McCoy's nightclub fight and the ongoing investigation

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

The DA doesn't base his decision to charge on whether and when the victim believes a crime was committed against them. Why would you keep repeating this? Whenever a victim reports a crime, it is investigated. Charges come or don't come based on the investigation and the strength of the evidence. There are many examples of victims who don't come forward to the police immediately after the crime is committed. You know this. You also know why the cops didn't come forward immediately--but they did ultimately press charges. So why even mention this?

 

Your first sentence is technically correct. However, when a crime victim delays coming forward, the investigation is likewise delayed, and the evidence becomes weaker - physical evidence is lost or cleaned away, witnesses can't be identified or found, people's memories become blurred and even influenced by what's been published in the media (and a good defense lawyer will pick the media aspect apart).

 

I feel pretty sure that you know this. So why keep disputing this point?

The difference is that in this case the police department took the complaint and prematurely took it to the DA's office to have an arrest warrant issued. There was little follow-up by the department to determine the merits of the case before it brought the case forward.

 

The police department tried to ramrod this case through without even talking to the accused parties. That is not to say that they would have talked to the police but from what I know (or think I know) the department didn't do much investigating before going forward.

 

It's the DA's office that is asking the tough questions and are not up to this point satisfied with what they have heard. What the DA's office is doing now should have been done by the police department when the complaint was brought to them. By not exhibiting much objectivity and fairness after receiving the complaint the department severely diminished their credibility of the process in this case.

 

I want to make it clear I'm not even bringing up the issue of what happened at who is at fault. But it is fair to say and easy to say that this case was handled very poorly from the outset. Without a doubt that is going to be a significant factor on the DA's decision regarding this case.

 

John, do you know this, or is this opinion?

 

Either way, any idea why they would try this?

[JohnC]

So tell us your inside knowledge that PPD tried to push this thru. Could you be mixing PPD Police with PPD Union?

 

Agree. This has been handled poorly.

The police received the complaint the day after the incident. Within a couple or few days this case was brought to the DA's office with a recommendation for an arrest warrant. I'm not aware that the police even interviewed the other parties in the incident before they sent up the petition for the warrant. There were plenty of red flags associated with the injured complainants regarding late notification of the incident, the delay in receiving medical attention, where they received the medical attention that was far away from a number of other medical facilities that were closer, the amount of drinking before the event at another establishment, the amount of drinking at the location of the incident, drinking while driving, using their badges to curry favor for themselves and others, the number of witnesses they interviewed and the number of phone videos they reviewed.

 

The DA is doing a lot of the work that should have been done up front by the police department that received the complaint. If you believe that the police department did their due diligence in investigating this case before sending the paperwork to the DA's office then ask yourself why has the DA's office not made a judgment yet on how the case is going to be handled? Obviously they have more questions that need to be answered.

Edited February 29, 2016 by JohnC

[JohnC]

 

Your first sentence is technically correct. However, when a crime victim delays coming forward, the investigation is likewise delayed, and the evidence becomes weaker - physical evidence is lost or cleaned away, witnesses can't be identified or found, people's memories become blurred and even influenced by what's been published in the media (and a good defense lawyer will pick the media aspect apart).

 

I feel pretty sure that you know this. So why keep disputing this point?

 

John, do you know this, or is this opinion?

 

Eeither way, any idea why they would try this?

I did not read one account where the police had interviewed the other parties. McCoy lawyered up early and then changed attorneys. If there is evidence that I am wrong about the police interviewing McCoy and his group before the paperwork was sent to the DA for an issuance of a warrant I will acknowledge my error. I do know that the DA's office very recently met with McCoy and his lawyer.

 

The reason why the police quickly acted with a petition for a warrant is they don't like their brothers getting their asses kicked in without there being a penalty. When they made their complaint some of them were badly battered. They got one version of the event without working too hard to get a fuller explanation as to what happened. There is nothing unusual about police protecting their own members from outsiders. There is a tribal mentality working here as reflected by the mayor's immediate response before he knew what actually happened.

[Doc]

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that charges will be brought against the cops, as well as the bottle-wielder, if not having the matter referred to IA. It would explain the delay, i.e. delving into the cops' pasts.

