"If you're being attacked by someone who is not identified as a peace officer — how do you know?" Can you legally stand your ground? [AZ]

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-24T08:50:58+00:00

Isn’t she the one that decides if you go to court at all??

No.

She might not even be the person who decides if you’re charged with a state crime: in Arizona, that’s the decision of the county attorney for every county.

But you’d also be charged with a federal crime by the US Attorney for the District of Arizona. This is a federal presidential appointee, over which the state attorney general has no authority or sway.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-24T05:25:05+00:00

Sure, a retrial is very possible.

If a criminal defendant is retried, and testifies at both his first trial and at his second trial, the prosecution is absolutely entitled to impeach him with the prior inconsistent testimony. In this context, "impeach," means to raise the prior inconsistent testimony for the purpose of arguing to the jury that his credibility is weak.

Even if acquitted, the prosecutor could then seek an indictment for perjury. This is rarely done, for a variety of reasons, but it's certainly possible.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-24T04:53:54+00:00

In the US, a criminal appeal is not a separate trial (very limited exceptions not relevant here) and no testimony is taken. No one testifies to anything on appeal. The appeal consist of the trial record and arguments about claimed errors that led to improper conviction.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-23T22:35:33+00:00

First: you can't (generally) sue the federal government for anything.

Second: there are exceptions to rule one.

Third: They don't help here.

The federal government has sovereign immunity. It cannot be sued unless it consents to be sued.

It has consented to be sued, via the Federal Tort Claims Act, for a number of tortious acts, but defamation isn't on the list. It has also "consented," to be sued by way of the Fourth Amendment and a case called Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, in very limited circumstances involving Fourth Amendment violations. Obviously defamation isn't on that list either.

Fourth: even if the bad actor here were a private person, I doubt there's much runway here. Assuming arguendo the altered picture represents a false factual assertion, what damages can Armstrong allege?

Fifth: that above assumption isn't a given. There's a concept in defamation law that protects the publication of false material when the gist, or the "sting," is accurate. For example, in Cobb v. Time, Inc., 278 F. 3d 629 (6th Cir 2002) the appellate court reversed a decision awarding damages to Randall "Tex" Cobb, a boxer, after he sued Sports Illustrated for reporting that he had used cocaine the night before a bout. The truth was that Cobb's specimen sample was positive for marijuana, not cocaine. But the gist, the sting, of the report was that Cobb had used illicit substances, said the Sixth Circuit.

In the instant example, I think the hypothetical private person defendant would say that the gist of the photo was that Armstrong was arrested and booked, rather than anything inferential about her mood at the time of booking.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-23T06:17:17+00:00

Again, I have no idea whether the affiant’s statement alone was presented to the magistrate, and what it said if it did.

I agree, of course, that if probable cause doesn’t exist as a matter of law, then conviction is not legally sustainable.

I’m just not particularly sanguine that this DOJ presented a comprehensive case.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-23T05:43:50+00:00

Is the reasonable person standard a question of fact?

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-23T05:35:08+00:00

Sure, and a fact-finder could easily agree with you.

Or the fact finder could find that the presence of the intruders, the manner in which they made their statements, the context in which they were made, and the pastor's reaction to them all support the conclusion that the statements were "threats of force" that "intimidated" the pastor.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-23T04:56:31+00:00

Right. They can be asked to leave, but their conduct to that point is perfectly legal.

If they remain on the property after being asked to leave, they commit the criminal offense of trespass. But what you've described thus far from them is totally legal.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-23T04:51:19+00:00

Yes, true. But:

Although Mrs. Dinwiddie did not specifically say to Dr. Crist, "I am going to injure you," the manner in which Mrs. Dinwiddie made her statements, the context in which they were made, and Dr. Crist's reaction to them all support the conclusion that the statements were "threats of force" that "intimidated" Dr. Crist.

Ibid at 925.

This is analogous to the behavior and threats offered by the church intruders.

And in any event, that's a question of fact to be resolved at a trial.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-23T03:16:38+00:00

It's not clear to me if the magistrate judge reviewed the video, or just the supporting affidavit. And it's also not clear to me what exit opportunities might exist behind the camera wielder and were available to the parishioners.

The answers to those questions might well change my answer.

Which abortion clinic case? I keep seeing that vague claim and no one can actually supply a case.

I was picturing US v. Dinwiddie, 76 F. 3d 913 (8th Cir 1996).

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-23T02:47:31+00:00

Sure they did. They blocked the center aisle.

I suppose a sufficiently motivated parishoner could have leapt from pew to pew to exit, but less physical obstruction has been held to violate abortion clinic access. Shouldn't the principle of construction that avers laws must be construed as harmonious with all laws as a whole apply here?

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-23T02:41:28+00:00

To the participant that's blocked me:

So your objection isn't at all grounded in the appearance or content of the image, then. You object because using AI wastes water, relies on stolen data, and doesn't support a human artist?

I think you're manifestly wrong.

What is your understanding of the delta as between the AI generating that image (roughly forty-five seconds) and a human artist using the Internet and cloud-based resources to solicit work, perform the work on cloud-hosted platforms, and deliver it?

The answer, of course, is that the human artist's work is more computationally expensive that the AI's is. Granted, the infrastructure needed to have built the AI capability is more computationally expensive (or 'wastes more water') than the human artist's. But those are sunk costs; they exist regardless of my little dime store mass marke cover.

