There were a few tiny rocks but most of it pulverized since they had to test it.... when am I going to have crack in my hands except when I wipe my own ass....
Ocho and/or Tree ----- Quick legal Question
- Thread starter vanzandt
- Start date
There were a few tiny rocks but most of it pulverized since they had to test it.... when am I going to have crack in my hands except when I wipe my own ass....
Now THAT is a movie I can watch over and over.
No stupid outer-space stuff, no under-sea crap, and no cheezy cgi monsters.
>>> Quality film. In my top 10.
Except it wasn't in your hands, it was in a cellophane or plastic bag. Didn't you ever have pop-rocks as a kid? Man, you are a seriously tactile-deficient cat lawyer.
It looked like Sept support in the $30-$35 range.
We'll see what happens tomorrow.
But personally, I think it's going lower, unless it looks like Musk can be held to whatever he signed. The more we hear about a trial, the lower it will go. I think. Herd mentality. Fear. Rumors. Hype.
That's exactly why I asked.
I should have just jumped in.
Missed a hell of a move today, thats for sure.
That's exactly why I asked.
I should have just jumped in.
Missed a hell of a move today, thats for sure.
So if someone in a bar starts punching me, I have to take it? How do I know he's isn't going to stop punching me and I might get beaten to death?
I've never heard of "in kind" in a self defense scenario.
Even if one were to go with the in-kind argument, the recitation of the facts should include that the black attacker was accompanied by a woman who displayed/wielded a knife.
SVZ makes incorrect judgements from time to time, but the beauty, in this country, is that those judgements are his to make. He's made a misstep asking Coach a legal question, but that's fine.
Last edited:
Does the law say you have to take it?
But you dont get to kill someone just because they punched you in a bar. Sorry.... that is not how the law works. If someone is punching you in a bar you dont automatically get to pull out a knife and stab them repeatedly. You can use equal force if reasonable or perhaps force to save yourself such as grabbing an item and hitting the person so that you can escape.
Also if you kill someone in a bar fight you will be arrested if you instigated the fight, continued the fight without fleeing when safe to do so, or escalated the encounter. If you are punched silly I doubnt you can defend yourself anyway. But if you get up and go stab the person in the neck and kill him....get ready for a trial.
As for what you never heard of:
Article 35 of the New York Penal Law Code explains when individuals are “justified” to use physical or deadly force to defend themselves or others. New York Penal Law 35.15 states that you can use physical force when and to the extent, you reasonably believe such to be necessary to defend yourself, or another individual from what you believe to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by another individual. However, a person may only use deadly physical force in limited circumstances. For instance, if an individual reasonably believes that another person is committing or trying to commit a kidnapping, forcible criminal sexual act, forcible rape, or robbery, they may use deadly physical force.
New York is governed by the concept of “Duty to retreat” and the “Castle Doctrine.” The duty to retreat concept means that before a person acts in self-defense, they should take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of harm. Generally, the duty to retreat concept requires that an individual only uses force as a last resort.
Deadly physical force which is the type of force that is capable of causing a serious physical injury or death is not permitted unless a person reasonable believes that deadly physical force is being used or is about to be used on himself, herself or a third person. Even in such a situation however, the law imposes on a person a duty to retreat before he or she can resort to using deadly physical force if they can retreat with complete safety.
Last edited:
Was the victim confronted with deadly force? Yes, the perpetrator was accompanied by a woman who brandished knife.
Was the victim able to retreat or was he cornered by a confronting perpetrator? That is for the jury to decide. The video is there. Let's just say you would not want to be prosecuting that case. And that is without even getting to the probability of jury nullification regardless of the facts.
If he had been armed with a firearm. He had every right to kill both of them. Not in the beginning when the woman was retreating and when the man was just verbally threatening him. But when she reappeared with a knife and he had cornered him and was manhandling him he had every reason to fear for his life and his life was in danger by anyone's standards unless they are a loon working some political agenda.
Last edited: