Are you a homeless person?
Aspiring rapper killed 4 people for "street cred"
- Thread starter MikelArteta
- Start date
Are you a homeless person?
LOL @ niccas growing up listening to Dr. Dre, 50, mobb deep, Jay, MOP, Master P, Diplomats, etc kill a million black men on wax, and now somehow think that Iggy Azelea and Drake are "too violent" and a bad influence on younger black folk.
How you niccas in your 20s n 30s and already some get-off-my-lawn-I-hate-lil-niccas-and-their-hippity-hoppity type dudes? Especially when you post at a site that appreciates hip hop music? Thats borderline trolling. Except for Phonzi, who is a full on troll.
Stop using the actions of some crazy killer for your ridiculous agenda.
How you niccas in your 20s n 30s and already some get-off-my-lawn-I-hate-lil-niccas-and-their-hippity-hoppity type dudes? Especially when you post at a site that appreciates hip hop music? Thats borderline trolling. Except for Phonzi, who is a full on troll.
Stop using the actions of some crazy killer for your ridiculous agenda.
Last edited:
You got any f's? Did they check your record? i heard they don't check. But i also heard canada won't allow anyone with a record in.
Concerning VIolence
Decolonizer
I''m saying, and then people say hip-hop is too "feminized" and has a homo agenda.
Pick one.
I think its time to talk more about mental illness in the "black community" especially in impoverished areas
You cant be all together in the head if you can just take another persons life for something with no physical value
You cant be all together in the head if you can just take another persons life for something with no physical value
Indiglow Meta (R$G)
Ultra.
They checked. I only have an M from Texas that looks like an F on paper. I explained that away. I also have tats on my hands...I said that was my production group, and it is. I was gucci after that. I came here before for a show...got across with a military ID...my homie got turned around because of a theft charge...and the car smelled like tree.
Indiglow Meta (R$G)
Ultra.
This happened in Canada.
Indiglow Meta (R$G)
Ultra.
Y'all need to read this instead of reading this nikka's version of the article:
Moore had earlier sent the judge a letter, objecting to Dambrot on the bench. “To the courts, I am sorry to have to inform you that I will no longer be taking part in these bias (sic) and extremely prejudice (sic) proceedings. I cannot and will not stand accused of nine separate and totally isolated incidents on one indictment. How could any human being get a fair trial in this democratic country under these circumstances?”
Those circumstances, as the court had earlier ruled, meant that the murder charges and related counts would not be severed into separate trials.
“The Honorable Judge Dambrot was correct in establishing that there is no similar fact evidence linking the individual cases,” the letter continued. “How then is it possible for these separate incident to be joined on one indictment? So many people including myself have been affected by these tragic events. Only through each fair and unbiased trial can those affected receive any form of justice. I humbly ask for a fair trial.”
Courts and prisons are full of jailhouse lawyers, defendants and convicted felons who pore over law books and consider themselves instant experts on jurisprudence. Some, like Moore, have been through the system before. This apparently amounts to the gaining of legal wisdom.
“Considering the law in Section 589 of the Criminal Code which prohibits the Crown from joining any count on an indictment charging murder unless the offenses arise out of the same transaction as that murder … Parliament will not permit the prosecutorial short-cut of placing an additional count on the indictment in a murder trial,” Moore wrote.
“For these reasons, I am protesting on the record that Your Honour Judge Dambrot be removed for his blatant oversite (sic) of these laws and admitting to Googling my name on the Internet. This in itself is highly prejudicial and may have contributed to this ruling.”
Jurors did not know of Moore’s letter and still don’t.
The 31-year-old aspiring rap singer has pleaded not guilty in the shooting deaths of four men: Jahmeel Spence, Courthney Facey, Mike James and Carl Cole. The murders occurred over a period of 75 days in the autumn of 2010. Prosecutor Sean Hickey has asserted that Moore is a cold-blooded serial killer. The accused, as court heard, knew only one of the victims – Cole. The others were complete strangers to him.
On that Friday morning, March 6, Dambrot told Moore’s lawyers: “Mr. Moore has to realize that he doesn’t get to choose (his judge). I am going to order that security staff bring him from the cells and to use reasonable, whatever force is necessary, hopefully not much.”
Moore did come up from the cells downstairs, handcuffed and glaring at Dambrot.
Judge: “Have a seat, Mr. Moore.”
Moore: “I don’t want to be here.”
Judge: “I advise that you be seated and you be prudent in the way you act.”
The jury had no sooner filed in than Moore, expressly ignoring Dambrot’s admonitions, tried speaking to them. “Good morning, jury — ”
Cut off immediately by the judge. “This is not an opportunity for you to speak to the jury.”
Dambrot then asked the jurors to leave again.
Addressing Moore, Dambrot said: “There are two times that you may address the jury — in the opening address of the defence and at the close of the case. No one has the opportunity to make a speech during the conduct of the trial. Are you going to continue to do that?”
