Dareus not cleared to practice yet

[The Big Cat]

Possible solution:

 

Bills buy a fast food chain franchise. When one of the players does not meet on or off field expectations, that player has to get there at 4:30 AM and flip friggin burgers for a few days. Deal with irate customers etc. Then after 10 hours of that, they volunteer at a community shelter and help people with disabilities for 5 or 6 hours. Then off to bed. Repeat until said message gets through.

 

A little perspective would go a long way.

 

It's not the stupidest thing ever said on this board. Not by a looooooooooooooooooooong shot.

[Mr. WEO]

If you speed and get into an accident, it's reckless driving. Impairment is, again, a major difference.

 

Why, then, do you think it would be so hard for the DA to get a jury to conclude exaclty what you have summed up in a single statement?

 

So being drunk, speeding, and killing someone is no different than speeding and hitting a tree? The only difference is dumb luck because no one got hurt?

 

This is easy....if he hit and killed a buffet patron coming out of the restaurant, would you be making this argument? Of course not.

 

And how do we know he wan't under the influence of his bath salts at the time? He's a known habitual abuser.

[NoSaint]

Just so we're clear, fellas...

 

Reckless driving = negligence

 

Drunk driving = gross negligence

 

They're not the same animal, and trying to equate Dareus' admitted idiocy with the actions of a drunk driver is inappropriate -- and perhaps offensive.

 

i dont think that JohnC wants to say the hypothetical drunk and what actually happened are 100% the same exact thing - but having bad judgement to race a car on a public street, vs having the bad judgement to drive with a few drinks in you arent too distant of relatives, potentially... not sure what the correlation for BAC vs speed of the race would be for risk of accident to compare the two but both are increasing your risk of accident (for dumb reasons that are of no public good), and the end result of what gets hit is often simply luck once you lose control.

Edited July 23, 2014 by NoSaint

[Doc]

Why, then, do you think it would be so hard for the DA to get a jury to conclude exaclty what you have summed up in a single statement?

As I said before, it's about what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And getting a jury with biases to convict someone to whom they might be biased for.

This is easy....if he hit and killed a buffet patron coming out of the restaurant, would you be making this argument? Of course not.

Would I not be saying that driving impaired is still different? No.

 

But let me ask you this. You said you've sped to get to get to the hospital for an emergency case. If you hit and kill someone on the way, was it bad luck, recklessness, stupidity? That you don't, is it "dumb luck"? Would you accept whatever they threw at you or try to fight it?

And how do we know he wan't under the influence of his bath salts at the time? He's a known habitual abuser.

I was waiting for this one. Thanks for not disappointing.

[JohnC]

Just so we're clear, fellas...

 

Reckless driving = negligence

 

Drunk driving = gross negligence

 

They're not the same animal, and trying to equate Dareus' admitted idiocy with the actions of a drunk driver is inappropriate -- and perhaps offensive.

 

If a person would have been standing by the tree he crashed into the charge would have been vehicular manslaughter. By the grace of god no innocent bystander got smashed due to the irresponsible way he was driving. The point I was making was that because of his own gross negligence (not legal term but descriptive term) he put himself in a situation where the chances for a major tragedy exponentially increased.

 

I'm not accepting that his driving episode is a trivial matter. On the day he got in an accident he was literally a menance to the public at large. This is a situation where the commissioner's office

should step in and mete out an appropriate punishment. Regardless if he is the best player on the home team or he is an unlikeable neighborhood loser he should be held accountable for his brazen behavior.

[l< j]

So being drunk, speeding, and killing someone is no different than speeding and hitting a tree? The only difference is dumb luck because no one got hurt?

Just so we're clear, fellas...

 

Reckless driving = negligence

 

Drunk driving = gross negligence

 

They're not the same animal, and trying to equate Dareus' admitted idiocy with the actions of a drunk driver is inappropriate -- and perhaps offensive.

 

I guess I think speeding while street racing is not the same as, or is not reducible to, 'speeding'. Just saying he was speeding and lost control, and that is something that could happen to anyone, significantly underrepresents the recklessness and stupidity of MD's actions. And what he was doing was a lot closer to driving drunk than 'speeding'.

 

kj

[Mr. WEO]

As I said before, it's about what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And getting a jury with biases to convict someone to whom they might be biased for.

