Empirical Cane
We are what we repeatedly do.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2018
- Messages
- 33,668
the bigger issue is hopefully he shows some restraint next time when he decides to fire a weapon. he got extremely lucky imo.
Doesn’t need to own and or fire a weapon.the bigger issue is hopefully he shows some restraint next time when he decides to fire a weapon. he got extremely lucky imo.
I genuinely feel for his mother. He and his friends helped to put him in the ground, though.
On a related note, I stumbled across this on YT. What are we doing here, man? Lay low. This is such a bad look. Completely tone deaf.
x2 to both of those.
I get it, you have your freedom back etc and you are over the moon but yeah you wouldn’t hear from me/see me on social media for at least a year if I was him lol. Some people just move different though .
Watch Laz get off.
the bigger issue is hopefully he shows some restraint next time when he decides to fire a weapon. he got extremely lucky imo.
agreed. kinda where I was going w thatDoesn’t need to own and or fire a weapon.
he hasn't learnedx2 to both of those.
I get it, you have your freedom back etc and you are over the moon but yeah you wouldn’t hear from me/see me on social media for at least a year if I was him lol. Some people just move different though .
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.
most cases never go trial (esp in civil) bc no one wants their fate in the hands of 12 morons (generally speaking).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.
He fired 39 times at targets within 10 meters or so and neutralized one of four.
He isn"t a threat to anybody.
His best shot will be blasting his pinky toe off.
thats him and dalvin cook in the vid.Call me old fashioned, but it's dumb. Impersonating Ja Morant is not the move right now.
Dancing shirtless while listening to whatever gangsta rap the same day after beating a murder rap? It's gotta be CTE.
I'll take it a step further. He needs to lose the guns or, at least, take a long break from them. That family has seen enough gun violence to last a lifetime.
This is CIS, c'mon now."...Whose soft feelings are we trying to save?..."
I see what you did with the thread title.
I wonder what [U
SER=28463]@ChalupaBatman[/USER] thinks of it?
All alleged even though 39 shots firedHe, supposedly, fired 39 shots... as a law enforcement professional, I'm amazed that is considered self defense. But, mind you, I'm not American
I knew he would get off as soon as I spoke to his mother about what happened. had every reason to believe what she was saying. And his sister is a baddie too lol
Really? I thought once something happens legal precedence is set and referred back to. Ok so how does it work exactly?
While all the extra ****ing was unnecessary, thank you for the explanation. The explanation itself would have sufficed.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.