Andrew Branca - A legal, factual, and unemotional view of the Tyre Nichols Incident

[crc4]

Branca presents in this video a legal, factual, and unemotional view of the Tyre Nichols incident.

Well-worth watching.

Andrew Branca on the Tyre Nichols Incident

[pop pop]

Can't get it to open. 

[crc4]

18 minutes ago, pop pop said:

Can't get it to open. 

Just tried it and it works. You may need to sign-in on Youtube in order to view it.

Or you can watch it on youtube if you have that on your TV channels.

Just search for Andrew Branca.

Or you can go here to Branca's website.

Andrew Branca - Tyre Nichols Incident

 

 

[OldIronFan]

I made it through the video analysis but man that guy is a Huckster. Nearly an hour to get to the actual video clip analysis and then he stops, pauses, switches around, or talks over the clips. After all that he ends it with a paid question and answer session and additional huckster work for his classes and memberships. Tough to get through that nearly 2 hour exercise. 

Edited February 1, 2023 by OldIronFan

[Chucktshoes]

 

10 minutes ago, OldIronFan said:

I made it threw the video analysis but man that guy is a Huckster. Nearly an hour to get to the actual video clip analysis and then he stops, pauses, switches around, or talks over the clips. After all that he ends it with a paid question and answer session and additional huckster work for his classes and memberships. Tough to get through that nearly 2 hour exercise. 

I quit 25 minutes in when he made blatant misrepresentations regarding what has been said by the police department and prosecutors regarding the reason for the arrest. There is a vast chasm between “we just don’t know why he was pulled over“ and “the officers’ reports claimed it was reckless driving, but we can find no evidence to support that.“ Especially when it is already known that many facts within the reports were falsified.

I have actually purchased and read his book and do enjoy his insights when he is on other peoples shows. He does not prove to be very watchable when it is his show to run. Fun fact, he was banned from here during the Zimmerman trial for his huckster routine.He thought he was special and exempt from the hard line rules around here regarding professional advertisement.

All of that to say, would it be possible for you to provide a BLUF summary of his main thesis on why he maintains the officers are not legally incorrect? 

 

[crc4]

15 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

 

All of that to say, would it be possible for you to provide a BLUF summary of his main thesis on why he maintains the officers are not legally incorrect? 

 

No. It speaks for itself. I found it interesting as it does provide legal information that hasn't been presented. It provides the laws governing police conduct. It provides analysis of what is represented by the video. It also gives a future look into what defense might be presented.

And he presents it without hysteria and innuendo. 

People can watch it and draw their own conclusions.  

[Chucktshoes]

4 minutes ago, crc4 said:

No. It speaks for itself. I found it interesting as it does provide legal information that hasn't been presented. It provides the laws governing police conduct. It provides analysis of what is represented by the video. It also gives a future look into what defense might be presented.

And he presents it without hysteria and innuendo. 

People can watch it and draw their own conclusions.  

I wasn’t asking you.

[Links2k]

27 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

 

I quit 25 minutes in when he made blatant misrepresentations regarding what has been said by the police department and prosecutors regarding the reason for the arrest. There is a vast chasm between “we just don’t know why he was pulled over“ and “the officers’ reports claimed it was reckless driving, but we can find no evidence to support that.“ Especially when it is already known that many facts within the reports were falsified.

I have actually purchased and read his book and do enjoy his insights when he is on other peoples shows. He does not prove to be very watchable when it is his show to run. Fun fact, he was banned from here during the Zimmerman trial for his huckster routine.He thought he was special and exempt from the hard line rules around here regarding professional advertisement.

All of that to say, would it be possible for you to provide a BLUF summary of his main thesis on why he maintains the officers are not legally incorrect? 

 

 I attempted to watch that trash yesterday, but stopped for my own sanity. I did read many of the comments and from the samplings I read, many concluded the video was a bad take.  I wanted to read more comments today, but they are not showing up for some reason. 

[OldIronFan]

7 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

 

All of that to say, would it be possible for you to provide a BLUF summary of his main thesis on why he maintains the officers are not legally incorrect? 

