vincec Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Kromer rented the chairs from someone else (part of the complexes deal or something). So since he rented them he is liable for them. Yolo made mention to it in the previous page. a former nfl player who does a radio show here said he stayed on the same beach last week about 2 miles away from Kromer's house. He said that it's a policy that you have to pay to rent beach chairs on a weekly basis. So it sounds like these were Kromer's rented chairs and the neighbors were using them.I see
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 The QB whisperer? No doubt. The QB whisperer who threw his former QB (Geno) under the bus publically.
Mr. WEO Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 The QB whisperer who threw his former QB (Geno) under the bus publically. Rex is loyal to a fault, I think.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Sometimes reading these threads is like listening to my mom's bridge group. Like football, do they?
Hatszel Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 This happened in Florida... He will not be held legally liable for beating up thieving trespassers. In florida it would have been better if he shot him because he felt threatened and he would walk.
Doc Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) He came clean because Rapaport also reported a team source saying the Bears had "buyer's remorse" in re-signing Cutler. He went on record that he wasn't the one who said THAT. The guy doesn't "incriminating marks" on his hands--he left them on the kid's face, obviously. Obviously they have buyer's remorse if they're going to bench him after paying him a ton to re-sign him. That adds nothing. And anyone could have been the source for what was likely a widely-held belief among the Bears' coaches and brass. So if he told Rapoport to quote him anonymously, I still don't see why he'd cry over it. Whereas saying something to Rapoport he didn't want to/think would get out, it got out, and he felt bad about it would produce that kind of reaction. Was there a witness to the punch other than the victim? If not, no other witness and no marks on his hand casts doubt. If he admits to hitting the kid though, that issue is settled, but if I was his lawyer, that's how I'd play it. Edited July 14, 2015 by Doc
DC Tom Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 One of the kids has a shiner. Unless Kromer can credibly say he was defending himself (or unless someone can successfully cripple the credibility of 3 witnesses and conclude the kid was never hit by Kroemr), the burden of proof (Any actual and intentional touching or striking of another person against that person's will (non-consensual), or. The intentional causing of bodily harm to another person) for the charge has been met. No it hasn't. Maybe Kromer grabbed one of the chairs from the kid, the kid grabbed it back, Kromer let go, and the chair hit the kid in the eye. Furthermore...no one's seen any witness statements. Read the police report. The witness statements - all of them, including Kromer's - are redacted. The only available statement in the police report is from the arresting officer. It amazes me that someone who will twist themselves into absolutely impossible contortions to defend Tom Brady somehow believes this is an open-and-shut case. You are one serious whackadoodle.
dave mcbride Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Why? Chances are high that both sides were very wrong, and Kromer's kid was trying to diffuse the part where they may go to the cops because his dad punched one and may have threatened him. Here's the thing: no one gives a crap about the kids who may have been in the wrong. The only wrong that matters is the one committed by the guy who works for the team that this site is dedicated to. He appears to be a a full-on aggro jackass. I would expect that he'd be let go in short order in normal circumstances (which is what what would happen in most normal publicity-conscious businesses), but given Rex who knows. Edited July 14, 2015 by dave mcbride
Doc Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 No it hasn't. Maybe Kromer grabbed one of the chairs from the kid, the kid grabbed it back, Kromer let go, and the chair hit the kid in the eye. Furthermore...no one's seen any witness statements. Read the police report. The witness statements - all of them, including Kromer's - are redacted. The only available statement in the police report is from the arresting officer. It amazes me that someone who will twist themselves into absolutely impossible contortions to defend Tom Brady somehow believes this is an open-and-shut case. You are one serious whackadoodle. And he wonders why anyone questions his loyalties.
dave mcbride Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 No it hasn't. Maybe Kromer grabbed one of the chairs from the kid, the kid grabbed it back, Kromer let go, and the chair hit the kid in the eye. Furthermore...no one's seen any witness statements. Read the police report. The witness statements - all of them, including Kromer's - are redacted. The only available statement in the police report is from the arresting officer. It amazes me that someone who will twist themselves into absolutely impossible contortions to defend Tom Brady somehow believes this is an open-and-shut case. You are one serious whackadoodle. I am quite certain that if this had been the Dolphins or Pats o-line coach who did this, no one here would be giving him the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I am 100 percent certain of that.