 

Would I not be saying that driving impaired is still different? No.

 

But let me ask you this. You said you've sped to get to get to the hospital for an emergency case. If you hit and kill someone on the way, was it bad luck, recklessness, stupidity? That you don't, is it "dumb luck"? Would you accept whatever they threw at you or try to fight it?

 

I was waiting for this one. Thanks for not disappointing.

 

There is absolutely no reasonable doubt he was driving recklessly doc. I don't know why you think in a court this would be different. There is no other plausible explanation. A jury will conclude what you and everyone here has. If they have bias, I agree, they will vote on their bias, but not on what they will certainly believe to have happened without any doubt.

 

Yes, I have speeded to work at night on a nearly deserted highway (got caught once too--94 in a 55 and got all 8 points by the young punk Trooper). I don't (can't really) do the same in the middle of a busy street on a weekday. If I lose control while speeding and kill someone, I will be charged. I can say I was rushing to the aid of another--it may sway the DA to lower the charge. Who knows.

 

But if I was racing with my buddy in my aftermarket-ruined Jag and I was such a bad driver that I lost control and barreled into a restaurant, miraculously not harming anyone else or my Darwin challenged self, I would be facing a significantly less sympathetic public (judge and jury). I think even you can see the difference in these two scenarios, despite your Yogi Kudu-like attempts to fold yourself into a pretzel to fit your own ill-logic.

 

You were waiting for....that? Wow, doc. You really know how to put an ace up your sleeve.

[NoSaint]

 

 

 

I guess I think speeding while street racing is not the same as, or is not reducible to, 'speeding'. Just saying he was speeding and lost control, and that is something that could happen to anyone, significantly underrepresents the recklessness and stupidity of MD's actions. And what he was doing was a lot closer to driving drunk than 'speeding'.

 

kj

 

did we ever find out how fast he was thought to be going? or how long this had carried on?

 

in all the chatter and the couple of threads i may have missed it. Theres a pretty broad range of how reckless this may have actually been, just as there is a bit of a range with drinking.

[Augie]

A good friend found out the hard way (his son has been known to make some poor decisions) that traditional auto insurance does not necessarily cover accidents that happen while racing. I wonder if anyone has taken the time to explain this and the value of an umbrella policy to Dareus. You'd hope you don't have to give that next big pay day to some family who got in the way of your stupidity. Hopefully an agent handles that kind of detail, and our guy learns to slow down and go for the occasional jog.

[Doc]

There is absolutely no reasonable doubt he was driving recklessly doc. I don't know why you think in a court this would be different. There is no other plausible explanation. A jury will conclude what you and everyone here has. If they have bias, I agree, they will vote on their bias, but not on what they will certainly believe to have happened without any doubt.

Without knowing how fast he was going (see NoSaint's post below), merely hitting a tree likely wouldn't compel a jury to say it was "reckless driving." And are there any witnesses willing to testify? Again it's about what you can prove. And again, I'll defer to Marcell's attorney, who obviously advised his client no to take the still-on-the-table plea deal.

 

Yes, I have speeded to work at night on a nearly deserted highway (got caught once too--94 in a 55 and got all 8 points by the young punk Trooper). I don't (can't really) do the same in the middle of a busy street on a weekday. If I lose control while speeding and kill someone, I will be charged. I can say I was rushing to the aid of another--it may sway the DA to lower the charge. Who knows.

 

But if I was racing with my buddy in my aftermarket-ruined Jag and I was such a bad driver that I lost control and barreled into a restaurant, miraculously not harming anyone else or my Darwin challenged self, I would be facing a significantly less sympathetic public (judge and jury). I think even you can see the difference in these two scenarios, despite your Yogi Kudu-like attempts to fold yourself into a pretzel to fit your own ill-logic.

Ah, so you got a ticket for driving 94 MPH at night in a 55 MPH zone. Did you try and fight the ticket? And if so, what excuse did you use to try to get out of it? That the officer was a "punk"? That you had complete control (driving at 94 MPH at night) because the road was deserted? That the patient was going to die if you didn't get there fast enough?

 

Look, what he did was stupid. But as I said, there's a difference between being impaired, speeding, and killing someone...and speeding and hitting a tree.

You were waiting for....that? Wow, doc. You really know how to put an ace up your sleeve.

