YoloinOhio Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Let's see how long YOLO keeps this up. I am not the one updating, but I will volunteer to do if it somehow keeps Marcell out of court. So this is kind of like one of those union signs that says "xxx days without an accident"? PFT has a ticker on their website for the NFL as a whole (about halfway down on the right side of the page):http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/ Edited July 9, 2014 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I am not the one updating, but I will volunteer to do if it somehow keeps Marcell out of court. I just figured that since you were the OP that you were updating it. I guess it must be Beerball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 9, 2014 Author Share Posted July 9, 2014 I just figured that since you were the OP that you were updating it. I guess it must be Beerball. Yes I think it is. I was the OP but he changed the thread title. My goal was to bury the one that said he was arrested and arrested again because it kept getting bumped and quite frankly was freaking me out each time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Look, I already conceded that we all know they were drag racing. But I also said, and you admitted, it's about what you can prove to a jury. Hughes being interviewed but not charged is a huge blow to their case since you can't be drag racing yourself (because it's then called "speeding"). And just the fact alone that he wasn't charged proves he didn't admit to racing, as SRQ corroborated that. They have no case for drag racing. And again there's that pesky thing of having a jury with at least 1 Bills fan on it. Again the DA knows he has little, is keeping the plea deal on the table hoping Marcell will bite (he won't), and will likely reduce it the closer trial time gets. If it goes to trial, the DA should be fired. As for the NFLPA, do a search on NFLPA and compromising with the NFL on suspension reductions. And Smith has been vocal about players being caught with spice. Reckless driving is already on the table. And Dareus won't say anything other than he was driving fast and lost control. A DA doesn't have to prove anything (not all crimes are committed in front of witnesses or on video tape, doc). All he has to do is convince a jury that the defended committed the crime he is charged with--beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is absolutely no doubt they were drag racing. None--you have said so yourself, so why wouldn't a jury of your peers come to the same conclusion? Or are you just more intelligent than they are? SRQ's suggestion that Hughes was admitting to something other than drag racing is completely absurd--as is your goofy contention that the cops failre to charge Hughes ruins their case against Dareus. If this went to trial Hughes would be called to testify. He will have to admit on the stand what he has already admitted in public and, prior to that, his coach. Of course the DA doesn't want to try this type of case--that's why he offered a plea deal. My question was why Dareus didn't accept it. Your explanation thus far is silly and not even convincing to you. A single holdout juror doesn't result in an aquittal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 A DA doesn't have to prove anything (not all crimes are committed in front of witnesses or on video tape, doc). All he has to do is convince a jury that the defended committed the crime he is charged with--beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is absolutely no doubt they were drag racing. None--you have said so yourself, so why wouldn't a jury of your peers come to the same conclusion? Or are you just more intelligent than they are? SRQ's suggestion that Hughes was admitting to something other than drag racing is completely absurd--as is your goofy contention that the cops failre to charge Hughes ruins their case against Dareus. If this went to trial Hughes would be called to testify. He will have to admit on the stand what he has already admitted in public and, prior to that, his coach. Of course the DA doesn't want to try this type of case--that's why he offered a plea deal. My question was why Dareus didn't accept it. Your explanation thus far is silly and not even convincing to you. A single holdout juror doesn't result in an aquittal... Do you even understand how the legal system works or how people behave? Judging by the above, clearly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Do you even understand how the legal system works or how people behave? Judging by the above, clearly not. Holy smokes......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRQ_BillsFan Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 All I know is that there was a link in the NBCsports link posted above about Justin Timberlake drinking a toast to Ralph at his recent Buffalo concert. It's obvious to me from this tidbit that he plans to swoop in and steal the Bills from Jon Bon Jovi. Although I have no indication if he prefers Toronto or another city? I am quite sure however that he has more money than JBJ. Was afraid to start a new thread, the people from the Sabres board would get upset. Back on track... A DA has to prove his case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not convince a jury. Subtle but important difference. Circumstantial evidence can be part of his case, but not his entire case. Hughes and Darius could have been playing around and passing each other, this does not necessarily fit the legal description of a street race. Hughes doesn't need to lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 All I know is that there was a link in the NBCsports link posted above about Justin Timberlake drinking a toast to Ralph at his recent Buffalo concert. It's obvious to me from this tidbit that he plans to swoop in and steal the Bills from Jon Bon Jovi. Although I have no indication if he prefers Toronto or another city? I am quite sure however that he has more money than JBJ. Was afraid to start a new thread, the people from the Sabres board would get upset. Not sure JT has the juice to get it done. And BJ's ownership of a defunct AFL franchise somehow qualifies him to own a pro NFL team. JT doesn't even have that marginal experience. Back on track... A DA has to prove his case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not convince a jury. Subtle