Mr. WEO Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 They have access to interview Kromer and probably his kid for one, and as Augie said the NFL has their own investigators. I am 100% sure the well of information about the situation goes far deeper than us. That's a good point, but as far as I know nothing is happening in the football world at this point, since training camp starts in a few weeks. I've also read speculation his successor would be someone already on staff, so they are likely already taking action so that the team isn't at a loss. You're joking, right? You think their lawyers are going to let them speak to his employer about the details of that evening? You don't think the state's attorney would be interested in the exact contents of that discussion? Did he even admit that? I understand your point, but I guess my counter would be that in many cases people get so overwhelmed by unnamed sources and anonymous info in tweets that not only do they make decisions with incomplete but often non-factual information that they believe to be truth. The only ones who have made decisions are the Pegulas--who chose not to wait until the legal system ran its course before they made him leave the property.
NoSaint Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 You're joking, right? You think their lawyers are going to let them speak to his employer about the details of that evening? You don't think the state's attorney would be interested in the exact contents of that discussion? The only ones who have made decisions are the Pegulas--who chose not to wait until the legal system ran its course before they made him leave the property. So your saying they followed league policy, roughly? And while he was already enjoying paid vacation, nonetheless. Notice what hasn't happened yet? The firing many expected. We will see.
Mr. WEO Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 So your saying they followed league policy, roughly? And while he was already enjoying paid vacation, nonetheless. Notice what hasn't happened yet? The firing many expected. We will see. Yes, it's allowed by the league but the NFL didn't tell them to place him on leave. The Bills chose to. They didn't have to--they could have waited. And come on, this is not a paid vacation. He's not coming back to work at this point.... As for the firing, I wasn't pushing for it---I said the Pegula's axe was hovering over his neck. Their swift reaction leads me to believe that if he gets convicted or pleas to any battery charge, the will let him go.
Doc Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 He's already admitted to punching the minor. Name one other possible defense. One last point of clarification - what I posted is how this is very likely to go down. I'm not advocating jumping the gun. The legal situation needs to play out first. If new information comes to light, obviously it needs to be considered. He's reportedly admitted to self-defense. I doubt he admitted to hitting the kid without provocation. So your saying they followed league policy, roughly? And while he was already enjoying paid vacation, nonetheless. Notice what hasn't happened yet? The firing many expected. We will see. Or the potential additional charges. Against him, at least. Apparently the police didn't believe/take the "death threats" too seriously either.
LabattBlue Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 I am amazed this assclown hasn't been fired yet.
Mr. WEO Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 He's reportedly admitted to self-defense. I doubt he admitted to hitting the kid without provocation. Or the potential additional charges. Against him, at least. Apparently the police didn't believe/take the "death threats" too seriously either. What else is he going to say? Provoked? Would anyone believe this little kid took the first swing?
Doc Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 What else is he going to say? Provoked? Would anyone believe this little kid took the first swing? Exactly. No one would admit he took a swing first. Not even the kid. I wouldn't dismiss it outright. Did you think that chick in the bar would have taken a swing first at De'Andre Johnson unless you saw it on video?
Buffalo Barbarian Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 What else is he going to say? Provoked? Would anyone believe this little kid took the first swing? yes kids are punks
BarleyNY Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Did he even admit that? I understand your point, but I guess my counter would be that in many cases people get so overwhelmed by unnamed sources and anonymous info in tweets that not only do they make decisions with incomplete but often non-factual information that they believe to be truth. Yes. Thus the claim of self defense. yes kids are punksEspecially the ones out fishing at 11:00 at night - and moving beach chairs. Bad apples, all of them. Always looking for trouble.
Mr. WEO Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Exactly. No one would admit he took a swing first. Not even the kid. I wouldn't dismiss it outright. Did you think that chick in the bar would have taken a swing first at De'Andre Johnson unless you saw it on video? No video here. Therefore we are left with who's story is more credible to the judge or jury. How do you think that will go? Remember, this is over a few lounge chairs...these kids weren't carjacking the Kromer clan. They were fishing from his prized rental chairs.
KDS73 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Especially the ones out fishing at 11:00 at night - and moving beach chairs. Bad apples, all of them. Always looking for trouble. I'll bet they even have a catchy little gang name too. The Midnight Fishermen Tiny Teen Terrorists. Lock up your Daughter's...and your beach chairs.
Doc Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 No video here. Therefore we are left with who's story is more credible to the judge or jury. How do you think that will go? Remember, this is over a few lounge chairs...these kids weren't carjacking the Kromer clan. They were fishing from his prized rental chairs. Depends on whether you believe Kromer hit the kid just because he stole his beach chairs and nothing else. With Kromer having no history of legal trouble, namely violence (and we'd have heard it by now), that seems unlikely. Does the kid/do the kids have any history (which we wouldn't know)? We know he's/they've stealing beach chairs and that even the cops didn't believe the "death threats" since it's been a week and no charge for it.
