The official ‘Tory Lanez vs Megan Thee Stallion’ trial thread.

Giselle

**********
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
11,295
Reputation
2,067
Daps
20,408
the charge he received is "carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm". the part that is bad is that is unregistered so if they don't prove it is his on paper that is actually what the prosecution is going for. many people seem to be confused about this

as far as the carrying part, random witness placed it in "the short guy" hands, meghan has him holding it, kelsey has him holding it, cop found it in the floor of his seat
The white guy placed Kelsey with the gun first. If it’s Tory’s gun, how did Kelsey know exactly where to go get it from when she decided to use it during the fight with Megan?
 

DapMeUp!

Superstar
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
12,392
Reputation
6,952
Daps
56,207
Were their alcohol levels tested?...Who confessed to being "black out" drunk. Not arguing that they weren't drunk, but there is a difference between being drunk and being "black out" drunk

Meg literally can't remember parts of the night and Kelsey passed out at one point.

I think that tells me enough :pachaha:
 
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
64,643
Reputation
27,646
Daps
384,247
Reppin
Ft. Stewart, Ga
This question is for anyone besides that meech dude, the mew avatar poster and nap…

Did the investigation conclude that the gun was indeed Tory’s? My google searches are popping up with gossip rag bullshyt when I search for this information.


It hasn’t been said one way or the other if the gun was Tory’s. I’m leaning towards it NOT being his because wouldn’t that be something the Prosecution would jump on?
Were their alcohol levels tested?...Who confessed to being "black out" drunk. Not arguing that they weren't drunk, but there is a difference between being drunk and being "black out" drunk

And correct me if I'm wrong ,based off physical evidence Meg seemed to have been hit while walking in the opposite direction of shooter...that's big

Kelly actually doesnt say he seen anyone holding the gun. The flash he seen close to Kelsey could have been from someone close to her firing the gun. He also mentioned a river. And said that Tory was firing wilding "into the air" but clarified he didnt mean up in the air. He was firing "everywhere"

Kelly also testified that Meg fell to the ground after the "short gentleman" fired in her direction


Just saying his testimony was not wha I would necessarily call straight forward and could be interpreted in different ways


Kelsey has said she was in a “fog” due to alcohol intake from the party which is why she couldn’t “remember” damn near anything.

Tory is said to have typed in one of his apologies that he barely remembered the night beforehand because of how “drunk” he was.

EJ testified that Megan and Kelsey were six or seven bottles of alcohol deep BEFORE Tory showed up and because of excessive liquor intake Megan was being hella annoying.

I don’t think there’s any records stating that their alcohol levels were tested that night. If they WERE you’d think that would have been made public by now because either the defense or prosecution would perhaps want to know who was more inebriated

One thing i’d REALLY like to know is if any of Meg’s DNA was on the gun or GSR was on Megan that night. She WASN’T tested (another botched decision from law enforcement) and Kelly said he witnessed Tory, the Driver, AND Kelsey beating on Megan before putting her in the car….

Interesting implications there with that….
 

Dallas' 4 Eva

Superstar
Joined
Jun 29, 2018
Messages
12,060
Reputation
2,511
Daps
41,851
I really don’t see whats so wild about Kelly’s testimony. It READS pretty straight forward to me…

Kelsey and Meg were having a drunken cat fight

Kelsey grabs the heater because more than likely she’s getting her ass kicked.

Kelsey fires at the ground in Meg’s direction. Fragments hit Megan

Tory and the driver rush to break up the fight. Tory is agitated because the shyt has gotten out of hand so he puts extra aggressiveness on getting the gun out of Kelsey’s hands.

Tory and Kelsey struggle for the gun. Tory finally gets the upper hand and shoots the gun in the air to empty the clip.

Seems pretty easy to patch it together
This is the exact same conclusion I came to as well. Tory at the end of the day has no motive at all to shoot Meg, which is why this always seemed strange to me. It's very obvious Kelsey is the one who shot at Meg, Tory dumbass should have just let them hoes fight.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2016
Messages
18,912
Reputation
2,987
Daps
44,468
The white guy placed Kelsey with the gun first. If it’s Tory’s gun, how did Kelsey know exactly where to go get it from when she decided to use it during the fight with Megan?

it doesn't matter if it's his gun or not. what matters is whether he was carrying it, and that it was unregistered. read the statutes he was charged with to figure out what matters.

"A weapon is carried if it moves with you, or if you have it in your possession. Having a knife hidden in your pocket, for example, constitutes carrying a weapon because whenever you move, the weapon moves with you. But movement isn't required: Under the law, if you were asleep with a knife in your pocket, you'd still be carrying it. Even when the weapon isn't physically in your possession (held, pocketed, or worn), it's considered "carried" if it's within easy reach or control. So, a weapon hidden under a car seat is considered carried if it's available for immediate use by someone in the car."
 