And you really know how to pull it out for me.

did we ever find out how fast he was thought to be going? or how long this had carried on?

Ask WEO. I'm sure he knows.

[CodeMonkey]

They showed him at SJF today on the news here tonight. Not with the team, just doing conditioning with a coach with him the entire time.

He didn't look any heavier to me than last season. So at least he doesn't have to drop weight, just get fit.

Edited July 24, 2014 by CodeMonkey

[Kelly the Dog]

I'd have to think that if it were really crazy that the cops would have come after Jerry Hughes a lot more and they didn't.

[eball]

I'd have to think that if it were really crazy that the cops would have come after Jerry Hughes a lot more and they didn't.

 

Bingo. It seems the "racing" angle of this incident is what has everyone so steamed, but we don't know what actually happened. What we do know is that this incident occurred in daylight hours (an important point, I think), nobody got hurt, and there is no evidence of any impairment (i.e., alcohol/drugs). If Dareus had been looking down at his phone texting instead of "racing" and hit the same tree would everyone be so up in arms? That's just as negligent. What's unreasonable is to compare what Dareus did -- which is admittedly stupid and negligent -- with the actions of a drunk driver.

[CountryCletus]

 

 

What makes this incident really stupid is that he was already involved in another legal action in another jurisdiction before his ignominious crash. He didn't have an iota of consideration that his reckless behavior could have affected others. This is a guy who was disciplined by his team last year for multiple infractions. So what does he do in the offseason?: He comes in out of shape and is involved in multiple criminal actions.

 

I want to see him get on the right path. It's obvious that he needs help. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be held accountable for his outlandish behavior. If he isn't suspended by the league he should be suspended by the team.

 

Stupid is stupid, but I like that he is a good hearted dude that is a good teammate. It's better than having an ass on the team- I think he will "get it"

[Doc]

Stupid is stupid, but I like that he is a good hearted dude that is a good teammate. It's better than having an ass on the team- I think he will "get it"

Hopefully. It has to come from within.

[Mr. WEO]

Without knowing how fast he was going (see NoSaint's post below), merely hitting a tree likely wouldn't compel a jury to say it was "reckless driving." And are there any witnesses willing to testify? Again it's about what you can prove. And again, I'll defer to Marcell's attorney, who obviously advised his client no to take the still-on-the-table plea deal.

 

 

Ah, so you got a ticket for driving 94 MPH at night in a 55 MPH zone. Did you try and fight the ticket? And if so, what excuse did you use to try to get out of it? That the officer was a "punk"? That you had complete control (driving at 94 MPH at night) because the road was deserted? That the patient was going to die if you didn't get there fast enough?

 

Look, what he did was stupid. But as I said, there's a difference between being impaired, speeding, and killing someone...and speeding and hitting a tree.

 

And you really know how to pull it out for me.

 

Ask WEO. I'm sure he knows.

 

Cops weren't called to the scene because a driver hit a tree. They were called to the scene by someone who said there was a drag race going on on a public street. The cops will testify to what they were called for and what they saw at the buffet and what Hughes admitted to and that will erase any reasonable doubt. You know this--the jurors are likely at least as intelligent as you are.

 

I got caught within the city limits of Rochester. There is nothing you can do to bargain down the points in the City of Rochester. I did show up for the "hearing" (there is no judge or DA in Rochester Traffic Court). I told the fake judge the circumstances under which I was speeding. He took pity on me and admonished the meter maid/Trooper and told me what I already knew--that he could not reduce the points, but he did lower the fine to $25 (from over $300), plus the usual NYS $85 surcharge. He suggested I go to a safe driving course to knock off 4 points, which I did.

[Doc]

Cops weren't called to the scene because a driver hit a tree. They were called to the scene by someone who said there was a drag race going on on a public street. The cops will testify to what they were called for and what they saw at the buffet and what Hughes admitted to and that will erase any reasonable doubt. You know this--the jurors are likely at least as intelligent as you are.

Well then, that would make them smarter than you, because even they would know that, again, it's not about what they may have heard, but what can be proven. And do you really think that Hughes admitted to anything incriminating, much less would be willing to testify against Marcell? And just because someone called, it doesn't mean anyone will testify or that a jury will convict. You should know this, but since you think you know more than you actually do, you'll continue to argue otherwise and make laughable claims like Marcell's attorney is giving him bad advice or insinuating he was high because he's "baked all the time."

