DanInUticaTampa

That is what I am thinking. Someone said something like "him fighting in front of police" is easy to prosecute or something like that. But i looked and i couldn't find anything about him fighting. There isn't that much info out there. the police said whitner went through a police barrier and "looked like he was about to join the fight." He didn't attack anyone from the looks of it. If he did hit someone, he would have a lot more charges. It looks like what you said. The police told him to stay away, he ignored them, the police grabbed him and he put up a struggle and resisted the arrest. When he struggled, they tasered him. It is hard to tell, because there isn't much that we know. but from experience, these charges are hard to make stick. especially from what i seen down here.

Some law has a big gap, some is cut and dry. If you rob a bank, it is cut and dry. No one is going to argue what robbing a bank means. Everyone knows it means stealing from the bank. But if you want to argue "disorderly conduct," it isnt cut and dry like robbing a bank. it isn't clearly defined. "offensive language" could mean anything. Some kid could be wearing a shirt that says "blondes are better than brunettes" and a brunette girl can think it is offensive. But clearly, not everyone is going to think it is offensive. Someone could wear a shirt that says "i hate white people" and think it is offensive. but not everybody is going to think that. some people might think that yelling on the phone is "disorderly conduct", but not everyone. Some people might think that running through the park is "disorderly conduct" because it bothers their dogs or whatever. The law "disorderly conduct" IS open to interpretation more than most laws. It is not clearly defined for the most part. you can't draw a clear line on what is offensive and what isn't. You just can't. there is a lot of wiggle room, and it IS hard to prosecute. when you go in the gray area, the odds are with the defendent. the burdon of proof is up to the prosecuter. not the defense. I think i made my point as to why "disorderly conduct" is hard to prosecute because it is a vague term

good for atlanta. they have a solid team

Well, i don't follow Ohio law. I have never been. I didn't realize they had it more detailed. Even so, even though it is more detailed than some laws, "disorderly conduct" is still a vague term, even by those standards. the only thing that is clear in it is "Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior." The rest is retoric to most other states. If whitner was involved in fighting, he would have been charged for more than disorderly conduct. So i assume he wasn't "fighting." If he was fighting, and that is what he was arrested for, then all the lawyer has to do is say "if he was really fighting, why aren't they charging him for assault?" So it looks like he never actually attacked or fought with anyone physically. but other things don't have a clear interpretation of the law. for instence, the very next thing "Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person" What is "unreasonable noise?" What is unreasonable to one person isnt unreasonable to the next. it is a matter of opinion. Same with abusive language. What is offensive to one person isn't offensive to the next. the same goes for the rest of the Law. "Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;" again. What is insulting or what could provoke a violent reponse is open to interpretation. I only went through the begining of the law, but for the most part, with very few exceptions, it is open to interpretation. Sorry if you didn't like my previous reponse.

Because it is. Unless there was one person involved in the cause, and people are outraged and were witness to it and hurt by it, it is hard to prove. And i don't see any newspapers with that many witnesses or info on what happened. So I assume the police are fuzzy on the details too. In order to win this in front of a judge, the prosecuter would have to show the "disorderly conduct" through evidence, which is hard to prove. It takes more than a police statement that says "he was fighting." The police officer has to say exactly what he was doing, who else was involved, what caused it, etc. Since not much has been released on this story, it looks like the police aren't that aware of what happened. Any small crime is hard to prove. Small crimes usually have sloppy arrests. I am not sure what the stats are, but i know in my criminology class way back when, the percent of convictions/arrests in small crimes had a big gap. It takes too much time to just slap a guy on the wrist for something stupid. This stuff happens all the time. And I don't see anything that shows that he needed to be tasered. He isnt being charged for anything that would make the taser needed at least. But whenever a small charge is put on you, you always fight it. Small crimes are hard to prove. Police aren't as meticulous as they would be if it were a homocide or something. So they are going to make a lot of mistakes. Even if the police did do the right thing, you could get arrested for jaywalking, but if a prosecuter were to charge you for it, the case would get thrown out. It is a waste of a judge's time. Don't be surprised if Whitner walks into court in two weeks and the judge throws the whole case out the window.

i agree

"aggravated disorderly conduct" is very hard for the prosecuter to prove. it is almost a dead end. it is an easy arrest, but not to convict. the term "aggravated disorderly conduct" is very a vague term. as for resisting arrest, i am sure they have better things to do. Hell i know ppl who have had worse charges dropped. And they only had a cheap lawyer. what the hell do you think a high priced lawyer is going to do?

apparently you havent dealed much with the law, but charges get dropped all the time

no. unless he is guilty. if you are innoent, a plea isnt a good option

uless it is bloopers

ya

you probably will quit posting here in 6 months and people here will forget all about you.

peters told me that he is going to hold out even if they give him all the money in the world. he doesn't really want to play. he is just using the money as an excuse so we don't know hes lazy

if you want to say average players that have been taken in picks 1-8 are "busts," then most of those players turn out to be busts. So the odds of picking a "non bust" player are pretty low. And if donte whitner is a "big bust" then what the hell is mike williams?

yikes

well, niether of them are felons. so that isn't a worry, yet.

both teams were stupid. the skins were dumb to offer it and the bengals were dumb to turn it down.

ur friend must know you are really dumb... and he is probably a pats* fan

but he did make those catches, so his stats are above average. the whole "if" game is just silly. Evans has good stats. The only thing in his stats that suck are TDs. which are actually kinda important.

if we were going to trade a good player for draft picks, this would be a good year to do that. This is a pretty good draft with a lot of talent.

trade two firsts and a player for cutler? we are basically in the end trading peters, edwards, and a 1st round pick for cutler.... not to mention cutler is looking like a liabilty now with his actions in denver. this is dumb. if we get a good deal, then MAYBE. but going that steep for a player that appears to be a liability is insane

dude, april fools was yesterday

the baltimore game? I believe it was no huddle most of that game, and we won it.

wtf..... Well, he is signed for one year. if they want a 2010 contract with us, i guess it just shows he wouldn't mind staying here longer, for the money. But i think it doesn't really impact the 2009 year. If owens plays well, he will get a good contract when he leaves. I think this proposal is there in case owens doesn't perform well, he will have teh bills tied down another year. I dont think a 2010 contract with us happens unless something REALLY major happens during the season

he hasnt minded it in the past