forums

Former FSU WR Travis Rudolph arrested on 1st Degree Murder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Look, you can spin this any way you want. I said what I said. This isn't about "writing a legal memo". This thread is 2 years old. Someone recently bumped it, and several people misstated wild non-law-school-grad takes on legal issues. I'm just trying to provide context and explanation to some folks who may not be aware of, say, why "stand your ground" does not apply here, and I only took issue with one hardhead who kept pressing his own personal opinions on what the law is, or should be.

As for your take on the facts, it really doesn't matter. We both know why those less relevant issues are being presented, and it's for jury nullification purposes.

All I'm asking FROM YOU is to be honest.

1. "The woman texted her brother(s) to basically shoot Rudolph". And? Outside of trying to gin up jury nullification, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? First, if people were indicted and convicted for their angry/upset texts, half of America would be doing jail time right now. Second, and more importantly, where is the evidence that the four men did ANYTHING to follow through on her angry texts? Did these four guys show up at Rudolph's door with guns drawn and holsters full of ammo refills? NO. Therefore, the use of texts to show HER frame of mind has nothing to do with anything outside of emotions. I can ask you to commit a crime. That doesn't mean you have to do it.

2. This "attack". Be more specific, please. Did four guys show up to confront Rudolph, based on (sadly) an exaggeration of the situation? Sure. But arguments and misunderstandings happen all the time. Here's a thought...if you JUST had an argument with a female, and then four guys (some of them related to the female) show up at your front door, DON'T OPEN THE DOOR. Or at least open the door WHILE HOLDING A GUN. Either response is fine and legally permissible, and would not have resulted in a trial for Rudolph. But opening the door unarmed, and then LATER running back into the house and chasing guys down to execute them IS WHY RUDOLPH IS IN A TRIAL RIGHT NOW. So...I don't know...maybe choose the decision that will not ruin your life for two years while you prepare for trial and spend your life savings on a defense attorney? Right?

3. I don't know why you think the video of her hitting Rudolph earlier in the day means anything (outside of jury nullification). Here's a thought. Don't have an affair with a married woman and/or cheat on that married woman. It doesn't take a lengthy search of this board to find a bunch of posters who like to tell the rest of the board how the *** is SO HOT with a "crazy woman". And then later, these same posters will BEMOAN the fact that some "crazy woman" accused some friend-of-a-friend with something and now that guy is doing 200 years in jail or some such nonsense. So, again, I'm just spitballing here, maybe avoid crazy people and bad decisions made by crazy people, right? OR ELSE, if you play with that kind of fire, maybe wear some flame-retardant clothing and keep a fire extinguisher handy.

4. Finally, I'm going to skip a bunch of the rest of your post and go to ONE THING you wrote near the end. Which is that you think it's a "reasonable belief" that people "going back to a car" are going to retrieve a gun.

a. At THAT MOMENT, Rudolph is unarmed. So WHY would anyone need to "go back to a car" to retrieve a gun, particularly with a 4-on-2 advantage? And why, if they are willing to shoot an unarmed man, would they have left the proverbial cannoli in the car? Why wouldn't they have brought the guns FROM THE OUTSET? First, they have no idea what they are facing, exactly, so why wouldn't you "overprepare"? Second, people have claimed that they went there with "violent intentions", but why would they start out with a "peaceful" approach not involving guns from the beginning, if they are so prone to go and get the guns later?

b. If we are supposed to have a "reasonable belief" that every retreat, every situation where someone walks away, is just "I'm going to my car to get my gun", then not only are we going to have a lot of neighborhood violence, we are also going to have a lot of INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS that lead to needless bloodshed. Because IF IF IF "going back to the car" was such a reasonable predicate for "I'm coming back with an ****nal", then it would HAPPEN MORE in real life (not just John Wick movies) and there would be a lot more stories about neighborhood gun battles. Or, you know, such an assumption of "going back to the car to load up" might be completely unwarranted, right?



Maybe there will be a hung jury. Maybe. But unlike some of the dopey "Team Rudolph" fanboys, this is not a binary all-or-nothing case. People on BOTH sides of the argument should be convicted of crimes. Maybe the prosecution offered immunity, and we won't see charges against the female or the guys who confronted Rudolph. But to act as if Rudolph should "walk free" is to ignore the lengthy series of bad choices he made that have complicated the last two years of his life and finances.

People cheat all the time. People argue all the time. Domestic violence happens all the time. But the reason why there aren't more neighborhood gun battles involving 39 rounds of semi-automatic gunfire is that most people make better decisions, either to "not open the door" or to "call the police" or to "not run outside like you're John Wick".

I feel bad for Rudolph, I really do. I could definitely see a "lesser charge" being an agreeable compromise. But you have to step back and look at what really happened. Just be honest.
Click to expand...
Your facts are off in this message. Them guys showed a gun to his mother and told her to get back in the house and they weren't leaving before Travis comes outside.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Look, I'm not triggered at all. You have no idea what my background is, so I find your comment comical.

I've had guns, fired guns, and hunted since I was a kid. Same with much of my family.

And I'm going to be honest with you. I've had this conversation about "self-defense" and firing a gun with my brother FOR YEARS. Now, my brother has a freaking ****nal. He carries every day. He hunts all over the country. He's got three kids. He's a super "second amendment" guy and does NOT like the police, but calls them when he needs to. And even he will tell you that what Rudolph did was beyond stupid and unnecessary. And reckless.

Come out to a tailgate sometime and talk to my brother. He will tell you about situations he's been in that were more dangerous than what Rudolph faced, and he did NOT fire his gun (though he drew it and was prepared to fire).
Whether you like it or not, most people who spray off 39 shots into a retreating vehicle are doing so out of fear, and with absolutely no skill
Click to expand...
, and they are more likely to hurt an innocent bystander than to actually hit the person they intended to hit. Just look at the video, Rudolph ******* fell on his *** when trying to get out the door. He's an inexperience clown with a semi-automatic thinking he is justified in becoming John Wick, and the guy can't even find his own footing.

The Street Justice Warrior comment applies to YOU, not the four guys who confronted Rudolph. It applies to the guys who talk a big game about what they would have done if it happened to them, and use ridiculous logic to justify it.

Look, you want to use your feelings to justify doing what Rudolph did, then you may very well find yourself in a 2-year legal battle that drains your funds and possibly even leads to jail time. Let me know how that turns out for you, once you actually do what Rudolph did.

I'm sorry that you can't comprehend how easy it would be to corroborate Rudolph's bull**** "I was staring down two guns" story. He shot up a freaking car, which crashed a bit of a distance away from the scene. If there were sooooo many guns pointed at Rudolph, they would have still been at the scene and/or where the car crashed. Just be honest, those four guys were clowns, not master criminals. They didn't figure out a way to hide guns that can't be found for two years. They even found the unloaded, unpulled gun on the guy who ran away. If it really happened like Rudolph claimed, it wouldn't have been hard to corroborate that via other methods.

Rudolph shot at least one guy in the back. Who was running TO a car. Who, you know, did not already have one of the two mythical guns pointed at Rudolph as the "getaway car" roared out of sight. Rudolph sprayed 39 shots into people's backs and into the "getaway car", but we're supposed to believe that "two guns" were pointed at him and nobody got off a shot in return? It's not hard to corroborate OTHER BULLETS being fired, they are the ones that don't match the 39 that were pulled out of the car and peoples' backs. Or are you claiming that the "two guns" pointed at Rudolph were unloaded and used solely as props? Because if I saw a guy running after me while shooting a semi-automatic weapon, the LAST THING I would do is hold up an empty prop pistol that might cause him to shoot MORE. You think a guy spraying semi-automatic fire into peoples' backs will suddenly stop because he sees two puny pistols pointed at him? That's just ridiculous, and the product of watching too many movies while not living enough real life.

Nobody's mad at you. Just go back and do the research. The thread started two years ago. Try NOT basing all your opinions on the obviously-motivated statements of the accused.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but just because you sympathize with one side more than the other does not turn this into a binary decision on who should "walk free".
Click to expand...

Lol alright brodie.

1. First of all all I asked was what you would’ve done in the situation so idk how this got this serious. In my first comment in this thread I literally said that if you think that he’s in the wrong wrong then so be it but I personally can see how it’s self defense.

2. I’m not gonna be ignorant and pretend I know all the ins and outs of the story so if there’s detail I missed that could have impact how I view the case then just lmk. I described the events as I knew them so if I was wrong then just tell me where I was. Police found a gun in the side on the road and a second dude confirmed that he did in fact have a gun. Rudolph said he saw 2 weapons aimed at him so the details matched to me. You just don’t believe his story 🤷🏿‍♂️

3. On the street justice nonsense: Lol I never said I was gonna do anything big and bad. All I asked was what you would’ve done. The most I said was that if I was in that situation then I would’ve grabbed my weapon too but that was after you said the crap about Street justice.

4. I never said that he should walk free, I said I can see how this could be self defense.

5.
Whether you like it or not, most people who spray off 39 shots into a retreating vehicle are doing so out of fear, and with absolutely no skill, and they are more likely to hurt an innocent bystander than to actually hit the person they intended to hit.
Click to expand...
If he’s doing this out of fear, why am I so wrong for saying I can see how it’s self defense. You said yourself, he most likely was shooting out of fear and he has good reason to fear for his life. Lol they came to either harm him seriously or kill him.
 
Last edited:
Some random, non legal thoughts from this trial.

Tyler Robinson: Mr., "I don't care what the jury thinks." He walked around with his gun because he believed, "That's what a man does."

He didn't have insurance, yet owned a gun. *sigh* He likely participated in the straw purchase of a firearm.

Whoever raised him should have slapped the sheeet out of him after his disgraceful behavior on the witness stand.

But then again, if he had been raised “right”, he probably wouldn’t have been caught up in this bs to begin with.

Christopher Lowe: My boys.... err "brothers." Despite not even knowing Travis Rudolph, If his "brother" went to Rudolph's house, he was going, too. If his brother hadn't gone, he would have stayed home.

In other words, he's like a female who accompanies her girlfriend to the bathroom at a club.

These guys who've bought into that culture actually believe that they're hyper masculine. In fact, they routinely display feminine energy.

Rudolph family: Husband/ father killed in an accidental shooting. Travis is now on trial for a shooting death. If I were them, I’d want to move to Norway after this.

Dominique Jones: few things are worse than a ghetto female is a ghetto female who doesn't realize that she is, in fact, ghetto.

I couldn’t imagine being a teacher and having to deal with the likes of her and her “brothers” on a daily basis.
 
Advertisement
SayWhat said:
That girl he was with lost her ****. She's not even cute.

I don't know what it is about a lot of women today, but they think they can say and do any man thing they want to a man.

She bricked his car, smashed up the Playstation, hit him in the head with a bottle, called him broke ***** and who knows what else. Then texts the brother to shoot his **** up, etc. She's lucky to be alive herself of he's the monster some would have you believe.

I don't condone him doing whatever to the brother, etc. A monster though would've killed her *** in the process.
Click to expand...

You can thank modern feminism, single mother households and simp culture for this type of female/male dynamic. (all of which are strongly correlated)

Any man who values himself and is on his 'purpose' would never date or surround himself with such bottom-of-the-barrel heathens...yet...in the 'urban' community we see this **** on a regular basis. (I've even seen it with the kids I've coached)
No matter how successful they become or how much money they make, they can't seem to stay away from the streets and/or street women.

This is part of the reason why there's a whole movement of brothers who are flying out of the country to meet women/wives.

Very few young women today are actually good for their men (and their mental health).
They're nothing but a burden, headache, an extra bill... and in some extreme cases...can cost a man his life.

There is NOTHING more detrimental to a man than a bad woman.



I mean, we literally just saw a similar situation with UCF player Justin Hodges a few months ago!
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Look, I'm not triggered at all. You have no idea what my background is, so I find your comment comical.

I've had guns, fired guns, and hunted since I was a kid. Same with much of my family.

And I'm going to be honest with you. I've had this conversation about "self-defense" and firing a gun with my brother FOR YEARS. Now, my brother has a freaking ****nal. He carries every day. He hunts all over the country. He's got three kids. He's a super "second amendment" guy and does NOT like the police, but calls them when he needs to. And even he will tell you that what Rudolph did was beyond stupid and unnecessary. And reckless.

Come out to a tailgate sometime and talk to my brother. He will tell you about situations he's been in that were more dangerous than what Rudolph faced, and he did NOT fire his gun (though he drew it and was prepared to fire). Whether you like it or not, most people who spray off 39 shots into a retreating vehicle are doing so out of fear, and with absolutely no skill, and they are more likely to hurt an innocent bystander than to actually hit the person they intended to hit. Just look at the video, Rudolph ******* fell on his *** when trying to get out the door. He's an inexperience clown with a semi-automatic thinking he is justified in becoming John Wick, and the guy can't even find his own footing.

The Street Justice Warrior comment applies to YOU, not the four guys who confronted Rudolph. It applies to the guys who talk a big game about what they would have done if it happened to them, and use ridiculous logic to justify it.

Look, you want to use your feelings to justify doing what Rudolph did, then you may very well find yourself in a 2-year legal battle that drains your funds and possibly even leads to jail time. Let me know how that turns out for you, once you actually do what Rudolph did.

I'm sorry that you can't comprehend how easy it would be to corroborate Rudolph's bull**** "I was staring down two guns" story. He shot up a freaking car, which crashed a bit of a distance away from the scene. If there were sooooo many guns pointed at Rudolph, they would have still been at the scene and/or where the car crashed. Just be honest, those four guys were clowns, not master criminals. They didn't figure out a way to hide guns that can't be found for two years. They even found the unloaded, unpulled gun on the guy who ran away. If it really happened like Rudolph claimed, it wouldn't have been hard to corroborate that via other methods.

Rudolph shot at least one guy in the back. Who was running TO a car. Who, you know, did not already have one of the two mythical guns pointed at Rudolph as the "getaway car" roared out of sight. Rudolph sprayed 39 shots into people's backs and into the "getaway car", but we're supposed to believe that "two guns" were pointed at him and nobody got off a shot in return? It's not hard to corroborate OTHER BULLETS being fired, they are the ones that don't match the 39 that were pulled out of the car and peoples' backs. Or are you claiming that the "two guns" pointed at Rudolph were unloaded and used solely as props? Because if I saw a guy running after me while shooting a semi-automatic weapon, the LAST THING I would do is hold up an empty prop pistol that might cause him to shoot MORE. You think a guy spraying semi-automatic fire into peoples' backs will suddenly stop because he sees two puny pistols pointed at him? That's just ridiculous, and the product of watching too many movies while not living enough real life.

Nobody's mad at you. Just go back and do the research. The thread started two years ago. Try NOT basing all your opinions on the obviously-motivated statements of the accused.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but just because you sympathize with one side more than the other does not turn this into a binary decision on who should "walk free".
Click to expand...
Ok if I’ve followed you correctly, I think what you’re trying to say is he should get off on “self defense” claim
 
I'm not interested in commenting on the legalities, just do yourselves a favor and stay away from anyone involved in this circus of a case.
 
Advertisement
Coach Macho said:
You can thank modern feminism, single mother households and simp culture for this type of female/male dynamic. (all of which are strongly correlated)

Any man who values himself and is on his 'purpose' would never date or surround himself with such bottom-of-the-barrel heathens...yet...in the 'urban' community we see this **** on a regular basis. (I've even seen it with the kids I've coached)
No matter how successful they become or how much money they make, they can't seem to stay away from the streets and/or street women.

This is part of the reason why there's a whole movement of brothers who are flying out of the country to meet women/wives.

Very few young women today are actually good for their men (and their mental health).
They're nothing but a burden, headache, an extra bill... and in some extreme cases...can cost a man his life.

There is NOTHING more detrimental to a man than a bad woman.



I mean, we literally just saw a similar situation with UCF player Justin Hodges a few months ago!
Click to expand...

Soooo...











You know my ex?
 
SonicYouth said:
Lol. He's not remotely saying that.
Click to expand...
Lies No GIF
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
He can speak for himself. However, I'm not sure how one could reach that conclusion based on his posts.
 
tomi said:
Lol if someone came to your crib, threatened you, jumped you and your brother, and then aim 2 guns at you while they in their getaway car, you’d just let them go and hope they don’t come back to finish the job. I understand that he could have hurt someone innocent but bro can’t think about who else could be hurt. All he can think is protect himself and his family from the criminals who just came to kill him.

If you think it’s wrong then so be it, but I for sure see how that is self defense. Went from a normal night playing 2k or something to a bunch of dudes trying to literally kill you and your brother but you should be able to rationalize and be clear-headed and not fear for your life
Click to expand...
I didn't read the 4 troublemakers has 2 weapons. True??

I suppose that kinda changes things a touch perhaps.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Look, I am fully aware that "testimony" is a form of evidence, so if I left out the word "corroborative", I apologize, as it was not intentional. As I clearly stated in relation to another Florida case (Zimmerman), the person on trial can say whatever. So maybe, just maybe, the absence of any corroboration of a claim by the accused just MIGHT be reason to believe it a little less? People on trial DO tend to say whatever they can to get off of the charges.

Just as an aside, I'm not sure who "Randolph" is, maybe you meant "Rudolph". And I don't think he has taken the stand, defendants rarely do. But maybe he did and I missed it. Or perhaps his statements to police were introduced without him actually testifying before the jury.

The bottom line is still that there was nothing to corroborate this "two guns pointed at him" story.

As for your hung-jury idea...I mean...maybe...but Florida can just try the case again. Why not just plead to manslaughter and go for a minimal sentence? Seems like the prosecution might be more amenable to that now that they see what they have with their witnesses.

Anyhow, here's another case in another country, just to provide some contrast and a pathway to "not every crazy situation requires you to come out blasting like John Wick".

But some good advice is ALWAYS (a) don't open the door, and (b) call the police.


View attachment 240056
Click to expand...
Randolph testified right after Michael Irving.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
Back
Top