·2 repliesI think he's cooked. It sound like Jam and Vonnie really didnt even fw Von like that but they did the hit because of gang politics and that points to Durk.
Tangout 🎨·edited·2 replies
hellcatomnithere is no motive against the nigga
he hired hitmen then didn’t pay them
wrap this s*** up. just sounds like a terrible kingpin
they were caught and plead guilty and are ratting in exchange for reduced sentences. how is that not a motive to lie? thats a massive motive. whether the court recognizes that i doubt it tho
again, i think he did that s*** and those ppl are probably telling the truth. but we talking beyond a shadow of a doubt here. I also think it’s a wrap hes probaly gonna be convicted.
I just don’t personally think, from I seen, which isnt much lol, it should meet the burden of proof to put someone in prison for the rest of their lives. ppl can disagree idc, beyond a reasonable doubt a very vague phrase lol
idk why youre trying to gotcha me as if I dont see the writing on the wall? I agree with almost everything youre saying. its strange and rude
theres no recording for durk saying “lets kill this guy right here at this time” or anything like that lol
he is a terrible kingpin and theyre all idiots no doubt
- Tangout 🎨
i also dont know why im engaging with a 2026 0 follower account, why do i do this
- XavierMane
I think he's cooked. It sound like Jam and Vonnie really didnt even fw Von like that but they did the hit because of gang politics and that points to Durk.
Nah Vonnie and Von were close. As far as Jam yeah, he was just trying to get paid.
shimmyAny unbiased opinions? Is durk really cooked or TLR biased?
Hes cooked sadly
- ·1 reply·✦Tangout
they were caught and plead guilty and are ratting in exchange for reduced sentences. how is that not a motive to lie? thats a massive motive. whether the court recognizes that i doubt it tho
again, i think he did that s*** and those ppl are probably telling the truth. but we talking beyond a shadow of a doubt here. I also think it’s a wrap hes probaly gonna be convicted.
I just don’t personally think, from I seen, which isnt much lol, it should meet the burden of proof to put someone in prison for the rest of their lives. ppl can disagree idc, beyond a reasonable doubt a very vague phrase lol
idk why youre trying to gotcha me as if I dont see the writing on the wall? I agree with almost everything youre saying. its strange and rude
theres no recording for durk saying “lets kill this guy right here at this time” or anything like that lol
he is a terrible kingpin and theyre all idiots no doubt
no gotcha, you just overthinking an open and shut case. within moments, he’s going to jail for the rest of his life lmfao
·1 replyshimmyAny unbiased opinions? Is durk really cooked or TLR biased?
Hes coming out free, best believe
- Tangout 🎨hellcatomni
no gotcha, you just overthinking an open and shut case. within moments, he’s going to jail for the rest of his life lmfao
I agree its an open and shut case. i think its very unlikely hes getting away.
Im just saying my piece of what I think an acceptable burden of proof should be. thats all
·1 reply
insertcoolnamehereSo you just want a juror of biased durk fans to say he’s innocent lmao
Lol, of course this goof is here. A jury of your peers is not a bad thing, and it doesn’t mean a jury full of fans.
Pretend for a second that he’s completely innocent. Having jurors who can understand the cultural and racial dynamics surrounding the case could actually help them evaluate the evidence more objectively. People from similar communities may have a better understanding of how certain relationships, language, hierarchies, or assumptions are interpreted without automatically jumping to conclusions.
That’s part of the reason the concept of a jury of your peers matters. It’s not about finding people who sympathize with the defendant. It’s about having a jury that reflects the community and can assess the case without cultural misunderstandings or racial stereotypes influencing how they interpret the evidence.
Your peers do not equal your fans. Goofball.
·1 replybusinessinsiderHes coming out free, best believe
put your bank account on that lmao
- Albert Grindstein
put your bank account on that lmao
Hes spending 100k a day on lawyers per report, TRUST - ·1 replyXavierMane
I think he's cooked. It sound like Jam and Vonnie really didnt even fw Von like that but they did the hit because of gang politics and that points to Durk.
Vonnie comes off like an opportunist who does whatever benefits him. I think both Von and Durk got played by that.
Durk obviously knew something was going on, even if he didn’t personally order it. I’ve also always found it weird that you’d have to pay your own “friends” to slide for a fallen member. Von probably would’ve done it for free if the roles were reversed.
Either way, knowing about it and ordering it are two different things. That’s for the jury to decide. Durk probably cooked though.
- Bandito
Lol, of course this goof is here. A jury of your peers is not a bad thing, and it doesn’t mean a jury full of fans.
Pretend for a second that he’s completely innocent. Having jurors who can understand the cultural and racial dynamics surrounding the case could actually help them evaluate the evidence more objectively. People from similar communities may have a better understanding of how certain relationships, language, hierarchies, or assumptions are interpreted without automatically jumping to conclusions.
