thebandit27 Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 "More probable than not" is the NFL's standard of proof; akin to a "preponderance of the evidence" required in civil court. This is a criminal case, and subject to far stricter standards (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt). The difference is this: Brady did not fully cooperate with an NFL investigation to the letter of the league's rules, and therefore (by those same rules) is subject to punishment. Kromer has the right to remain silent according to the law; he can't have his silence held against him. The only people obligated to not hold his silence against him is any judge or jury involved. The Bills or the NFL are well within their right to hold his silence against him. I am not saying they should or shouldn't. But they have that right. I'm not denying any of that, and I think the organization has done the right thing so far. I was only pointing out that there was a world of difference between the NFL punishing Brady before the facts were out versus Kromer being guilty of anything as far as the law concerns at this point.
Mr. WEO Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) The point is rushing to judgement about an event where most of the facts remain unknown is silly. It's silly because it's done from a position of ignorance and relies entirely on emotion. It's why trying people in the court of public opinion is not how our justice system is supposed to work. Certainly we can agree on that? Well, you said most of what is known came from unreliable media sources. This isn't true. It comes right from the Sherriff's Office. We can agree that Kromer hasn't disputed any of these allegations. Until he does, they stand as all we know so far. C'mon, it was one paragraph in the report told from the father of one of the victims point of view. Sure, it's reliable in the sense that the arresting officer accurately put what the father said in the report. Is it reliable in the sense of that's how events actually happened? We have no idea. No one does. The rest of the statements, from the victims, from the Kromers, were redacted. There is no accurate/reliable description currently out there from anyone who was actually at the scene. This just isn't true. What is known and what is in the reoprt is what came from the kid or kids involved. Kromer's "statements" weren't "redacted"...because he hasn't given one yet. Because one side of a story almost never is. OK, so it's almost obviously incorrect. Edited July 15, 2015 by Mr. WEO
Deranged Rhino Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 Well, you said most of what is known came from unreliable media sources. This isn't true. It comes right from the Sherriff's Office. We can agree that Kromer hasn't disputed any of these allegations. Until he does, they stand as all we know so far. So, no?
Wayne Cubed Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) This just isn't true. What is known and what is in the reoprt is what came from the kid or kids involved. Kromer's "statements" weren't "redacted"...because he hasn't given one yet. Wrong. Perhaps you should look at the report. Page 5 both Aaron and Zach Kromer gave statements. Both have been redacted. https://twitter.com/wcsopio1/status/620606595026800640 Also the complainant, was the father, not the kids. All of there statements have been redacted as well. Edited July 15, 2015 by Wayne Cubed
YoloinOhio Posted July 15, 2015 Author Posted July 15, 2015 @mikerodak: Its early, but worth noting: assistant FL state attorney Bobby Elmore said he hasnt heard yet from NFL or its reps about Kromer case.
3rdand12 Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 @mikerodak: Its early, but worth noting: assistant FL state attorney Bobby Elmore said he hasnt heard yet from NFL or its reps about Kromer case. why is that worth noting again?
Leroi Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) I heard The neighbors of Kromer have hired a private security firm, for they are in fear of their lives. The emotional distress that has been put upon the families has been heavy. That anxiety has to be worth a few million dollars. Let hope Kromer doesn't follow through on his promise. Imo Edited July 16, 2015 by Leroi
Gugny Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I heard The neighbors of Kromer have hired a private security firm, for they are in fear of their lives. The emotional distress that has been put upon the families has been heavy. That anxiety has to be worth a few million dollars. Let hope Kromer doesn't follow through on his promise. Imo PURE. EFFING. GOLD. Keep this invaluable inside info coming!!!
boyst Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I heard The neighbors of Kromer have hired a private security firm, for they are in fear of their lives. The emotional distress that has been put upon the families has been heavy. That anxiety has to be worth a few million dollars. Let hope Kromer doesn't follow through on his promise. Imo that's genius on their part, though I wonder if this is legit. Show pain and suffering. Enter a civil suit on top for the win. Cancel Christmas, close the kitchen if that's the case Komer is !@#$ed. then again, it could be anger management and suspended sentence if justice prevails.
Mr. WEO Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 So, no? Probably not. Wrong. Perhaps you should look at the report. Page 5 both Aaron and Zach Kromer gave statements. Both have been redacted. https://twitter.com/wcsopio1/status/620606595026800640 Also the complainant, was the father, not the kids. All of there statements have been redacted as well. It was reported this am that he had no given his story. His statement may have been "i want my lawyer." If in his statement he admitted he hit the kid, it's all over. He's admitted guilt to the charged crime. The point is that "the unreliable media" has not been the source of the information we know.
Wayne Cubed Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Probably not. It was reported this am that he had no given his story. His statement may have been "i want my lawyer." If in his statement he admitted he hit the kid, it's all over. He's admitted guilt to the charged crime. The point is that "the unreliable media" has not been the source of the information we know. So basically, you got some unreliable information from the media. Sure, his statement could have been "I want my lawyer". It could have just as easily been an explanation of the events from him and his sons point of view. So again, what we know is what the arresting officer put in his 1 paragraph report.
