Michael Bennett - warrant out for arrest

[CuddyDark]

7 minutes ago, stony said:

Ahhhh, this all makes sense.  Remember what Stephen A Smith said when Ray Rice cold cocked his fiancee...sometimes, they just make ya wanna punch em.  Might wanna bring him in as an expert witness.

But he didn't even hit her. He pushed passed them. She didn't fall to the ground. She wasn't knocked out. He's probably a prick but this is a flop because he's rich. I wouldn't pay her.

[stony]

4 minutes ago, CuddyDark said:

But he didn't even hit her. He pushed passed them. She didn't fall to the ground. She wasn't knocked out. He's probably a prick but this is a flop because he's rich. I wouldn't pay her.

I haven't even looked at the details, but it sounds dubious.  

 

I was just being a smartass about SAS.  He's a nutcase and should be shot.  

[FrankoElTanko]

1 hour ago, CuddyDark said:

Well the NFL said he had a credential so it's impossible for him to trespass. Second the push was to her in a motorized wheelchair that weighed 700lbs. He didn't knock her over. He pushed her chair. She said she has a shoulder sprain and needed pain meds for it. Clearly this is a money grab. It's so clear IDK how anyone can see it any different. If Bennett paid this women last year there would be no case.

This is a reason to prosecute someone for a 10yr felony? Jesus I hope they never see me drunk on Chippewa.

I will do my best to break this down sensibly...

 

First of all, what in the ish are you talking about, "the NFL said he had a credential?", what does that mean? he cant physically touch anyone, in any manner. TX Penal Code § 22.04- says that:

 

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual: CHECK

(1) serious bodily injury;

(2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury;  OR

(3) bodily injury. CHECK

 

That is felonious injury to the elderly (in Tejas) because she is over 65 and he WILLINGLY entered a prohibited area with reckless omission. In doing so he made contact. Again, I am sure the injuries are exaggerated and the suit is 14mo. old however, he is (or will likely be found to be) liable for any subsequent injuries. He is an idiot.

 

Now here is a simpler way to see it, assuming you still may be having trouble.

 

If she said he cannot enter an area and she is security (true), or any other person with the authority to prohibit someone from entering an area (or redirecting them to another entrance) then he cannot enter. At a concert it is unlikely that you would take on (and win) against a stage security guard however, if you pushed one off stage by accident and they so much as tweaked an ankle, you may be found liable for that injury. Why, because you should have never been on stage to begin with and that security guard was acting in the scope of his employment to tell you not to do so. 

 

Regardless of how exaggerated the injury may be, she still said no (she is the rule enforcer here, regardless of handicap) and the area was still prohibited. He ignored that and entered. 

 

Now because of this entry, he is or should be found guilty if the injury warrants it (for the felony) and for sure liable in civil court (think OJ). Plus more than anything, I believe in karma and he is an as bag so this is hopefully just the universe working itself out. 

Edited March 23, 2018 by FrankoElTanko

[Eric Moulds on my A**]

2 minutes ago, FrankoElTanko said:

I will do my best to break this down sensibly...

 

First of all, what in the ish are you talking about, "the NFL said he had a credential?", what does that mean? he cant physically touch anyone, in any manner. TX Penal Code § 22.04- says that:

 

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual: CHECK

(1) serious bodily injury;

(2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury;  OR

(3) bodily injury. CHECK

 

That is felonious injury to the elderly (in Tejas) because she is over 65 and he WILLINGLY entered a prohibited area with reckless omission. In doing so he made contact. Again, I am sure the injuries are exaggerated and the suit is 14mo. old however, he is (or will likely be found to be) liable for any subsequent injuries. He is an idiot.

 

Now here is a simpler way to see it, assuming you still may be having trouble.

 

If she said he cannot enter an area and she is security (true), or any other person with the authority to prohibit someone from entering an area (or redirecting them to another entrance) then he cannot enter. At a concert it is unlikely that you would take on (and win) against a stage security guard however, if you pushed one off stage by accident and they so much as tweaked an ankle, you may be found liable for that injury. Why, because you should have never been on stage to begin with and that security guard was acting in the scope of his employment to tell you not to do so. 

 

Regardless of how exaggerated the injury may be, she still said no (she is the rule enforcer here, regardless of handicap) and the area was still prohibited. He ignored that and entered. 

 

Now because of his entry is or should be liable. Plus I believe in karma and he is an as bag so this is hopefully just the universe working itself out. 

Yep. Can only **** on people for so long until your musk smells of crop dust.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

I don't know what really happened. The case is being taken to court. However, regardless what the Houston Police Chief's feelings are he shouldn't be publicly commenting about this case or one of the parties to this case. He is prejudicing the case. From a professional standpoint that is not what he is supposed to do. 

