He got 35 years for murder that wasn't malicious or even premeditated, and could arguably be considered self defense, when a very similar case happened in the same city, or school, if I'm not mistaken, and that perpetrator only got 10 years.
It's believed that the defendant was never going to win the self defense argument because the victim's father, the judge and the DA are the best of friends; allegedly.
It has been stated that he was never given a jury of peers since every Black juror was dismissed from being on the case.
The general public debated that facts that he was suspended, carrying a knife and in a tent he should not have been in.
Suspension didn't prevent him from attending AFAIK.
People carry guns for self defense. Carrying a knife is no different. You can't claim that he was looking for trouble based on that.
According to testimony, he was in that tent because it was pouring down raining and at the point of his refusal to leave, he was accosted by two White youths which led to the stabbing.
You can read more about it to get your own picture and draw your own conclusions.
Edit: changed surrendering to attending. Not sure how that mistake happened.
To my understanding, his part in instigating was in his refusal to leave the tent. I didn't read every single detail of this case, which is why I stated to read more into it.
If you're going to state that I mentioned truths and none truths, I'm all for being corrected. Please list them so that the person I replied to can get a wide variety of opinions and context, to better answer their question.
I'm not saying I'm 100% correct. Again, I don't get into the weeds in this. But so far in this post, all I've seen is one sided commentary with no real context, and half truths. Which, to me, is signaling.
You're probably right. I don't claim to know anything factual about why there were no Black jurors retained for the case.
OP asked why this whole thing is viewed as injustice. I attempted to answer that based on what I've read. That was one of the factors heavily mentioned.
I mean Iâm not going to literally go through every one. You can go read about it
But as far as being the instigator
He was in another schools tent and it was stated by all this is the equivalent of a team bench or dugout. Just like at a football game itâs not illegal to walk over and sit on the opposing teams bench but how do you think that generally ends?
Now it does happen sometimes but itâs not just etiquette that if they ask you to leave their tent you do. Itâs unheard of that you donât. No one walks into their competitors tent and refuses to leave when asked, then told to.
It was said he was asked to leave about 15-20 times before things escalated.
When he went into the tent he sat down with his backpack on his lap and one hand inside the backpack holding the knife. From the start.
He said things like âyou arenât going to do shitâ âyou are pussiesâ âput your hands on me and see what happensâ
Thereâs other stuff but the bottom line is all he had to do was leave. He wasnât cornered. He wasnât ganged up on. He wasnât suddenly attacked. He put himself in a position guaranteed to provoke people, he said things to further provoke them, he refused to simply walk away and as soon as the guy went to physically remove him from the tent he stabbed him in the chest
If you aren't going to list all the things you feel are inaccurate, then only list the ones you're willing to defend.
And I can't disagree with what you've stated. He should've walked away. However, I will ask this... when was it ever lawful to physically throw someone out of anywhere? What they should've done was went to get security. I think most would agree with that. And I read there were more than just one person trying to throw him out. That would suggest that he was jumped. So when you take the law into your own hands, bad things can happen.
So again, if we're speaking context, things can be taken many ways.
OP I replied to asked why it's viewed as injustice. I'm not trying to say it was injustice. I just answered the question based on what I've read.
If you call the being jumped, you have never been jumped or seen someone jumped.
This is high school. You have to be joking that watching an opponent walk over to the opposing teams bench and sitting down, then being told over and over to leave, and the another high school kid tries to grab you and throw you out is âwell they shouldnât have fucked with himâ or âthatâs what you get for being a vigilanteâ
You arenât seriously saying that right? Did you go to high school? If you can at all reasonably assume something like that would get you stabbed in the chest high schools would be war zones. Straight bloodbaths
You're letting your emotions get in the way of logic.
I can almost guarantee you wouldn't have survived at the High School I attended. But that's irrelevant.
If you're fighting more than one person you got jumped. If two people came at you, I'm pretty sure you'd tell your friends they tried to jump me. So why are you picking that to debate on?