 

BLUF (as I interpreted his analysis) is that LEO have the privilege of use of force in conducting a legal arrest. The legal use of force level allowed is determined by the actions of the person being arrested and the crimes for which they are being arrested. In other words non lethal force is justified and warranted to affect an arrest if that person is resisting (not submitting to be handcuffed). Non lethal force does include the use of OC, the use of strikes with the hand and feet to non vital areas such as the arms, legs or torso in an effort to gain control of the individual, the use of tasers, and even the use of batons to non critical areas like arms and legs.  Lethal force is only warranted/justified if there is a direct threat to the life and safety of the officers or civilians/bystanders. 

He made a clear legal distinction that lethal force is not force that results in the death of the individual but force that could reasonably be considered to cause grave bodily harm or death. Striking a person in the head with a baton is lethal force while striking a person in the leg or arm with a baton is not, if it is done in the course of a legal arrest. He also made sure to point out numerous times that the 5 individual officers are all to be considered on their own individual actions. One or more officer may have misused lethal force while one or more officers may have been using justified non lethal force and are not responsible for the lethal force actions of a fellow officer. 

In this case he claims that one officer may be in very real jeopardy on the murder charge due to his kicks to the head. The other significant strikes that were conducted by other officers are not clear enough to be determined as lethal or non lethal. For example the baton swings while visible are masked to the camera by another officer. Where they land is not clearly visible and it appeared the him that they were aimed or angled toward the arm. Same goes for other kicks made later by officers that arrived later. Where he was kicked later is not clearly visible while those first two kicks were unobstructed and clearly landed on the head.  

He is making a very direct legal analysis with the 3 source videos he reviewed. He does clearly state that if other angles or views not available at this time shows evidence of where those baton strikes or kicks landed his analysis would have to change. 

[KahrMan]

Branca may have a keen legal mind but how he acted on this site during the zimmerman trial turned me off on him.

[OldIronFan]

Forgot to add that his analysis was that Tyre Nichols was not subdued and was not "arrested" until he was handcuffed. His failure to submit and be handcuffed was continued resistance and non lethal force was justified up until he was finally handcuffed. He also stated that no strikes or force was used after he was handcuffed and pointed out that as soon as he was handcuffed all officers stood up and relaxed their posture leaving Nichols on the ground. 

[Chucktshoes]

5 minutes ago, OldIronFan said:

BLUF (as I interpreted his analysis) is that LEO have the privilege of use of force in conducting a legal arrest. The legal use of force level allowed is determined by the actions of the person being arrested and the crimes for which they are being arrested. In other words non lethal force is justified and warranted to affect an arrest if that person is resisting (not submitting to be handcuffed). Non lethal force does include the use of OC, the use of strikes with the hand and feet to non vital areas such as the arms, legs or torso in an effort to gain control of the individual, the use of tasers, and even the use of batons to non critical areas like arms and legs.  Lethal force is only warranted/justified if there is a direct threat to the life and safety of the officers or civilians/bystanders. 

He made a clear legal distinction that lethal force is not force that results in the death of the individual but force that could reasonably be considered to cause grave bodily harm or death. Striking a person in the head with a baton is lethal force while striking a person in the leg or arm with a baton is not, if it is done in the course of a legal arrest. He also made sure to point out numerous times that the 5 individual officers are all to be considered on their own individual actions. One or more officer may have misused lethal force while one or more officers may have been using justified non lethal force and are not responsible for the lethal force actions of a fellow officer. 

In this case he claims that one officer may be in very real jeopardy on the murder charge due to his kicks to the head. The other significant strikes that were conducted by other officers are not clear enough to be determined as lethal or non lethal. For example the baton swings while visible are masked to the camera by another officer. Where they land is not clearly visible and it appeared the him that they were aimed or angled toward the arm. Same goes for other kicks made later by officers that arrived later. Where he was kicked later is not clearly visible while those first two kicks were unobstructed and clearly landed on the head.  