DC Tom Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 I am quite certain that if this had been the Dolphins or Pats o-line coach who did this, no one here would be giving him the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I am 100 percent certain of that. I don't hear anyone giving him the benefit of the doubt now. Most I hear is people (the usual suspects, like me and KtD) admitting they don't know what happened, they only know what was in the police report. Which is pretty much what those same people would do if he were on another team. Except the Pats...because even though I can be rational and objective about them, I choose not to. I really revel it when bad things happen to them.
dave mcbride Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 I don't hear anyone giving him the benefit of the doubt now. Most I hear is people (the usual suspects, like me and KtD) admitting they don't know what happened, they only know what was in the police report. Which is pretty much what those same people would do if he were on another team. Except the Pats...because even though I can be rational and objective about them, I choose not to. I really revel it when bad things happen to them. Alright - that made me laugh. My take--clearly, the kid definitely took a shot to the face, and odds are that it was Kromer (he never denied it). He's a big guy, and as you know being overly aggro is regarded as a feature and not a bug in the NFL. It's central to the culture. That's not to say that he's guilty; we don't know. But he probably is.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 No it hasn't. Maybe Kromer grabbed one of the chairs from the kid, the kid grabbed it back, Kromer let go, and the chair hit the kid in the eye. Furthermore...no one's seen any witness statements. Read the police report. The witness statements - all of them, including Kromer's - are redacted. The only available statement in the police report is from the arresting officer. It amazes me that someone who will twist themselves into absolutely impossible contortions to defend Tom Brady somehow believes this is an open-and-shut case. You are one serious whackadoodle. I don't hear anyone giving him the benefit of the doubt now. Most I hear is people (the usual suspects, like me and KtD) admitting they don't know what happened, they only know what was in the police report. Which is pretty much what those same people would do if he were on another team. Except the Pats...because even though I can be rational and objective about them, I choose not to. I really revel it when bad things happen to them. Exactly. Someone else posted something similar earlier and I responded that I'm sure I would react the exact same way, say wait until the real story comes out, and meanwhile crack wise about the stupid possibilities that could have occurred and ridiculous assumptions people make. Fwiw there are 4-5 members of the Pats organization that I can't stand, like Kraft, Bellichick and Brady. I used to hate Welker because he is a punk. And didn't like wolfolk for going after JP's knee. Most of the rest of them I have no problem with. If this happened to Gronk I would think it was hysterical. Here's the thing: no one gives a crap about the kids who may have been in the wrong. The only wrong that matters is the one committed by the guy who works for the team that this site is dedicated to. He appears to be a a full-on aggro jackass. I would expect that he'd be let go in short order in normal circumstances (which is what what would happen in most normal publicity-conscious businesses), but given Rex who knows. Good thing decent people run the team and not you. we still have no idea what started it and what really happened. There is zero chance he is completely innocent. And there is zero chance he just saw kids in a chair and walked up and punched one out and threatened to kill his family. Chances are GREAT that the kids were total !@#$s and punks and Kromer was a total !@#$ and punk. But it doesn't mean he should automatically be assumed guilty or even fired. I imagine they provoked him and he went too far. That's the most likely circumstance IMO.
DC Tom Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Alright - that made me laugh. My take--clearly, the kid definitely took a shot to the face, and odds are that it was Kromer (he never denied it). He's a big guy, and as you know being overly aggro is regarded as a feature and not a bug in the NFL. It's central to the culture. That's not to say that he's guilty; we don't know. But he probably is. We don't know that Kromer never denied it...his statement in the police report was redacted.
John in Jax Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 In florida it would have been better if he shot him because he felt threatened and he would walk. LOL.....Sounds about right, I mean, as long as he was "in fear for his life", he'd be OK. Cops do it every day somewhere in this country.
DC Tom Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Fwiw there are 4-5 members of the Pats organization that I can't stand, like Kraft, Bellichick and Brady. I used to hate Welker because he is a punk. And didn't like wolfolk for going after JP's knee. Most of the rest of them I have no problem with. If this happened to Gronk I would think it was hysterical. But let's be honest. When bad things happen to the Pats, it's not about watching the players twist in the wind for is. It's watching the M!@#$ fans melt down that's the real entertainment.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 But let's be honest. When bad things happen to the Pats, it's not about watching the players twist in the wind for is. It's watching the M!@#$ fans melt down that's the real entertainment. So true. Pats fans are the worst. And I have a lot of respect for Red Sox and Celtics fans. Bruins fans are loyal they're just dicks. Pats fans suck.
hondo in seattle Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 No offense, but there has been much funnier in this thread. But not always intentionally.
DanInUticaTampa Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Was there a witness to the punch other than the victim? If not, no other witness and no marks on his hand casts doubt. If he admits to hitting the kid though, that issue is settled, but if I was his lawyer, that's how I'd play it. If he is claiming self defense, then yeah, he is agreeing he hit the kid. The question then becomes if he had reasonably believed he was in danger and had to defend himself. Reports say His son was also a witness. So there were more than just the victims that saw what happened. plenty of evidence and testimony to go around for them to work with. It might not be something a lawyer can "play." He probably admitted to the police he hit the kid before he was arrested. he can take it back i guess, but based on the report saying he is claiming self defense, Im pretty sure he hit him.
Doc Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 If he is claiming self defense, then yeah, he is agreeing he hit the kid. The question then becomes if he had reasonably believed he was in danger and had to defend himself. Reports say His son was also a witness. So there were more than just the victims that saw what happened. plenty of evidence and testimony to go around for them to work with. It might not be something a lawyer can "play." He probably admitted to the police he hit the kid before he was arrested. he can take it back i guess, but based on the report saying he is claiming self defense, Im pretty sure he hit him. True.
Recommended Posts