site banner

Friday Fun Thread for October 3, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the defendent seems to have admitted to brandishing a "black semiautomatic (as opposed to a revolver) handgun"

I don't see any such admission.

You probably have seen the joke that goes something like: "I didn't kill him. And if I did it wasn't intentional. And if it was intentional it wasn't premeditated." IMO, here the defendant (as summarized by the appeals panel; as noted above, I can't access the legal documents, since they're in Pennsylvania and I'm not a lawyer) is only saying: "I didn't point anything at the witnesses. And if I did it wasn't a gun. And if it was a gun it wasn't an operable gun."

Right, thats where having the original ruling would be very helpful. But going by:

Green raises the following issues for our review:

  1. Did the trial court err in overruling the defense’s objection to [Taylor’s] lay opinion about whether [] Green held a genuine firearm in his hand where that opinion was based on improper speculation?
  2. Was the evidence insufficient for a conviction under [section] 6105 where the object described by the complaining witness could not have been a genuine firearm?
  3. Should the [section] 6105 charge have been graded as a misdemeanor of the first degree where there was no evidence at trial that [] Green had been convicted of a disqualifying felony?
  4. Was the evidence insufficient for a conviction for recklessly endangering another person where all evidence showed that [] Green’s purported gun was not loaded?

I read as an established fact by the criminal trial that the defendant pointed something at the witnesses, and now we are just arguing about the technicalities of what it was.