Profile picture
, 4 tweets, 1 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
I’ll take a crack at it, LB. You have a right to defend yourself against an assault/attack. However, you can only use an amount of force necessary to repel the attack and your conduct generally will be evaluated via how a reasonable person would have responded (in other words ...
an objective standard not a subjective standard). Not that self-defense can be judged by statistical probabilities (in other words, what percentage of the population is infected probably would not dictated how much force you can use to prevent someone from coughing on you) ...
but different dangers are presented by an infected person coughing on you (potentially deadly) and a non-infected person coughing on you (annoying and impolite but not deadly). As in all self-defense cases (I’ve handled many as a prosecutor), the question of ...
how much force is legal in repelling an attack is intensely fact-specific and can never be answered in a vacuum. Sorry if that sounded like garbled lawyer-speak and if the answer is not particularly satisfying.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Glenn Kirschner

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @glennkirschner2 see all

Profile picture
Glenn Kirschner
@glennkirschner2
Evening All. Here's today's installment of "Prosecuting Trump and Company: A Citizen's Guide." OBSTRUCTION OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES AND COMMITTEES, 18 U.S. CODE SEC. 1505. It’s a crime to “withhold . . . oral testimony . . . [from] an inquiry or investigation
[that] is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress.” How many executive branch officials have blown-off Congressional subpoenas? Under this section, it’s also a crime to wrongfully withhold documents from Congress.
So when, for example, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin withheld Trump’s tax returns - particularly in light of a binding law directing that tax returns “shall” be provided to Congress when a request is made by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means
Read 4 tweets
Profile picture
Glenn Kirschner
@glennkirschner2
Evening All. Today's installment of "Prosecuting Trump and Company: A Citizen's Guide", FALSE STATEMENTS, 18 U.S. CODE SEC. 1001. It’s a federal felony to make a “false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation . . . in any matter within the jurisdiction of executive,
legislative or judicial branch of the government of the United States.” How’s that for a sweeping prohibition?
This crime applies in various settings. For example, when Bob Mueller’s investigators conducted interviews during the Russia investigation, witnesses who lied
were committing what prosecutors refer to as a “1001 violation.” Think of the now infamous incident of Mike Flynn lying to FBI agents about whether he discussed w/the Russians the possible lifting of sanctions. This law also applies to testimony before congressional committees.
Read 6 tweets
Profile picture
Glenn Kirschner
@glennkirschner2
Judge Sullivan is absolutely right to proceed in the way he is. Consider: if a prosecutor walked into court and said, “Judge, the defendant has paid me one million dollars to dismiss this case, accordingly, the government moves to dismiss.” Flynn’s position is that,
notwithstanding an express bribe, the judge would have no discretion but must simply grant the motion to dismiss, thereby facilitating the criminal agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant. That position is absurd and makes a mockery of the law.
Barr and Flynn’s joint
request to dismiss Flynn’s case is just as nefarious, improper and unjust as the above hypothetical. Judge Sullivan has an affirmative obligation to prevent this type of fraud from being perpetrated on the criminal justice system and the American people. Because #JusticeMatters
Read 3 tweets

Embed code for your website

×
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!