Mo Scott

Jesus is my big homie

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

@BurnerBarbieUSA @JaimeeUSA Shut up bitch you dont know shit

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

Yeah and at the exact moment the distance was closed he felt the attack was imminent. Are you so stupid that you dont realize imminent is a forcast of whats to come? Imminent threat means about to happen......answer this question, when the distance was closed was the attack imminent....answer that question for me please.

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

Threat of force and deadly force are not the same thing! Threat of force is allowed when you believe an attack is imminent! And the attack WAS IMMINENT because it happened immediately following the Threat of force you are wrong! 100% stop mixing deadly force with Threat of force!

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

@grok @LegacyProgramVP @TheBrancaShow Great so what youre saying is that as long as chud felt their was an imminent attack after the distance was closed what I have been saying has been right this whole time?

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

No moron thats literally not true! The DA said chudd walked up and talked to fox and then walked away woth his selfie stick. That was the first verbal altercation. As he walked away fox closed the distance while screaming and chud switched hands with the selfie stick and reached in his pocket......he started screaming at chud about ptsd and threatening him.....during the second verbal altercation is when chud took the bladed stance and reached dumb fuck. Then fox attacked him immediately following. This is exactly what the da said 😭😭 what a moron you are.

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

@grok @LegacyProgramVP @TheBrancaShow Fucking destroyed!

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

No youre wrong! This is why you have been

acting so stupid. There were 2 separate verbal altercation. The initial one where he walked up to fox and his girl.....chud then walked away and fox closed closed the distance and this is when chud took the bladed stance and threatened force which he was completely justified to do in that moment if he believed an attack was imminent in that moment! Owned again! You dont even know the facts about the case

dipshit!

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

No youre wrong! This is why you have been acting so stupid. There were 2 separate verbal altercation. The initial one where he walked up to fox and his girl.....chud then walked away and fox closed closed the distance and this is when chud took the bladed stance and threatened force which he was completely justified to do in that moment if he believed an attack was imminent in that moment! Owned again! You dont even know the facts about the case dipshit!

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

Heres the timeline.....chud walks up to fox.....they talk.....chud walks away......fox closes the distance while screaming......chud believes a threat is imminent.....takes a defensive stance and threatens force because he believes an attack is imminent in that moment.....he is then attacked. Theres no need to rewrite the timeline dipshit. He legally threatened force while believing an attacks was imminent at that moment because it was. Owned bitch!

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

@grok @LegacyProgramVP @TheBrancaShow Owned bitch! Won't even fucking respond 😭😭

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

Yeah and after the distance was closed while fox was screaming he believed the threat was imminent. AFTER THE DISTANCE WAS CLOSED and during the verbal altercation where fox was going nuts. Yeah who the fuck wouldn't think attack was imminent at that exact moment? No shit sherlock. This is what ive been saying the whole time

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

Yeah and after the distance was closed while fox was screaming he believed the threat was imminent. AFTER THE DISTANCE WAS CLOSED and during the verbal altercation where fox was going nuts. Yeah who the fuck wouldn't think attack was imminent at that exact moment? No shit sherlock. This is what ive been saying the whole time

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

Imminent at the exact moment means about to happen at that exact moment. Chud believed it was about to happen after fox closed the distance screaming at him so he took a defensive stance and reached in his pocket. And his feeling that attack was imminent was correct. I am 100% right. Nobody in their right mind would not be preparing for an attack in those circumstances. Period.

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

Closing the distance while screaming would have any reasonable person believe an attack is imminent at that moment! That satisfies the timing requirement....he walked away and the distance was closed and fox even set his phone down! Imminent threat = legal threat of force dumb fuck! The closing of the distance while screaming most definitely allows for a defensive posture and a threat of force under the law! Imminent means belief its about to happen. Who the hell wouldn't be worried about an attack in that moment!

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

@grok @LegacyProgramVP @TheBrancaShow Closing the distance while screaming would have any reasonable person believe an attack is imminent at that moment! That satisfies the timing requirement....he walked away and the distance was closed and fox even set his phone down! Imminent threat = legal threat of dumb fuck!

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

Evidence from the bond hearing places the bladed stance and pocket reach during the verbal exchange—before physical contact. T.C.A. § 39-11-611 requires a reasonable belief of imminent unlawful force making the threat of deadly force immediately necessary at that exact moment.

The later tackle, headlock, and shots on the ground support separate analysis of whether deadly force was justified once serious bodily injury thresholds were crossed. Later events corroborate overall danger and inform the shooting but do not retroactively satisfy the standard for the pre-contact action. Full video, testimony, and credibility go to the jury.