He is making a very direct legal analysis with the 3 source videos he reviewed. He does clearly state that if other angles or views not available at this time shows evidence of where those baton strikes or kicks landed his analysis would have to change. 

I appreciate your response. I can see where he’s presenting a case in the strictest legal sense. I would counter that it doesn’t necessarily jive with the picture in totality. But he’s a lawyer and I’m not. You mentioned that he went through three videos. Was it strictly the body cam videos, or was one of them the sky eye video?

[OldIronFan]

He had a composite of two body cam feeds and the eye in the sky. At times he brought up a full screen or even zoomed in view of the eye in the sky pole mounted camera to review a specific strike. I believe they were videos 2, 3, and 4 as released by MPD. He did not show video one which was the initial stop and taser use by the first officer. 

In a strict legal interpretation he is probably not wrong. That will mean just about nothing when it goes to court though when additional evidence is made available and the lawyers on both sides get to spinning the facts. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by OldIronFan

[crc4]

29 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I wasn’t asking you.

Sorry. I thought you were.

[Grayfox54]

Y'all  did a lot better than me. After just a few minutes my BS meter pegged out and I turned that sh!t off. 

[Garufa]

21 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

Y'all  did a lot better than me. After just a few minutes my BS meter pegged out and I turned that sh!t off. 

I couldn’t even look at his website.  Pay me, pay me, pay me, I’ll change your life and tell you all the secrets only I know!  

[derf]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely! 

[Capbyrd]

4 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

I appreciate your response. I can see where he’s presenting a case in the strictest legal sense. I would counter that it doesn’t necessarily jive with the picture in totality. But he’s a lawyer and I’m not. You mentioned that he went through three videos. Was it strictly the body cam videos, or was one of them the sky eye video?

He goes so far as to say he isn’t watching video 1 because we assume the arrest was legal. He says cops don’t just go around arresting people for no reason. It simply doesn’t happen.   His reasoning. 

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, Capbyrd said:

He goes so far as to say he isn’t watching video 1 because we assume the arrest was legal. He says cops don’t just go around arresting people for no reason. It simply doesn’t happen.   His reasoning. 

So he is starting with a demonstrably false premise to begin with. Got it.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Chucktshoes

[-boatman-]

16 hours ago, KahrMan said:

Branca may have a keen legal mind but how he acted on this site during the zimmerman trial turned me off on him.

I had forgotten about that until you brought it up. He was a piece of work. I have been thinking the name rang a bell but didn't know where from.

[pop pop]

"If the stop and arrest was legal" he is not far off on his assessment IMO. Like him or not (and I get it, many don't) he is a good lawyer. Each officer will face this individually. No guilt by association in this case. The dude with the kick to the head is in deep DO DO. Law is not swayed by emotion. The book he is Giving Away is well worth the read and I bought the one I have. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by pop pop

[Chucktshoes]

I’m not so sure that the idea of each officer being judged individually is really that realistic. In the trial of all of them the video will be a primary piece of evidence and I just don’t see anybody separating one person’s punch or kick from everyone else’s. They were all willingly active participants in this grossly egregious case of brutality and I suspect that any juror will see them as all jointly culpable. 

[crc4]

17 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

I’m not so sure that the idea of each officer being judged individually is really that realistic. In the trial of all of them the video will be a primary piece of evidence and I just don’t see anybody separating one person’s punch or kick from everyone else’s. They were all willingly active participants in this grossly egregious case of brutality and I suspect that any juror will see them as all jointly culpable. 

They will be tried separately. Any good defense lawyer will insist on it as well as a change of venue which will insure fairness to the accused.

Edited January 31, 2023 by crc4

[Chucktshoes]

25 minutes ago, crc4 said:

They will be tried separately. Any good defense lawyer will insist on it as well as a change of venue which will insure fairness to the accused.

Separate trials and change of venue was built into my statement. Doesn’t change the fact that the jury will see that video. 

[Erik88]

1 hour ago, pop pop said:

The dude with the kick to the head is in deep DO DO

What about the guy doing Mike Tyson punches to his face while his cop buddies hold him up? Seems just as bad as the kick to the head.