 

I got caught within the city limits of Rochester. There is nothing you can do to bargain down the points in the City of Rochester. I did show up for the "hearing" (there is no judge or DA in Rochester Traffic Court). I told the fake judge the circumstances under which I was speeding. He took pity on me and admonished the meter maid/Trooper and told me what I already knew--that he could not reduce the points, but he did lower the fine to $25 (from over $300), plus the usual NYS $85 surcharge. He suggested I go to a safe driving course to knock off 4 points, which I did.

You were driving 94 in the city limits of Rochester and you think you were in control? Did the patient die because you were caught speeding and the time it wasted? And if not, are you dumb for speeding, lucky nothing happened because the "meter maid/punk" caught you, and did you learn your lesson? Let me guess the answers.

[Mr. WEO]

Well then, that would make them smarter than you, because even they would know that, again, it's not about what they may have heard, but what can be proven. And do you really think that Hughes admitted to anything incriminating, much less would be willing to testify against Marcell? And just because someone called, it doesn't mean anyone will testify or that a jury will convict. You should know this, but since you think you know more than you actually do, you'll continue to argue otherwise and make laughable claims like Marcell's attorney is giving him bad advice or insinuating he was high because he's "baked all the time."

 

"Proof" is for the jury to decide. They vote on circmstantial evidence all the time. You seem to be arguing that they cannot convict on the evidence presented-even if it is only what I stated above. Of course they can. They can come to the same conclusion you have and convict for reckless driving. Why do you keep saying otherwise? It makes no sense.

 

As for Hughes, he would be subpoenaed. If he took the 5th, fine. The officer who interviewed him can read his report of the interview (the one he told the public "yes, I was involved" and "the truth is the truth"). If he admitted to what amounts to reckless driving, it's not hearsay--whether he was charged or not.

 

 

 

 

You were driving 94 in the city limits of Rochester and you think you were in control? Did the patient die because you were caught speeding and the time it wasted? And if not, are you dumb for speeding, lucky nothing happened because the "meter maid/punk" caught you, and did you learn your lesson? Let me guess the answers.

 

I really don't know what you're looking for here. Yeah, 94 on route 590 on a Sunday night. Total control. I was not racing some other dude, so there was little or no chance of jumping the curb and ending up in a restaurant. The patient did not die, luckily. But I only knew that after I got off the phone with the hospital after receiving my ticket. Speeding per se, as you know (why ask?) is not "dumb". I learned my lesson--got a new radar detector (Valentine 1...I highly recommend it).

 

Did you guess all the right answers? Gold Star!

[JohnC]

 

 

Stupid is stupid, but I like that he is a good hearted dude that is a good teammate. It's better than having an ass on the team- I think he will "get it"

 

Why do you think that he is such a good teammate? He has a history of being late for meetings, sleeping in meetings and not working hard at his job. He came to camp out of shape and was unable to pass a basic physcial test that would allow him to participate in the training camp. In the offseason he was involved in two legal complications related to irresponsible behavior, one of which could have killed innocent bystanders.

 

I'm not suggesting that he is a criminal or a thug. But I am comfortable in saying that he is very immature and irresponsible, and from a work ethic standpoint he is a slacker. His teammates might consider him a likeable fellow but he is not a good teammate as indicated by his juvenile behavior.

 

I want to see him get on the right path, as do his teammates. He has been subjected to numerous in-house discipline with little effect on his attitude. From my standpoint that's not an indication that he is a good teammate.

Edited July 24, 2014 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

Why do you think that he is such a good teammate? He has a history of being late for meetings, sleeping in meetings and not working hard at his job. He came to camp out of shape and was unable to pass a basic physcial test that would allow him to participate in the training camp. In the offseason he was involved in two legal complications related to irresponsible behavior, one of which could have killed innocent bystanders.

 

I'm not suggesting that he is a criminal or a thug. But I am comfortable in saying that he is very immature and irresponsible, and from a work ethic standpoint he is a slacker. His teammates might consider him a likeable fellow but he is not a good teammate as indicated by his juvenile behavior.

 

I want to see him get on the right path, as do his teammates. He has been subjected to numerous in-house discipline with little effect on his attitude. From my standpoint that's not an indication that he is a good teammate.

 

 

Stick to the script John.....