 2: He looked upt he statute and the new cope is 'well, it is only a misdemeanor and not a felony'.
Of course it is going to be awful - he's arguing for the side he wants to win, not the side that's actually likely to win based on the apparent facts.