Mr. WEO 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. The Bills are the only ones who have actually banished him so far... 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. I clearly allowed for self defense. But no where has this been mentioned (not in the police report, which allowed the cops to conclude battery likely occured and which led to his arrest). What else does that leave? The "it was too dark" defense? Kromer seemed to have no problem seeing these kids in his belived beach chairs, seeing they wer carrying fishing poles and then taking the poles and tossing them in the ocean. If that's what your waiting for, don't hold your breath. I am not making a presumption. I read the police report as it is and it says he hit the kid. We know what battery is. We know the victim is a minor. We know it was over beach chairs. We know his son now also has a criminal summons issued agaisnt him. So, what am I presuming exactly? That he hit the kid? Well, yeah--he did hit him. That's agaisnt the law even in Florida. And other than "self defense", I don't know how he gets off the hook. Alos, I don't care how he makes his livelihood. Whoever wants him can have him. Isn't that how it works? Go beef at Pegula.
Nanker Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Well he hasn't killed the kid's family... yet. So there is that. However, hope springs eternal!
YoloinOhio Posted July 16, 2015 Author Posted July 16, 2015 I just listened to Cordy Glenn's interview from last night. John Murphy asked him about the Kromer deal and he was like all about "Krome" - didn't seem too concerned but also positive on Kurt Anderson. Though Glenn also sounded half asleep so who knows.
DasNootz Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Well he hasn't killed the kid's family... yet. So there is that. However, hope springs eternal! If the purpose of jail/prison is reform, Kromer should be free to go. It's obvious that he's a changed man now.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 The Bills are the only ones who have actually banished him so far... Paid leave while the facts are being determined isn't banishment. It's a perfectly reasonable and responsible approach. What's unreasonable is trying the guy in the court of public opinion before all the facts are known. But I know that you disagree with that sentiment... for some unknown reason.
Mr. WEO Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Paid leave while the facts are being determined isn't banishment. It's a perfectly reasonable and responsible approach. What's unreasonable is trying the guy in the court of public opinion before all the facts are known. But I know that you disagree with that sentiment... for some unknown reason. He's banished from the premises and the team, getting paid or not doesn't change that fact. It's the equivalent to a player getting put on the Commissioner's Exempt list. Tried in the court of public opinion? He's accused of htting a kid in the face. The statements supported his arrest for battery. He hit the kid. This isn't disputed as far as the Sherriff's department is concerned. Other than "self defense" against this kid, I'm simply asking what you or others think we don't know that will cuase the charges to be dropped? So far I've heard "the chair hit the kid", or "one of the other kids hit the kid" to trump up the charge and "it was too dark" to....something, something. It's really not a leap to assume he committed misdemeanor battery on this kid, is it? Edited July 16, 2015 by Mr. WEO
DC Tom Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 He's banished from the premises and the team, getting paid or not doesn't change that fact. It's the equivalent to a player getting put on the Commissioner's Exempt list. Tried in the court of public opinion? He's accused of htting a kid in the face. The statements supported his arrest for battery. He hit the kid. This isn't disputed as far as the Sherriff's department is concerned. Other than "self defense" against this kid, I'm simply asking what you or others think we don't know that will cuase the charges to be dropped? So far I've heard "the chair hit the kid", or "one of the other kids hit the kid" to trump up the charge and "it was too dark" to....something, something. It's really not a leap to assume he committed misdemeanor battery on this kid, is it? An assumption is a leap by definition, pinhead.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 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? Probably not. He's banished from the premises and the team, getting paid or not doesn't change that fact. It's the equivalent to a player getting put on the Commissioner's Exempt list. Tried in the court of public opinion? He's accused of htting a kid in the face. The statements supported his arrest for battery. He hit the kid. This isn't disputed as far as the Sherriff's department is concerned. Other than "self defense" against this kid, I'm simply asking what you or others think we don't know that will cuase the charges to be dropped? So far I've heard "the chair hit the kid", or "one of the other kids hit the kid" to trump up the charge and "it was too dark" to....something, something. It's really not a leap to assume he committed misdemeanor battery on this kid, is it? You still don't get it. And paid leave is NOT banishment.