but important difference. Circumstantial evidence can be part of his case, but not his entire case. Hughes and Darius could have been playing around and passing each other, this does not necessarily fit the legal description of a street race. Hughes doesn't need to lie. WEO's just hoping Marcell gets suspended is all. Not sure if that's what's making him say the stuff above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 Not sure JT has the juice to get it done. And BJ's ownership of a defunct AFL franchise somehow qualifies him to own a pro NFL team. JT doesn't even have that marginal experience. WEO's just hoping Marcell gets suspended is all. Not sure if that's what's making him say the stuff above. FWIW I think JT is a part owner of the Memphis Grizzlies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 FWIW I think JT is a part owner of the Memphis Grizzlies You are correct sir. Time to ban his music as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 All I know is that there was a link in the NBCsports link posted above about Justin Timberlake drinking a toast to Ralph at his recent Buffalo concert. It's obvious to me from this tidbit that he plans to swoop in and steal the Bills from Jon Bon Jovi. Although I have no indication if he prefers Toronto or another city? I am quite sure however that he has more money than JBJ. Was afraid to start a new thread, the people from the Sabres board would get upset. Back on track... A DA has to prove his case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not convince a jury. Subtle but important difference. Circumstantial evidence can be part of his case, but not his entire case. Hughes and Darius could have been playing around and passing each other, this does not necessarily fit the legal description of a street race. Hughes doesn't need to lie. Cases are certainly decided on circumstantial evidence alone. The DA, in any trial, presents whatever evidence he has. A jury is allowed to reach a verdict on whatever is presented as evidence. They will either be convinced beyond a reaonable doubt (as doc is, and I am) that he was racing or they won't. There is no "subtle difference". As for Hughes, if he is asked on the stand if he was racing Dareus, he is free to say he was doing whatever you suggested (playing around?). The jury, who will have heard testimony from cops called to the scene by witnesses of a 2 car "race" and their description of a car that obviously lost control during this playing around event as it appeared at the front door of a restaurant when they arrived, can then decide whether they believe Hughes if he denies they were racing. The doc, reasonably, has come the conclusion that they were. What would prevent a jury from doing the same? They are allowed to... Regardless, he was charged with reckless driving also. In fact, this is the remaining charge in the plea deal (racing was dropped, as was endangerment). A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. [PL §15.05(3)]. Clearly, he was recklessly driving. Even a homer like doc will concede this. So why reject the plea deal? No, doc, this isn't about suspension. It's a simple question of why he turned down the plea deal. No need to obfuscate this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 A DA doesn't have to prove anything (not all crimes are committed in front of witnesses or on video tape, doc). All he has to do is convince a jury that the defended committed the crime he is charged with--beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is absolutely no doubt they were drag racing. None--you have said so yourself, so why wouldn't a jury of your peers come to the same conclusion? Or are you just more intelligent than they are? You may be getting your legal concepts mixed up. The central issue for the DA is not or is not supposed to be an ability to convince a jury that the defendant is guilty of a crime. In many cases, if not most, the jury is favorably disposed toward the prosecution before the evidence is even presented. The critical issue for the DA is whether he/she has enough evidence, circumstantial or hard evidence, that proves that the defendant committed the crime. Very often a DA knows who committed the crime but lacks the evidence to prove it in a legal setting. In that scenario from a ethical legal standpoint the case should not even be brought to a courtroom. There is another issue that a DA has to consider when deciding to formerly charge an individual. If a DA believes he/she has sufficient evidence to prove guilt in a courtroom but doesn't believe that a jury can be convinced to convict the subject (due to bias) then the DA would be justified in not prosecuting the case. The issue comes down to limited government resources and the best usage of it. If the DA believes that the jury won't convict regardless of the evidence then the DA probably won't waste its financial and manpower on a case that they believe will not result in a conviction. Of course the DA doesn't want to try this type of case--that's why he offered a plea deal. My question was why Dareus didn't accept it. Your explanation thus far is silly and not even convincing to you. Apparently Dareus's attorney believes he can get a better deal or beat the rap. A single holdout juror doesn't result in an aquittal... You are correct that a single holduout juror doesn't result in an acquittal. It is a deadlock in which the prosecution would have theright to take the matter to court again. Given the nature of the offense it is my opinion that it wouldn't waste its time and resources on a relatively trivial matter (from a criminal standpoint)trying the case again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 You may be getting your legal concepts mixed up. The central issue for the DA is not or is not supposed to be an ability to convince a jury that the defendant is guilty of a crime. In many cases, if not most, the jury is favorably disposed toward the prosecution before the evidence is even presented. The critical issue for the DA is whether he/she has enough evidence, circumstantial or hard evidence, that proves that the defendant committed the crime. Very often a DA knows who committed the crime but lacks the evidence to prove it in a legal setting. In that scenario from a ethical legal standpoint the case should not even be brought to a courtroom. There is another issue that a DA has to consider