The Derrick Rose Trial - UPDATE: That bytch Lying!!!
- Thread starter GilSho
- Start date
Scottie Ca$h
Pro
Tf
Last edited:
It can take years to goto trial for non-criminal cases. It's the reason why this lil Wayne shyt won't be resolved until 2020
Scottie Ca$h
Pro
I Wouldnt Give This Bird A Dime Either
Yall nikkas Trippin, Give Her A Free Payday And Allow Her To Remain Anonymous, Really???
Yall nikkas Trippin, Give Her A Free Payday And Allow Her To Remain Anonymous, Really???
Actually I've heard liberal white women of a certain age can be some of the best jurors to have if you're a defendant. All it takes is for one of them to waver and hang the jury. That's the d mo graphic that has the most non-one sided opinions as weird as it sounds. At least that's what they said in the night of
Nobody started talked about the "style of the case" until you did. I was talking about the practical purpose and outcomes of the proceeding. A "case style" is just the names of the parties with a "v." in the middle. I was talking about the actual consequences she might face if her credibility is successfully impeached. Those consequences are nonexistent because she is not on trial. The style of the case has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Your whole point is that she is "figuratively" on trial because of what you perceive to be legal fictions in the U.S. justice system. And you're trying to spin that into her being "literally" on trial because you don't know what the word "literally" means.
Before you arrived, the conversation I was having was about whether or not the judge had a reason to tell the defendant to stop crying on the stand. You decided to take a sentence out of my post, spin it off into an entirely separate conversation revolving around your undergrad thoughts on the legal system, and then pretend like that's what everybody was talking about all along.
Nobody started talked about the "style of the case" until you did. I was talking about the practical purpose and outcomes of the proceeding. A "case style" is just the names of the parties with a "v." in the middle. I was talking about the actual consequences she might face if her credibility is successfully impeached. Those consequences are nonexistent because she is not on trial. The style of the case has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Your whole point is that she is "figuratively" on trial because of what you perceive to be legal fictions in the U.S. justice system. And you're trying to spin that into her being "literally" on trial because you don't know what the word "literally" means.
Before you arrived, the conversation I was having was about whether or not the judge had a reason to tell the defendant to stop crying on the stand. You decided to take a sentence out of my post, spin it off into an entirely separate conversation revolving around your undergrad thoughts on the legal system, and then pretend like that's what everybody was talking about all along.
"Pretend like that's what everybody was talking about" or what I was talking about? A lot of feminine energy coming from your direction. You just want to argue/debate for no reason. What I was talking about was explained and I even acknowledged that we were coming from two different angles on this. And yet, you're still going. It's best we just leave it at that and stop derailing the thread. Like I said, ask Marcia Clark who was actually on trial in the OJ case, him or the LAPD.
You wouldn't know "feminine energy" if a woman stuck a Duracell battery in your ass.
RATHER BE CARRIED BY 6 THAN JUDGED BY 12
so not only was it a moist comment to make, but it was also corny.....
thatrapsfan
Superstar
R.E.N. Spells Ren
Veteran
It's supposed to seem crass because that's exactly how that CaC female reporter wants it to seem.
Don't take her adjectives as gospel.