Prison Showers for a Seminole: New Travis Rudolph thread

Advertisement
I'm glad that he was acquitted. However, there are no winners here.

The guy who was killed was born after the year 2000. He died a few days after his birthday. 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.




 
the bigger issue is hopefully he shows some restraint next time when he decides to fire a weapon. he got extremely lucky imo.
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.
 
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 🤷🏾‍♂️.
 
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 🤷🏾‍♂️.

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.
 
Advertisement
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 🤷🏾‍♂️.
he hasn't learned
 
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.

It’s more than than Stand Your Ground, though.

A jury can decide whatever it wants pretty much. The make decisions that aren’t in line with the law everyday. You can give them all the instructions, definitions, and precedents you want, it will still come down to a personal decision.

Rudolph’s actions didn’t fit what the law typically defines as self defense, but all the facts put together made it difficult to convict him of murder.

Personally, I don’t think he should have been convicted of murder, but I’m not sure he should have gotten off Scott-free either. His actions were reckless and excessive for what was going on during the incident. A manslaughter or reckless endangerment charge MIGHT have been more appropriate.

The thing is, I can’t say I wouldn’t have done the same thing if I were in his shoes. I think the jury couldn’t either and that resulted in the acquittal.
 
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.
most cases never go trial (esp in civil) bc no one wants their fate in the hands of 12 morons (generally speaking).
 
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.

🤣🤣🤣

I have never liked that particular military euphemism... Neutralize? Meh. Whose soft feelings are we trying to save?

Taking the word a bit more literally, and in fairness to the (poor, even by FSU standards) shooter, he neutralized 3 of 4 (a target running away in fear is, at minimum, "neutralized" as he is clearly not going to be taking offensive action) and permanently laid to ground 1 of 4. Still a very poor showing for 39 shots fired from a rifle at close range, and I would not be surprised to see a Plaxico Burress move in Rudolph's future.
 
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.
thats him and dalvin cook in the vid.

The internet is a drug to these dudes though..even private schoolers like Rudolph. He probably is more similar to Ja Morant though in his upbringing ...though Palm Beach is wayyy more violent than whatever hick suburban town Morant is from..Rudolph is from a 2 parent working class fam.

I probably wouldnt be singing n gloating on THAT particular song after i beat a case...and still living in Palm Beach around that dude he shot fam and friends
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
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
 
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

You can't post that without a pic.

fee52bce4998b0feda8a101a1aeef5fd-original.jpg
 
Really? I thought once something happens legal precedence is set and referred back to. Ok so how does it work exactly?

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.
While all the extra ****ing was unnecessary, thank you for the explanation. The explanation itself would have sufficed.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top