Im pretty sure since he plead " no contest" that it cant be used in court against him. Im not a lawyer so I could be way off base with that.
-
Reminder: Do not call, text, or mention harrassing someone in real life. Do not encourage it. Do not talk about killing or using violence against anyone, or engaging in any criminal behavior. If it is not an obvious joke even when taken out of context, don't post it.
Do not post IRL pranks here without including the source
Robinson et al v. City of Milwaukee et al
- Thread starter Cumtown Fags
- Start date
Listening to the Potentially Criminal podcast, the host thought a settlement was likely for a couple reasons. 1) it's in Federal Court, so a the judgment could be massive if they win. 2) he mentioned they'll have their insurer look at this prior to trial to figure out what they might recommend for a settlement and get the city/cops off the hook
Isn't the entire point of Pat's lawsuit "the police know who I am and therefore have to follow my orders whenever they show up at my house?"
You can't have it both ways: the police are aware of what a victim I am, but they aren't aware of what a belligerent violent drunk I am.
I refuse to believe the City of Milwaukee would have come this far unless they have an ace in the hole (i.e. evidence linking Pat to at least one self-swat).
I’m always dubious taking any YouTube lawyers opinion that seriously and I’m guessing he is basing this on the Stephanie Rapkin settlement which was a bit different from Pat’s situation. It really comes down to if the City feels a jury will side with them against Pat and we really don’t know everything that was said and done in the police bodycam footage. It could be damning for the police or it could be damning for Pat. It’s flip a coin really.
They wouldn't wait to bring that up during a lawsuit. They'd give it to the prosecutor and have this hog tied.
But that's Pat's argument to prove, not the City's.
They haven't gone through discovery yet and all their submissions like video and photos are sealed to public. There are A LOT of things we haven't seen yet.
But that's the issue (and the blame lies with the MPD). Patrick's entire case is how the cops made multiple visits, so they should have been made aware the 911 calls coming in are probably false. If this were a Rodney King or George Floyd situation then yeah, the cops wouldn't know the suspect's history before using force against them.
But you have to consider both sides in terms of being "aware" of Patrick. In typical narcissist pig fashion, he demands the cops only be aware of the things that help his case (he's a perpetual swatting target) while not being aware of the things that hurt his case (he's a violent psychopath with a criminal history of threatening violence to family members).
Pat has issue with 7 of the swats according to the court filing.
The first two can be blown out immediately as they were the first two swats and the police cant reasonably expect to know of Pat's issues or have a system in place. With leaked audio of the first we know he was already belligerent and aggressive.
The other 5 consist of Pat being annoyed that the officers wanted to See Niki and/or check the premises. After him/they refusing, the officer(s) threatened to break the door in. After Pat/Niki showed themselves or let the officer(s) check the hovel, the officer(s) left.
Of these 5, only twice was the threat of breaking the door issued, With officers leaving as soon as Pat or Niki complied.
At least one of these incidents we have on camera (niki) showing Pat being belligerent and aggressive (again).
No doubt he was antagonistic in the two times that he was baiting Evans to kick the door in.
Pats own words he resisted handcuffing and wouldn't follow instructions. Every single time he run to social media to perpetuate it.
All of this whilst wasting police resources with other ridiculous complaints like people making fun of his dead pet on twitter.
Would a man who really wanted this situation resolved, run to social media and report every single successful attempt.
If he was serious, would he be putting sarcastic "X days since this house was swatted" signs instead of a notice to the police explaining the situation and the name of a superior officer that could be contacted to verify this claim.
Does the victim of a Swat where the report was that he killed his spouse, constantly refuse to show his spouse when asked unless he were trying to provoke the police into action?
The first two can be blown out immediately as they were the first two swats and the police cant reasonably expect to know of Pat's issues or have a system in place. With leaked audio of the first we know he was already belligerent and aggressive.
The other 5 consist of Pat being annoyed that the officers wanted to See Niki and/or check the premises. After him/they refusing, the officer(s) threatened to break the door in. After Pat/Niki showed themselves or let the officer(s) check the hovel, the officer(s) left.
Of these 5, only twice was the threat of breaking the door issued, With officers leaving as soon as Pat or Niki complied.
At least one of these incidents we have on camera (niki) showing Pat being belligerent and aggressive (again).
No doubt he was antagonistic in the two times that he was baiting Evans to kick the door in.
Pats own words he resisted handcuffing and wouldn't follow instructions. Every single time he run to social media to perpetuate it.
All of this whilst wasting police resources with other ridiculous complaints like people making fun of his dead pet on twitter.
Would a man who really wanted this situation resolved, run to social media and report every single successful attempt.
If he was serious, would he be putting sarcastic "X days since this house was swatted" signs instead of a notice to the police explaining the situation and the name of a superior officer that could be contacted to verify this claim.
Does the victim of a Swat where the report was that he killed his spouse, constantly refuse to show his spouse when asked unless he were trying to provoke the police into action?
What does that have to do with what I said??? Let's think this over.
"Oh judge we'd like to enter evidence of Mr. Tomlinson committing federal crimes that he has not been charged, tried or convicted for into evidence."
"Alllllright!"
Really?
I'm not going to take the Lawtuber's review as gospel, but some of the points on the questionnaire that Sgt Evans admitted to are big fawkin problems for their defense. Like admitting to having previous knowledge of Fat's issues of ongoing harassment, and despite seeing Stinky was alright through the door, they still demanded entry and searched their hovel.
You can turn the snark back down to 6, Turry Tomlinson
Tomlinson's Law states he will do something more stupid than anyone could have predicted so I think a scenario like this is actually pretty likely. Like this, just even more retarded.
Imagine a sitcom character who will be getting a cheque for 1 million dollars as long as they don't Tweet before midnight. How's that going to work out?
It's 11.50pm. Pat is looking at his phone. There is sweat on his brow. We hear his inner monologue: "I've basically done it! I can easily not send a Tweet in the next ten minutes".
Cutaway to outside the hovel
Narrator's voice: He could not.
End credits.
Pigster's Millions
Fuck off Dan
Okay, Matlock. Have a great Sunday, faggot.
