Former FSU WR Travis Rudolph arrested on 1st Degree Murder

[JG14]

Love how he is ex-NFL player. Zero doubt that would say ex-UM player if he went to UM

 

[camber_2374]

Look, you can spin this any way you want. I said what I said. This isn't about "writing a legal memo". This thread is 2 years old. Someone recently bumped it, and several people misstated wild non-law-school-grad takes on legal issues. I'm just trying to provide context and explanation to some folks who may not be aware of, say, why "stand your ground" does not apply here, and I only took issue with one hardhead who kept pressing his own personal opinions on what the law is, or should be.

As for your take on the facts, it really doesn't matter. We both know why those less relevant issues are being presented, and it's for jury nullification purposes.

All I'm asking FROM YOU is to be honest.

1. "The woman texted her brother(s) to basically shoot Rudolph". And? Outside of trying to gin up jury nullification, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? First, if people were indicted and convicted for their angry/upset texts, half of America would be doing jail time right now. Second, and more importantly, where is the evidence that the four men did ANYTHING to follow through on her angry texts? Did these four guys show up at Rudolph's door with guns drawn and holsters full of ammo refills? NO. Therefore, the use of texts to show HER frame of mind has nothing to do with anything outside of emotions. I can ask you to commit a crime. That doesn't mean you have to do it.

2. This "attack". Be more specific, please. Did four guys show up to confront Rudolph, based on (sadly) an exaggeration of the situation? Sure. But arguments and misunderstandings happen all the time. Here's a thought...if you JUST had an argument with a female, and then four guys (some of them related to the female) show up at your front door, DON'T OPEN THE DOOR. Or at least open the door WHILE HOLDING A GUN. Either response is fine and legally permissible, and would not have resulted in a trial for Rudolph. But opening the door unarmed, and then LATER running back into the house and chasing guys down to execute them IS WHY RUDOLPH IS IN A TRIAL RIGHT NOW. So...I don't know...maybe choose the decision that will not ruin your life for two years while you prepare for trial and spend your life savings on a defense attorney? Right?

3. I don't know why you think the video of her hitting Rudolph earlier in the day means anything (outside of jury nullification). Here's a thought. Don't have an affair with a married woman and/or cheat on that married woman. It doesn't take a lengthy search of this board to find a bunch of posters who like to tell the rest of the board how the *** is SO HOT with a "crazy woman". And then later, these same posters will BEMOAN the fact that some "crazy woman" accused some friend-of-a-friend with something and now that guy is doing 200 years in jail or some such nonsense. So, again, I'm just spitballing here, maybe avoid crazy people and bad decisions made by crazy people, right? OR ELSE, if you play with that kind of fire, maybe wear some flame-retardant clothing and keep a fire extinguisher handy.

4. Finally, I'm going to skip a bunch of the rest of your post and go to ONE THING you wrote near the end. Which is that you think it's a "reasonable belief" that people "going back to a car" are going to retrieve a gun.

a. At THAT MOMENT, Rudolph is unarmed. So WHY would anyone need to "go back to a car" to retrieve a gun, particularly with a 4-on-2 advantage? And why, if they are willing to shoot an unarmed man, would they have left the proverbial cannoli in the car? Why wouldn't they have brought the guns FROM THE OUTSET? First, they have no idea what they are facing, exactly, so why wouldn't you "overprepare"? Second, people have claimed that they went there with "violent intentions", but why would they start out with a "peaceful" approach not involving guns from the beginning, if they are so prone to go and get the guns later?

b. If we are supposed to have a "reasonable belief" that every retreat, every situation where someone walks away, is just "I'm going to my car to get my gun", then not only are we going to have a lot of neighborhood violence, we are also going to have a lot of INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS that lead to needless bloodshed. Because IF IF IF "going back to the car" was such a reasonable predicate for "I'm coming back with an ****nal", then it would HAPPEN MORE in real life (not just John Wick movies) and there would be a lot more stories about neighborhood gun battles. Or, you know, such an assumption of "going back to the car to load up" might be completely unwarranted, right?



Maybe there will be a hung jury. Maybe. But unlike some of the dopey "Team Rudolph" fanboys, this is not a binary all-or-nothing case. People on BOTH sides of the argument should be convicted of crimes. Maybe the prosecution offered immunity, and we won't see charges against the female or the guys who confronted Rudolph. But to act as if Rudolph should "walk free" is to ignore the lengthy series of bad choices he made that have complicated the last two years of his life and finances.

People cheat all the time. People argue all the time. Domestic violence happens all the time. But the reason why there aren't more neighborhood gun battles involving 39 rounds of semi-automatic gunfire is that most people make better decisions, either to "not open the door" or to "call the police" or to "not run outside like you're John Wick".

I feel bad for Rudolph, I really do. I could definitely see a "lesser charge" being an agreeable compromise. But you have to step back and look at what really happened. Just be honest.really

Again I think legally the facts I mentioned don’t really matter. But I could see something like her hitting him first and then asking her brothers to shoot his **** up mattering to someone on a jury. I’m trying to be honest lol. I’m trying to not think like a lawyer and think more like an average Florida citizen because that’s who will decide his fate.

Though even if I think like a lawyer. Knowing what I know about this case. If I’m Rudolph’s attorneys, I like my chances of getting at least one juror to think it’s self defense. That’s just my opinion, I’m no criminal defense attorney or prosecutor so my opinion holds little to no weight lol.

Edit: deleted a comment regarding Rudolph testimony. Thought he testified there were guns pointed at him but that came from a tv interview.

 

[301cane]

BOY did we dodge the bullet here! Yes puns intended. Can you imagine if he came here as planned...

Former Miami WR recruit charged with 1st degree murder , half surprising that wasn’t the headline anyway

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Testimony is a form of evidence. Randolph testified that guns were pointed at him from the car. Of course a juror can totally not believe that testimony, but it’s still evidence.

Again I think legally the facts I mentioned don’t really matter. But I could see something like her hitting him first and then asking her brothers to shoot his **** up mattering to someone on a jury. I’m trying to be honest lol. I’m trying to not think like a lawyer and think more like an average Florida citizen because that’s who will decide his fate.

Though even if I think like a lawyer. Knowing what I know about this case. If I’m Rudolph’s attorneys, I like my chances of getting at least one juror to think it’s self defense. That’s just my opinion, I’m no criminal defense attorney or prosecutor so my opinion holds little to no weight lol.

Look, I am fully aware that "testimony" is a form of evidence, so if I left out the word "corroborative", I apologize, as it was not intentional. As I clearly stated in relation to another Florida case (Zimmerman), the person on trial can say whatever. So maybe, just maybe, the absence of any corroboration of a claim by the accused just MIGHT be reason to believe it a little less? People on trial DO tend to say whatever they can to get off of the charges.

Just as an aside, I'm not sure who "Randolph" is, maybe you meant "Rudolph". And I don't think he has taken the stand, defendants rarely do. But maybe he did and I missed it. Or perhaps his statements to police were introduced without him actually testifying before the jury.

The bottom line is still that there was nothing to corroborate this "two guns pointed at him" story.

As for your hung-jury idea...I mean...maybe...but Florida can just try the case again. Why not just plead to manslaughter and go for a minimal sentence? Seems like the prosecution might be more amenable to that now that they see what they have with their witnesses.

Anyhow, here's another case in another country, just to provide some contrast and a pathway to "not every crazy situation requires you to come out blasting like John Wick".

But some good advice is ALWAYS (a) don't open the door, and (b) call the police.

 

[camber_2374]

Look, I am fully aware that "testimony" is a form of evidence, so if I left out the word "corroborative", I apologize, as it was not intentional. As I clearly stated in relation to another Florida case (Zimmerman), the person on trial can say whatever. So maybe, just maybe, the absence of any corroboration of a claim by the accused just MIGHT be reason to believe it a little less? People on trial DO tend to say whatever they can to get off of the charges.

Just as an aside, I'm not sure who "Randolph" is, maybe you meant "Rudolph". And I don't think he has taken the stand, defendants rarely do. But maybe he did and I missed it. Or perhaps his statements to police were introduced without him actually testifying before the jury.

The bottom line is still that there was nothing to corroborate this "two guns pointed at him" story.

As for your hung-jury idea...I mean...maybe...but Florida can just try the case again. Why not just plead to manslaughter and go for a minimal sentence? Seems like the prosecution might be more amenable to that now that they see what they have with their witnesses.

Anyhow, here's another case in another country, just to provide some contrast and a pathway to "not every crazy situation requires you to come out blasting like John Wick".

But some good advice is ALWAYS (a) don't open the door, and (b) call the police.


View attachment 240056

Couldn’t agree more. I’ve thought to myself what would I do in that situation. And it would be to NOT OPEN THE DOOR, call the police, and grab my gun while I wait for the police to come. I live in CA and don’t even own a gun but I would think about owning one if I owned a home and had a family. It’s quite remarkable how many bad decisions were made by all parties involved.

 

[tomi]

Keep making up facts.

Like this nugget of bull****:

"then aim 2 guns at you while they in their getaway car". Good lord, that one is insane in its insanity.



1. "their getaway car"? Were the robbing a bank? It was also "their arrival car".

2. Where is the evidence of "aim 2 guns at you while they in their getaway car"? Because YOU can say it, but it doesn't make it true. Or evidence.

3. So is it your contention that an event that happened LATER (this mythical "aim 2 guns at you") is the JUSTIFICATION for going back inside to bring out a semi-automatic weapon and start shooting before you ever see these "2 guns" aimed at you? Because that would be an amazing trick of time-travel, if true.

4. And, I don't know...but your retelling of hypothetical facts seems to omit other elements of timeline. For instance (for right or wrong) many people have guns in their cars. So maybe, JUST MAYBE, if someone runs up to your car holding a semi-automatic weapon, MAYBE it might be a reasonable response to aim 2 guns at him? Even if the "2 guns" thing was true, it could have been a reaction to a crazy John-Wick-wannabe chasing you down with a semi-automatic weapon.



Go back and re-read this thread. It's not that long, even though it started 2 years ago. I realize there are a lot of SJWs (Street Justice Warriors) on here who try to use their own personal definition of "self-defense", instead of the legal definition of "self-defense". You even do that with "just let them go and hope they don't come back to finish the job". Let them go? Yes. Call the police? Yes. Once again, it's not a John Wick world where you can go back inside to arm yourself while chasing down people to execute them in the street while they are driving away.

Just try not to exaggerate and invent bull****. You just typed "a bunch of dudes trying to literally kill you and your brother", but there is absolutely no evidence of that at trial. No evidence that this "bunch of dudes" tried to LITERALLY kill anyone.

Maybe don't use "literally" if you don't mean it. Adding "literally" when it isn't true doesn't help the argument.

Lol I don’t get why you’re so triggered by this. I’m not gonna pretend that I know every detail of this case because I found out about it yesterday so if I’m misinformed the I’ll own up to it

1. Lol they didn’t rob a bank, they came to assault or maybe even murder a guy. If you want to focus on the “getaway car” portion then so be it. When I say getaway car I think the vehicle everyone tries to get to so they can get away in case things don’t go according to plan. My bad that it also happened to be the car they came there in

2. Lol my evidence is what Travis said happened. “When you’re facing two guns after everything that played through, lights off, I was in fear for my life. At that point, I had the right to defend myself.” I also just watched the brother on the stand and he confirmed that he did being a gun to Travis’ crib but he also said it wasn’t loaded and that he never took it out. But we can confirm that there was at least 1 firearm there that wasn’t his

2 (again). Go to post 247 of this thread and watch the last 30 seconds of that video. You will hear him say that they did in fact have 2 guns aimed at him and then the news coverage seems to show a gun that was recovered that matches his story (I am making some assumptions but they seem reasonable to me)

3. Lol if I’m in that situation and I own semi-automatic weapon, you’d **** right I’m gonna grab it. These dudes just came to my house and assaulted me and my brother. People die everyday bc of things like that so yeah I’ll have my weapon.

4. You keep asking about my evidence when I said the dude said they had two guns. I think I explained how I came up with that conclusion but can I ask where is your evidence that they didn’t have any weapons and he didn’t shoot because he saw them aim a gun at him

5. Your street justice warrior comment is silly to me bc this situation has nothing to do with the “streets” lol. 4 dudes tried to set up a ex-nfl player because one of their sisters lied to them after she got her feeling hurt. Sadly one of them paid the ultimate price but it wasn’t a “street” situation

 

[camber_2374]

Lol I don’t get why you’re so triggered by this. I’m not gonna pretend that I know every detail of this case because I found out about it yesterday so if I’m misinformed the I’ll own up to it

1. Lol they didn’t rob a bank, they came to assault or maybe even murder a guy. If you want to focus on the “getaway car” portion then so be it. When I say getaway car I think the vehicle everyone tries to get to so they can get away in case things don’t go according to plan. My bad that it also happened to be the car they came there in

2. Lol my evidence is what Travis said happened. “When you’re facing two guns after everything that played through, lights off, I was in fear for my life. At that point, I had the right to defend myself.” I also just watched the brother on the stand and he confirmed that he did being a gun to Travis’ crib but he also said it wasn’t loaded and that he never took it out. But we can confirm that there was at least 1 firearm there that wasn’t his

2 (again). Go to post 247 of this thread and watch the last 30 seconds of that video. You will hear him say that they did in fact have 2 guns aimed at him and then the news coverage seems to show a gun that was recovered that matches his story (I am making some assumptions but they seem reasonable to me)

3. Lol if I’m in that situation and I own semi-automatic weapon, you’d **** right I’m gonna grab it. These dudes just came to my house and assaulted me and my brother. People die everyday bc of things like that so yeah I’ll have my weapon.

4. You keep asking about my evidence when I said the dude said they had two guns. I think I explained how I came up with that conclusion but can I ask where is your evidence that they didn’t have any weapons and he didn’t shoot because he saw them aim a gun at him

5. Your street justice warrior comment is silly to me bc this situation has nothing to do with the “streets” lol. 4 dudes tried to set up a ex-nfl player because one of their sisters lied to them after she got her feeling hurt. Sadly one of them paid the ultimate price but it wasn’t a “street” situation

I think a lot of people (especially in Florida), for better or worse agree with you in thinking he was justified. That's why I wouldn't be surprised at all if he gets off. Even though legally the facts might not be on his side.

If this was in the bay area region of CA or in Los Angeles, I would be a lot less confident in him getting off. Their laws are probably more strict when it comes to using deadly force as self-defense, and the jury would probably be less accepting of someone using a gun to defend themselves.

 

[gogeta4]

As someone with a law degree it is cringe to hear someone with a law degree talk down to another person without one. Does that mean they can’t have an opinion on the matter, even if it is not grounded in what the law says? I wonder how many people on the jury have a law degree.

He is right. You’re flat out wrong saying this case is more analogous to the NY case than the George Zimmerman. Especially since it was in a different state with an entirely different criminal statute.

I think you’re right that it is unlikely that a jury will let him off for self defense, but it’s very plausible. Like a previous poster said, with a jury anything is possible. A gun was found near by that they likely threw from their car. Rudolph testified that he saw them pointing guns at him from the car. Will that testimony hold up with a a jury being that all the shots were from Rudolph and hit the back of the car? Unlikely, but who knows with a jury.

There’s a reason why this went to trial. Him and his lawyers calculated that their chances at getting off were worth it enough to not take whatever deal that was offered and go trial. It sounds like you think that calculation was way off and they should have taken a deal?

If this was a bench your trial, your arguments would hold a lot more weight.

I also wonder if it results in a hung jury if the state would try to prosecute again. Do you think they would? I don’t live in Florida but I assume with the facts now known, most Floridians think Rudolph was within his rights, even if the law says he wasn’t.

One of the dudes already admitted he had the gun in his pocket....wasnt thrown from the car he had it supposedly and was running when rudolph came out with his ak....

rudolph is saying he came out witht he ak because they were then beating up hisbrother after assaulting him.

This 1 is interesting.....want to see the results and uproar after.

Its crazy to think the chic caused all of this and she is pretty much scott free in this all..with no charges of anything and has caused the death of her brothers friend...and likely rudolphs jail time....based on a str8 up lie to start the whole thing off.

 

[GAhurricane]

Can't make a hoe a housewife

Moral of this whole story. This should be the title of this thread.

 

[SonicYouth]

"Very violent intentions"...that were not acted upon.

Go back and re-read the thread. I said that Rudolph's mug shot indicated no bruises or cuts evidencing that he was "jumped". People have had 2 years to present evidence of this alleged horrible ordeal that Rudolph and his brother endured...but...crickets...

Loud disagreements (even if based on misunderstanding and/or exaggerations) are not grounds to go inside, get a semi, and chase down a retreating car in a residential neighborhood while firing off 39 rounds.

Real life isn't John Wick. Real life isn't Scarface. Domestic disputes and infidelity arguments should not end up in semi-automatic gunfights in residential neighborhoods because someone is scared of hyopotheticals.

"It's a shame he didn't clip all of them". Give me a break.

Just for clarification. The violent intentions were acted upon. The group for four fought both Rudolph and his brother.

One of the young men even testified to sucker punching Rudolph's brother. Iirc, this was caught on camera.

 

[Dhatguy]

One of the dudes already admitted he had the gun in his pocket....wasnt thrown from the car he had it supposedly and was running when rudolph came out with his ak....

rudolph is saying he came out witht he ak because they were then beating up hisbrother after assaulting him.

This 1 is interesting.....want to see the results and uproar after.

Its crazy to think the chic caused all of this and she is pretty much scott free in this all..with no charges of anything and has caused the death of her brothers friend...and likely rudolphs jail time....based on a str8 up lie to start the whole thing off.

Shawty would be getting the helicopter treatment on sight outchea everyday lol. We all got some cousins and sisters bout that life

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Lol I don’t get why you’re so triggered by this. I’m not gonna pretend that I know every detail of this case because I found out about it yesterday so if I’m misinformed the I’ll own up to it

1. Lol they didn’t rob a bank, they came to assault or maybe even murder a guy. If you want to focus on the “getaway car” portion then so be it. When I say getaway car I think the vehicle everyone tries to get to so they can get away in case things don’t go according to plan. My bad that it also happened to be the car they came there in

2. Lol my evidence is what Travis said happened. “When you’re facing two guns after everything that played through, lights off, I was in fear for my life. At that point, I had the right to defend myself.” I also just watched the brother on the stand and he confirmed that he did being a gun to Travis’ crib but he also said it wasn’t loaded and that he never took it out. But we can confirm that there was at least 1 firearm there that wasn’t his

2 (again). Go to post 247 of this thread and watch the last 30 seconds of that video. You will hear him say that they did in fact have 2 guns aimed at him and then the news coverage seems to show a gun that was recovered that matches his story (I am making some assumptions but they seem reasonable to me)

3. Lol if I’m in that situation and I own semi-automatic weapon, you’d **** right I’m gonna grab it. These dudes just came to my house and assaulted me and my brother. People die everyday bc of things like that so yeah I’ll have my weapon.

4. You keep asking about my evidence when I said the dude said they had two guns. I think I explained how I came up with that conclusion but can I ask where is your evidence that they didn’t have any weapons and he didn’t shoot because he saw them aim a gun at him

5. Your street justice warrior comment is silly to me bc this situation has nothing to do with the “streets” lol. 4 dudes tried to set up a ex-nfl player because one of their sisters lied to them after she got her feeling hurt. Sadly one of them paid the ultimate price but it wasn’t a “street” situation

Look, I'm not triggered at all. You have no idea what my background is, so I find your comment comical.

I've had guns, fired guns, and hunted since I was a kid. Same with much of my family.

And I'm going to be honest with you. I've had this conversation about "self-defense" and firing a gun with my brother FOR YEARS. Now, my brother has a freaking ****nal. He carries every day. He hunts all over the country. He's got three kids. He's a super "second amendment" guy and does NOT like the police, but calls them when he needs to. And even he will tell you that what Rudolph did was beyond stupid and unnecessary. And reckless.

Come out to a tailgate sometime and talk to my brother. He will tell you about situations he's been in that were more dangerous than what Rudolph faced, and he did NOT fire his gun (though he drew it and was prepared to fire). Whether you like it or not, most people who spray off 39 shots into a retreating vehicle are doing so out of fear, and with absolutely no skill, and they are more likely to hurt an innocent bystander than to actually hit the person they intended to hit. Just look at the video, Rudolph ******* fell on his *** when trying to get out the door. He's an inexperience clown with a semi-automatic thinking he is justified in becoming John Wick, and the guy can't even find his own footing.

The Street Justice Warrior comment applies to YOU, not the four guys who confronted Rudolph. It applies to the guys who talk a big game about what they would have done if it happened to them, and use ridiculous logic to justify it.

Look, you want to use your feelings to justify doing what Rudolph did, then you may very well find yourself in a 2-year legal battle that drains your funds and possibly even leads to jail time. Let me know how that turns out for you, once you actually do what Rudolph did.

I'm sorry that you can't comprehend how easy it would be to corroborate Rudolph's bull**** "I was staring down two guns" story. He shot up a freaking car, which crashed a bit of a distance away from the scene. If there were sooooo many guns pointed at Rudolph, they would have still been at the scene and/or where the car crashed. Just be honest, those four guys were clowns, not master criminals. They didn't figure out a way to hide guns that can't be found for two years. They even found the unloaded, unpulled gun on the guy who ran away. If it really happened like Rudolph claimed, it wouldn't have been hard to corroborate that via other methods.