Moore: “I’m going to continue to do that.”
With the patience of Job, Dambrot explained the section of the Criminal Code that laid out his options when a defendant “misconducts himself,” including removal from the courtroom. “I don’t want to do that. I think the trial would be immeasurably enhanced by your being here.”
Moore twists his neck, stares at the ceiling, won’t promise to behave.
“I take it you remain of the intention to keep interrupting?” the judge inquires.
Moore: “Yes, for reasons — ”.
Judge: “Your reasons are of no consequence to me.”
Moore: “I do want to be here for my trial. It’s about you.”
Judge: “I well understand your attitude. I understand that you consider me biased. But this is the trial that you have. This is the trial that you’re going to have. It will be fair, whether you think so or not.”
Moore: “I respect everything in this courtroom. I feel you don’t like me. You give me a lot of bad looks. You put me in a mess … I feel petrified even being here in this court right now. I’m not trying to disrespect you or anyone in this court.”
At that point, Dambrot lifts his eyes to a female spectator in the courtroom. This is Moore’s ex-girlfriend and baby-mama. She has repeatedly rolled her eyes and uttered grumbling asides.
“Madam, I’m going to ask you to leave,” says Dambrot.
Woman: “Why?”
Judge: “Right now.”
Woman: I didn’t do anything.”
Judge: “Right now!”
That settled, Dambrot returns his attention to the accused. “I have no view. I don’t dislike you. I am indifferent to you. I will try my best to ensure that I don’t express anything to the jury on my face. The ruling I made is the fundamental problem. If you have issues with the way this trial is conducted, you have the right to appeal. I’m going to ask you one last time — will you conduct yourself properly?”
Moore: “Is it called misbehaving if I talk to the jury?”
Judge: “Will you behave?”
Moore: “I don’t want to disrespect the court so it’s best that I leave.”
Dambrot sighs. “The last thing I want is a trial with your chair empty. What I won’t permit is that you hijack the proceedings.”
The judge adds: “The trial is going to go to a conclusion, with you or without you.”
Dambrot offers Moore the option of watching the trial via video link-up. Moore declines. “It seems to me a disastrous decision,” says the judge, of Moore’s obstinacy.
The judge tells Moore’s lawyers the defendant would be brought to court every day and given the opportunity to stay.
Moore says he wants to ditch his lawyers.
Judge: “Are you discharging them or not?”
Moore: “I’m not answering that.”
When the jury finally is summoned back, they see only that empty chair. Dambrot gives them a brief explanation. “As you can see, Mr. Moore is not present in the courtroom. Over the last couple of days, he has expressed the desire not to be present. I have the jurisdiction to permit that to take place. He may choose at any time to change his mind and return. In the meantime, we will continue with witnesses.”
Moore did not fire his lawyers. The following Monday morning, he was back in court and quiet.
Moore had earlier sent the judge a letter, objecting to Dambrot on the bench. “To the courts, I am sorry to have to inform you that I will no longer be taking part in these bias (sic) and extremely prejudice (sic) proceedings. I cannot and will not stand accused of nine separate and totally isolated incidents on one indictment. How could any human being get a fair trial in this democratic country under these circumstances?”
Those circumstances, as the court had earlier ruled, meant that the murder charges and related counts would not be severed into separate trials.
“The Honorable Judge Dambrot was correct in establishing that there is no similar fact evidence linking the individual cases,” the letter continued. “How then is it possible for these separate incident to be joined on one indictment? So many people including myself have been affected by these tragic events. Only through each fair and unbiased trial can those affected receive any form of justice. I humbly ask for a fair trial.”
Courts and prisons are full of jailhouse lawyers, defendants and convicted felons who pore over law books and consider themselves instant experts on jurisprudence. Some, like Moore, have been through the system before. This apparently amounts to the gaining of legal wisdom.
“Considering the law in Section 589 of the Criminal Code which prohibits the Crown from joining any count on an indictment charging murder unless the offenses arise out of the same transaction as that murder … Parliament will not permit the prosecutorial short-cut of placing an additional count on the indictment in a murder trial,” Moore wrote.
“For these reasons, I am protesting on the record that Your Honour Judge Dambrot be removed for his blatant oversite (sic) of these laws and admitting to Googling my name on the Internet. This in itself is highly prejudicial and may have contributed to this ruling.”
Jurors did not know of Moore’s letter and still don’t.
The 31-year-old aspiring rap singer has pleaded not guilty in the shooting deaths of four men: Jahmeel Spence, Courthney Facey, Mike James and Carl Cole. The murders occurred over a period of 75 days in the autumn of 2010. Prosecutor Sean Hickey has asserted that Moore is a cold-blooded serial killer. The accused, as court heard, knew only one of the victims – Cole. The others were complete strangers to him.
On that Friday morning, March 6, Dambrot told Moore’s lawyers: “Mr. Moore has to realize that he doesn’t get to choose (his judge). I am going to order that security staff bring him from the cells and to use reasonable, whatever force is necessary, hopefully not much.”
