No, we don't agree.
You're positing knowledge of a gun in his car by alleging "delivery" of said gun.
The exact conjecture-fueled headline, devoid of actual facts, from far-left NBC News.
| MBB/WBB UPDATE 9/29: New Patch article: Pre-Trial Immunity Hearing For Darius Miles Started Today
- Thread starter BamaFan334
- Start date
You're positing knowledge of a gun in his car by alleging "delivery" of said gun.
The exact conjecture-fueled headline, devoid of actual facts, from far-left NBC News.
24and7
Member
24and7
Member
Cant explain things to an idiot like Sgt
Tidestalker
Member
I mean... How do your pizza's arrive when delivered?
I don't think the gun jumped out of the car and walked itself over to the scene....
I already traced your IP.
Dude, seriously stop.
Now this is hilarious.
There's a handful of guys on here like @rueben that know me IRL and can vouch.
Trust me, fella. I PROMISE... You DON'T want to find out.
Seriously... You DON'T.
24and7
Member
I already traced your IP.
Dude, seriously stop.
Now this is hilarious.
There's a handful of guys on here like @rueben that know me IRL and can vouch.
Trust me, fella. I PROMISE... You DON'T want to find out.
Seriously... You DON'T.
I’m ready… You come have your affairs in order.. umkkkkay… you have no clue about me..you started it.. let it go…I really dont give a fuck who you are
"Delivery" implies intent.
Yet, the facts (not some inflammatory fake news clickbait headline) state he had no knowledge of a handgun in his car. It was in his back seat, out of sight, AND covered up with a jacket, no less.
The only ACTUAL intent on the part of Miller, that's been corroborated by eye witnesses, timeline events, AND video evidence is that he was there to pick up his friend(s), nothing more.
Tidestalker
Member
SLO. I think you're hard of reading.
When did I ever acknowledge what is intent was or wasn't? The delivery thing is something you brought up... I've never used the word delivered or accused him of any intent.
All I've stated is that he is factually involved in the exchange of the weapon from his car to the killer. Whether he knew it or not, he brought the "joint" to the scene of the crime. And the fact that you have a hard time acknowledging that his intent has nothing to do with that fact, is a little weird and leads me to question your ability to objectively evaluate the situation.
24and7
Member
one thing is for sure… study that ip and ask around.. Im not what you are hoping for either
24and7
Member
Study that IP.. then you know where to come…I go by that handle so you can ask someone in town…I’ll know when you arrive..
Bro, nothing but word salad here.
You CLEARLY brought up "delivery" like you've been under a rock for 3 weeks and had just finished reading that NBC drivel.
Answer the questions.
24and7
Member
24and7
Member
I’m f ing around to find out… what nothing from you
You should know IP tracer
Tidestalker
Member
Now it's even weirder that you're lying. You're on tilt for no reason. Find where I used the term "deliver" before you inaccurately attributed that word in quotes to me.
All I've said is that he's involved in the exchange of the weapon from his car to the killer. It appears you agree. It's really not that deep.
ElephantStomp
Member
There’s nothing to charge him with. If you’ve seen it “multiple times” then where you’re at is wrongfully charging people and losing cases out their ass.
My 6 years as a cop I’d never seen somebody wrongfully charged, but different part of the country as you
24and7
Member
The reason it is a capital murder charge is the woman was shot in a car…to shoot someone from a car or in car is an automatic charge… Miller brought the weapon to the scene wittingly or unwittingly… the weapon was the reason the woman was murdered…Miller could have very easily been charged for nothing else but a plea and turn states evidence…Capital Murder is a very easy to charge crime when a capital element is there…Im amazed Miller wasnt charged in this case…Miles defense attorneys will try to paint Miller as the reason this took place..
bamafan9201
Member
That's just called cross examination, nothing you've said has been correct so far from a legal standpoint so it's hard to take anything you say seriously when you're unable to form an argument that isn't a misrepresentation of the facts or a misused legal term. I have no crimson covered glasses here, if Davis were the leading scorer and Miller was a nobody bench player I'd be defending him here still because people don't deserve to go to jail for a murder they weren't a party to.
I've sold a gun or two in my time so far. What if someone murdered someone about two days after I sold them a gun or hell, 10 minutes later?
Does that make me a murderer? I've given someone a knife at a table they asked for or in a deer blind or in a corn field/bonfire. If they went and stabbed some dude who'd been fighting with him, does that make me a murderer as well? You're in a very slippery slope, legally, if you ruled that people who sell/loan/distribute items that are used in murders or for other crimes are then also held accountable for the crimes that were committed.
If that law did come to pass or that precedence was set by a case like this, it would shake the legal foundations of the justice system to it's core and not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of people would then be accessories to possible crimes. They won't rule that way, going 3 or 4 down the line is impossible unless there is clear evidence of conspiring to commit the crime with the perpetrator.
Imagine a bartender being sentenced to 5 years in prison because he/she served alcohol to another person and that person went and killed someone in a DUI head on collision. Did the bartender know that alcohol could cause someone to get drunk? Yes, did they force that person to drive under the influence and kill someone? No. It's pretty cut and dry here.
The law is not grey. It is BLACK and WHITE you don't get to interpret it as you see fit you have to read it as it is written or else it circumvents the entire Justice system.
Also, I'm not a Dickhead, I've been on these boards for quite some time and I rarely get in an altercation. I do have differing view points than others but just because I do, doesn't mean I fight them. I do however, stand for the facts. If they provide a clear and concise argument that is hard to dispute, I'd be willing to concede my logic might be flawed. I suggest you consider doing something like that here because it only looks worse for you the further you dig yourself into that foxhole and try to fight everyone around you. Playing devil's advocate can be fun, but knowing when to shut up is likely more important.