Last edited:

Mowgli

Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
103,076
Reputation
13,348
Daps
243,165
This is the exact same conclusion I came to as well. Tory at the end of the day has no motive at all to shoot Meg, which is why this always seemed strange to me. It's very obvious Kelsey is the one who shot at Meg, Tory dumbass should have just let them hoes fight.
The friend shot Meg
He shot in the air to break it up.
Her dumb drunk ass probably didn't even realize she was shot until it was over.

She didn't want to put her friend in prison over a drunk spat.

They turned on him after he called them both dumb bytches. This was fueled by her being exposed for having sex with a short man.

Then the witch coven formed and they said.

I got your bytch n1gga.
I got your bytch

Let's see who's a bytch, in Prison.

foh-lebron.gif
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
3,246
Reputation
800
Daps
12,012
Reppin
NULL
Kelly also testified that Meg fell to the ground after the "short gentleman" fired in her direction


Just saying his testimony was not wha I would necessarily call straight forward and could be interpreted in different ways

He didn't testify that he saw Tory fire in her direction. This Yahoo article is putting a spin on the testimony to fit the narrative.

Think there's still some lingering questions

When did Kelsey have time to get the gun? In a bathing suit she wasn't carrying. Found luggage but no purse on her

Did Meg take a break from beating her ass...doesn't sound like it

And is it possible Meg was walking away, retreating from the situation as she testified? Believe entry points are in the back of her foot, ankle. If she was walking away, why Kelsey shoot at the ground in her direction?

It is possible Meg was following behind her when Kelsey went to the vehicle to retrieve the gun. She may have been retreating when she saw Kelsey with the gun in hand.
 
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
3,246
Reputation
800
Daps
12,012
Reppin
NULL
it doesn't matter if it's his gun or not. what matters is whether he was carrying it, and that it was unregistered. read the statutes he was charged with to figure out what matters.

"A weapon is carried if it moves with you, or if you have it in your possession. Having a knife hidden in your pocket, for example, constitutes carrying a weapon because whenever you move, the weapon moves with you. But movement isn't required: Under the law, if you were asleep with a knife in your pocket, you'd still be carrying it. Even when the weapon isn't physically in your possession (held, pocketed, or worn), it's considered "carried" if it's within easy reach or control. So, a weapon hidden under a car seat is considered carried if it's available for immediate use by someone in the car."

Yeah that's cool and all. But basic logic would be the more likely person who had possession of the gun would be the one who knew exactly where the gun was and who went to the car to retrieve it. It is illogical after a shooting to return the gun to Kelsey after she fired with intent to injure/kill. Tory doesn't even have DNA on the magazine. I can't see the jury proving beyond a reasonable doubt possession is his given the circumstances.

Even the stylist's testimony makes it questionable possession would be Tory's as it's known those girls walked around with protection.
 
Last edited:

Giselle

**********
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
11,295
Reputation
2,067
Daps
20,408
it doesn't matter if it's his gun or not. what matters is whether he was carrying it, and that it was unregistered. read the statutes he was charged with to figure out what matters.

"A weapon is carried if it moves with you, or if you have it in your possession. Having a knife hidden in your pocket, for example, constitutes carrying a weapon because whenever you move, the weapon moves with you. But movement isn't required: Under the law, if you were asleep with a knife in your pocket, you'd still be carrying it. Even when the weapon isn't physically in your possession (held, pocketed, or worn), it's considered "carried" if it's within easy reach or control. So, a weapon hidden under a car seat is considered carried if it's available for immediate use by someone in the car."
If that’s the case all of them would be charged for carrying, but it’s not though. In all the examples listed, the weapon is owned by the person. He literally snatched someone else’s weapon, that’s not considered carrying. The other person was carrying & he snatched it. It’s definitely negligent shooting though
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2016
Messages
18,912
Reputation
2,987
Daps
44,468
If that’s the case all of them would be charged for carrying, but it’s not though. In all the examples listed, the weapon is owned by the person. He literally snatched someone else’s weapon, that’s not considered carrying. The other person was carrying & he snatched it. It’s definitely negligent shooting though

the examples say nothing about "owner" because that not what matters lol. you can have something in your pocket and not be the "owner" of it. you can have something in your car seat and not be the "owner" of it, you can hold something and not be the "owner". what matters here is that they are "carrying" it, and it list examples of carrying, not owning. the thing about the law is that the definitions are very specific, you can't just throw words in there that don't matter, that's not how legal reasoning works.
and the cops and DA choose who to charge. they charged him because that's what the facts indicated to them. i'm just posting the law and the facts that happened. yall are free to your opinions tho :yeshrug: as is the jury!
 
Last edited:
Top