Patriot

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49884449)

not flame that's all he does. he just goes around calling niggers niggers to their face

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49884454)

That's the basis for his content, going up to black people in public and calling them niggers. Doing this mad hime like $80K or more last year in streaming money which is more than he'd make blue collaring so he just keeps on doing it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49884463)

https://x.com/Magicka_sorc/status/2054720730504347790

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49884453)

"fuck you, nigger" = hate speech not protected by the first amendment

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885059)

I don't know anything about this case or the facts. I clicked on one of the twitter links and saw a post rightly denouncing "magic words."

My post wasn't really about the merits of the case. It's a statement that a particular subset of "magic words" are horse shit. I can be broader and say that the entire set of such words are horse shit, but that wasn't the point of my post

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885072)

he's been pretty open about his intent to taunt a black person into attacking him so he could shoot them. i think there's a strong chance that overrides any "fighting words" argument - seems like he was looking for a pretext to shoot someone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885048)

This is our Rosa Parks moment and there are going to be 10K more CTBs on the streets now no matter what happens.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885088)

Author: queensbridge benzo

this is first degree murder. he literally announced he wasn't going to stop until a black person was dead.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2#49885101)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885106)

https://archive.ph/uTUEU

https://archive.ph/2BEQO

https://archive.ph/auNBr

https://archive.ph/HT1r5

https://archive.ph/NPrhN

https://archive.ph/QkkeF

https://archive.ph/F179A

https://archive.ph/MeAzF

https://archive.ph/uTUEU

https://archive.ph/2BEQO

https://archive.ph/auNBr

https://archive.ph/HT1r5

https://archive.ph/NPrhN

https://archive.ph/QkkeF

https://archive.ph/F179A

https://archive.ph/YXSYb

https://archive.ph/TpQvx

https://archive.ph/wTHkx

https://archive.ph/plEQ2

https://archive.ph/YEqvZ

https://archive.ph/YXSYb

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885118)

there is a similar case where some guy was going around insulting women in club parking lots and would pepper spray them when the women attacked him. he is in jail now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885279)

This is a textbook imperfect self-defense case that could easily be on the MBE. He provoked the attack so he cannot claim self defense, but it should be reduced to manslaughter or something like that depending on his jx.

Fighting words is about the First Amendment and has nothing to do with this. He could have provoked the attack with Constitutionally protected speech and it would be the same thing (e.g. calling a veteran a murderer knowing they are agitated and reasonably calculating they'd attack you.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885533)

am i wrong here?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885694)

he's completely stupid for posting for months/years or whatever that he's going to "shoot a nigger one day" and continually going out and goading nigs. of course it eventually happened.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885710)

If I was on the jury I'd buy the self-defense argument because I would nullify the case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885744)

Provocation requires an analysis of whether the words were reasonably calculated to provoke the person. If a cop knows that arresting someone will provoke an attack, and announces he's going to arrest them, then those words were not calculated to provoke the attack. The cop said the words knowing they would be provocative but they weren't intended to provoke.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885919)

Committing crime for financial gain is not a defense, retard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885955)

We're talking about imperfect self-defense, not prohibiting the speech itself. The speech itself being lawful isn't a factor, which is obvious to non-retards because content-based prohibitions are unconstitutional.

Calling someone a nigger isn't a crime. Killing a nigger who attacked you because you called them a nigger is a crime. I don't think it should be, but my opinion on what the law should be doesn't change what it is. You're just too stupid to understand that so you're arguing this isn't against the law. What you should argue is that it *shouldn't* be against the law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885981)

i dunno how anyone could still not "get it" re: blacks in the current year, but apparently these people still exist

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885090)

Real talk, lawyers jerk themselves off too much, and jurors make decisions on vibes, not laws

Lolling at posters itt digging into what the judge will "instruct" the jury. or constitutional readings of first amendment doctrine

All important reminder: the jury will have an average IQ of 92 and cannot finish a paragraph to completion. It will have more women than men. And it will most assuredly have 1+ blacks.

Now ask yourself how a group of 2026 whites, mostly women, will perform "onstage" in a jury room in front of blacks with regard to renegade white prole making a living saying nigger.

It's an opportunity for EVERY SINGLE white woman juror to have the virtue-signalling moment she has been dreaming about since 2008.

Chud will never, ever be acquitted in a jury trial. No matter if the jury instructions explicitly order them to acquit. Simple math, they cannot abide an all-white jury, and no black will ever vote against tribe. 12-0 not guilty is mathematically impossible

Best case is a gigachad white dude who hangs it... but how many really are there who will show up to jury duty and survive voir dire? And a hung jury on a no-bond offense just means Chud hangs out in jail another 2 years for re-trial

If i were chud's lawyer Id leverage heaven and earth to plead him out to county time, unlawful discharge or something. Maybe Ill be proven wrong and I hope i am

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49885904)

I think the prior uses of the nigger word might be kept out at least.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49888523)

http://x.com/SeeRacists/status/2053848986298302818

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5866420&forum_id=2Vannesa#49887163)