ALF Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) The court date is set for embattled Buffalo Bills offensive line coach Aaron Kromer. He is scheduled to appear in Walton County, Fla., court on Aug. 12 at 8:30 a.m., a court clerk said Wednesday. http://bills.buffalonews.com/2015/07/15/bills-kromer-given-august-court-date/ O’Reilly, who has an August 20 court date, could also be disciplined by the NHL. http://www.buffalohockeybeat.com/strong-words-already-haunting-sabres-ryan-oreilly/ Edited July 16, 2015 by ALF
Rob's House Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Probably not. It was reported this am that he had no given his story. His statement may have been "i want my lawyer." If in his statement he admitted he hit the kid, it's all over. He's admitted guilt to the charged crime. The point is that "the unreliable media" has not been the source of the information we know. Yeah, the details and circumstances don't matter. Based on a blurb it's pretty clear that he's guilty, both of state law and God's law. In a just world he'd be stoned to death this afternoon, but unfortunately we'll have to settle for possible jail time and the destruction of a career he spent a quarter of a century building. It just doesn't seem like enough for a black eye.
BarleyNY Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Yeah, the details and circumstances don't matter. Based on a blurb it's pretty clear that he's guilty, both of state law and God's law. In a just world he'd be stoned to death this afternoon, but unfortunately we'll have to settle for possible jail time and the destruction of a career he spent a quarter of a century building. It just doesn't seem like enough for a black eye. The details do matter. The problem is that the more of them we get the worse it looks for Kromer. If a 6'4", 215 pound man had punched my 5'8", 140 pound minor son in the face over moving his deck chairs you can bet him getting arrested and fired would suit me just fine.
Mr. WEO Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) So basically, you got some unreliable information from the media. Sure, his statement could have been "I want my lawyer". It could have just as easily been an explanation of the events from him and his sons point of view. So again, what we know is what the arresting officer put in his 1 paragraph report. And after everyone's statement--including Kromer's, that arresting officer put in his report: "It was determiend that Kroemer did willfully and intentionally strike (victim) against his will causing bodily harm". So we know that... Yeah, the details and circumstances don't matter. Based on a blurb it's pretty clear that he's guilty, both of state law and God's law. In a just world he'd be stoned to death this afternoon, but unfortunately we'll have to settle for possible jail time and the destruction of a career he spent a quarter of a century building. It just doesn't seem like enough for a black eye. Or he could have just not have punched the kid over a beach chair. Based on what he heard, the cop says Kromer's actions met the definition for battery. Tell me this, what do you think we haven't heard yet that would get Kromer off the hook for misdemeanor battery? Other than self defense, I don't see what will help him. You and others keep saying we don't know the whole story. What do you think are the extenuating or mitigating circumstances here that will get this case tossed? I'm just curious. You must have something specific in mind, because once he laid hands on that kid without consent and there was resultant injury, the law considers that battery. Edited July 16, 2015 by Mr. WEO
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 And after everyone's statement--including Kromer's, that arresting officer put in his report: "It was determiend that Kroemer did willfully and intentionally strike (victim) against his will causing bodily harm". So we know that... Or he could have just not have punched the kid over a beach chair. Based on what he heard, the cop says Kromer's actions met the definition for battery. Tell me this, what do you think we haven't heard yet that would get Kromer off the hook for misdemeanor battery? Other than self defense, I don't see what will help him. You and others keep saying we don't know the whole story. What do you think are the extenuating or mitigating circumstances here that will get this case tossed? I'm just curious. You must have something specific in mind, because once he laid hands on that kid without consent and there was resultant injury, the law considers that battery. i think most of us assume he will end up with some charge, whether that or a plea, unless something crazy comes out..... but the wait to hear everything before banishing the guy from north america is i think the take you are reading from most.
BarleyNY Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 i think most of us assume he will end up with some charge, whether that or a plea, unless something crazy comes out..... but the wait to hear everything before banishing the guy from north america is i think the take you are reading from most. That's BS. If you need to way overstate the opinions of people critical of Kromer to make them seem unreasonable then you're out of good arguments.
Rob's House Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Or he could have just not have punched the kid over a beach chair. Based on what he heard, the cop says Kromer's actions met the definition for battery. Tell me this, what do you think we haven't heard yet that would get Kromer off the hook for misdemeanor battery? Other than self defense, I don't see what will help him. You and others keep saying we don't know the whole story. What do you think are the extenuating or mitigating circumstances here that will get this case tossed? I'm just curious. You must have something specific in mind, because once he laid hands on that kid without consent and there was resultant injury, the law considers that battery. We know extremely little about the case. It could have been self-defense or defense of another. For all I know his son and one of the others got to scuffling and in the dark he turns quickly, hands out and clips the kid's eye. I doubt it, but I once inadvertently smacked the **** out of a guy playing soccer once, but lacked intent.It's also possible that he punched a Kid over a beach chair. You don't know, but as usually you make a presumption and have absolute faith in its accuracy. In addition to that, I have a problem with the attitude that his livelihood should be destroyed if he's guilty. There's an age old principle called "let the punishment for the crime" that modern day keyboard moralists seem to have forgotten.
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 That's BS. If you need to way overstate the opinions of people critical of Kromer to make them seem unreasonable then you're out of good arguments. it was a joke, breathe easy. i could have typed out "demanding immediate removal from the nfl without knowing the facts" but "banishment from north america" was more amusing.
Recommended Posts