[JohnC]

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that charges will be brought against the cops, as well as the bottle-wielder, if not having the matter referred to IA. It would explain the delay, i.e. delving into the cops' pasts.

I don't know what the outcome is going to be and the determination that the DA is going to make. But it is apparent to me that the police who received the complaint didn't adequately investigate the case before sending up their paperwork for an arrest warrant. There were plenty of red flags with the complaint that should have made the police act with more thorough and caution. The thrust of most of my responses deal more with the sloppiness of the process than with the issue of who is guilty of whatever. It is the DA's office that is acting most competently and professionally in this saga.

[Mr. WEO]

The difference is that in this case the police department took the complaint and prematurely took it to the DA's office to have an arrest warrant issued. There was little follow-up by the department to determine the merits of the case before it brought the case forward.

 

The police department tried to ramrod this case through without even talking to the accused parties. That is not to say that they would have talked to the police but from what I know (or think I know) the department didn't do much investigating before going forward.

 

It's the DA's office that is asking the tough questions and are not up to this point satisfied with what they have heard. What the DA's office is doing now should have been done by the police department when the complaint was brought to them. By not exhibiting much objectivity and fairness after receiving the complaint the department severely diminished their credibility of the process in this case.

 

I want to make it clear I'm not even bringing up the issue of what happened at who is at fault. But it is fair to say and easy to say that this case was handled very poorly from the outset. Without a doubt that is going to be a significant factor on the DA's decision regarding this case.

 

Prematurely? This is obviously untrue. It is clear many witnesses have been spoken to. In fact, the result of the investigation is what has led to the delay in bringing charges. The DA doesn't think he has a solid case.

 

 

Your first sentence is technically correct. However, when a crime victim delays coming forward, the investigation is likewise delayed, and the evidence becomes weaker - physical evidence is lost or cleaned away, witnesses can't be identified or found, people's memories become blurred and even influenced by what's been published in the media (and a good defense lawyer will pick the media aspect apart).

 

I feel pretty sure that you know this. So why keep disputing this point?

 

John, do you know this, or is this opinion?

 

Either way, any idea why they would try this?

 

Because none of what you say there has anything to do with doc's contention that because the cops delayed reporting the incident, they didn't think they were victims of a crime. Also, in this case, from what has been made public, there are plenty of eyewitness accounts and there is some video of the incident. The delay of a couple of days therefore has seemed to have little effect on the investigation so far.

 

In fact, if a delay had led to what you imagine in your post (hindrance of gathering of evidence), the DA would likely have charged by now based on just the cops complaints and the video.

[JohnC]

 

Prematurely? This is obviously untrue. It is clear many witnesses have been spoken to. In fact, the result of the investigation is what has led to the delay in bringing charges. The DA doesn't think he has a solid case.

 

 

 

Your response is perplexing and makes little sense to me. The police took the complaint from the off duty police a day after the event and then in short order filed for an arrest warrant. This was in a matter of days. The delay in bringing charges isn't because the police weren't pushing for a warrant to be issued. The delay was due to the fact that the DA slowed the process down after they received the request for a warrant. For the DA the case at that point had too many questions that needed to be answered before it met their standard and became a more credible case.

 

It doesn't matter whether the police interviewed a few or many people. If the there are still many questions that needed to be answered in order to prove a case then you continue on with the investigation until there is a better understanding of what happened. Again, it is the DA's office that is directing the department to continue on with the investigation to strengthen the case that it brought to their office. It's obvious that the DA's office was not satisfied with what the police had presented to them.

 

With respect to the issue of the delay in reporting the event that you continue to harangue.Doc over it is very material for a variety of reasons For one the police broke their own protocol by delaying in reporting the event that they were involved with. The delay wouldn't be a major issue if the off duty cops were civilians but that is not the case here. They were experienced policemen who knew they were required to immediately report such an event. Questions relating to the timing of the reporting of the event are questions that the DA wants answered. If there is a trial that issue is certainly going to come up.

 

There are two sides to this case that need to be clarified: the facts and the process/handling. Even if the facts do favor one side how the case was handled by the complainants and the police will be important considerations for the DA's office to consider before making a judgment as to how to proceed.

