Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh no way!!!
Ask Rat or Jon to do it. No, Ilar. He would do it. Eddie?
Ilar would do it. But Rat would give the best summary.
[MENTION=23063]Rat in the Hat[/MENTION]
Plea schmea. He needs DP in a bad way.
Holy crap they added 648 more charges bringing the charge total to 977
two counts of aggravated murder under a fetal homicide law over allegations he forced Knight to miscarry, could potentially carry a death sentence if prosecutors choose to pursue it.
Ariel Castro pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to charges that he kidnapped three women and raped them for more than a decade before they escaped earlier this year. His attorneys hope to settle the case with a plea agreement, but if not the case will go to trial beginning in early August.
Cleveland kidnapping case: Castro attorneys seek plea bargain - CSMonitor.com
Oh no way!!!
Ask Rat or Jon to do it. No, Ilar. He would do it. Eddie?
Ilar would do it. But Rat would give the best summary.
[MENTION=23063]Rat in the Hat[/MENTION]
C'mon Rat...watch it and let us know if it's incriminating.
It's all in the name of case research, you know.
That smilie is my favorite.
The one I posted above may start in August if prosecution goes for dp - that's the monster that had the girls kidnapped in OH for years.
The cannibal I think is sometime in 2014
Careful, this is hideous. Makes JoJo look like a saint. Ok. I take that back.
The killer captured the whole sick scene on video, and that wound up on a website on May 26 called bestgore.com, which purports to be dedicated to ensuring the general public is aware of the reality of the world out there so everyone can make educated decisions that affect their well being and the well being of their families, but is clearly a forum for the kind of peeping toms who get off on watching people do awful shit to each other. The videos title: 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick.
Police only found out about this grisly killing when Juns body parts started showing up at the offices of Canadas major political parties. A severed foot arrived at the headquarters of the countrys Conservative Party in Ottawa Tuesday morning; postal workers intercepted a severed hand at the Ottawa Postal Terminal later that day, en route to the offices of the Liberal Party; and a janitor found the torso in a Montreal garbage dump near Magnottas apartment. Perhaps the killer had run out of stamps, by that point.
Canada?s 'Cannibal Killer:' Early Reports Warned About Luka Magnotta - The Daily Beast
Ok...reading...sounds ICK already.
I did not post the paragraph above of what the video was. Brace yourself.
So you think they'll be showing that in court?
Oh no way!!!
Ask Rat or Jon to do it. No, Ilar. He would do it. Eddie?
Ilar would do it. But Rat would give the best summary.
[MENTION=23063]Rat in the Hat[/MENTION]
Ask Rat or Jon to do it. No, Ilar. He would do it. Eddie?
Ilar would do it. But Rat would give the best summary.
[MENTION=23063]Rat in the Hat[/MENTION]
Tried to see it, but it seems the Montreal police asked them to take the video down.
Those damn townies, eh?
C'mon Rat...watch it and let us know if it's incriminating.
It's all in the name of case research, you know.
That smilie is my favorite.
LAUGHING OUT LOUD at "let us know if it's incriminating".
I'm wondering what the defense's schtick is going to be... Well his lover was calling him names and domestically insulting him and forced him to do it.
I thought the article quoted the police saying Magnotta managed to hide himself in the video, but that the interior of his home was the same in the video and lots of blood and other evidence was found when they searched his home after he fled to France.
So they probably will show the video but I'd like to know whether it's obvious it's Magnotta or if he was successful in keeping his identity hidden.
But I don't need to know badly enough to actually watch it.
C'mon Rat...watch it and let us know if it's incriminating.
It's all in the name of case research, you know.
That smilie is my favorite.
LAUGHING OUT LOUD at "let us know if it's incriminating".
I'm wondering what the defense's schtick is going to be... Well his lover was calling him names and domestically insulting him and forced him to do it.
I thought that might convince Rat to watch.
They have to go with the mentally insane schtick, right? I mean.......maybe he could go for the "It was a horror movie audition simulation. I didn't know it was a REAL knife" defense. ???
Ask Rat or Jon to do it. No, Ilar. He would do it. Eddie?
Ilar would do it. But Rat would give the best summary.
[MENTION=23063]Rat in the Hat[/MENTION]
[MENTION=42294]Snookie[/MENTION]
Snookie, you want to be our helper on this one?
JMOSelf-Defense Laws
Duty To Retreat
Under NRS 200.120 there is no duty for a person to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense if the all of the following conditions are met:
The person has a right to be present at the location
The person is not the original aggressor
The person is not engaged in conduct in furtherance of a criminal activity.
Nevada Self-Defense Laws
Zimmerman Jury Was Misled About The Meaning of Floridas Self Defense LawGuilty of all charges.
