Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB
The case play is 4-41-4 Situation B.
|
Now I am conflicted! I hate when this happens.
This case play showed up somewhere between 03-04 and 07-08. 5.2.1C was in the books in 2003. This leads me to believe the Fed wanted to make a point as described by Snaqs/Camron and anyone else who supported that thought. Why else would they add it after 5.2.1C already existed?
Similar to what my "chops bustin'" friend has been known to say, I guess ol' Scratch is full of shiz nit. I am re-thinking this one!