And they asked for his testimony so they could be trying to establish if he aimed at her intentionallyThey want a definition of "willfully and on purpose"?
just speculating here but to me that is both good for tory and bad for tory... he could get hit on the lesser charges
The official ‘Tory Lanez vs Megan Thee Stallion’ trial thread.
- Thread starter Danny Ocean
- Start date
EzekelRAGE
Superstar
Gonna be Pink Friday for realoh man I guess Tory and the jurors will have to coordinate their colors again for tomorrow!
True but where did he get the gun from?
So I can see them giving not guilty on that.
What the fukk does stay at home dad mean??
What hoe ass nikka proudly promotes that???
EzekelRAGE
Superstar
Are you one of them gender role conformists?What the fukk does stay at home dad mean??
What hoe ass nikka proudly promotes that???
Why cant the man stay home and take care of the kids while the wife makes all the bread?
Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
yes.. that witness stated Tory was shooting "in the air" after "the 1st shot came from the woman"
Unlike assault, which is defined simply as "an unlawful attempt, coupled with present ability, to commit a violent injury upon another person" (California Penal Code Section 240), aggravated assault involves a clear intent to commit serious bodily injury to another. In other words, an assault charge becomes aggravated if it is apparent that the perpetrator wanted to inflict major damage with disregard for the victim's life
Here u see that aggravated assault must include "intent"
EzekelRAGE
Superstar
Right if it works for them, it works for them
They only found 5 shell casings. It’s not me chosing what to believe.
It’s you trying to manipulate and dismiss physical evidence and certain parts of dudes testimony.
5 shots on audio. 5 Shell casings found, Bullet damage to the car, Victim was shot away from the car.
But we supposed to wave all this off cause this dude said he saw a flash near one of the girls pointing toward the car.
I said he had to be mistaken cause we have actual physical evidence contradicting what he saidShe shot first-
The witness is mistaken when it doesnt fit your narrative huh? "flashes" plural......were from a woman
Physical evidence will always trump witness statements.
There was no “shot first” according to the physical evidence. Furthermore even if there were some “first shots” He testified that they were the ones toward the car and the victim was away from the car.
He saw a muzzle flash about the same time as Tory got out of the car - So Tory couldnt have been the one who shot first
So if we take this guys testimony as 100% how everything happened. The “flashes” that came from near the girls couldn’t be the ones that hit meg.
Physical evidence proves there was not two sets of shots. His own testimony says the guy shot 4-5 times.
He saw MORE flashes after Tory got out of the care. Meaning there were flashes before Tory got out of the car.
5 shots were recorded 5 shell cases were found.
Again, physical evidence trumps eye witness accounts. Throughout his entire testimony he admits he wasn't very sure about a lot of things.
But again, even if we take his account 100% it doesn’t matter who “shot first” what matters is who shot the bullets that hit Meg.
He never said they were fighting over the gun. That’s where the defense attorney was leading him and he replied with this joke because from his perspective they were all fighting and very close and he was adamant he never saw a gun, so how the hell can he say he saw them fighting over a gunHim saying they were fighting over the gun
This is yall favorite reporter saying this btw. This is on top of Kelsey having GSR on her hands. So are you saying the witness made all this up?
All of this is the defense testimony. For some strange reason you opted against posting the prosecution testimony
EzekelRAGE
Superstar
I do think there’s a section of the traditional media that is bitter at the rise of independent bloggers and content creators
spliz
SplizThaDon
shyt is insane bro. That trial made me literally ignore most mainstream media. Blew my mind.
ignorethis
RIP Fresh RIP Doe RIP Phat
Lol dude picking and choosing what part of the testimony he wants to believe, “he had to be mistaken”, doesn’t that open up the idea he was mistaken on other part of the testimony?They only found 5 shell casings. It’s not me chosing what to believe.
It’s you trying to manipulate and dismiss physical evidence and certain parts of dudes testimony.
5 shots on audio. 5 Shell casings found, Bullet damage to the car, Victim was shot away from the car.
But we supposed to wave all this off cause this dude said he saw a flash near one of the girls pointing toward the car.
I said he had to be mistaken cause we have actual physical evidence contradicting what he said
Physical evidence will always trump witness statements.
There was no “shot first” according to the physical evidence. Furthermore even if there were some “first shots” He testified that they were the ones toward the car and the victim was away from the car.
So if we take this guys testimony as 100% how everything happened. The “flashes” that came from near the girls couldn’t be the ones that hit meg.
Physical evidence proves there was not two sets of shots. His own testimony says the guy shot 4-5 times.
5 shots were recorded 5 shell cases were found.
Again, physical evidence trumps eye witness accounts. Throughout his entire testimony he admits he wasn't very sure about a lot of things.
But again, even if we take his account 100% it doesn’t matter who “shot first” what matters is who shot the bullets that hit Meg.
He never said they were fighting over the gun. That’s where the defense attorney was leading him and he replied with this joke because from his perspective they were all fighting and very close and he was adamant he never saw a gun, so how the hell can he say he saw them fighting over a gun
All of this is the defense testimony. For some strange reason you opted against posting the prosecution testimony
Positive Poster
All Star
Seen this shyt a million times before
The likely best explanation you’ll get: They got drunk drunk (fully vessel) , mischievous spirit(s) decided to use them to do mischief. All 3 probably full or semi blacked out and don’t even know themselves what the hell happened.
Should’ve all agreed to just dead it but it’s not so easy doing that as an entertainer in the public eye.
Hell, probably half the reason for the substance abuse is the pressure of being a celeb and having to always perform or trying to maximise the “down time” away from the lights.
If you’re going to drink, make sure your spiritual credit score is up! to afford a good lawyer in the realm to get you out of stuff. You could pay dearly just from a few hours of getting lit from just other people’s actions around you.
The likely best explanation you’ll get: They got drunk drunk (fully vessel) , mischievous spirit(s) decided to use them to do mischief. All 3 probably full or semi blacked out and don’t even know themselves what the hell happened.
Should’ve all agreed to just dead it but it’s not so easy doing that as an entertainer in the public eye.
Hell, probably half the reason for the substance abuse is the pressure of being a celeb and having to always perform or trying to maximise the “down time” away from the lights.
If you’re going to drink, make sure your spiritual credit score is up! to afford a good lawyer in the realm to get you out of stuff. You could pay dearly just from a few hours of getting lit from just other people’s actions around you.
In The Zone '98
Superstar
Drinking to celebrate life, every weekend, is retarded