💀 Horrorcow Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta / "u/Early-Leopard-8351" - Polysubstance abusing puppy snuffing cuckold who dosed his child, "Lawtube pope" turned zesty Dabbleverse streamer. Swinger visitor of 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Seethed at his ex-BF Aaron on REDDIT. Wife's gunted and toed bod worth $50. Drives like a Jeet.

Friday hearing outcome?

  • DENIED!

    Głosy: 40 9,9%

  • Upheld against Patrick Melton only.

    Głosy: 14 3,5%

  • Upheld against Nicholas Rekieta only.

    Głosy: 12 3,0%

  • Another win for the toe!

    Głosy: 192 47,5%

  • Continuance...

    Głosy: 146 36,1%
  • Łączna liczba głosujących
    404
  • Ankieta zamknięta .
Wyróżnienie
Mandatory User Name powiedział(a):
Not sure if it's been brought up but do you think that Nick's original Public Defender (who Nick Lambasted) would have done a better job than the Barnes Recommended Locals Lawyer who put everything on the Franks Hearing and forgot to do a bunch of other important filings?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
That lawyer probably would have told him that he sounds like a faggot and his shit is all retarded, and to sit his non-practicing ass down while a decent plea is negotiated. So yes.
 
Potatoherder powiedział(a):
Sean just outed Nick for shower texts. Seems Nick was trying to hold over the fact Sean went to Nick when Monty threatened Sean over the claims about Monty's film. I assume it's heated if he did that. Around 38mins from the start of the stream if i did the math correctly.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I just find it amusing that Nick's reaction to that is to try holding that over Sean's head. Not having any sort of introspection about the situation. Not saying something like "Gee, if Sean's looking at this and realizing he was mistaken about things, maybe I should re-examine this information and see if I should come to the same conclusion." No, nothing even remotely like that.

Rackets really is that Principal Skinner meme. LOL
 
NO YOU GUYS! IT'S ALL PART OF THE CONSPURIZY. . . I CAN'T TELL MUH STORY YET!
THERE'S SO MUCH YOU DON'T KNOW . . . I WISH I COULD TELL YOU BUT I CAN'T . . .
ONE DAY I'LL BE ABLE TO TELL YOU MUH STORY . . . AND YOU'LL SEE IT WAS ALL A CONSPURIZY!
Copy of Please.png Copy of Please (2).png
EDIT: formatting
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
thebigdream powiedział(a):
Thanks for reminding me that I'm too retarded to understand the Monty Hall problem
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Consider an analogous problem:

A bucket contains 1 red marble and 99 green marbles. You win a prize for picking red.

You pick a marble. Then 98 green marbles are removed from the bucket, leaving one marble.

Would you like to swap to the one marble remaining in the bucket?
 
Carpe Jugulum powiedział(a):
Also, Barnes should go choke on a Balldo for his 100% incorrect take. Feels like the right thing to do.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Well, he said everyone who gave shitty wrong takes about Balldo's case should never be trusted again, so I guess that fat puffed up popinjay can suck it.
Harm powiedział(a):
Nicholas, as your father, we collectively forbid you from streaming tonight. It's for your own good, kid.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
No, you've got to say it in a really faggy way to make it work.
 
analrapist powiedział(a):
I'll try explain it, because it's not that complicated. There are only three moving parts in the classic formula.

You have three doors, A, B, and C, behind one of which has a prize.

You choose A. The host eliminates C and gives you the option to stay with A or choose B. The winning move (50% chance) is to choose B.

The logic is no more complicated. When you choose A, you have a 1 in 3 chance. The host eliminates C and provides you new information. This changes the probability of C from 1 in 3 to zero. Because this is new information, the probability of B changes. The probability of A has not changed. But because the probability of C has changed, and A has not changed because it cannot, because you've already chosen it, the probability of B changes to accommodate. B is now a 1-in-2 chance of being correct because an incorrect option was eliminated. Your choice of A is still a 1-in-3 chance because C was eliminated as a consequence of your selection of A. Given that B is now 1-in-2, B is the correct play.

I get that it's kind of counterintuitive to think about, but the more you know about the probability underlying it all, the more it checks out.

In this context, Balldo knew that a judge gave a bad outcome, and rolled the bones on a better. The parallel is a little strained, but I imagine someone with a better legal grasp could explain it using Bayesian principles.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Something feels off about your explanation, but I'm not smart enough to properly dissect it. I feel like the following explanation makes more sense. Assuming you take a sample of 1000 (or whatever arbitrarily large number) test runs where you always pick A, and then switch to B or C:

1/3 of the time A is the correct choice, but you switched to B or C, so you lose.
1/3 of the time B is the correct choice, and you switched to B, you win!
1/3 of the time C is the correct choice, and you switched to C, you win!

Therefore, if you always switch, you have a 1/3 chance of being wrong, and 2/3 chance of being right.
 
AnOminous powiedział(a):
That really depends on the case and the defendant. Kyle Rittenhouse took the stand to great effect in a case he likely would otherwise have lost.

Nick taking the stand would be suicide. He'd be impaled.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
You don't know what you're talking about. Barnes and Nick both said it was a mistake to put Kyle on the stand - when have they ever been wrong? Check mate Scandinavian Prude!
 
Who's Deeply fucked now Rackets? Man you are so going to eat the whole L, and I bet you eat the whole charge to protect the Women and kids in your life, as you should! We told you to pull up Baldo Man!
 
House Cat powiedział(a):
NO YOU GUYS! IT'S ALL PART OF THE CONSPURIZY. . . I CAN'T TELL MUH STORY YET!
THERE'S SO MUCH YOU DON'T KNOW . . . I WISH I COULD TELL YOU BUT I CAN'T . . .
ONE DAY I'LL BE ABLE TO TELL YOU MUH STORY . . . AND YOU'LL SEE IT WAS ALL A CONSPURIZY!
Wyświetl załącznik 6452974 Wyświetl załącznik 6453013
EDIT: formatting
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I'm still waiting for the story about how he can sleep at night knowing his lawyer recommendation ruined Vic's life, and that he made bank off the back of the guy in super chats.

Sounds like quite the scam to me.
 
It looks like the practicing lawyers were, in fact, right.
Time to fire up a stream to explain this 26.67g chess move and snort up some snow.
 
Wyróżnienie
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole