- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 12/7/25 at 1:54 pm to L.A.
100% I’m calling you anything I damn well want if you even try that on me.
WTF is wrong with you Portland?
WTF is wrong with you Portland?
Posted on 12/7/25 at 2:00 pm to BigBinBR
quote:That is certainly one interpretation, and the defendant provided another ... something about proposing a trade of the knife for cigarettes. The jury seems to have believed the defendant's explanation ... at least enought to sow "reasonable doubt" and thus preclude a conviction. "Reasonable doubt." Try to keep that concept in mind.
He didn’t initiate shite. The guy already had has his fixed blade knife out and was trying to sneak up behind the victim. The victim sees him and pushes him away. This is a guy that has stabbed multiple people before. It can easily be deduced that if he has a knife already out and is sneaking up on someone he intended to stab him.
I'll not speculate on why you choose to accept the interpretation that you choose to accept. Certainly it is not tied to stereotypes of any sort.
And before you start whining "Leftist," I do not accept EITHER argument because I was not present to hear the evidence. I simply observe that the jury clearly did so.
This post was edited on 12/7/25 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 12/7/25 at 2:07 pm to tiger789
quote:
wonder what would have happened if the victim had brought a gun to this "knife fight"
Apparently the "victim" didn't need a gun. A knife would good enough.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 2:12 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I'll not speculate on why you choose to accept the interpretation that you choose to accept. Certainly it is not tied to stereotypes of any sort.
You are speculating though. I don’t have any preconceived notions and your assumption that I do shows your racisit tendencies. I copied the information for you directly from an article AOL
Or how about Oregon Live. The defense attorney said the most delivery part was the racial slur after the stabbing.
quote:. Oregon Live
Transit cameras showed Edwards, a fixed-blade knife clasped at his side, approaching Howard from behind as he sat on a bench. The video has no sound, but Howard springs up and pushes Edwards as soon as he sees him. The duo scuffle against a wall for a brief moment, ending with Edwards stabbing Howard in the shoulder.
Defense attorney Daniel Small said the most relevant evidence was recorded later, when security officers heard the wounded man shouting the racist slur and captured it on their body cameras as he described the incide
This post was edited on 12/7/25 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 12/7/25 at 2:16 pm to Huey Lewis
quote:
Civil War 2 will happen within our lifetimes
I don’t want to fight people in Seattle, SF or NYC.
I just don’t want to be governed by them.
We need a divorce.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 2:27 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
there was a pre-existing beef between them
Link?
Posted on 12/7/25 at 2:29 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
The "victim" assaulted the defendant (without a weapon), and the defendant then stabbed him ... arguably in self-defense. The jury clearly believed the self-defense claim.
This coming from the “lawyer” that still believes rittenhouse committed murder.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 2:29 pm to L.A.
He will end up murdering someone and this jury will have blood on their hands.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 2:29 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
The "victim" assaulted the defendant (without a weapon), and the defendant then stabbed him ... arguably in self-defense.
quote:
Transit cameras showed Edwards, a fixed-blade knife clasped at his side, approaching Howard from behind as he sat on a bench. The video has no sound, but Howard springs up and pushes Edwards as soon as he sees him.
You were saying…
Posted on 12/7/25 at 2:30 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:Are you proficient in reading and understanding the English language?
there was a pre-existing beef between themquote:
Link?
I said that was my bet, not that it was some established fact.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 2:33 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:Apparently you are NOT proficient.
Transit cameras showed Edwards, a fixed-blade knife clasped at his side, approaching Howard from behind as he sat on a bench. The video has no sound, but Howard springs up and pushes Edwards as soon as he sees him.quote:
You were saying…
Yes, the defendant walked up behind the "victim." Did you read the part where the "victim" nonetheless struck the first blow.
Did the knife justify that assault? That was a question for the jury.
You were not present to hear the testimony or to evaluate the witnesses, but you have made up your mind. Rather typical, IMO.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 2:40 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
You’re such a fake, wannabe intellectual.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 2:55 pm to L.A.
shite. I thought this woulda happened in Britain. But no, in the US.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 3:01 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Did the knife justify that assault?
Are you actually suggesting that someone coming after you with a knife doesn’t allow for proactive measures for self-preservation.
Your “relentless analysis” seems to be centered around a supporting a pre-determined narrative.
Whats next?
That a criminal isn’t guilty of rape because the victim had a mini-skirt on under her jacket.
This post was edited on 12/7/25 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 12/7/25 at 3:15 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:And here we have it. Once again, you are "adding facts" which are not present in the original story.quote:Are you actually suggesting that someone coming after you doesn’t allow for proactive measures.
Did the knife justify that assault?
The defendant clearly had a knife. That is not remotely in dispute. But the story does NOT indicate that he was either attacking or ABOUT to attack the other fellow.
Your interpretation is obviously one possibility. The defendant provided a different possibility ... something about trading the knife for cigarettes. The jury heard the evidence and decided which witness(es) were more credible.
They were present. You were not. So, in your analysis, you are automatically correct.
quote:
Whats next? That a criminal isn’t guilty of rape because the victim had a mini-skirt on under her jacket.
This post was edited on 12/7/25 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 12/7/25 at 3:19 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
So, he was defending against racism by stabbing a man before he was being racist?
All whites are racist. Jury says ok to stab whites.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 3:20 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
something about proposing a trade of the knife for cigarettes
The bank robber was going to trade his guns for cash. Instead, he short the clerk, and kept the guns and the cash.
According to you (and the goose-steppers on the jury)…not guilty.
Posted on 12/7/25 at 3:23 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
The defendant clearly had a knife. That is not remotely in dispute. But the story does NOT indicate that he was either attacking or ABOUT to attack the other fellow.
Oh really?
quote:
Transit cameras showed Edwards, a fixed-blade knife clasped at his side, approaching Howard from behind as he sat on a bench.
I know that I usually sneak up on people with a deadly weapon in order to trade that item with them.
You are a tool to defend this.
This image applies to your defense of the criminal:
This post was edited on 12/7/25 at 3:25 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News