Walking out of court after a hearing, a Civil Claim, we lost, just turning the corner of the Court House, the client told me a fact, which, if put into evidence, would have resulted in Judgment in their favour! I asked him why he hadn’t told me before, he said ‘“I didn’t know it was relevant”.

@fullmoonshadow6967

3 ай бұрын

Oof

Story 10 was a sweet story. I truly believe in giving second chances to people. That guy didn't sound like a bad guy at all, just someone who ended up in a really fucking bad situation and did his time for that. Why anybody would think he doesn't deserve this new chance at life is beyond me. I'm so happy he did get his nursing license. People who have been through horrible shit are often the ones who've got the most empathy and understanding for people from all walks of life.

@paraax

8 ай бұрын

His story is why felony murder charges against every person even remotely involved in a crime is not justice. You were the lookout, but didn't know your friends has guns, and weren't inside when things went bad? Too bad, murder charge for you.

@ResidentWeevil2077

7 ай бұрын

If only you applied the same principles to a cheating spouse/SO who truly has made a change in themselves for the better after seeing how devastating their actions were...

@tessiepinkman

7 ай бұрын

@@ResidentWeevil2077 how do you know I don't? 'cause I sure as hell didn't say anything about that in this comment, and to me - nothing is black or white. i don't judge anyone before i hear the full story, and even then I seldom *judge* anyone for doing what they are doing.

@DyslecticAttack

7 ай бұрын

​@@ResidentWeevil2077first off, how is any of that relevant? Second off, they do deserve a second chance, but that doesn't mean that second change is deserved with the person they wronged. If you break trust with someone, then you're not entitled to be trusted by that person again. You do deserve to have a base level trust with other people, that you can build up like you did last time. But the people you wronged have the choice of risking to be betrayed again, you don't deserve them taking that risk on you by default.

@scragar

7 ай бұрын

@paraax The goal of those kinds of charges if that if the murder hadn't happened without your involvement then you're at least in part responsible. There's usually a high bar to show you knew what was happening ahead of time and were aware of the risks of the serious crime happening. If the guy had claimed he didn't know people had guns he could probably have gotten away with it not being charged because he ran away when the guns were pulled. He was unaware of the risk of someone being murdered and so can't be held responsible for the consequence. He'd still be responsible for the drug charges, but he was muscle for a drug deal, he knew that was happening. If someone is a lookout for a theft and knows the thief's are going in armed they're responsible for the deaths because without them being a lookout there's less chance the theft would have taken place. Some cases out of the USA are ridiculous, but the idea behind the charges existing as laws makes sense even if the US legal system doesn't.

3:59 As a recovering addict myself, there a not insignificant amount of shame that comes with that. It's hard to even admit it to yourself, let alone others. One thing I rarely hear said about addiction is that once addicted, the smae you feel for being addicted actually reinforces the addiction. You're trying to "run" from the realization. And that's how you end up a stereotypical addict.

@endernightblade1958

Ай бұрын

i mean it is said that the first step to overcoming addiction is admitting you have a problem. your story here kinda puts into perspective for me why.

as to the last one, there are countries where bribery in government projects is considered the norm. the most extreme case I encountered was in a certain eastern European country where we were bidding on a huge project about a decade ago and the minister in charge of the project came to the bidders' meeting and informed us the bid would go to whichever company offered him the biggest cut out of the project's net profit. My boss who was not informed this would happen offered I think 3% and the bid went to a company that offered 40%

@agps4418

2 ай бұрын

there you have it! passive income!

About the nursing case, as a fellow big dude, I get it. We're expected to be brave and physically capable and we get used to playing that role and anything that might run counter to that narrative becomes social and personal taboo.

The dude in story 10 didn't even commit murder, he shouldn't have been convicted of anything, even manslaughter

@Simqer

7 ай бұрын

Well, aside from accessory to a crime, but very light. Maybe like 1 or 2 years on parole. (I pulled the numbers out of my ass, I don't know if that's how much he would get, but it's what I think he SHOULD get).

@SmackCTProductions

6 ай бұрын

I’m pretty sure this is called felony murder. If someone is killed in the commission of a felony, then everyone involved in that felony is culpable for the murder by association. DA’s use this to get people to turn on the others involved in exchange for a lesser charge which sounds like exactly what happened in this story

@BIGGER_RED

5 ай бұрын

We don't know the whole story tho

@Islacrusez

5 ай бұрын

I believe there’s a specific law for this type of thing, some sort of criminal enterprise if memory serves but don’t quote me on that. It’s designed to wrap up the whole crew if they’re on a job, the example usually being a getaway driver facing the same charges as the rest of the crew even if he was outside. Had a quick looksie and it’s joint criminal enterprise, though the wiki article under that name is for war crimes so you want to look at the other article which is under Common Purpose. That said, I think that may rely on the outcome being reasonably foreseeable and if he wasn’t told it what the job was then he might be able to argue that it wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that there’d be that kind of violence. There’s other reasons to need muscle at a meet, after all.