That’s part of the reason the concept of a jury of your peers matters. It’s not about finding people who sympathize with the defendant. It’s about having a jury that reflects the community and can assess the case without cultural misunderstandings or racial stereotypes influencing how they interpret the evidence.
Your peers do not equal your fans. Goofball.
- ChatGPT
- ·1 replyBandito
Vonnie comes off like an opportunist who does whatever benefits him. I think both Von and Durk got played by that.
Durk obviously knew something was going on, even if he didn’t personally order it. I’ve also always found it weird that you’d have to pay your own “friends” to slide for a fallen member. Von probably would’ve done it for free if the roles were reversed.
Either way, knowing about it and ordering it are two different things. That’s for the jury to decide. Durk probably cooked though.
I had something to say to this, then I saw your avatar so lol
- ·1 replyAlbert Grindstein
I had something to say to this, then I saw your avatar so lol
bandito not even from the states that's how corny he is lol
·1 replyTangoutthey were caught and plead guilty and are ratting in exchange for reduced sentences. how is that not a motive to lie? thats a massive motive. whether the court recognizes that i doubt it tho
again, i think he did that s*** and those ppl are probably telling the truth. but we talking beyond a shadow of a doubt here. I also think it’s a wrap hes probaly gonna be convicted.
I just don’t personally think, from I seen, which isnt much lol, it should meet the burden of proof to put someone in prison for the rest of their lives. ppl can disagree idc, beyond a reasonable doubt a very vague phrase lol
idk why youre trying to gotcha me as if I dont see the writing on the wall? I agree with almost everything youre saying. its strange and rude
theres no recording for durk saying “lets kill this guy right here at this time” or anything like that lol
he is a terrible kingpin and theyre all idiots no doubt
Beyond a reasonable doubt isn't a vague phrase, it's been defined and explained in case law. People just don't know the law, that's why the jury system is flawed imo
State has to prove the element of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt and each charge will be explained clearly to the jury before they deliberate. Depending on what the elements of the crime is, it can go either way imo. E.g if Durk's alleged crime actually requires payment/promise of funds, they might find him not guilty on that charge because he didn't actually pay them and I don't think they showed evidence of payment being guaranteed directly by him
It's difficult to say because jurors have way more information than whatever you're seeing posted here/on social media. We're relying on updates from people sitting in court trying to write or type testimony/evidence in real time, they miss a lot of what is said and shown in court
- ·1 reply
Feel like this is one of those OJ Simpson type cases where you know he did it but the state didn't necessarily prove it to the required standard. Depends on the jurors' personal perspective at that point - you can find him guilty because you know he was involved and feel like he should be locked up. Or find him not guilty because the state didn't prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and that's how the justice system works
I'm predicting it'll be more people on the jury that find him guilty. We don't know all the evidence they've seen and hearing how much Von's death hurt Durk, the message about them living comfy while Von's killers chilling, the tracker showing the car at his house make it obvious that he was involved
- insertcoolnamehere
bandito not even from the states that's how corny he is lol
dumbest argument. Crime happens everywhere. Say something of substance.
·1 replyWill SimpFeel like this is one of those OJ Simpson type cases where you know he did it but the state didn't necessarily prove it to the required standard. Depends on the jurors' personal perspective at that point - you can find him guilty because you know he was involved and feel like he should be locked up. Or find him not guilty because the state didn't prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and that's how the justice system works
I'm predicting it'll be more people on the jury that find him guilty. We don't know all the evidence they've seen and hearing how much Von's death hurt Durk, the message about them living comfy while Von's killers chilling, the tracker showing the car at his house make it obvious that he was involved
OJ didn’t do s***. lol
- Fathertyme
OJ didn’t do s***. lol
- Tangout 🎨·1 replyWill Simp
Beyond a reasonable doubt isn't a vague phrase, it's been defined and explained in case law. People just don't know the law, that's why the jury system is flawed imo
State has to prove the element of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt and each charge will be explained clearly to the jury before they deliberate. Depending on what the elements of the crime is, it can go either way imo. E.g if Durk's alleged crime actually requires payment/promise of funds, they might find him not guilty on that charge because he didn't actually pay them and I don't think they showed evidence of payment being guaranteed directly by him
It's difficult to say because jurors have way more information than whatever you're seeing posted here/on social media. We're relying on updates from people sitting in court trying to write or type testimony/evidence in real time, they miss a lot of what is said and shown in court
interesting, this is something i know nothing about.
the Jurors def have way way more information than we do.
Do you think like beyond a reasonable doubt as its currently defined good bar? too high or too low?
from the outside, I feel like its too low of a bar and that I would rather more criminals go free than the amount of innocent people who are arrested. (unrelated to this case). but you think that the issue is peoples education about the law and not the burden of proof?
FREE DURK
