Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Tory Lanez Sentenced to 10 Years for 2020 Shooting of Megan Thee Stallion

unSCENE said:
I was sitting in my car parked and got hit by a drunk driver in the past. The idiot jumped out the car to see if I was okay, screamed at passerby’s for help and then told the police I cut her off (despite it being obvious to the contrary) before getting a breathalyzer.

Kelsey’s immediate drunk texts mean nothing. Idk why people continuously act like it does as if they’ve never seen a drunk text before or never seen a drunk person push culpability on less serious shit.

It’s willfully obtuse.
Click to expand...


But somehow all these wild and crazy drunk people were under control when the police showed up lol

giphy.gif
 
RandomNegro said:
I don’t see why so hard for people to stay focused on the reason why it makes sense to be glued to the details of a case study like this.

Its not about Tory or Megan, it could’ve been MC Scratch N Sniff and Denise Shaleese Patrice…..the point is that men aren’t be okay with our image being tainted with like the media is clearly comfy with doing to black men. This is a microcosm of the dynamics at play with BM and BW. That’s what this case basically turned into by all Sides who had a desire to see this through.

Its wrong what happened to Megan. She was hurt. That’s not really up for debate, so whoever hurt her should be held accountable. The problems are, when cases like this show up it shows you how one sided things are. This is proof thar within our communities, it’s a two way street conversation being held down a one way. The whole BW ride for BM and they don’t protect his narrative is garbage, but it’s allowed to keep going because this is the new racial fissure that is used to keep us arguing and to weaken us spiritually.
Click to expand...

LMAO this nigga was WASTED when he wrote this.
 
Rubato said:
I agree with yall on a lot of points but

He didn’t in any way get convicted of shooting Meg, so a lot of what y’all saying isn’t relevant
Click to expand...
So...what you think it's meant by the assault with a semiautomatic firearm charge?
 
Chicity said:
So...what you think it's meant by the assault with a semiautomatic firearm charge?
Click to expand...
Depends on what assault means in California. For example in Florida, assault is the threat of violence and battery is the actual executing of the threat of violence.

In other words, assault could be simply pointing the gun in this instance. Again, it depends what assault means in Cali
 
Chicity said:
So...what you think it's meant by the assault with a semiautomatic firearm charge?
Click to expand...

Shooting in her general direction

Penal Code § 245a2 PC - "Assault With a Firearm"

https://youtu.be/-0dz6_SXPeg Under Penal Code 245(a)(2) PC, California law defines assault with a firearm as assaulting a victim with the use of a pistol, rifle, shotgun, semiautomatic firearm, machine gun, .50 BMG rifle, or assault weapon. The assault may take the form of pointing the firearm...
www.shouselaw.com www.shouselaw.com

AF3A54E9-EF61-4CB2-A6AE-4A546EC9F942.jpeg
 
Chicity said:
So...what you think it's meant by the assault with a semiautomatic firearm charge?
Click to expand...

"Under California law, “an assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.”

Assault with a firearm could include any type of gun, even if it is not fired. This includes hitting someone with a gun or pointing a gun at someone to frighten them. A firearm is defined as “any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which a projectile is discharged or expelled through a barrel by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.”

In a criminal trial, the prosecutor has to prove each element of the offense in order to get a guilty verdict.

Under the Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, to prove the defendant is guilty of PC 245(a)(2), the state has to prove:

1. The defendant did an act with a firearm that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to a person;

2. The defendant did that act willfully;

3. When the defendant acted, they were aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that the act by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to someone; AND

4. When the defendant acted, they had the present ability to apply force with a firearm to a person.

The “application of force,” does not require bodily harm. Force can include touching someone in a harmful or offensive manner, even if it was very slight. Even if the defendant never intended to harm someone, it may still be considered assault."
 
Man, listen… I think he did it, but let’s say, that other chick is the one who actually did it. Bottom line…

If you know you innocent, nigga you better speak up. I’m not tryin to hear about how you got railroaded by the system when you could easily clear things up.

If you dead set on not wanting to be a “snitch”, then eat them years and stfu

Nigga spent the last year talkin bout wait til the trial for the truth to come out and then said absolutely nothing.

This ain’t no travesty, or miscarriage of justice. This exactly how it was supposed to play out, based on the way he played it.

“When there’s blood on the streets, somebody’s gotta go to jail.”

Merry Xmas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top