Transcription
How about a smile for me, huh?
>> A smile?
>> Yeah. I'm offering to help you. Least you could do is give me a smile.
>> Crucially, he makes contact with the map that Captain Marvel is holding, pulls it down, and says something that might be interpreted as a threat. How about a smile for me? This guy is not a particularly nice guy. And crucially here, he has invaded Captain Marvel's space.
So, Legal Eagle is the definition of slop, trash, legal analysis, which is actually just entertainment masquerading as legal analysis. And honestly, we covered him in a previous video before on this channel. But this is somebody that I should have been breaking down a very long time ago because he's an absolute idiot in every possible way. And it is intentionally so because what he's trying to do is just feed a left-wing audience what he wants to believe. Now, of course, this is all hidden behind the credentialism of Legal Eagle being an actual attorney at law, but make no mistake about it. He has no relevant experience in almost any of the videos that he's breaking down because the man is an entertainment lawyer. The man does contracts. It's like my wife who works in commercial real estate all of a sudden trying to tell you about some niche international law something something and using of course her legal degree as analysis or as credibility for said analysis. It just doesn't work. It just doesn't fit. And this is why time after time this man has gone to absurd lengths in order to defend things that absolutely don't matter or are just indefensible.
And a perfect example of this is the clip that I open up this video with, which is him deciding to do a legal breakdown of Captain Marvel, and I know this is from 6 years ago, a deleted scene where Carol Danvers, the lead character in that particular film, electrocutes somebody with her magic special Marvel powers and then robs him of his motorcycle. And according to Legal Eagle, it was self-defense because the man, the male dareth threatened her by saying, "Hey, smile, lady, smile." And therefore, she did a self-defense motorcycle robbery. And says something that might be interpreted as a threat. How about a smile for me? This guy is not a particularly nice guy. And crucially here, he has invaded Captain Marvel's space.
Now look, ultimately this is a topic that doesn't actually matter. It is a Marvel movie from years ago. It didn't matter at the time as this was a deleted scene that was released even after the film was released. But it just goes to show you that this guy does not take his job seriously at all whatsoever. And whenever he's facing criticism, he decides to [ __ ] out in the absolute weakest way possible. And a perfect example of that is this comment that is pinned as the top comment so that people can just back off their criticism of him.
"Wow, looks like we have some strong feelings about a fictional superhero. Let me address some of the most common comments. Quote, 'Grabing a map isn't harmful.' Probably true, but I'm arguing the main offensive touching talking point. The motorcycle guy committed battery. It should be uncontroversial among lawyers. Famous cases of offensive touching include snatching a plate out of someone's hand, taking a necklace off someone. Not really a stretch to extend those cases to what happens here. Reasonable minds can differ, though.' And then people say, 'How can you justify her stealing the motorcycle?' He claims he's not. He absolutely was. And he thought it would be clear that one crime doesn't justify another. He was just pointing out that commandeering a vehicle is common wishfulfillment trope in action movies. No, you can't steal from someone if they commit some kind of unrelated tort against you."
Now, this comment goes on and it's very defensive, but the thing I really want to harp on most of all is the fact that this guy actually compared a purse snatching or plate snatching to again telling a girl to smile, which is absurd, ridiculous in every possible way. And of course, he started off by saying, "Oh my god, why do you guys care so hard about a fictional superhero?" even though this is the man that made the video about the fictional superhero to provide her legal justification, but his skewed views on self-defense and what is actually justified extend to actual real world cases. And again, unlike on this channel where I'm not an attorney and I think that the case is going to go away, my audience doesn't like like the Amed Arberry case where I told you that these guys would be convicted of felony murder for day one. Legal Eagle drops all sorts of ambiguities when the situation goes against his narrative and his agenda. And a perfect example of this is his breakdown of the Kyle Writtenhouse case where he makes so many absurd, ridiculous points that we just have to break it down so you can understand that the man is pure slop through and through.
But before we get into that, I want to thank everybody who supports this channel via actualjusticewarrior.com/join.