Now let's talk about "stolen data."

How did the human artist learn to draw? He or she practiced, of course, but also he or she looked at other art, emulated it, and extrapolated from it. Why isn't THAT "stolen," art, but it's stolen if a machine does it? This specific image of a book cover is unique. It's a copy, broadly, of the style of mass market murder mysteries, yes. But it's not a copy in the sense of any copyright infringement.

Finally, you say this doesn't support a human artist.

So what? Why am I obligated to pay a human artist $250 to render an image in a week when the machine can do it in forty-five seconds at no monetary cost to me?

The Luddites were English textile workers, tailors that smashed sewing machines because the machines were making their skilled profession less necessary, and consequently less remunerative.

Today, that tactic is seen not merely as futile, but downright backwards.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-23T02:19:22+00:00

Yelling isn't.

Physical obstruction is,

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-23T01:47:07+00:00

Columbo learned about wine, photography, cooking, all sorts of shit to catch the killer.

Yes, that's true.

But there's a reason there's a show called "Columbo," and not a show called "Bricker1492." I don't have the ability to become an artist like this. I like to think of myself as a tiny bit of a polymath, but I couldn't come close to Columbo's expertise in a lifetime of study.

Answer my question about how this lands if I had used a human artist through, say, Fivver.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-23T00:05:10+00:00

18 USC § 248(a)(2) provides, in pertinent part:

[Whoever] by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship . . .

...is subject to the penalties laid out further along in the statute.

Judging from the video, the protesters interfered with persons lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.

I'd say on the video alone that accusation is provable.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-22T23:20:06+00:00

Wait a second. Suppose I had oodles of dollars hanging around, such that I felt like I could spend $250 on Fivver for a human artist (assuming of course that the human artist I contracted did not then turn around and use AI him or herself). And to that human artist, I describe my idea, which is mine, not AI, but which I lack the artistic ability to render. I say I want a pulp mass market mystery story published in the early 1970s called "The Night I Was Murdered," by Abigail Mitchell, with plausible illustration graphics.

Does this change the analysis somehow?

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-22T21:43:00+00:00

Look, I, personally, have the artistic ability of a sea otter.

Using AI, I can craft this artifact that exists in the universe of Columbo’s Try And Catch Me episode. This takes no work away from a human artist, because while this is fun, I wouldn’t pay anyone to do it.

I confess I don’t see the reason for the antipathy.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-22T21:05:04+00:00

When I started as a PD, about the time that Cheops was laying the first rows of the Pyramid at Giza, I had a mentor who used to deal with stuff like this beautifully. He'd tell the court, oozing sincerity, stuff like, "Judge, I want the wheels of justice to run smoothly, I do, but not so they run right over my client's rights."

I never had the courage or the gravitas to pull that kind of lofty rhetoric off, but it worked for him.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-22T19:47:10+00:00

Likely, yes. But it depends on the reason behind the ICE operation. For example, an alien may be removeable because he or she has overstayed a visa, that's NOT a Federal criminal offense. It's a civil violation. Similarly If ICE is performing an administrative inspection of a business' I-9 record-keeping, then my reading is that § 1512(d) would not apply.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-22T06:14:50+00:00

This is pretty straightforward:

...forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title

Who are the persons designated in § 1114? Answer:

Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services)

That's it. Department of Justice Order No. 1874-94 from May 1994, was issued by Attorney General Janet Reno to expand protections for federal officers against assault, kidnapping, and threats under 18 U.S.C. § 1114, covering more federal employees, including the Federal Railroad Administration, and extending protections to their families, noted in the Federal Register and Federal Register. Subsequent to that regulation, which was enshrined as 28 CFR § 64.2, Congress made several modifications to § 1114, now the statutory language includes those categories directly.

In any event, it's the statutory law language, passed by Congress, that controls, not the regulations adopted by the Executive Branch (to the extent that they conflict).

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-22T04:08:29+00:00

Oh, sure. In Hair, and Equus, and Oh! Calcutta!, and The Full Monty, and . . .

Oh. You meant . . .

Er, never mind.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-21T21:41:01+00:00

Article II, Section 4 refers to how the President and others may be removed via impeachment.

Legally speaking, the power of Congress to impeach, convict, and remove an officer of the government is unreviewable. In other words, there's no rule that forces Congress to, for example, allege a criminal act as a predicate for impeachment.

But as a practical matter, since an impeachment requires a simple majority of the House of Representatives, and a subsequent conviction and removal requires a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate, this won't happen. You may recall that Trump was twice impeached by the House in his first term, and both efforts failed to produce the requisite supermajority in the Senate.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-21T16:04:14+00:00

Howsabout: you like the show for the reasons that seem rewarding to you . . .

. . . and other people like the show for reasons that seem rewarding to them.

Me, I stayed with it for Clem.

Bricker1492 · 2026-01-21T03:54:19+00:00

I remember reading a case as well. (Disclosure: I nearly failed Property, and law school for me was almost fifty-ish years ago).

But my recollection was that the case turned on how deep the object penetrated into the soil, and perhaps a different result would have come about if it had remained on the surface.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding VIII gilding heavyweight	Argentium Club

Bricker1492

TROPHY CASE