forums

Prison Showers for a Seminole: New Travis Rudolph thread

Advertisement
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...
Are y’all mad because he got off or mad because the terms are being used incorrectly? Explain it then…
 
camber_2374 said:
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.
Click to expand...


It's all good. Jury trials can go either way. I've seen cases where the jury believed everything the cops said (even when it was clearly contradictory) and I've seen juries disregard testimony even when there is corroborating evidence. You just never know.

My point in this case is that you had physical evidence of dudes getting shot IN THE BACK, and then you have "oh, but the texts", and you can never be certain what will happen, even if you have logical reasons why you form your own personal conclusion.

That's the sad thing about some of these board dopes, they confuse personal conclusions for "predictions" or "guarantees". It's why some people lose their **** if every recruiting prediction DOESN'T COME TO PASS.

In fact, I'd say that jury verdicts are just about as predictable as a 17 year old adolescent's college choice.
 
ZuCrew said:
Are y’all mad because he got off or mad because the terms are being used incorrectly? Explain it then…
Click to expand...


I'm not mad at all. I'm just concerned that you continue to use an inccorect term, even after it was pointed out to you.
 
Advertisement
ZuCrew said:
Really? I thought once something happens legal precedence is set and referred back to. Ok so how does it work exactly?
Click to expand...


In criminal cases, the facts of each case are NOT "legal precedent". Each verdict stands on its own and should be decided on its own.

That is DIFFERENT from legal precedent on things that are procedural, for instance.

For example, you can have legal precedent that might require a judge to rule a particular way on the admissibility of evidence or a strategy. Earlier, we pointed out that the judge ruled Rudolph could NOT use "stand your ground" because Rudolph ran back inside to retrieve the gun and then chased people down the street. So if you had a similar fact pattern in a brand new case, you could cite the law and legal precedent and hope to expect a consistent application of when "stand your ground" applies and when it does not.

That is completely different from "well, George Zimmerman got off, so that means Rudolph should get off". That's not how it works, and you can't cite legal precedent FOR THAT. "Your honor, we must follow the legal precedent of 'if the glove don't fit, you must acquit'". It doesn't work that way.

Each criminal case is decided on its facts and evidence. There is no precedential verdict in a prior case. MAYBE the jury will acquit, maybe the jury will convict, but only based on the facts and evidence of THIS criminal case, not any others that have gone before.
 
htownkidd said:
Click to expand...


That wink (44 second mark) was legendary. He was probably practicing that ****. My mans wink was in sync with the shake. LOL.

I know nothing about Travis Benjamin's lawyer, but he's either going to blow up, or solidify himself as a badass. He knows what time it is $$$$$$...



Show Me The Money GIF
 
Advertisement
SayWhat said:
Was the woman ever charged with assault and damaging property?

She should be. That would be the icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

LOL. Imagine that. Never mind the illegality of it. Nothing to see on the video footage. Just another day in the office.
 
Advertisement
Y'all remember that kid who stabbed that FIU footaball player to death some years ago...well His case got tried again and he got off.

beacononlinenews.com

Quentin Wyche: It’s all over except for the rest of his life - The West Volusia Beacon

Editor’s note: DeLandite Quentin Wyche, now 32, was convicted of second-degree murder in 2013. Recently released from prison, Wyche, and his mother, Wendy, have never stopped trying to overturn his […]
beacononlinenews.com beacononlinenews.com
 
I suggest searching the terms "burden of proof, "burden of production," and "burden shifting," before discussing "stand your ground."
 
Advertisement
Y'all remember that kid that stabbed the FIU player to deah some year ago.. well His case got tried again and He got off . And no, He didn't get the charges reduced, He got off, OFF, charges were thrown out:

beacononlinenews.com

Quentin Wyche: It’s all over except for the rest of his life - The West Volusia Beacon

Editor’s note: DeLandite Quentin Wyche, now 32, was convicted of second-degree murder in 2013. Recently released from prison, Wyche, and his mother, Wendy, have never stopped trying to overturn his […]
beacononlinenews.com beacononlinenews.com
 
TheOriginalCane said:
It's all good. Jury trials can go either way. I've seen cases where the jury believed everything the cops said (even when it was clearly contradictory) and I've seen juries disregard testimony even when there is corroborating evidence. You just never know.

My point in this case is that you had physical evidence of dudes getting shot IN THE BACK, and then you have "oh, but the texts", and you can never be certain what will happen, even if you have logical reasons why you form your own personal conclusion.

That's the sad thing about some of these board dopes, they confuse personal conclusions for "predictions" or "guarantees". It's why some people lose their **** if every recruiting prediction DOESN'T COME TO PASS.

In fact, I'd say that jury verdicts are just about as predictable as a 17 year old adolescent's college choice.
Click to expand...
Lol. Comparing the predictability of jury trial to a college choice is funny but strangely accurate.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top