If Zimmerman had been living in Nevada he would have been convicted of something. Because he was the ORIGINAL AGRESSOR and he had NO RIGHT TO BE IN THE LOCATION of the confrontation, Trayvon was and Nevadas Stand Your Ground law would have protected Trayvon. Zimmerman was a self appointed vigilante neighborhood Watchman illegally carrying a gun had no right to be present at the location where he murdered the teenager. Also he was told by 911 NOT to follow Trayvon.
Members of the jury DID consider stand your ground law when considering the case.
Even the juror who has been making the rounds to announce that she signed a book deal conceded that Zimmerman was wrong to get out of his vehicle. Moreover, Zimmermans lawyers knew it. Thats why they fought so hard to prevent a jury instruction on initial aggression. Had the jury been instructed on that part of the law, its more than a little possible that the verdict would have been less favorable to Zimmerman.
Zimmerman Jurors Was Misled About The Meaning of Florida's Self Defense Law
Self-Defense Laws
Duty To Retreat
Under NRS 200.120 there is no duty for a person to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense if the all of the following conditions are met:
The person has a right to be present at the location
The person is not the original aggressor
The person is not engaged in conduct in furtherance of a criminal activity.
Nevada Self-Defense Laws
Zimmerman Jury Was Misled About The Meaning of Floridas Self Defense LawGuilty of all charges.
If Zimmerman had been living in Nevada he would have been convicted of something. Because he was the ORIGINAL AGRESSOR and he had NO RIGHT TO BE IN THE LOCATION of the confrontation, Trayvon was and Nevadas Stand Your Ground law would have protected Trayvon. Zimmerman was a self appointed vigilante neighborhood Watchman illegally carrying a gun had no right to be present at the location where he murdered the teenager. Also he was told by 911 NOT to follow Trayvon.
Members of the jury DID consider stand your ground law when considering the case.
Even the juror who has been making the rounds to announce that she signed a book deal conceded that Zimmerman was wrong to get out of his vehicle. Moreover, Zimmermans lawyers knew it. Thats why they fought so hard to prevent a jury instruction on initial aggression. Had the jury been instructed on that part of the law, its more than a little possible that the verdict would have been less favorable to Zimmerman.
Zimmerman Jurors Was Misled About The Meaning of Florida's Self Defense Law
Even if GZ was the original aggressor, which he was not, once TM ran away he was not in any fear for his life ending his claim to stand his ground. Imminent fear is required to stand your ground. Once TM flees he is not in imminent fear, and you can't claim past threats as imminent by definition alone. GZ had every right to be where he was, and this is evidenced by the fact that he was not cited with trespassing. By your standards, if I get out of my car at Target anyone in the parking lot has the right to punch me in the nose, even if it is five minutes later on my way back out to the parking lot. This jury couldn't be instructed on GZ getting out of the car as an act of aggression, because it is not an act that is illegal. 911 operator didn't say NOT to follow. He said we don't need you to do that, once GZ was already out of his car. He then asked GZ what is he doing now. This is the same as me saying we don't need you to try to interpret the stand your ground law. We all wish you would listen, but you are under no obligation to heed my advice. GZ also had every legal right to carry a firearm in the state of Florida. Evidence by the lack of charges on such infractions that you claim. The jury did not consider the "stand your ground law" in deliberations. If you take time to read the jury instructions for a self-defense claim in all 50 states and Federal cases you will find the term "right to stand your ground". It simply means that you are legally in a place where you have a right to be, and are not required to retreat when you are in fear of death or great bodily harm. An example would be, if I'm in the same Target parking lot and you come running at me with an Ax I don't have to try and run into the store before I can shoot you.
Keep buying what they are selling you man.
The jury has summarily ruled. They don't need to explain to anyone why, or how they reached it. You need to accept it. I hated the verdict in the OJ double murder case, but I had to accept it. GZ can not be tried again for the same charge.Evidence suggested a lot of things. Who was told to stop following TM? Who was armed with a gun? The bottom line is, like GZ's guilt, none of the stuff you're claiming was proven either.
All of you who support TM now; hold contempt for Justice. GZ is NOT GUILTY!
All the inscrutable particulars are criminally moot.
I was just talking about the people who say with authority "TM did this" or "TM did that". When did he get his trial? The fact that GZ was found not-guilty, doesn't make TM guilty.
I don't recall a trial where any of that was proven. Can you give us a link? You can't give GZ the benefit of the doubt and then claim with certainty that the other stuff happened either. The best you can say is "we'll never know" or you're committing the same sort of speculation as the other side.
Evidence suggests thats exactly how it went down.
Evidence suggested a lot of things. Who was told to stop following TM? Who was armed with a gun? The bottom line is, like GZ's guilt, none of the stuff you're claiming was proven either.