@SOULSLAYER-si7pc

3 ай бұрын

He said he took a plea deal

All the lawyer episodes are sooo good 😊❤

#10 shouldn't have been convicted at all. He didn't know anything illegal was going down and removed himself from the situation immediately.

@BIGGER_RED

5 ай бұрын

It all depends on what state it happened in. The state I live in does the guilty by association law

The last story is so cleary American companies acting in Euope, maybe learn the law of the land your trying to build on before you try and build?!!!

@Mysterios1989

8 ай бұрын

Pretty sure that this was not an American company. At least if you are referring to the US, the "widely published in their home language" wouldn't have been an issue in these proceedings, English is not a language barrier and it would have been noticed rather quickly. These kind of stories regularly rather involve eastern European non-EU nations.

@jerm70

8 ай бұрын

Most American companies hires local lawyers.

@Mysterios1989

8 ай бұрын

@jerm70 while this is true, they are generally tasked to defend American legal practices that are in clash with local ones. While I doubt that in this case it was a us company, us companies are known to try to violate German labor protection laws, Union laws, and other stricter laws compared to the US.

@Vertraic

7 ай бұрын

​@onyxhydrax7271 Pretty sure known pardons for publicized bribery/corruption convictions are not very common in the US. Now if they had swept it under the rug so there never WAS a conviction, THEN I would say it could be the US.

@RalorPenwat

7 ай бұрын

I'm confident this is a South/Central American company given context

background video is forza horizon either 3 4 or 5 on xbox

@asphaltdragon514

5 ай бұрын

Forza Horizon 5, you can tell by the environment.

@ItalianCountryball11

4 ай бұрын

@@asphaltdragon514ok

What game was this

#13 definitely wasnt the US, she would still have gotten full custody, plus child support and alimony

What game is that?

I can't stand the whole "unalived" crap. I wish they would write or you would say murdered, killed, or committed suicide.

@agentzapdos4960

9 ай бұрын

Can't. The video would either be demonetized, age-restricted, or struck down altogether. If it's not something that's inoffensive to both a Bible-thumping Christian mother and some terminally online psuedo-anarchist wokescold on Twitter, it must be censored.

@Blurgamer17

9 ай бұрын

Do you have the ability to unalive the people responsible for this level of censorship? If not, you're getting these "made for kids" terms until otherwise.

@ARKdeEREH

9 ай бұрын

@@agentzapdos4960 Do know where I can I find a list of all the terms that KZread doesn't allow? It would be interesting to see what kinds of things they censor.

@agentzapdos4960

9 ай бұрын

@@ARKdeEREH No such list exists that I know of. They also keep adding new words, so it's impossible to create an exhaustive list.

@ARKdeEREH

9 ай бұрын

@@agentzapdos4960So, then how do the people who make channels like this know what is allowed? These stories are so long that it seems like it would be impossible for them to identify the words KZread doesn't like if they censor without explaining which words are unacceptable. For that matter, news stations post videos on KZread all the time and they certainly don't censor themselves. Does the censorship only apply to certain kinds of channels?

Story 13, so literally every country on the planet?

Curious what is the game?

@shdon

4 ай бұрын

I think that's Forza Horizon 5

🍎8. I am 💀 (uh-pell-it)

I'm indonesian. This video makes me think about the hearing where some senator interviews the boss of tiktok on whether he's related to china. everyone on the internet and their mother ridiculed the senator regarding his questions that were "deemed" to be racist. but i think he was just getting all the details to not be like these morons in this video.

The defense attorney in that felon with a handgun case (the one where his client was involved in a vehicular gun battle/drug deal gone wrong) isn't a very good attorney. I'm guessing they are either a public defender or a solo practitioner, and to be honest not a very skilled or knowledgeable one at that. For one the first question a good lawyer should ask any client in a felony criminal case is if they have spoken to police without legal council present. WHY WOULD YOU NEGLECT TO ASK YOUR CLIENT THAT IF THEY JUST ESCAPED A GUNFIGHT BY PULLING INTO A STATE TROOPER BARRACKS!!!!!!!?!?!!?! DID IT NEVER CROSS YOUR MIND THAT STOPPING AT A POLICE POST WHERE POLICE INTERVIEW PEOPLE OVER CRIMINAL MATTERS WITH A CAR FULL OF BULLET HOLES A FELON AND A GUN MIGHT LEAD TO STATE TROOPERS ASKING A FEW QUESTIONS!?!??!!? HOW WERE YOU NOT DISBARRED FOR INADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION YOU PUTZ!?!?!?!?? Okay I'm gonna stop shouting. So any competent lawyer should also already understand that their client being in the same car as an unsecured firearm meets and exceeds the requirements of constructive possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. If that handgun was unsecured in the passenger compartment of the vehicle then his client had constructive possession of the firearm. Even if his client had never held it, touched it, or was even seated in close proximity to it they had constructive possession of it. All the prosecution has to do is prove the defendant had knowledge of the firearm in the vehicle. That's it. Even if the gun was legally purchased property of the non felon the charge sticks. The only affirmative defense would be ignorance of the firearm's location/existence, or if the fireame was stored in a locked compartment or container which the felon could not find the means to access it. So for example if the firearm was in a safe with a PIN code they had no knowledge of. Or if the safe had biometrics and a PIN. Even then those affirmative defenses could be easily undone a few different ways. For one thing the vehicle would have undergone forensic analysis at the crime lab. The investigators would know fairly quick that rounds were both fired into and out of the vehicle. A simple Gunshot Residue (GSR) test would show his client had recently fired a weapon. A weapon which she isn't allowed to possess. Then as well there is the possibility of prints on the slide or other parts of the firearm. So yeah wannabe Saul Goodman here was gonna still lose regardless. Namely becuase in the post the idiot didn't even take the time to post what he thought the affirmative defenses would be. He was just gonna lawyer and his client would be fine. Yeah right. On their brilliant tangent on how the State Police didn't even investigate the other vehicle idk what they're getting at. Most drug dealers or gangsters are smart enough to get a dirty ride off the road asap. If these dealers were intentionally trying to rip and run then they likely have no license plate displayed, a stolen/fictitious tag displayed, and damage to the body and/or windshields, windows, or lights on the car. You don't drive that vehicle around for hours and tempt fate with every trooper, deputy, and patrolman you pass snooping into your shot up ride. Then as well since the entire gun battle was allegedly all along the roadway until the client pulled into the Trooper Barracks what evidence were the Troopers going to collect that isn't in the car already? There's probably shell casings at random intervals up and down the roadway. But what is the point of collecting them if to their knowlege it was just a gunfight between a bunch of idiots over a shady deal gone wrong. If this shootout was over a decent distance it could take weeks to canvass the scenes and it would be impossible to secure and maintain the sterility of multiple miles of roadway. Also for what? They have your client in a shot up car with a gun she fired. They got the world's easiest felony collar. She almost literally walked up and handed it to them. Also the attornet claims up until this point they were unaware that their client spoke to investigators at all. How are the State Police supposed to investigate this vehicle to vehicle shootout without interviewing the driver or passenger? The State Police are fairly good at their job in most states, but they can't put out an all points bulletin or be on the lookout call for people or vehicles they were not told about. You know told about in interviews this guy claims that dastardly prosecutor was hiding from him. Which leads to my next point. It's pretty funny how a smalltime defense attorney representing a convicted felon who got in a rolling gun battle is calling a prosecutor's office shady. I am going to go out on a limb her and say the entire representation about the prosecutor's office withholding inculpatory evidence (the state police investigator's interview) is fictitious. This guy is relying on the general public's ignorance of the law to make this claim sound plausible. If the State Police investigator's interview wasn't included in discovery then reading it onto the record midtrial would be grounds for an immediate mistrial. The rules of discovery explicitly state that all inculpatory and exculpatory evidence must be submitted as a part of discovery. Excluding it intentionally when the interview was conducted likely the same night of the incident would mean the prosecutor's office willingly withheld inculpatory evidence. That would be grounds for a mistrial and likely getting the prosecutor removed from the case on ethical grounds. The follow up to that mistrial and removal would almost certainly be an ethical investigation into the Proscuting Attorney that could result in sanctions up to and including possible disbarrment. I mean why would a prosecutor intentionally sabotage their own case and career by not submitting slam dunk evidence? The resulting mistrial would piss off the judge and everyone else involved with the case except maybe the convicted felon who gets to live their best life out on bond. My guess is investigator's interview was included in discovery and this ditz didn't look at/or listen to the filing. They were probably too busy farming reddit karma on R/legaladvice. Like I said they're probably a public defender or a small time solo practictioner who on top of not being that bright don't have a lot of time to work what case load they have. This hotshot defense attorney didn't even post what affirmative defenses he was going to provide for his client which reinforces that they didn't understand constructive possession. Then on top of that they never thought to even ask their client if they talked to the police when they pulled into a State Trooper Barracks. All this tells me they're definitely not a hotshot attorney on the partner track at a big defense firm. Good attorneys are out winning settlements and racking up billable hours not posting about sketchy cases and sketchy clients for reddit karma.

The deer hunting one is not very strong imo. Unless he was literally carrying them on his back 🤔

Background is fucking annoying.

I like these videos but the video game clips are annoying AF. I may unsub and not recommend channel

11:12 -- For future reference, "appellate" is pronounced "ah-PELL-at."