NoSaint Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Yes. Thus the claim of self defense. Especially the ones out fishing at 11:00 at night - and moving beach chairs. Bad apples, all of them. Always looking for trouble. Link me a kromer statement
Mr. WEO Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Depends on whether you believe Kromer hit the kid just because he stole his beach chairs and nothing else. With Kromer having no history of legal trouble, namely violence (and we'd have heard it by now), that seems unlikely. Does the kid/do the kids have any history (which we wouldn't know)? We know he's/they've stealing beach chairs and that even the cops didn't believe the "death threats" since it's been a week and no charge for it. Unless the kid swung first, there is no self defines claim. Doesn't matter what he was doing with the chairs, doc. Nor does it matter what this kid's "history" is. The whole case is: did he hit the kid (first, as if there's a chance the kid hit Kromer at all). If the answer is yes, that's pretty much it. The law doesn't consider "provocation" except in self defense.
Doc Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Unless the kid swung first, there is no self defines claim. Doesn't matter what he was doing with the chairs, doc. Nor does it matter what this kid's "history" is. The whole case is: did he hit the kid (first, as if there's a chance the kid hit Kromer at all). If the answer is yes, that's pretty much it. The law doesn't consider "provocation" except in self defense. Sure the kid's history matters. Just like Kromer's does. It all goes to credibility since, again, there's no video and just his word versus theirs. And obviously he's claiming provocation since he's claiming self defense.
KDS73 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Where are people getting that Kromer is claiming self defense?
Mr. WEO Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Sure the kid's history matters. Just like Kromer's does. It all goes to credibility since, again, there's no video and just his word versus theirs. And obviously he's claiming provocation since he's claiming self defense. Matters where? In court? First, the kid's a minor, none of that would come in. Second, it wouldn't come in anyway, for either of them.
DC Tom Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Unless the kid swung first, there is no self defines claim. Completely untrue. According to Florida law, if you reasonably believe someone's going to attack you, you can attack them first. But please, continue to pretend you know what you're talking about. It's funny.
Lurker Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) Completely untrue. According to Florida law, if you reasonably believe someone's going to attack you, you can attack them first. "The law only requires law enforcement and the justice system to ask three questions in self-defense cases: Did the defendant have the right to be there? Was he engaged in a lawful activity? Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?" "It's a very low standard to prove preponderance," said Weaver, the West Palm Beach lawyer. "If 51 percent of the evidence supports your claim, you get off." http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133 Beyond the Castle: “Stand Your Ground”States that have adopted “stand your ground” laws have extended the castle doctrine to confrontations outside a person’s home, thus expanding an individual’s right to act in a threatening situation and protecting him against criminal prosecution and civil liability. The stand your ground defense may apply, depending on state law, in the following situations: Beyond the house. The defense may be available when the confrontation was in a person’s vehicle or on a person’s residential property, including the driveway, swimming pool area, or land around the home. A public place. The law may provide that, if an aggressor uses force or threatens violence against another in a public place, the person being attacked or threatened has no duty to choose an apparent safe way to retreat, and may instead use the amount of reasonable force necessary to fend off the attacker. Presumption of violence. The law may presume that an intruder in a home or vehicle intends to commit an unlawful act using force or violence—this means that the person raising self-defense need not produce evidence of the intruder’s intent. Presumption of fear. The law may presume that a person who uses force against an intruder in his home, residential area, or vehicle was fearful of violence. Like the presumption of violence on the part of the intruder, this means the person claiming self defense need not produce evidence of his fear. Once the defendant raises self defense, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self defense. http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/stand-your-ground-new-trends-self-defense-law.htm Edited July 18, 2015 by Lurker
Mr. WEO Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Completely untrue. According to Florida law, if you reasonably believe someone's going to attack you, you can attack them first. But please, continue to pretend you know what you're talking about. It's funny. I'm stumped as to what this response has to do with Tom Brady. Give me a little time, I'll figure it out. Anyway, this is the law in Fla: A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. You may recall that only one individual in this fracas is accused of threatening the lives of others. "The law only requires law enforcement and the justice system to ask three questions in self-defense cases: Did the defendant have the right to be there? Was he engaged in a lawful activity? Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?" "It's a very low standard to prove preponderance," said Weaver, the West Palm Beach lawyer. "If 51 percent of the evidence supports your claim, you get off." http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133 Beyond the Castle: “Stand Your Ground”States that have adopted “stand your ground” laws have extended the castle doctrine to confrontations outside a person’s home, thus expanding an individual’s right to act in a threatening situation and protecting him against criminal prosecution and civil liability. The stand your ground defense may apply, depending on state law, in the following situations: Beyond the house. The defense may be available when the confrontation was in a person’s vehicle or on a person’s residential property, including the driveway, swimming pool area, or land around the home. A public place. The law may provide that, if an aggressor uses force or threatens violence against another in a public place, the person being attacked or threatened has no duty to choose an apparent safe way to retreat, and may instead use the amount of reasonable force necessary to fend off the attacker. Presumption of violence. The law may presume that an intruder in a home or vehicle intends to commit an unlawful act using force or violence—this means that the person raising self-defense need not produce evidence of the intruder’s intent. Presumption of fear. The law may presume that a person who uses force against an intruder in his home, residential area, or vehicle was fearful of violence. Like the presumption of violence on the part of the intruder, this means the person claiming self defense need not produce evidence of his fear. Once the defendant raises self defense, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self defense. http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/stand-your-ground-new-trends-self-defense-law.htm As to the bolded, that's where it would seem to fall apart for Kromer, unless he is going to claim they were wielding their fishing poles in a life threatening manner. I did enjoy the lawyer's "if 51% of the evidence" quote though.
Recommended Posts