Doc Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 FREE SHADY!!! Again, this is about going from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 I was watching People vs OJ last night and thinking about how a case can look cut and dried but you get a bunch of pricey attorneys together and they will find any angle to show the prosecution that the case isn't going to be so easy to prove. I am sure they are diving into every last sordid detail of those cops. This also kind of what happened with Jameis Winston. They didn't think they could win because of what his lawyers dug up on the girl, and that she didn't remember clearly what happened because of the alcohol involved, so couldn't charge him. There is a big disconnect between how things seem like they should work and how they actually do work...
KDS73 Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 If it's common practice for the officers to take a bottle from someone because they feel like they are rich enough that they wouldn't notice, then yes, it should be exposed. Huh? Is this something that's being talked about by people close to the investigation? Or is it just more internet message board / radio caller rumor type stuff being started by people trying to paint the cops as the bad guys?
Andrew Son Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Huh? Is this something that's being talked about by people close to the investigation? Or is it just more internet message board / radio caller rumor type stuff being started by people trying to paint the cops as the bad guys? Is anything not this at this point?
YoloinOhio Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Florio must have been watching People vs OJ too http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/17/high-profile-injects-delay-into-lesean-mccoy-case/
Mr. WEO Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 It matters because if 3 separate cops, 2 of whom were involved and one who was watching it all unfold, didn't think enough to call for backup immediately for what was later deemed an "aggravated assault," maybe it wasn't "aggravated assault." The definition of the charge doesn't depend on who called or didn't call the police, or when. The DA will decide if it is aggravated assault based on the evidence he has. Again, it has nothing to do with the cops being called. It has much to do with what is in the video.
JohnC Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 You realize, John, that many of the caveats you apply to the security footage (wouldn't necessarily tell you what precipitated the brawl and what was said before the fight) apply in spades to cell phone video since most people pull out their phone, fumble about opening up the camera app, and point it at the ruckas long after it starts? They are also often not great quality. Many a blurry and off-angle security camera tape has been used to successfully prosecute a case. When the case is important enough to digitally enhance the images, even better. It's entirely possible that the cameras wouldn't have a good angle, but it wrecks of "sour grapes" since we've been told the tape doesn't exist. But if it DID exist, and showed that area of the club, it might show the initial physical events of the ruckus and that is important to establish the context. Which side that benefits more, depends upon what the tape would show You work with what you got. If the taping system didn't work inside then there is nothing else that can be done. I'm confident the owners and the establishment would not be foolish enough to manipulate the system in order to favor one party over another. That in itself would be a chargeable offense. If there was film footage including phone footage that doesn't mean that it would show the origin and context of the situation. It doesn't indicate what was initially said before the fight which could be very important. The phone footage that shows McCoy getting involved in the fracas and then be pulled back only to then re-engage is damaging to his case. At least that is how I see it. This case is going to rely on victim statements, witness statements, medical statements, a receipt proving ownership of the disputed bottles and what can be gotten from the camera phones. Have McCoy and his crew given statements to the police? I don't know for sure but I doubt it. It's very likely that McCoy's attorney told him and the crew to say nothing. , I'm hoping there will be some legal action this week so that there is greater clarification on this chaotic scene. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle one is on this conflict it is better that the DA's office takes its time and be thorough. It realizes this is a high profile case and it knows that McCoy has a high quality attorney representing him. There is another interesting issue arising from the McCoy group involvement assuming there is an indictment. Will McCoy's attorney also represent the others in his party? What if his attorney recommends that since he has so much at stake compared to his dependents he should seek a separate trial, if it comes to that. Can they afford competent representation? Will public defenders be used? Will McCoy pay for the attorneys of the others if he or they decide to separate their cases? Assuming this goes to trial the time period for a resolution of this case for McCoy will be extended if there are separate trials because the big fish is more likely to be last on the DA's trial list. You start with the minnows and then work your way up to the big fish. My opinion almost from the start was that the charges were going to be aggravated assault against McCoy and the crew. Bu in the end after a cool down period my guess is that McCoy's attorney will work out a deal with the prosecutor.However, if any of the injuries turn out to be very serious and long lasting to permanent then the prosecutor's position will harden. Then the civil action will follow.