>> I give me the money. give you give me the money. Okay.
So looking back on this particular video from Legal Eagle, I realized a number of things. First and foremost, the man's an idiot, which I guess I already knew based on the Renee Good/Daniel Prey video that I did analysis of a little bit earlier. But in addition to that, I actually left a comment under this video because it was one of the worst bits of legal analysis I've ever seen in my entire life. And the reason for that is because this is activism masquerading as legal analysis. This man actually said that Kyle Writtenhouse's team may have made a blunder or some people out there thought that Kyle Writtenhouse's team made a blunder when Kyle Writtenhouse's defense team acknowledged that Kyle Writtenhouse shot the three individuals that he was accused of shooting. Many people thought that when Kyle Writtenhouse admitted on the stand that he intentionally used deadly force on Rosenbal and Huber, that was a huge tactical blunder. Um, no. Absolutely not. Ridiculous in every possible way. Could you imagine if you were an actual defense attorney and you had a client that was going to utilize self-defense in order to get out of a homicide conviction, but also at the same time, you weren't going to acknowledge that the homicide was even committed by your client. How would that even work? Well, my client, you see, your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, was defending himself against these attackers. But I don't know if my client intended on doing so. I don't know if I should acknowledge that I actually intended to use the deadly force, which I'm saying is justified and is the whole basis of my defense. Maybe it was an accident. Well, it can't be both. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. And obviously, and I mean obviously, you have to acknowledge that you did the thing in part in order to use an affirmative defense.
But again, his analysis goes into partisan hackery a little bit further because he starts talking about the issue of provocation. Now, you guys know we covered this multiple different times on this channel and we also covered the ridiculous assertion that somehow a key fact in this case is that Kyle Writtenhouse crossed state lines. But guess what? Our attorney over here, our legal eagle, our absolute eagle-eyed observer, is going to highlight this as a potential portion of the provocation that people are bringing up.
"Think about it. Is it the possession of the gun that provokes the attack, or is it the possession of a gun by a minor or possession of a gun that crossed state lines that leads to someone provoking an attack?"
Now, again, I'm not an attorney, let alone a criminal defense attorney, but I am capable of looking up the law. And a few days after the Kyle Writtenhouse shooting, when I finally uploaded my video on the topic, one of the things that weirded me out was that so many people were bringing up crossing state lines with a firearm when it's not even illegal to do that. Like, on its own, that is not a crime. And this is one of the reasons why I cut together and play the Anakasparian cross state lines compilation.
"Possession of a gun that crossed state lines."
>> "Who crossed state lines."
>> "He drove from Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin. Now again, he drove from Illinois to Wisconsin. It's not like he was in his front yard."
>> "And he was approached by a group of individuals who posed an imminent threat to his life. He drove across state lines in a state that he doesn't even live in because obviously we're dealing with a 17-year-old from out of state and then he crossed state lines with it. He crossed state lines, meaning he traveled across state lines. He traveled there from out of state, who again uh traveled across state lines. So, he did not cross state lines with an illegal gun."
Now, it's one thing for people in the media that are absolute idiots to say this time and time again, but this guy is saying he's an attorney. Again, he's using that credential to denote some level of expertise without acknowledging two key facts. First and foremost, Kyle Writtenhouse did not cross state lines with a firearm because the firearm was kept in Wisconsin the whole time. But in addition to that, it's not illegal to cross state lines with a firearm. It's not a crime. It's like saying Kyle Writtenhouse crossed some streets. It's like saying Kyle Writtenhouse crossed his arms at one point. It's like saying when Kyle Writtenhouse enters a room, he crosses the threshold of the doorway of that room and trying to make that some kind of legal argument. Yet somehow, bafflingly, it is in this guy's actual arguments in relation to this case.