Moore did come up from the cells downstairs, handcuffed and glaring at Dambrot.
Judge: “Have a seat, Mr. Moore.”
Moore: “I don’t want to be here.”
Judge: “I advise that you be seated and you be prudent in the way you act.”
The jury had no sooner filed in than Moore, expressly ignoring Dambrot’s admonitions, tried speaking to them. “Good morning, jury — ”
Cut off immediately by the judge. “This is not an opportunity for you to speak to the jury.”
Dambrot then asked the jurors to leave again.
Addressing Moore, Dambrot said: “There are two times that you may address the jury — in the opening address of the defence and at the close of the case. No one has the opportunity to make a speech during the conduct of the trial. Are you going to continue to do that?”
Moore: “I’m going to continue to do that.”
With the patience of Job, Dambrot explained the section of the Criminal Code that laid out his options when a defendant “misconducts himself,” including removal from the courtroom. “I don’t want to do that. I think the trial would be immeasurably enhanced by your being here.”
Moore twists his neck, stares at the ceiling, won’t promise to behave.
“I take it you remain of the intention to keep interrupting?” the judge inquires.
Moore: “Yes, for reasons — ”.
Judge: “Your reasons are of no consequence to me.”
Moore: “I do want to be here for my trial. It’s about you.”
Judge: “I well understand your attitude. I understand that you consider me biased. But this is the trial that you have. This is the trial that you’re going to have. It will be fair, whether you think so or not.”
Moore: “I respect everything in this courtroom. I feel you don’t like me. You give me a lot of bad looks. You put me in a mess … I feel petrified even being here in this court right now. I’m not trying to disrespect you or anyone in this court.”
At that point, Dambrot lifts his eyes to a female spectator in the courtroom. This is Moore’s ex-girlfriend and baby-mama. She has repeatedly rolled her eyes and uttered grumbling asides.
“Madam, I’m going to ask you to leave,” says Dambrot.
Woman: “Why?”
Judge: “Right now.”
Woman: I didn’t do anything.”
Judge: “Right now!”
That settled, Dambrot returns his attention to the accused. “I have no view. I don’t dislike you. I am indifferent to you. I will try my best to ensure that I don’t express anything to the jury on my face. The ruling I made is the fundamental problem. If you have issues with the way this trial is conducted, you have the right to appeal. I’m going to ask you one last time — will you conduct yourself properly?”
Moore: “Is it called misbehaving if I talk to the jury?”
Judge: “Will you behave?”
Moore: “I don’t want to disrespect the court so it’s best that I leave.”
Dambrot sighs. “The last thing I want is a trial with your chair empty. What I won’t permit is that you hijack the proceedings.”
The judge adds: “The trial is going to go to a conclusion, with you or without you.”
Dambrot offers Moore the option of watching the trial via video link-up. Moore declines. “It seems to me a disastrous decision,” says the judge, of Moore’s obstinacy.
The judge tells Moore’s lawyers the defendant would be brought to court every day and given the opportunity to stay.
Moore says he wants to ditch his lawyers.
Judge: “Are you discharging them or not?”
Moore: “I’m not answering that.”
When the jury finally is summoned back, they see only that empty chair. Dambrot gives them a brief explanation. “As you can see, Mr. Moore is not present in the courtroom. Over the last couple of days, he has expressed the desire not to be present. I have the jurisdiction to permit that to take place. He may choose at any time to change his mind and return. In the meantime, we will continue with witnesses.”
Moore did not fire his lawyers. The following Monday morning, he was back in court and quiet.
Deluuxe
Deadly Jester
LOL @ niccas growing up listening to Dr. Dre, 50, mobb deep, Jay, MOP, Master P, Diplomats, etc kill a million black men on wax, and now somehow think that Iggy Azelea and Drake are "too violent" and a bad influence on younger black folk.
How you niccas in your 20s n 30s and already some get-off-my-lawn-I-hate-lil-niccas-and-their-hippity-hoppity type dudes? Especially when you post at a site that appreciates hip hop music? Thats borderline trolling. Except for Phonzi, who is a full on troll.
Stop using the actions of some crazy killer for your ridiculous agenda.
Explain to me how these Toronto kids who are born to Caribbean and African parents are over here claiming blood and crip talking about their hard and their speech heavily influenced of black american slang. How is all this information being translated to them? By what means?
Some Canadian Rapper trying to be hard
PhonZhi
Veteran
You going in . Like i keep saying. Its a huge contributing factor in our own self-hate. Cats keep posting pie charts talking bout the murder rate is down but its much deeper than that. It has our collective mindstate stagnated. It promotes and glorifies the OPPOSITE of whats needed for a community to thrive. This music is mental poison to our community.
It's 2015 not 1995 no more.
Yep. It could have been a used as a weapon by us, but ended up being used as a weapon against us.
nikkas are too slow to realize this.