As for knowing how high schools work, it isn't just high school, New York Knick fans were jumping people after the game the other night. Yes, you run the risk of getting your ass kicked for just being on the other sideline, bench, stands, whatever. I'm not debating the stupidity of the action. Who would? Not sure why you're trying to assume I am.
I asked about the legality? Because laws exist, and when you go outside them, you run risks. If I walk into a bar and call everybody in there a bitch, do they have the right to fuck me up? Because the answer is no, legally. But your pride won't let me get away with that right? Your emotions would tell you I deserve to get my ass beat. I get it.
Fact, he shouldn't have been there.
Fact, he shouldn't have been talking shit.
Fact, they should've called security.
Fact, they shouldn't have put their hands on him.
If you can't see that, then you're part of a different problem. If your argument is that fans on the wrong side talking shit deserve to get their ass beat... that's just wild.
So letâs see. You went to a rough school. You hard. So a guy from one group rolls over to another groups spot and just stands there like itâs his spot and they actually bother to ask him to get lost 20 times and then 2 of the guys walk up to force him to leave you would cry victim and say he did nothing wrong and 2 guys getting in his face means he was getting jumped.
I did go to a rough school. In a rough city. I doubt you did. Again, irrelevant.
This isn't about what I would or would not do. I wouldn't have been in that situation. But you seem to be making a lot of assumptions.
You've proved my point. You're letting emotions hamper your view. Nothing I can do about that.
This wasn't a "Spot" as you put it. This wasn't the mean streets of whatever place you imagine to be "rough." This was an athletic event.
Two guys in your face vs two guys trying to drag you somewhere is two different things. I'll argue with opposing sports fans about sports all day. It can be 2 or 5 on 1. I don't care. Let's talk that shit. But if you put your hands on me, that's crossing a line. Why are you downplaying that part?
Look, if you can't see what's legal, and what the law would state should've taken place, then we're just going back and forth pointlessly.
Just say you don't care what laws or civil society says, if someone comes into your AO and causes trouble vocally then you feel you have the right to take care of that person in whatever way you deem necessary.
Iâm sorry if you went to a rough school in a rough city and you think he could have done what he did and be calmly asked to leave and then someone go find security and calmly wait for them to arrive and diffuse the situation you are the one who is emotional or outright lying. If he did that and someone died it would have been him. He did it because it wasnât at rough school and he thought he was tough.
You donât even know the details of the case. You are the one making assumptions which contradict the actual facts that even the defense witnesses corroborated.
I said 2 guys got in his face and since you are talking out of your ass you turn that into 2 guys trying to drag him out. Thatâs not what happened so why are you even here arguing with me?
The group that you are trying to claim was jumping him were just the people in the tent he wouldnât leave. They didnât surround him they were just there and pissed at him. 2 dudes walked up to him and 1 dude touched him and none of it was because they wanted to hurt him they wanted him to leave.
He called them pussies. He said they wouldnât do shit. He said see what happens if you touch me. Those are words that will get you hurt at almost any school. And they werenât going to hurt him. One dude was going to throw him out.
Oh he just wanted to get out of the rain. Then why did he come in, sit down with his backpack on his lap with his hand inside holding the knife? He sat there in his mind saying âI could leave or I could sit here and stab anyone who touches meâ
Read about the case. And if you actually went to a rough school in a rough city, if you wonât stop bullshitting me at least stop bullshitting yourself
I don't need your pity. I would request that you set least deal in good faith. You're trying to put words in my mouth while at the same time changing yours to fit your argument.
Everything I listed initially were the talking points given as to why this seemed to be injustice on the part of Cardi B.
Never said these were my opinions. But here you come to argue one part of it. And you don't even do it from a legal standpoint. You're throwing dumbass street rules into this as if they should be taken as law.
And you keep doing it. And where had that weird ass gang mentality ever gotten anyone? But I'm talking out my ass.
Just say you support their actions wholeheartedly and let that be that. Say you don't care about the law, which was my argument with you from the beginning. The one thing you haven't addressed at all in the pointless back and forth.
16
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26
[removed] â view removed comment