when deciding to formerly charge an individual. If a DA believes he/she has sufficient evidence to prove guilt in a courtroom but doesn't believe that a jury can be convinced to convict the subject (due to bias) then the DA would be justified in not prosecuting the case. The issue comes down to limited government resources and the best usage of it. If the DA believes that the jury won't convict regardless of the evidence then the DA probably won't waste its financial and manpower on a case that they believe will not result in a conviction. I think I have already conceded all of this John. The choice of whether to try a case isn't being argued. The point remains that if the DA does bring a case to court, the jury is charged to rule on whatever is presented as evidence by prosecutor and defendent. They alone will decide whether there is reasonable doubt, regardless if all evidence is circumstantial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I think I have already conceded all of this John. The choice of whether to try a case isn't being argued. The point remains that if the DA does bring a case to court, the jury is charged to rule on whatever is presented as evidence by prosecutor and defendent. They alone will decide whether there is reasonable doubt, regardless if all evidence is circumstantial. I want to make clear that very often circumstantial evidence is quality evidence, especially if there is a variety of circumstantial evidence that links the defendant to a crime. I haven't folowed the Dareus case that closely but it seems to me that if his attorney hasn't agreed to a plea deal now he will make a deal at a later point for a lesser charge. This is a type of case that the authorities don't want to take to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRQ_BillsFan Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Agreed on the strength of circumstantial evidence. We don't know what it is. If it is not strong enough the judge can throw the case out and it then never even gets to a jury. But Darius' agent knows what the evidence is, there are few if any surprises and he feels he can beat it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRQ_BillsFan Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Who knows what evidence they have, we can guess but could be wrong. I heard people called in and said there were two cars racing. I'm sure it's tapped but did they hang around? Are there other witnesses? What constitutes a drag race vs playing around, I certainly don't know. I have never heard anyone say they took off together from a red light when it changed? Maybe someone did and I missed it. Is that a requirement for what is considered a drag race, a street race? I have no idea. I certainly don't know what they have and if it's enough. People generally don't want to get involved, forget things and can get rattled by a defense attny. They may get threats from other Bills fans. I honestly have no idea if they were street racing or not. Doing something stupid, most likely. But I can it say they are guilty of the greater charge at this point I am not sure anyone can say they are, especially once provided the burden of proof by the judge. That is and has been my point all along. Darius' lawyer seems to think they can not even prove the reckless driving charge presented (are there different degrees?) or he would have taken the plea deal. I think this is the only thing that we can take from it as it sits today. I do agree with why not take the deal offered if you do not think you can beat it or if they will need to drop it. Maybe they want to make the DA prove he will prosecute. Logically they feel they can do better than what is being offered. Maybe they want to try to do something behind closed doors, is that possible? Or are hoping to get it reduced to a lesser charge with some community service even simply stalling to force the NFL to act on the 1st arrest as a standalone incident. I know I can't say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Speed not reasonable and prudent would be his best hope in a plea deal. because he lost control of the car. No proof of anything else needed except crashed car. If he wants to go to trial ? witnesses for the prosecution will have to be presented to make a case for reckless endangerment or drag racing , which used to be called unsafe speed . I wish i saved that ticket from 1980 new years eve . The system is fixed anyways. So is the NFL. We should start a pole . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 We should start a pole . http://www.baseballfielddesign.com/index_files/250px-FOULPOST.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 http://www.baseballf...px-FOULPOST.JPG LOL ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) A DA doesn't have to prove anything (not all crimes are committed in front of witnesses or on video tape, doc). All he has to do is convince a jury that the defended committed the crime he is charged with--beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is absolutely no doubt they were drag racing. None--you have said so yourself, so why wouldn't a jury of your peers come to the same conclusion? Or are you just more intelligent than they are? SRQ's suggestion that Hughes was admitting to something other than drag racing is completely absurd--as is your goofy contention that the cops failre to charge Hughes ruins their case against Dareus. If this went to trial Hughes would be called to testify. He will have to admit on the stand what he has already admitted in public and, prior to that, his coach. Of course the DA doesn't want to try this type of case--that's why he offered a plea deal. My question was why Dareus didn't accept it. Your explanation thus far is silly and not even convincing to you. A single holdout juror doesn't result in an aquittal... Why would Hughes even testify? He's not going to incriminate himself in a court of law and has a right not to do so. Also, do you understand what reasonable doubt means? Reasonable doubt is the default mindset of any decent juror, and only evidence presented by the prosecution should swing them from that. If there is no evidence there is no conviction, period. Just because he's talked publicly about the case doesn't mean he can be forced to testify. Hughes has 5th amendment rights. Edited July 11, 2014 by Fingon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts