z wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 10, 9:40 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Nov 9, 1:01 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
You guys are not holding the state to their burden of proof. You guys are so prejudiced against Dr. T and
you can't get around the fact that the guy actually didn't want to hurt them with his car.
Try this one:
"Yes Judge, I pointed my loaded gun at the victim and pulled the
trigger. But I only intended to teach him a lesson. I had no idea the
bullet might actually hit him or hurt him. In fact, I never hit
anybody the last few times I shot at someone. "
MG - you don't begin to grasp the nature of legal "intent."
You equate brake-checking with pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger?
Yes. Is there something you don't understand?
Little matter, the jury understood. 7 counts, 7 convictions, and it
only took a few hours after a 3 week trial.

So when someone brake-checks you on the highway, do you call 911 and say someone just "tried to kill" you and to
get an officer out to your location immediately...like you would do if someone pointed a loaded gun at you?

See, you don't rally believe what you are saying. You're just talking frivolously from your keyboard.

The fact is, we've all been brake-checked on a highway, and none of us called 911. Why? Because we didn't
believe we were being "assaulted with a deadly weapon." We all believed the guy in front was simply "trying to
teach us a lesson not to follow so close." Nobody wants to wreck their cars, asshole given insurance and police
reports, etc.


Thanks,

Magilla


We don't often call 911 because A) no crash occurred and B) we know
there is an extremely small chance that the police can or will do
anything about it.

So are you saying the police won't do anything about attempted murder with a deadly weapon?


Magilla