re: The actual text of the text message

quote:

---

He saw the text. Why isn't he being charged? THAT is the scandal in all of this.

---

You have proof he did? You’re just speculating off of a logic game instead of actual statements, physical evidence, and witnesses, cmon fake message board lawyer you can do better than that.

Assuming this can be proven, you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that BM knew about the prior verbal altercation before the text, which he did not. You have to prove that he saw the gun or handled it, which he did not. You have to prove that his intent was to bring the gun to Miles to commit a crime which he did not. You have to prove all these things beyond a reasonable doubt just to prove intent, not even close to proving actus reus. Gimme a break and I’m the farthest thing from a Bama fan.

quote:

---

you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that BM knew about the prior verbal altercation before the text

---

no you don’t

quote:

---

which he did not.

---

How can you know this?

quote:

---

You have to prove that he saw the gun or handled it

---

no you don’t

quote:

---

which he did not.

---

how can you know this?

quote:

---

You have to prove that his intent was to bring the gun to Miles to commit a crime

---

close, I’ll give you this one

quote:

---

which he did not.

---

how can you know this?

quote:

---

not even close to proving actus reus.

---

actus reus is easy if you prove the mens rea

quote:

---

How can you know this?

---

Because his lawyer said it publicly, man you message board fake lawyers stink

also this

quote:

---

The text does not even tell Miller that Miles wants him to do anything.

It is just a declarative statement of "I need my joint"

You have to walk the whole jury through all of the context just to get them through the interpretation and convince them beyond all reasonable doubt that "I need my joint" means "My gun is in your car please bring it to me"

Then even if Miles text was "My gun is in your car please bring it to me" they then have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "rl guy out here fakin" means that "I intend to use it to commit a crime." and not just that he wants it because he feels unsafe and has gotten into an argument or whatever.

---

So you have more bullshite you want to disseminate or you want to accept your L and move on?

quote:

---

Because his lawyer said it publicly

---

Well if his lawyer said he didn’t look at or handle the gun, all is well. Case closed.

quote:

---

It isn’t required to prove intent that he knew about the verbal altercation.

---

Yes it does because of the context

quote:

---

I hope your are a fake lawyer instead of a real one.

---

I could say the same about you because of the bullshite you just said

quote:

---

His knowledge of the altercation certainly would be a piece of evidence that could help prove intent, but it is not required.

---

Without it, intent becomes increasingly harder to prove but you claim to know all this legal knowledge, why don't you charge BM with accomplice liability and see how that works out for you? This fake message board lawyering by you people is pathetic.

quote:

---

Well if his lawyer said he didn’t look at or handle the gun, all is well.

---

So if Miles got in the car with the gun in his waist band and slid the gun under the clothes before he exited the car at the club, is it not reasonable to assume that Miller never saw or touched the gun like his lawyer claimed?

quote:

---

How would that work?

---

You're the one responding to my posts, you must feel pretty confident about it

quote:

---

if Miles got in the car with the gun in his waist band and slid the gun under the clothes before he exited the car at the club, is it not reasonable to assume that Miller never saw or touched the gun like his lawyer claimed?

---

Yes, if that were to happen and Miller never discussed the gun, that is reasonable.

Unlike the law school drop out’s contention, Miller seeing or handling the gun is not required for charges or conviction.

quote:

---

Yes, if that were to happen and Miller never discussed the gun, that is reasonable.

Unlike the law school drop out’s contention, Miller seeing or handling the gun is not required for charges or conviction.

---

That's if you can prove he even saw the text. Even granting that, you have to prove what the texts actually mean to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt which ain't gonna be easy bro.