Rudolph shot at least one guy in the back. Who was running TO a car. Who, you know, did not already have one of the two mythical guns pointed at Rudolph as the "getaway car" roared out of sight. Rudolph sprayed 39 shots into people's backs and into the "getaway car", but we're supposed to believe that "two guns" were pointed at him and nobody got off a shot in return? It's not hard to corroborate OTHER BULLETS being fired, they are the ones that don't match the 39 that were pulled out of the car and peoples' backs. Or are you claiming that the "two guns" pointed at Rudolph were unloaded and used solely as props? Because if I saw a guy running after me while shooting a semi-automatic weapon, the LAST THING I would do is hold up an empty prop pistol that might cause him to shoot MORE. You think a guy spraying semi-automatic fire into peoples' backs will suddenly stop because he sees two puny pistols pointed at him? That's just ridiculous, and the product of watching too many movies while not living enough real life.

Nobody's mad at you. Just go back and do the research. The thread started two years ago. Try NOT basing all your opinions on the obviously-motivated statements of the accused.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but just because you sympathize with one side more than the other does not turn this into a binary decision on who should "walk free".

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Just for clarification. The violent intentions were acted upon. The group for four fought both Rudolph and his brother.

One of the young men even testified to sucker punching Rudolph's brother. Iirc, this was caught on camera.

Go back and read. Reading is fundamental.

Someone said "very violent intentions". Read all the words. Use all the words. He intended it to mean they were armed, they had guns, they were willing to murder a guy.

A fight? A FIGHT? Fights happen all the time.

I seriously wonder about the courage and manhood of some of the people who post on this board, who go insane because of a SUCKER PUNCH and then act like that justifies firing 39 shots into peoples' backs in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

It's just ridiclous. Let me know how your "but officer, he SUCKER-PUNCHED ME" defense goes the next time you blast off 39 shots that end up killing a guy.

"Violent intentions were acted upon". ******* hilarious.

Man up. A guy ******* a married woman and cheating on her got his butt whooped. But, yeah, he should have gone John Wick in a residential neighborhood.

Just send me the link to the news article when you do this, and then let me know how it all goes down for you. Because this MUST happen every day, right?

Bunch of tough-talking do-nothings on this board. At least if y'all are posting in here, you aren't shooting up residential neighborhoods.

 

[RVACane]

I think a lot of people (especially in Florida), for better or worse agree with you in thinking he was justified. That's why I wouldn't be surprised at all if he gets off. Even though legally the facts might not be on his side.

If this was in the bay area region of CA or in Los Angeles, I would be a lot less confident in him getting off. Their laws are probably more strict when it comes to using deadly force as self-defense, and the jury would probably be less accepting of someone using a gun to defend themselves.

Do you want to keep this account or the Bachelor Party one???

Off-Topic - Bachelor Party

Hey fellas, I'm a Cali boy, but been a fan of the U for over 20 years now. I became a fan in the early 2000s, so at least I saw some greatness before the long side. Anyways, I'm tieing the night in late October and recently decided to have my bachelor party in Miami. I have never been to...

www.canesinsight.com

 

[passitback]

Go back and read. Reading is fundamental.

Someone said "very violent intentions". Read all the words. Use all the words. He intended it to mean they were armed, they had guns, they were willing to murder a guy.

A fight? A FIGHT? Fights happen all the time.

I seriously wonder about the courage and manhood of some of the people who post on this board, who go insane because of a SUCKER PUNCH and then act like that justifies firing 39 shots into peoples' backs in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

It's just ridiclous. Let me know how your "but officer, he SUCKER-PUNCHED ME" defense goes the next time you blast off 39 shots that end up killing a guy.

"Violent intentions were acted upon". ******* hilarious.

Man up. A guy ******* a married woman and cheating on her got his butt whooped. But, yeah, he should have gone John Wick in a residential neighborhood.

Just send me the link to the news article when you do this, and then let me know how it all goes down for you. Because this MUST happen every day, right?

Bunch of tough-talking do-nothings on this board. At least if y'all are posting in here, you aren't shooting up residential neighborhoods.

I said that. Exactly what part of "very violent intentions" do you disagree with, counselor?