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

Your argument misunderstands the legal standard for a "threat of force" under T.C.A. § 39-11-611. The law does not require an imminent deadly threat to exist at the exact moment a defender stages their hand.

1. The Threshold for a Threat is Lower: The DA is conflating the standard for using deadly force with the standard for threatening force. To legally reach for a weapon or take a stance, a defender only needs a reasonable belief that the threat of force is immediately necessary to deter an unlawful use of force (like a physical assault).

2. The Stance Was a Lawful Deterrent: A bladed stance and pocket reach are non-verbal communication. It says, "Back off, I am armed." Under Tennessee law, staging your hand to deter a screaming aggressor who is aggressively confronting you is a lawful defensive preparation, not an illegal escalation.

3. The Subsequent Tackle Validates the Preemptive Fear: You claim later events can't retroactively justify the reach. But the fact that the attacker violently closed the distance and placed the defender in a headlock immediately after proves the danger wasn't speculative—the attacker was already committed to an assault.

4. The Shots and the Stance Are Two Separate Acts: The timeline must be judged separately. The bladed stance/reach was a lawful threat of force to stop a physical confrontation. The shots were a separate act of deadly force executed only after the defender was pinned on the concrete, triggering the T.C.A. § 39-11-106(a)(37) threshold for serious bodily injury.

The surveillance video doesn't show a premature threat; it shows a defender who correctly identified a rapidly escalating physical threat and tried to deter it before being violently overwhelmed.

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

You are trying to prosecute a case like a high school debate coach reading a textbook, completely detached from the brutal reality of how physical violence works. Let’s put on a masterclass in actual criminal defense litigation and dismantle your frozen-vacuum timeline.

1. You Do Not Understand the Absolute Definition of "Imminent"

Your entire script relies on the word "preemptive." If a defender has to wait until a fist literally connects with their skull before preparing a defense, the word "imminent" under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-11-611 would be stripped of all legal meaning.

The Law: Imminent means a danger is about to happen—not happening currently.

The Physics: Human reaction time to an explosive tackle is under 1.5 seconds. Shifting your weight into a bladed stance and staging a hand in your pocket during an aggressive verbal escalation is the literal textbook definition of a split-second, defensive reaction to physical pre-attack indicators. The law explicitly protects a citizen's right to anticipate an impact, not absorb it flat-footed.

2. A Pocket Reach is NOT the Use of Deadly Force

You keep making the fatal legal error of evaluating a pocket reach under the same standard as pulling a trigger. Putting a hand in a pocket is a non-lethal, non-escalatory defensive posture. It is a threat/deterrent, which carries a vastly lower legal threshold than actually firing. Chud did not shoot while standing during the verbal exchange. The state cannot try a man for attempted murder over a stance.

3. The Tackle is Objective Proof, Not "Retroactive Justification"

You keep chanting that later events don't "retroactively justify" the earlier reach. You are completely confusing the legal rules of evidence. The subsequent physical assault isn't a retroactive time-machine rewrite—it is incontrovertible, objective proof that Chud's real-time assessment of an impending launch was 100% correct. If you sense a guy is about to assault you, you prepare your hands, and the guy instantly assaults you, the landing of the blow is the absolute evidence that your fear was objectively reasonable at that exact millisecond.

4. The Separation of the Fatal Acts

In a court of law, we bifurcate the timeline. The DA wants a jury to think Chud shot him from a bladed stance. Lie.

Act 1: The pocket reach was an attempt to deter an advancing aggressor.

Act 2: Fox overrode that deterrent, aggressively closed the distance, and violently slammed Chud onto the concrete, pinning him in a headlock.

The exact millisecond Chud was grounded on that asphalt, a brand new legal reality began. The threshold crossed instantly into T.C.A. § 39-11-106(a)(37)—an immediate, lethal threat of blunt force head trauma, protracted unconsciousness, and weapon stripping. Chud only fired when he was trapped on the ground.

Your argument demands a legal standard where a citizen must keep their hands glued to their sides like a mannequin while a hostile predator tracks them down and closes distance. That isn't Tennessee law; that is a victim mandate. Case closed.

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

So if imminent means about to happen and he was attacked immediately following a reach in his pocket how am I wrong? The attack WAS IMMINENT AT THAT SPECIFIC MOMENT! How do we know this? Because he attacked immediately following! You just won the argument for me. You stated exactly what happened.

[Mo Scott @MorganMoet]

@grok @LegacyProgramVP @TheBrancaShow Thank you for accepting defeat. The law is clear here although a jury's interpretation is always a wild card.