- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Joe Kent just potentially derailed prosecutor case against Kirk assassin
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Did you even read the words you quoted or did you just interpret and dot connect?
As I told the other person, they have no way of knowing that whatever he has to say won't be relevant. Or will be relevant. But the argument was made that it is irrelevant - period - and that therefore it shouldn't be allowed.
This is what the trial is for.
This post was edited on 3/24/26 at 1:21 pm
2
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:22 pm to the808bass
quote:
But I also stated that I hope he does testify
Ok then. I'm glad you agree that the text I quoted to you is idiotic.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:22 pm to AlterEd
quote:
As I told the other person, they have no way of knowing that whatever he has to say won't be relevant.
That isn't really responsive to quoting this
quote:
There would be great harm in someone testifying that has no relevant information whatsoever that is verifiable or first hand to the crime itself\
The irrelevance is baked into the words.
The comment is limited to non-relevant information. Any commentary of the words typed must be limited therein.
You're trying to change what they said to argue with the presupposition that already exists.
quote:
But the argument was made that it is irrelevant - period - and that therefore it shouldn't be allowed.
Holy fricking shite
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:22 pm to AlterEd
But the poster didn’t argue that he shouldn’t be able to testify if he has relevant information.
As you are dishonestly pretending just as you are usually arguing in bad faith with dumb arguments, little foundation and usually made up facts.
“EriKa kiRk mEt wiTh the ArKansAs chApteR of TurNinG PoinT!”
As you are dishonestly pretending just as you are usually arguing in bad faith with dumb arguments, little foundation and usually made up facts.
“EriKa kiRk mEt wiTh the ArKansAs chApteR of TurNinG PoinT!”
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:23 pm to AlterEd
At the end of the day this is still the US and a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If a defendant believes that someone's testimony can help their case, they are afforded the right to have that testimony heard. Anyone arguing otherwise is behaving in a manner incongruent with our laws.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:23 pm to AlterEd
quote:
I'm glad you agree that the text I quoted to you is idiotic.
I agree with everyone who has the misfortune of dealing with you that you’re intellectually stunted.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:24 pm to AlterEd
quote:
If a defendant believes that someone's testimony can help their case, they are afforded the right to have that testimony heard.
Just so you know, this is not a universal truth.
Defendants are limited in all sorts of ways in trying to introduce testimony that can be offered for their defense at trial. We have entire codes of evidence for these disputes.
This post was edited on 3/24/26 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:25 pm to the808bass
quote:
As you are dishonestly pretending
No. In fact, the opposite is true. The other poster was dishonestly pretending that whatever it is he has to say will be immaterial. They have no way of knowing that and neither do you, by your own admission. Neither one of you fricking know.
quote:
bad faith with dumb arguments, little foundation and usually made up facts.
More ad hom. You still have no argument and this bullshite you keep pulling makes that crystal clear.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:25 pm to AlterEd
quote:
No. In fact, the opposite is true. The other poster was dishonestly pretending that whatever it is he has to say will be immaterial.
You cannot read.
Is English your third language?
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:28 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Joe Kent says he is skeptical that Tyler Robinson, who confessed to killing Charlie Kirk, was the lone shooter. That accusation could undermine the prosecutors’ case against Robinson.
This doesn’t even make sense: There was maybe a second shooter so I guess we just have to let him go since he wasn’t alone.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You cannot read.
Is English your third language?
quote:
I doubt virtually anything that he would "testify" to would be admissible
And this became the position that user argues from. Even after it being pointed out that he has no way of knowing this.
More ad hom.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:29 pm to AlterEd
quote:
I doubt virtually anything that he would "testify" to would be admissible
Different words than the quoted language we were discussing
Dishonest to the core
Here is the actual quoted language
quote:
How would he testify if his testimony is inadmissible
There would be great harm in someone testifying that has no relevant information whatsoever that is verifiable or first hand to the crime itself
LINK for citation
Why change the language being discussed to something else?
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:30 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
1. It's likely on purpose,
B. Frankly, jurors aren't quite that stupid
B. Frankly, jurors aren't quite that stupid
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:30 pm to AlterEd
quote:
I think the mere fact that he says he wants to testify says otherwise.
Go watch the last 30 minutes of the show today. Starts around 1:34:00
Andrew had Michael Shellenburger on discussing his interview of Joe Kent.
Joe is a grade A piece of shite for doing this.
https://rumble.com/v77k3h8-ice-airport-mop-up-joe-kent-and-tyler-robinson-homan-markers-cozzetto-shell.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Dishonest to the core
Yes, you are.
quote:
No. In fact, the opposite is true. The other poster was dishonestly pretending that whatever it is he has to say will be immaterial.
You cannot read.
Is English your third language?
What I just quoted to you that you're now responding to was when the other user made up their mind that anything he has to say would be immaterial even after it was pointed out that he has no way of knowing that.
THEN he went from that starting point, ignored the point that he has no way of knowing that, and claimed that his testimony would be irrelevant and therefore cause "great harm" in the trial.
Thereby establishing what I said initially. That people are arguing for him to be silenced.
Do try to keep up.
Again, if you really are a "lawyer" you have to be one of the worst lawyers ever.
This post was edited on 3/24/26 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Defendants are limited in all sorts of ways in trying to introduce testimony that can be offered for their defense at trial. We have entire codes of evidence for these disputes.
Codes authored by them, to make sure their plans aren't exposed to public light.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:34 pm to AlterEd
quote:
We are not here to litigate the trial. We are discussing whether someone is a "shite stain" for saying he would testify in a trial. Someone who very well may have information that is pertinent to said trial due to the nature of his fricking job as former head of counterintelligence.
Blah blah blah, cliffs notes everyone.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:35 pm to AlterEd
I've broken it down and made it as simple as it can get.
I don't know if it's sadder that you think you're making points or that multiple other people with your intellectual/logical issues (who now dominate this board) will read your incoherent and dishonest ramblings and think you "won".
I don't know if it's sadder that you think you're making points or that multiple other people with your intellectual/logical issues (who now dominate this board) will read your incoherent and dishonest ramblings and think you "won".
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
You losing is nothing new, man. Everyone here sees it every day.
Posted on 3/24/26 at 1:36 pm to AlterEd
Proving my point in real time
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News