And another thing that I notice about his analysis, despite the fact that this is after the trial, that supposedly he was an eagle-eyed observer of, is that Legal Eagle claims that Kyle Writtenhouse admitted, and this could be considered provocation, to pointing the gun at one of the people, aka Joseph Rosenbomb, and therefore that could be considered provocation. And again, if you believe this, if you actually watched the video, if you understood the trial, and this is one of your takeaways, you're an absolute idiot in every possible way.
Now, it's a closer call when you consider Written House admitted that he pointed his gun at the victims and claimed that when he was pointing his gun, it wasn't a dangerous provocation. Now, you could argue that pointing your gun at someone is assault or misuse of a firearm. So, one of the craziest things about this Legal Eagle video is that he actually shows you from multiple angles Joseph Rosenbomb chasing Kyle Writtenhouse. And he says here in this particular video, you could see Writtenhouse point the gun at Joseph Rosenbomb. And this is especially important in the context of the Written House shooting. Even Writtenhouse's testimony seems to indicate that Rosenbomb didn't lunge at Written House until he raised his gun at Rosenbomb. and that the reason or at least one of the reasons that Kod written house shot Rosenbomb is that he feared that Rosen Bomb would take his gun away and use it against him. And we'll talk about that in a second. But the thing is the encounter has already started. Rosenbomb is already charging at Written House. And considering Writtenhouse is armed with a rifle, it is the most notable thing about Kyle Writtenhouse when he's being chased by Rosenbomb, it is a logical assumption that this man, who by the way knows that he is a felon and is not to be in possession of a firearm, is going for the firearm. And if he gets that firearm, that makes him a deadly threat to you and other individuals. which means that Kyle Writtenhouse is perfectly justified in firing upon this guy in order to prevent him from getting this gun. It is completely justified. You can't say, "Well, in the middle of the encounter, Kyle Writtenhouse pointed a gun at him. Prior to shooting him, Kyle Writtenhouse also pointed a gun at him. Therefore, that was provocation for the encounter that started prior to this, that started when the chasing actually started."
But of course, Legal Eagle not only makes this case that this is potential provocation, but in addition to that, he goes on to cite precedent in order to sound more smart and more actually like he's looking into the facts of the case and coming to a neutral conclusion when in reality the cases that he's highlighting are in no way, shape, or form related to what we're talking about. But that probably doesn't work uh if the reason that you're pointing the gun at someone in the first place is for the purposes of self-defense. And in fact, there are Wisconsin cases to this effect. Though, on the other hand, Wisconsin courts have an interesting history in analyzing the provocation exception. For example, in a 1975 Wisconsin Supreme Court case, the court held that a defendant was a provocator by virtue of openly bringing a gun into a tavern.
First of all, the description that we have right here of what the judge actually ruled in the case that he's highlighting is absurd, asinine, and ridiculous in every possible way. He makes the case that the judge is actually saying just the bringing the gun into the bar is provocation. Therefore, people can attack you and therefore through the transitive property, Kyle Writtenhouse can be attacked by Joseph Rosenbomb just for carrying a firearm. While at the same time, he acknowledges that the state of Wisconsin is an open carry state. And by the way, Kyle Writtenhouse was legally allowed to carry this firearm because it meets the long gun exemption and Kyle was over 16 at the time of this case. Now, of course, all of these things cannot be true at the same time. And what you ultimately end up figuring out when he gives you a little bit more information about this case is that obviously the circumstances are completely different. In this particular case, you had an assault against the person while he was unarmed. that person left, grabbed a gun from his vehicle, then came back in with the gun in order to get revenge, and then another encounter ended up happening. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held, quote, "The defendant himself testified that after being slapped, he went out to his car, got his shotgun, loaded it, and returned to the tavern. As he was entering the tavern, he was grabbed from the side by someone, and he pushed that person away. He saw Freddy Jones start toward him, and he started shooting. He stopped after four shots, and after Jones was out of sight. The defendant requests that the court grant him a new trial in the interest of justice. We find no merit to this contention. When the defendant left the tavern, got a shotgun out of the trunk, loaded it, and returned to the tavern. He became the provoker."
