forums

Prison Showers for a Seminole: New Travis Rudolph thread

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
I was pretty confident he would be found not guilty as I posted in the last thread. Florida has that ****ed up *** stand your ground law and the George Zimmerman case set a precedence afterward so...yea.
 
Advertisement
ZuCrew said:
I was pretty confident he would be found not guilty as I posted in the last thread. Florida has that ****ed up *** stand your ground law and the George Zimmerman case set a precedence afterward so...yea.
Click to expand...
Even though I disagreed with @TheOriginalCane in the other thread. This is why he got annoyed because you guys keep using legal terms in the wrong way. I mean no offense to you but that’s not how legal precedence works.
 
Advertisement
camber_2374 said:
Even though I disagreed with @TheOriginalCane in the other thread. This is why he got annoyed because you guys keep using legal terms in the wrong way. I mean no offense to you but that’s not how legal precedence works.
Click to expand...


Very true. We have a lot of people who come on this board and use words and terms that they don't understand. I'm not trying to be mad at anyone, but @ZuCrew is completely clueless and wrong on his use of the term "precedence" in this situation.

And I have pointed out ALL ALONG that jury nullification was a distinct possibility. I'm not sure why you think we "disagreed". I pointed out that it was not a "stand your ground" case (per the ruling of the judge) and that there were a lot of self-motivated claims that had no corroborative evidence.

Criminal juries can nullify every bit of testimony, if they are so inclined, or certain parts of the testimony. Nothing new under the sun here.

But I'm sure we'll continue to have know-nothings yap about how the woman should be charged with a crime, even though there is no crime that she committed. Did she do things wrong? ****, everyone on both sides of the dispute did. Some of those wrong things were crimes, and others were not.

Anyone sitting here in 2023 acting like this was some unexpected outcome...is bull****ting you...
 
supacane said:
Not guilty. Weh man come argue with me about Mr ima Lawyer? Send me to law school
Click to expand...


How about you finish high school first? I've read plenty of your posts, and you are one of the least-knowledgeable/biggest-bull****ters on this board.

And that's nothing personal. You just don't know, and you don't know that you don't know. It's never gonna stop you from continuing to act like you do.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Very true. We have a lot of people who come on this board and use words and terms that they don't understand. I'm not trying to be mad at anyone, but @ZuCrew is completely clueless and wrong on his use of the term "precedence" in this situation.

And I have pointed out ALL ALONG that jury nullification was a distinct possibility. I'm not sure why you think we "disagreed". I pointed out that it was not a "stand your ground" case (per the ruling of the judge) and that there were a lot of self-motivated claims that had no corroborative evidence.

Criminal juries can nullify every bit of testimony, if they are so inclined, or certain parts of the testimony. Nothing new under the sun here.

But I'm sure we'll continue to have know-nothings yap about how the woman should be charged with a crime, even though there is no crime that she committed. Did she do things wrong? ****, everyone on both sides of the dispute did. Some of those wrong things were crimes, and others were not.

Anyone sitting here in 2023 acting like this was some unexpected outcome...is bull****ting you...
Click to expand...

I think we disagreed on the chances a Florida jury would let him off, but maybe I’m mistaken. I thought there was more than just a distinct possibility. Though I wouldn’t have been surprised either way.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top