The ***** said, "shoot his **** up." Her lowlife brother or male friend said, Benjamin is a "deadman walking." Then they showed up to his house, armed.
His brother got jumped.

Like I said earlier, it's a **** shame Travis didn't clip them all, because they deserved it - beg to differ if you wish

 

[camber_2374]

Do you want to keep this account or the Bachelor Party one???

Off-Topic - Bachelor Party

Hey fellas, I'm a Cali boy, but been a fan of the U for over 20 years now. I became a fan in the early 2000s, so at least I saw some greatness before the long side. Anyways, I'm tieing the night in late October and recently decided to have my bachelor party in Miami. I have never been to...

www.canesinsight.com

I don't care. It was a throw away account so had no idea what the account info was? But great job Mod!

 

[Cane4life18]

One of the dudes already admitted he had the gun in his pocket....wasnt thrown from the car he had it supposedly and was running when rudolph came out with his ak....

rudolph is saying he came out witht he ak because they were then beating up hisbrother after assaulting him.
This 1 is interesting.....want to see the results and uproar after.

Its crazy to think the chic caused all of this and she is pretty much scott free in this all..with no charges of anything and has caused the death of her brothers friend...and likely rudolphs jail time....based on a str8 up lie to start the whole thing off.

The fact that she sent a text to her brother stating "shoot up his s***" and the brother responded "He's a dead man walking" is pretty damning. She intentionally deleted those text messages from her phone while the authorities were investigating. The lawyer *should* be able to prove mal-intent with the group of 4 actually having a gun on them.

Travis shooting his AR-15 39 times while the 4 men were fleeing in a vehicle is the issue and complicates a self defense stance.

Travis may do time but I doubt it'll be serious time (10 years+).

The female should be thrown underneath the jail but she won't.

 

[SayWhat]

Some of you should quit wasting your time with a certain poster in this thread.

Rudolph went to FSU, that's enough to throw him in jail for life in his opinion.

The trial will go as it does and justice will be handed out accordingly. There will be things we never hear or see that'll likely determine the outcome. All around dumb situation over a dumb woman. Loss of life and possible loss of freedom shouldn't have been the end result.

 

[RVACane]

I don't care. It was a throw away account so had no idea what the account info was? But great job Mod!

Awesome. I’ll assume you’re keeping this one. @Andrew please merge @throw_away into the @camber_2374 account. Thanks.

 

[SonicYouth]

Go back and read. Reading is fundamental.

Someone said "very violent intentions". Read all the words. Use all the words. He intended it to mean they were armed, they had guns, they were willing to murder a guy.

A fight? A FIGHT? Fights happen all the time.

I seriously wonder about the courage and manhood of some of the people who post on this board, who go insane because of a SUCKER PUNCH and then act like that justifies firing 39 shots into peoples' backs in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

It's just ridiclous. Let me know how your "but officer, he SUCKER-PUNCHED ME" defense goes the next time you blast off 39 shots that end up killing a guy.

"Violent intentions were acted upon". ******* hilarious.

Man up. A guy ******* a married woman and cheating on her got his butt whooped. But, yeah, he should have gone John Wick in a residential neighborhood.

Just send me the link to the news article when you do this, and then let me know how it all goes down for you. Because this MUST happen every day, right?

Bunch of tough-talking do-nothings on this board. At least if y'all are posting in here, you aren't shooting up residential neighborhoods.

Go back and read. Reading is fundamental.

Someone said "very violent intentions". Read all the words. Use all the words. He intended it to mean they were armed, they had guns, they were willing to murder a guy.

A fight? A FIGHT? Fights happen all the time.

I seriously wonder about the courage and manhood of some of the people who post on this board, who go insane because of a SUCKER PUNCH and then act like that justifies firing 39 shots into peoples' backs in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

It's just ridiclous. Let me know how your "but officer, he SUCKER-PUNCHED ME" defense goes the next time you blast off 39 shots that end up killing a guy.

"Violent intentions were acted upon". ******* hilarious.

Man up. A guy ******* a married woman and cheating on her got his butt whooped. But, yeah, he should have gone John Wick in a residential neighborhood.

Just send me the link to the news article when you do this, and then let me know how it all goes down for you. Because this MUST happen every day, right?

Bunch of tough-talking do-nothings on this board. At least if y'all are posting in here, you aren't shooting up residential neighborhood

You’re bloviating.

My post is factual. The group acted violently