These are not the same encounter, by the way. A slap is not a deadly force threat. Obviously, you can't return to a scene of a crime for revenge and then claim self-defense for something that happened earlier. And everything about the case that was just cited by this man who again is presenting himself as a legal expert has nothing to do with what we're talking about and has no relation, no similarity in any kind to what Kyle Writtenhouse is actually facing in the state of Wisconsin or was facing at the time. The court held that a defendant was a provocator by virtue of openly bringing a gun into a tavern. Also, again, this statement that he was guilty of being a provocator or provoking the encounter by simply bringing a firearm into a tavern is ridiculous. It's not true. It's absurd. Again, as he read later on, it's all about bringing a gun again into a new encounter after he was slapped, which is a separate instance. This is commentary about the self-defense window being absolutely closed at this point. It's not about him having a gun on him in the first place. It's about him leaving, retrieving a firearm, and engaging in a new altercation. All of the key facts are different.
This is more similar to that case that people dragged out post the Trayvon Martin case where they said, "Oh, a black woman tried to use stand your ground and she ended up going to jail and was convicted for 20 years because they said she wasn't allowed to use her gun to defend herself. And by the way, she just fired a warning shot." However, when you looked at the details of that case, it was very similar to this case. She ended up getting into a dispute with the father of her children. She left, went to her car, came back, re-engaged, and then fired a shot, which by the way was not a warning shot. It was at him. It just happened to miss. And that's why she was convicted in that case and not protected under the no duty to retreat because she did in fact retreat in that scenario. That is a more like case to the one that was cited by Legal Eagle. And the other case that he brings up, which is somebody unlawfully pointing a gun at somebody else and then that person lunging for the gun and then getting shot and that being murder.
"Additionally, there's an 1883 Wisconsin Supreme Court case that says, quote, 'If one points a loaded gun at another and the other grapples with him to prevent the shooting and is shot, it is murder.'"
Also, again, not at all related to this because Joseph Rosenbomb was clearly the aggressor. And Legal Eagle actually makes the crazy case that all of the people that were shot by Written House, including Rosenbomb could have made a case for self-defense. If Rosenbomb or Huber or Gross Croitz had killed Kyle Writtenhouse, they might have been justified in using self-defense under the law. Again, reasonable minds might differ on this, but any system that incentivizes rule by the last person standing, that is killing the only person who might dispute your claim of self-defense, that seems well suboptimal. when again that's just absurd in every possible way. Kyle Writtenhouse was running away from Joseph Rosenbomb. By the way, in the state of Wisconsin, there is no duty to retreat. That's not a thing. Unless, of course, you provoke the encounter with illegal actions. But then you have to give a clear indication that you're disengaging. So even if there was a duty to retreat, Kyle Writtenhouse would have been completely covered. But in no way, shape, or form can you decide that you're going to start chasing somebody down in order to take their firearm with, by the way, no provocation to indicate that that's acceptable behavior and then claim self-defense. Any assertion that Joseph Rosenbomb could have argued self-defense had he survived is an absolute lie.
And another lie that is told to us repeatedly by Legal Eagle is this idea that Joseph Rosenbomb was shot in the back by Kyle Rittenhouse, which he emphasizes over and over. Kyle Writtenhouse turns around and stops as he gets to some parked cars and shoots the unarmed Rosenbomb four times in quick succession once in the back. After all, in the first incident, Rosenbomb, an unarmed man, throw a bag of clothes at Rittenhouse, which didn't land anywhere near Written House, after which Rittenhouse points his gun at him, and then Rosenbal moves at Rittenhouse, or apparently towards the gun, and Written House shoots him four times, once in the back. So, to be clear, this is not true. This is something that we've gone over at trial, but I will explain it to you guys out there in the audience because there were about four shots fired at Joseph Rosenbomb as he was charging Kyle Writtenhouse. However, after the first few shots ended up connecting, Rosenbomb ended up stumbling over to the point where he was essentially like in a spear position and then a bullet, which again was fired while he was charging at Written House, ended up hitting the top of his shoulder right here. And then the bullet traveled down the length of his back. This is not in any way, shape, or form the same thing as being shot in the back. It's essentially like if I grab this skeleton and you see that you're upright at first, but then as you're charging, you end up going forward and again the bullet enters through right here, the shoulder blade, and then it goes down like that. That is not the same thing as being shot clean in the back. And Legal Eagle's assertion that it's anywhere similar is absurd in every possible way. Obviously, this guy was not shot in the back, and him emphasizing that over and over again is an absolute lie. again meant to sugarcoat this particular incident.