[Mr. WEO]

 

Obviously, and mostly because they didn't call it in immediately and waited for 2 days to report it. What is so hard about that to understand? And what difference is is to you if I keep repeating it? Oh wait, that's right, the "wilding" theory. Good one there.

 

 

Because you keep insisting that the cops didn't think a crime wasn't committed against them. Obviously they did--and later reported it.

 

Their delay was due to their worry about their own behavior, but that delay has nothing to do with whether the DA thinks a crime has been committed. He certainly isn't basing his decision to charge on what the cops thought at that time of the incident because...it would make no sense for him to do so. "Sorry, you didn't think a crime was being committed at the time and didn't report It immediately, so....no crime was committed!".

Edited February 29, 2016 by Mr. WEO

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

Prematurely? This is obviously untrue. It is clear many witnesses have been spoken to. In fact, the result of the investigation is what has led to the delay in bringing charges. The DA doesn't think he has a solid case.

 

 

Because none of what you say there has anything to do with doc's contention that because the cops delayed reporting the incident, they didn't think they were victims of a crime. Also, in this case, from what has been made public, there are plenty of eyewitness accounts and there is some video of the incident. The delay of a couple of days therefore has seemed to have little effect on the investigation so far.

 

In fact, if a delay had led to what you imagine in your post (hindrance of gathering of evidence), the DA would likely have charged by now based on just the cops complaints and the video.

 

Good grief, "if a delay had led to what I imagine in my post"? Of course the delay led to hindrance in gathering of evidence, how could it not? Whether enough evidence might still exist to charge a case is beside the point.

 

What we know is that the DA hasn't charged yet. We can infer that he has done far more legwork than the original case, but whether he hasn't charged yet because evidence and witnesses that could give him a solid case have disappeared or been tainted by media coverage, or because he's uncovered enough questionable or illegal behavior on the complainant side that he doesn't think he could prosecute successfully, we don't know (yet) - any insistence on one or the other reason is opinion, or to borrow your term, "what you imagine in your post". At an educated guess, it's very likely to be both.

[Doc]

Because you keep insisting that the cops didn't think a crime wasn't committed against them. Obviously they did--and later reported it.

 

Their delay was due to their worry about their own behavior, but that delay has nothing to do with whether the DA thinks a crime has been committed. He certainly isn't basing his decision to charge on what the cops thought at that time of the incident because...it would make no sense for him to do so. "Sorry, you didn't think a crime was being committed at the time and didn't report It immediately, so....no crime was committed!".

 

Yes and everyone knows why they later decided it was a crime. The DA obviously knows this as well. He can say "look, you didn't alert anyone during or immediately after the incident, didn't file a report until 2 days later, and didn't seek treatment at the nearby hospitals. IOW your injuries weren't serious. Beyond that, you started the incident. I may be able to make a case for aggravated assault for the guy who cut Jessie with the bottle, but that will be a tough sell." And not press charges, at least against the money man, Shady.

[Mr. WEO]

You now say the DA doesn't think the injuries are serious? Because the injured cops certainly think they were serious or this wouldn't ever have been a story. The DA would never say what you just did! He has the medical records. He has one perp hitting the cop in the head with a bottle.

 

It's clear why the cops didn't go to the cops. It's not, as you keep insisting, because they "didn't think their injuries weren't serious". It's because one of them likely flashed his weapon and he knows the problems that would cause with their story.

[Deranged Rhino]

You now say the DA doesn't think the injuries are serious? Because the injured cops certainly think they were serious or this wouldn't ever have been a story.

 

False. If the incident didn't involve a famous NFL player, this never would have been a story.

[Mr. WEO]

 

False. If the incident didn't involve a famous NFL player, this never would have been a story.

 

 

Possibly, But that doesn't make my statement false. If there were no injuries, no charges would likely have been filed. The mechanism of injury and the resulting injuries are the majority of the case.

[boater]

 

 

Because you keep insisting that the cops didn't think a crime wasn't committed against them. Obviously they did--and later reported it.

 

Their delay was due to their worry about their own behavior, but that delay has nothing to do with whether the DA thinks a crime has been committed. He certainly isn't basing his decision to charge on what the cops thought at that time of the incident because...it would make no sense for him to do so. "Sorry, you didn't think a crime was being committed at the time and didn't report It immediately, so....no crime was committed!".

There are two issues here.

• Broken law and crime was the excessive force stomping of people.
• "Reporting incidents" is PPD policy not law.

Law trumps policy every time. Some people are making false equivalencies between law and policy, as in "he reported it late, so it doesn't count."

 

Breaking your employers policy, not so cool, but it doesn't negate broken laws in the the same incident. And I'm not so sure the officer "late incident reporting" arguments are even applicable.

[JohnC]

You now say the DA doesn't think the injuries are serious? Because the injured cops certainly think they were serious or this wouldn't ever have been a story. The DA would never say what you just did! He has the medical records. He has one perp hitting the cop in the head with a bottle.

 

It's clear why the cops didn't go to the cops. It's not, as you keep insisting, because they "didn't think their injuries weren't serious". It's because one of them likely flashed his weapon and he knows the problems that would cause with their story.

No we don't know why it is clear that the cops didn't immediately report the incident. Tell me what it is. You bring up the displaying of a gun as a problem. That certainly is a problem with a prompt response and with a late response especially as how it is related to the level of drinking at this club and at another club.

[Doc]

You now say the DA doesn't think the injuries are serious? Because the injured cops certainly think they were serious or this wouldn't ever have been a story. The DA would never say what you just did! He has the medical records. He has one perp hitting the cop in the head with a bottle.

 

It's clear why the cops didn't go to the cops. It's not, as you keep insisting, because they "didn't think their injuries weren't serious". It's because one of them likely flashed his weapon and he knows the problems that would cause with their story.

 

I'm saying that the DA might be saying to the cops that if you didn't report an alleged crime until days later and you not only drove yourselves to the hospital, but went past several hospitals to get treatment where you wanted to get it, you were most likely not seriously injured. Which is the only way this becomes AA, which is what the cops/FOP want because it means a chance at a bigger payday if they can ensnare Shady and go after his money. Again, this isn't rocket science here.

 

And what does flashing the gun have to do with anything? The cops are alleging a crime was committed and if they committed one themselves, it doesn't negate the one(s) committed against them. The chance at a big payday trumps what would probably be just a slap on the wrist anyway. Furthermore Ayers, the one who flashed the gun, was the one who filed the report 2 days later, when he would have had time to think about it. Obviously he didn't think it meant anything or he never would have filed the report to begin with.

 

False. If the incident didn't involve a famous NFL player, this never would have been a story

 

Yup.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Doc

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

Possibly, But that doesn't make my statement false.

Not possibly. And it does. The injuries suffered in the brawl isn't the story. Shady is.

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

Ok, so is there any actual new information or news, or are we just still spinning our wheels waiting?

[Maury Ballstein]

Ok, so is there any actual new information or news, or are we just still spinning our wheels waiting?

No news. Just a weo vs doc, hopeful, johnc battle.

 

Boater wants justice for his brothers in blue.

[Mr. WEO]

 

I'm saying that the DA might be saying to the cops that if you didn't report an alleged crime until days later and you not only drove yourselves to the hospital, but went past several hospitals to get treatment where you wanted to get it, you were most likely not seriously injured. Which is the only way this becomes AA, which is what the cops/FOP want because it means a chance at a bigger payday if they can ensnare Shady and go after his money. Again, this isn't rocket science here.

 

And what does flashing the gun have to do with anything? The cops are alleging a crime was committed and if they committed one themselves, it doesn't negate the one(s) committed against them. The chance at a big payday trumps what would probably be a slap on the wrist anyway. Furthermore Ayers, the one who flashed the gun, was the one who filed the report 2 days later, when he would have had time to think about it. Obviously he didn't think it meant anything or he never would filed the report.

 

 

Yup.

 

The bolded part I posted way back in this thread Doc.

 

Brandishing a gun would mitigate the charge of aggravated assault against the perps. They might argue proportional response as the flashing of the gun may itself constitute assault by the cops.

 

The cop who flashed the gun may have figured that it would be his word against the 4perps as to whether he showed his gun. Waiting 2 days would thin the witness ranks, he figured.