Heitz Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Is anything not this at this point? Haven't you read all 84 pages - clearly several members of SUV TBD have already determined Shady's guilt / innocence! That's not Internet messageboard rumor type stuff, that's just good solid police speculation work! O_O
reddogblitz Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 This also kind of what happened with Jameis Winston. They didn't think they could win because of what his lawyers dug up on the girl, and that she didn't remember clearly what happened because of the alcohol involved, so couldn't charge him. Well, that AND he can throw a football.
JohnC Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 It matters because if 3 separate cops, 2 of whom were involved and one who was watching it all unfold, didn't think enough to call for backup immediately for what was later deemed an "aggravated assault," maybe it wasn't "aggravated assault." This is a WGRZ segment in which a Buffalo defense attorney speculating on this case brings up some of the same points that you are making. http://www.wgrz.com/news/investigation-continues-into-philly-bar-fight/45214836
3rdand12 Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Haven't you read all 84 pages - clearly several members of SUV TBD have already determined Shady's guilt / innocence! That's not Internet messageboard rumor type stuff, that's just good solid police speculation work! O_O Its what we do
Doc Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 The definition of the charge doesn't depend on who called or didn't call the police, or when. The DA will decide if it is aggravated assault based on the evidence he has. Again, it has nothing to do with the cops being called. It has much to do with what is in the video. If the cops involved didn't think it was aggravated assault at the time, and you'd think they would know, the DA shouldn't either. That's the point, regardless of what the video (of them getting beaten) shows. This is a WGRZ segment in which a Buffalo defense attorney speculating on this case brings up some of the same points that you are making. http://www.wgrz.com/news/investigation-continues-into-philly-bar-fight/45214836 Thanks for that.
Nanker Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 If it's common practice for the officers to take a bottle from someone because they feel like they are rich enough that they wouldn't notice, then yes, it should be exposed. #Champagne bottles matter!
Heitz Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Its what we do We hate our QBs. We hate our coaches. And we DEFINITELY investigate crimes better than any other NFL messageboard out there!
3rdand12 Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 We hate our QBs. We hate our coaches. And we DEFINITELY investigate crimes better than any other NFL messageboard out there! so we have all that trending upwards for us. Sky is the limit for Bills fans! Yes We Can!
YoloinOhio Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Not sure if already posted but @viccarucci Philadelphia DA spokesman: "We continue to investigate" nightclub brawl allegedly involving LeSean McCoy & "I don't expect anything today."
Doc Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 Not sure if already posted but @viccarucci Philadelphia DA spokesman: "We continue to investigate" nightclub brawl allegedly involving LeSean McCoy & "I don't expect anything today." 26CB posted it this AM.
Maury Ballstein Posted February 17, 2016 Posted February 17, 2016 We hate our QBs. We hate our coaches. And we DEFINITELY investigate crimes better than any other NFL messageboard out there! Replace definetly with PAINFULLY !
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 You work with what you got. If the taping system didn't work inside then there is nothing else that can be done. I'm confident the owners and the establishment would not be foolish enough to manipulate the system in order to favor one party over another. That in itself would be a chargeable offense. Agreed, nothing can be done. My point is, it's a potentially important missing link. The fact that it doesn't exist can't be changed, but doesn't change its potential importance. "confident the owners and the establishment would not be foolish...." "chargeable offense" I would, perhaps share your confidence, had just that thing never been said to happen, from both sides of a story (*cough* Hernandez *cough*). In both those cases, those who did it were dumb and left obvious traces behind them. Cleverer people, well, who would know? It worked all the time for LIsbeth Salander LOL! If the cops involved didn't think it was aggravated assault at the time, and you'd think they would know, the DA shouldn't either. That's the point, regardless of what the video (of them getting beaten) shows. I'm a gonna stop posting 'cuz you use about 1/10th my words to make the same point. Yes, if I were a defense attorney, that is the point I would try to hammer home.
JohnC Posted February 18, 2016 Posted February 18, 2016 I'm a gonna stop posting 'cuz you use about 1/10th my words to make the same point. Yes, if I were a defense attorney, that is the point I would try to hammer home. This is the link that I provided Doc on the subject matter that he brought up. http://www.wgrz.com/...-fight/45214836
Recommended Posts