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

[5n0man]

No, that isn't what you said.

"The legal definition is when you use some random comment to verify a claim with no evidence."

"Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts. "


Yes it is




Maybe you just lack reading comprehension

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Realistically speaking, the bodyguard didnt do the shooting

So doesn't that only leave Tory and ol girl? And who's gun was it ownership-wise?

tory and the friend both had gun shot residue on they hands... to me that made it plausible there was a struggle for the gun. That's a problem for meg and the prosecutors. You need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tory had the gun out and aimed at Meg.

Maybe a jury sees it differently.. but all that combined w/ Meg's lies could be a problem. Doesn't seem open and shut

 

[nairdas]

A small nikka whose skinny and doesnt work out having an absurd power advantage over bigger, taller women?

Not to mention a trained professional bodyguard there observing it all not stepping in to stop it?

I'm not saying you right or wrong

Lol when I say our strength over women is absurd I mean that shyt. Megan's size means jack shyt. Tory probably isn't as strong as me, but I'm willing to bet he's still stronger than Megan.

 

[bourgeoisie tall freak]

Didnt read
Ya daddy black

ya mama black

 

[Apprentice]

the trial is tory lanez v. the state lmao

watching all of this and seeing how anyone with any sense (or legal knowledge) is convinced of Lanez's innocence is pretty funny

Because the state is performing like Kirk Cousins on primetime

 

[Umoja]

"The legal definition is when you use some random comment to verify a claim with no evidence."

"Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts. "


Yes it is




Maybe you just lack reading comprehension

No, I don't lack reading comprehension.

There are 3 components to hearsay:

1) A statement.

2) Said statement being made outside of court.

3) Said statement being relied upon to prove the truth of a stated matter.

The above is not reflected in your claim that "hearsay is random comments made to verify a claim without evidence". You're moving into the exceptions and admissibility territory.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

wait. meg denied fighting Kelsey?!

awwww hell nah

 

[5n0man]

No, I don't lack reading comprehension.

There are 3 components to hearsay:

1) A statement.

2) Said statement being made outside of court.

3) Said statement being relied upon to prove the truth of a stated matter.

The above is not reflected in your claim that "hearsay is random comments made to verify a claim without evidence". You're moving into the exceptions and admissibility territory.

Yes my post does meet those three components.

I think you're just slow and got confused because I didn't specify using a random comment IN COURT to prove a claim is hearsay, which should be obvious if we're talking legal definitions.

Or maybe it's my use of "comment" instead of "statement".

Either way, the definition I came up with based off my understanding of how the term is used was close enough to the legal definition.

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

so she doesn't want tory shot, but she wants him thrown under the jail?

yeah ok lying bytch

She was protecting him until Tory started talking crazy and then she was like fukk it then

 

[Bolzmark]

because she is a dumb alcoholic and the female empowerment shyt is good for her career

shyt she dropped a song about being shot like she was a female empowerment tupac weeks later

So she got shot by somebody else and created this huge lie, to get female empowerment points?

And the ex-friend is gonna say the same thing, even though they ain't cool anymore?

The "I'll give you a million dollars" is a lie too?

Sooooo you believe she is SO EVIL that she would make up this lie which could have a drastic effect on the rest of his life, who apparently up until that moment she liked enough to fukk, just to get female empowerment points?

Ok.

(I actually don't believe he intended to shoot her. I think that little man complex got the best of him when she said some slick shyt, he wanted to scare her and show he was a tough guy by firing near her, and accidentally shot her in the foot)

 

[Umoja]

Yes my post does meet those three components.

I think you're just slow and got confused because I didn't specify using a random comment IN COURT to prove a claim is hearsay, which should be obvious if we're talking legal definitions.

Or maybe it's my use of "comment" instead of "statement".

Either way, the definition I came up with based off my understanding of how the term is used was close enough to the legal definition.

No, it doesn't meet the 3 components.

You're focusing on elements that come up after hearsay has been established. Whether or not it admissible due to any exceptions and its relevance to the proceedings.

You can't seem to grasp that when defining hearsay, "randomness" is not one of the criteria. It is simply a statement made outside of court, repeated at trial to prove the truth of a matter.

"Close enough" to the legal definition doesn't cut it.

 

[Germms]

This shyt about to get thrown out.

 

[jadillac]

See, This is too much nicca sht for me. #3

 

[Egomaniacal1]

Wait wasn’t there a bodyguard there who witnessed this? Is he gonna testify?

 

[DatBoiHawk]