Kind of telling when one of the most respected members of the forum has you on ignore.What is really amusing to me is that I had to log out to see this:
Because @Nick Burkhardt has me on ignore
View attachment 1402285
MehKind of telling when one of the most respected members of the forum has you on ignore.
Yes but theres a lot of evidence to support that this case is an example.
Maybe, but there is also a lot we don't know (like all the evidence presented during the trial) so it's impossible at this point to say how much those post influenced the verdict
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make that reasonable assumption. 1+1 rarely equals 3 but that doesn't stop some people from speaking to the contrary just to get a rise.
www.foxnews.com
Ive been pretty critical of the driver in this thread but if it turns out the evidence was exculpatory and intentionally denied then I'll stand corrected. Doesnt excuse what he said online prior to the shooting but words dont always mean intent.I knew this was coming based on the prosecutors misconduct.
Daniel Perry's attorneys file motion for new trial days after Austin jury convicted Army sergeant of murder
Attorneys for Army Sgt. Daniel Perry filed a motion for a new trial Tuesday, alleging that key evidence was excluded from his Texas murder trial and the jury was subject to "outside influences."
We dont know all the information, all we can do is "armchair quarterback" the story as we are told thru the media. After watching the laywers video (posted above) it was their opinion the guys lawyer wasn't that good but also that his comments he posted online ("privately") were a major part of what sunk him.
I agree, the driver/shooter is an idiot and may still end up being convicted again due to his online posts showing an intent to kill protestors and shoot looters. However, that does not excuse the prosecutors hiding evidence based on his political agenda.
yeah thats the thing about this case thats giving me a lot of cognitive dissonance. The driver says he might go kill some protesters (paraphrased) and we all know a few people mean what they say but most don't, but when someone says something and that something happens its like Im not going to speak in that dudes defense.
Then ad in that the only one shot was the one perceived as a threat by the defendant.
Same, this is the huge grey area. Did he intentionally drive into the protesters or was his turn a wrong turn.
It does if his intent was to go there to instigate a situation, as he stated prior to his friend he wanted to do. That's the whole problem with his story is he self incriminated his motive, or a motive....
According to the article I linked at the beginning of this thread he was on his way to an online hook up but she had just texted him she expected cash in advance
Id do a uturn too...
Thats a good point.
Well that explains it. Our physical need/urges, can often get us in trouble.
