@RekietaLaw@aburkhartlaw Which of you two should I watch if I want to see a (potentially) bi sexual man say the n word and provide his expert legal opinions?
@BearBlatter@Rach4Patriarchy Again, If he enters a plea of guilty as it stands he’s admitting to the shooting and 4 aggravating factors. That makes this a capital offense. If the aggravating factors don’t apply then he can’t be sentenced to death. I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you.
@BearBlatter@Rach4Patriarchy Because if he pleads guilty as the charges currently stand with the enhancements he’s eligible for the death penalty. If they successfully attack the aggravating factors then the death penalty is off the table.
@BearBlatter@Rach4Patriarchy You literally don’t. They are disagreeing to the aggravating factors of the charges. If they weren’t conceding that TR was the shooter then the defense would be “the defendant didn’t creates risk of death because he isn’t the one that fired the rifle.”
@BearBlatter@Rach4Patriarchy No, dude. This is an argument against the “great risk of death” aggravator. The state is using this aggravator to seek the death penalty. By arguing that the rifle was assembled prior to the shooting they’re saying the possibility that the scope was inaccurate is decreased.
@BearBlatter@Rach4Patriarchy Yes. And they’re saying the inference made by the state is reasonable that he had a rifle in his pant leg. They are attacking the claim made by the state that the rifle was assembled on the roof. They’re conceding he had the rifle and it was already assembled.
@DownEastSoul1@RekietaLaw It’s so much fun watching these idiots pretzels themselves as new evidence comes out. It’s like here’s a literal confession, DNA evidence, and security camera footage and they’ll be like “yeah but……there were planes from Egypt at some point”. Lmao. 😂