And by the way, we have multiple sugar coating moments throughout the entirety of this video. For instance, he claims that Kyle Rittenhouse tripped over nothing or tripped just randomly while he was running after the first encounter. But in reality, we know from the trial that Kyle was hit over the back of the head by Anthony Huber as he ran away. And that's what caused him to stumble and fall to the ground before the second group of attackers ended up going after him.
"Written House trips falls to the ground."
Again, these are all lies after the fact. These are all lies after we ended up seeing the results of the trial, after we saw all the testimony where all of this was made abundantly clear. And one of the things that I found extra amazing about this particular analysis is that Legal Eagle, because he's just repeating left-wing talking points, ends up concluding with this particular statement related to Kyle Writtenhouse.
"Um, it's to this point that that my notes simply say, uh, vigilanteism is bad. Um, and I I stand by that. Uh, I also worry that that is becoming a controversial position."
So, first of all, we have this, "Oh, I just my script ends right here with me writing that vigilanteism is bad." Even though Kyle Renhouse didn't engage in vigilanteism, he didn't shoot anybody for attacking property or anything of the sort. He shot people that attacked him, that is not vigilantism in any possible way. Netnet, bringing guns to a protest is bad. Anyone that brings it, not just Kyle Writtenhouse, but then he says bringing a gun to a protest, and this is not just for Kyle Writtenhouse, is bad. It's just a bad thing to do. And again, I will fast forward to the recent video that we covered of Legal Eagle where he talks about how Freddy had every second amendment right in order to have his firearm on him at that particular protest. Again, legal slop analysis through and through.
Captain Marvel, fictional character, doesn't matter. He gives legal justification saying that telling her to smile is a threat. Therefore, she can not only attack you, but then rob your motorcycle. And then you fast forward to Kyle Writtenhouse and he can't defend himself or it's questionable if he defends himself against a guy who's chasing him and going for his firearm. Joseph Rosenbomb magically has the ability of self-defense to pursue somebody who's not threatening him try to disarm him despite the fact that by the way Rosenbomb convicted felon by the way serious sex crimes against minors is what he was convicted of knows he can't possess a firearm that's honestly possibly self-defense but one thing that we know for sure absolutely is that you definitely never bring a gun to a protest that is always bad in every scenario that you could possibly imagine but Daniel Prey oh though he HAS A SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT to bring a gun to a protest, which by the way is technically true. You do have a right to carry a gun, especially if it's legal to do so at a protest. Your first amendment activity is not nerfed by you using your Second Amendment activity at the same time. But the thing is, this man has no consistency. It is clear and obvious that if you're on the left espousing left-wing values, you have immunity according to our entertainment lawyer over here. But if you're on the right and you're clearly and obviously in the most defensible self-defense case ever imagined, then you're kind of guilty and it's kind of your fault. And I'm even going to bring up crossing state lines in my fraudulent legal analysis. It's embarrassing. It's ridiculous. And by the way, this guy's whole channel is full of legal slop where he talks about how this case is going to get Trump and all sorts of other things that I haven't even touched upon. And if you're interested in me breaking that down, let me know down in the comments below.
Now, as per usual, if you like this video, then show them by leaving a like. Subscribe for more content. Follow me on all my social media so you can support me via the support links in the description of this video. This has been me talking about the absolute farce that Legal Eagle's analysis actually is. Till next time.