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 You still don't get it. And paid leave is NOT banishment. Especially while he was already on a paid leave referred to as vacation. We will see where the bills take this though...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) You still don't get it. Of course WEO gets it. Every possible thing that could possibly make anything to do with the Bills look bad is supported and exploited. Anything or anyone that could possibly look good or be good for the Bills is questioned, ripped apart, and ridiculed. Truth, logic, history, or reason be damned. What's not to get about that? Edited July 16, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
YoloinOhio Posted July 16, 2015 Author Posted July 16, 2015 The rumor is he is expected to be fired by the end of this week. His court date isn't for almost a month. So I guess they could go into TC in limbo and have Kurt Anderson run the show in an interim fashion but I'm sure they would prefer to make a decision and move forward prior to heading to SJF.
DC Greg Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Paid leave while the facts are being determined isn't banishment. It's a perfectly reasonable and responsible approach. What's unreasonable is trying the guy in the court of public opinion before all the facts are known. But I know that you disagree with that sentiment... for some unknown reason. So just curious, and I know the crimes are different, but was it wrong for the Pats to release Hernandez before he had been convicted? I mean, that is essentially trying him in the court of public opinion before a court has made the legal determination on his guilt or innocence. By that logic, shouldn't a team be not allowed to make executive decisions about people until their case is settled in court?
Very wide right Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Of course WEO gets it. Every possible thing that could possibly make anything to do with the Bills look bad is supported and exploited. Anything or anyone that could possibly look good or be good for the Bills is questioned, ripped apart, and ridiculed. Truth, logic, history, or reason be damned. What's not to get about that? Actually I think you're criticizing a man for having standards and it's you who are unable to view these issues clearly because you like many here view everything through a prism of wins and losses.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Actually I think you're criticizing a man for having standards and it's you who are unable to view these issues clearly because you like many here view everything through a prism of wins and losses. You clearly know less than zero about him and his history, or me and mine. Or pretty much anything you've posted about that I've seen from you so far.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 So just curious, and I know the crimes are different, but was it wrong for the Pats to release Hernandez before he had been convicted? I mean, that is essentially trying him in the court of public opinion before a court has made the legal determination on his guilt or innocence. By that logic, shouldn't a team be not allowed to make executive decisions about people until their case is settled in court? The team can, and should, do whatever it wishes with any of their employees who are arrested. Certainly murder and conspiracy, in the case of Hernandez, are headline grabbing stories and forced the P*ts to be proactive -- but I doubt very much Hernandez was released by the team before their own investigators got as much information as possible from the authorities and Aaron. With Hernandez, this turned out to be the correct move in hindsight considering the conviction that followed. But how stupid would they have looked had he been found innocent? The Bills will do (and I believe are currently doing) their due dillegence in the Kromer case. Every negative, worst case scenario that WEO and company are painting might be 100% true. No one is arguing that. But assuming that all the facts are known to the public -- as WEO states repeatedly -- is demonstrably absurd. Clearly there are two sides to this story and we've only heard fragments of one side. My only point is rushing to judgement without knowing all the facts is silly and counter-productive. What's the rush to hang the guy? Why does it have to be done TODAY before all the facts are known? Is it just so people can feel self righteous? There's no harm in waiting, but plenty of harm in rushing to judgement. Actually I think you're criticizing a man for having standards and it's you who are unable to view these issues clearly because you like many here view everything through a prism of wins and losses. You mean like having the American standard of innocent until proven guilty? Yeah, it's not surprising that someone who claims their screen name is politically inspired (when it's clearly an anti Bills' slam) has no understanding of what this country is all about.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 This is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on my friend and repeat
DC Tom Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 What's the rush to hang the guy? Why does it have to be done TODAY before all the facts are known? Is it just so people can feel self righteous? There's no harm in waiting, but plenty of harm in rushing to judgement.
YoloinOhio Posted July 16, 2015 Author Posted July 16, 2015 Just checking in to see if the family is ground up and in the freezer yet
Nanker Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Not yet, and if it doesn't happen then The Bills hands are tied. They'll have to fire him as he'll have zero cred.
Recommended Posts