Jump to content

chainsaw

Full Members
  • Posts

    9149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chainsaw

  1. I'm sure there's also precedent saying that a stabbing isn't always serious bodily injury
  2. What usually happens if a guy suckerpuches someone else at a bar or a party and the victim takes an unlucky bounce and ends up dead. That's not intent to cause serious bodily injury is it? Intent to bruise someone or even fracture a bone, but to cause a serious injury? I wouldn't think so. Bringing a knife into the mix changes things, I agree. I just don't think agree that every time someone wields a knife they're intent on causing a "serious" injury that can't be treated with a tourniquet and basic first aid equipment that is probably available at a UIL event.
  3. This is the point I'm making. Right now we don't have proof of intent to seriously injure. Wait for evidence.
  4. How do you prove his intent was to do that, specifically? The kid was holding a knife, sure. So what? He says he wanted to defend himself, not cause a serious injury. As was covered earlier in the thread, the bar for "serious" is pretty high, so how are they going to prove that at the time of the incident he wanted to use the knife to hospitalize the victim? Remember the law separates what was "committed" from what was "intended" so it seems kind of lazy to infer from the events of Act III the characters' intentions in Act II. Just let things play out.
  5. What words? He said what he thought had happened, not what he intended. The text you quoted makes a big distinction between what's "intended" and what's "committed" by him. Nobody denies that the victim was stabbed, which is why he "committed" a homicide, but without video or other concrete proof you'd have to make a pretty big assumption about Anthony's "intentions." He's adamant that his knife was for self defense, after all.
  6. How do you know Anthony intended to stab anyone? All of a sudden wielding a knife for any purpose means you intend to stab? What if they can only prove he intended to intimidate, or to graze the victim's skin? Someone should study the reasons why social media commenters can't seem to resist the urge to jump to conclusions before the trial actually happens. There's no reward for guessing. All it does is contribute to an echo chamber where these guesses marinade among room temperature IQ losers until they become firmly held community prejudices.
  7. Capitalism breeds innovation, not doomed-from-their-inception pet projects for out-of-touch billionaires such as the Metaverse and Cybertruck
  8. By the way, we have no real evidence that Mangione is guilty, but at least I've seen the video in that case. All I see is some person testing out his weapon when some asshole got in the way. No intent, no conviction!
  9. Luigi Mangione changed lawyers too and I think it made sense because shitstain Pennsylvania and NYC are two very different places, and now with Pam Barbie seeking the death penalty he might need another kind of lawyer. I still want revenge on Carmelo Anthony for dominating the final four but I won't criticize him for firing lawyers if he didn't think they were up for the task anymore.
  10. Can't dispute that at all, but at least the bandwagon fans can feel some kind of secondhand embarrassment
  11. He and Vivek are in a race to embarrass Ohio the most
  12. pandemic out front shoulda told ya
  13. He's really fallen off but he's definitely tight with Pop.
  14. Adelsons are definitely the villains here, and Nico is the sycophant willing to shoulder the blame. He deserves all the hate he's gotten, but the Adelsons deserve as much if not more
  15. One of them big city adjacent to a fancy apartment complex DQs
  16. No I think he terrorized 21st street with the AR then holed up in the PCL and shot himself before cops could do it for him.
  17. It was the AR-15 guy, I think
  18. I was told semantics have no place in law
×
×
  • Create New...