Pretty speechless watching the treatment this guy got after he lynched another human being. She couldn't be any nicer. I guess I should be used to this stuff by now, but I'm still not. Now that those 3 scumbags are going to jail forever it's time to take out the rest of the trash that bumbled this murder at the beginning.
What I learned: it's completely unsurprising that he's viewed as a joke.
Maybe he's a good civil litigation lawyer?
Alright, I'll bite, even against all instincts of feeding trolls
What parts did you not like? It's literally just him explaining the law. He offers no "takes", doesn't try to sell anyone on anything, doesn't try to sway opinion. Yet you're upset at simple facts?
Alright, I'll bite, even against all instincts of feeding trolls
What parts did you not like? It's literally just him explaining the law. He offers no "takes", doesn't try to sell anyone on anything, doesn't try to sway opinion. Yet you're upset at simple facts?
Do you just not like his hair or something?
I disagree that he didn't give "takes". The whole thing was a take. What's more interesting is how people watch that video and view it is as some sort of objective analysis. This is largely the same phenomenon we were discussing a few pages back but in the context of legacy media content providers.
The Legal Eagle video is just playing to peoples' confirmation biases as a method of pandering. If I had to guess, he's really angling hard for a contributor contract on MSNBC. They are both pandering to the same crowd.
But if you can't watch that video and see it clearly, then I guess it's useful as a rorschach test, anyway.
I think there are actually interesting issues to discuss around these topics. But Legal Eagle didn't do anyone any favours with his hot take.
If you want an actual in-depth legal discussion of it amongst a bunch of lawyers:
While I do appreciate them taking shots at him for "not watching a lot of the trial", I am not sure how much legal advice I would take from lawyers whose billable hours are so slim they had time to watch a lot of the trial to thus report out on YouTube for 6 hours.
Last edited by Aarongavey; 11-24-2021 at 05:03 PM.
It’s also a video from Rekieta Law, aka Nick Rekieta, whose only claim to fame is being popular with alt-right incels, getting the Chauvin case completely wrong, siding with a sexual predator and encouraging him to sue his accusers losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process, and wearing blackface.
But don’t worry guys, BoLevi knows about joke lawyers.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
It’s also a video from Rekieta Law, aka Nick Rekieta, whose only claim to fame is being popular with alt-right incels, getting the Chauvin case completely wrong, siding with a sexual predator and encouraging him to sue his accusers losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process, and wearing blackface.
But don’t worry guys, BoLevi knows about joke lawyers.
This is precisely why I listened to the Legal Eagle video. I wanted to hear what he had to say. Listening to videos which go against your own confirmation bias is a useful way to move towards being as balanced and objective as possible.
The Rekieta live coverage of the trial was often interesting because of the other lawyers coming on and disagreeing with each other - Rekieta himself was more of a host/moderator.
I enjoy how BoLevi hadn't seen the LegalEagle video before today, thus there's no way he'd seen the video he posted 'reacting' to it, yet somehow is so confident in the shaky source that he posts it anyway.
That or he somehow watched a 5 and a half hourlong video in 20 minutes
Last edited by btimbit; 11-24-2021 at 05:20 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
I enjoy how BoLevi hadn't seen the LegalEagle video before today, thus there's no way he'd seen the video he posted 'reacting' to it, yet somehow is so confident in the shaky source that he posts it anyway.
That or he somehow watched a 5 and a half hourlong video in 20 minutes
I haven't watched the Rekieta video (nor did I say I had). I skipped through it and was interested in the bits I heard. I didn't think it noteworthy until I saw the video pop up on the thread here today.
I enjoy how BoLevi hadn't seen the LegalEagle video before today, thus there's no way he'd seen the video he posted 'reacting' to it, yet somehow is so confident in the shaky source that he posts it anyway.
That or he somehow watched a 5 and a half hourlong video in 20 minutes
BoLevi: Legal Eagle is laughable with his hot take, looks like he's trying to get on MSNBC
Legal Eagle: Rittenhouse was not guilty, self defense applies
Well I think his response exposes why Rittenhouse is such a hero to some people. He is not a hero because he reluctantly and reasonably used force in self-defence. He is a hero because he killed people that those who lionize him feel should have been killed. Congresswoman Boebert did not challenge wheelchair bound Congressman Cawthorn to a sprint to see who gets Kyle as an intern because he reasonably used appropriate force to protect himself.
In that context, Legal Eagle is applying for a MSNBC job by merely saying it could be legally justified self-defence because that significantly waters down the reason why folks like Tucker Carlson, Boebert and Cawthorn raise Rittenhouse on such a pedestal.
Well I think his response exposes why Rittenhouse is such a hero to some people. He is not a hero because he reluctantly and reasonably used force in self-defence. He is a hero because he killed people that those who lionize him feel should have been killed. Congresswoman Boebert did not challenge wheelchair bound Congressman Cawthorn to a sprint to see who gets Kyle as an intern because he reasonably used appropriate force to protect himself.
In that context, Legal Eagle is applying for a MSNBC job by merely saying it could be legally justified self-defencd, because that significantly waters down the reason why folks like Tucker Carlson, Boebert and Cawthorn raise Rittenhouse on such a pedestal.
I don't think it is helpful for people to view Rittenhouse as a hero. But that was going to be inevitable in today's media...er...dumpster fire.
But I would put the people who hero worship KR into the same overall milieu as those people who try to sanitize the actions of Rosenbaum, Huber, Grosskreutz (both on that night and in their past). Or the victim blamers who think that KR somehow "had it coming because why was he there?"
These are the people - many of which are in this thread -that are just grist for mill of the current media environment. And they don't realize it because they think their side of the milieu is righteous.