[Eric Moulds on my A**]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I don't know what really happened. The case is being taken to court. However, regardless what the Houston Police Chief's feelings are he shouldn't be publicly commenting about this case or one of the parties to this case. He is prejudicing the case. From a professional standpoint that is not what he is supposed to do. 

Now this I do agree with, what that officer said was a personal opinionated comment, certainly doesn't align with innocent until proven guilty.

[dwight in philly]

23 minutes ago, CuddyDark said:

I stated what actually happened. It goes against your narrative so you're upset. I get it.

i could care less actually. just trying  to grasp  how you have all the info on exactly what happened. maybe you should share it with the DA in Houston.  save the taxpayers the court costs. 

[Just Joshin']

58 minutes ago, CuddyDark said:

Where did I say I was right in that post? I told you what happened. Those are the facts of the case. If I had to guess I'd say you know nothing about the fact of the case. Also charges are dropped in money grabs all the time. If Bennett pays the women she'll stop being a witness and the case will go away.

What am I missing?  This is a criminal case, not a civil.  She will make no money.

 

She does not have to wait to use and a civil case has less requirements to get damages vs a felony conviction.

[CuddyDark]

46 minutes ago, FrankoElTanko said:

I will do my best to break this down sensibly...

 

First of all, what in the ish are you talking about, "the NFL said he had a credential?", what does that mean? he cant physically touch anyone, in any manner. TX Penal Code § 22.04- says that:

 

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual: CHECK

(1) serious bodily injury;

(2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury;  OR

(3) bodily injury. CHECK

 

That is felonious injury to the elderly (in Tejas) because she is over 65 and he WILLINGLY entered a prohibited area with reckless omission. In doing so he made contact. Again, I am sure the injuries are exaggerated and the suit is 14mo. old however, he is (or will likely be found to be) liable for any subsequent injuries. He is an idiot.

 

Now here is a simpler way to see it, assuming you still may be having trouble.

 

If she said he cannot enter an area and she is security (true), or any other person with the authority to prohibit someone from entering an area (or redirecting them to another entrance) then he cannot enter. At a concert it is unlikely that you would take on (and win) against a stage security guard however, if you pushed one off stage by accident and they so much as tweaked an ankle, you may be found liable for that injury. Why, because you should have never been on stage to begin with and that security guard was acting in the scope of his employment to tell you not to do so. 

 

Regardless of how exaggerated the injury may be, she still said no (she is the rule enforcer here, regardless of handicap) and the area was still prohibited. He ignored that and entered. 

 

Now because of this entry, he is or should be found guilty if the injury warrants it (for the felony) and for sure liable in civil court (think OJ). Plus more than anything, I believe in karma and he is an as bag so this is hopefully just the universe working itself out. 

None of what you suppose actually happened. The comment was made he was trespassing. He can not trespass because he had a credential. Every thing you say here is meaningless to what actually happened. None of this is facts of the case. The police officer on scene didn't arrest him. The police officer allowed him to enter because he had a credential. The officer took her statement and wrote a report after the fact.

34 minutes ago, Dalton said:

What am I missing?  This is a criminal case, not a civil.  She will make no money.

 

She does not have to wait to use and a civil case has less requirements to get damages vs a felony conviction.

A civil case against an NFL player who pushed passed you is not a case you will ever win. They have been trying to get Bennett and the NFL to talk to them for over a year but he refuses. The only way her lawyers can make Bennett come to Houston so they can serve him is to file criminal charges against him. Her case looks better now. He'll settle now.

[vincec]

4 hours ago, BillsEnthusiast said:

Why in the hell was a 66 year old disabled woman working security?

To be fair, they didn't say it was a woman, so ...

[FrankoElTanko]

Dude... You are killing me. This is my last attempt... She (the security guard) said that entry that way was prohibited. He cannot enter where she said it was prohibited. He was directed to take a different route to enter. He did not. Therefore his "credential(S)!" would not matter because he still has to obey the rule. Even if he was wrong he cannot touch her because SHE IS THE AUTHORITY in that situation. Again, regardless of whatever "credential" you think he had... ugh.

 

[CuddyDark]

Just now, vincec said:

To be fair, they didn't say it was a woman, so ...

Yeah they did. A 66yr old black woman.

Just now, FrankoElTanko said:

Dude... You are killing me. This is my last attempt... She (the security guard) said that entry that way was prohibited. He cannot enter where she said it was prohibited. He was directed to take a different route to enter. He did not. Therefore his "credential(S)!" would not matter because he still has to obey the rule. Even if he was wrong he cannot touch her because SHE IS THE AUTHORITY in that situation. Again, regardless of whatever "credential" you think he had... ugh.

 

You keep making this point about trespass and her authority and it's not even a charge against him. It has nothing to do with the case. Maybe it sounds good to keep saying in your head. Maybe you think it helps the way you feel about him as a person to say he was doing something you disapprove of.

[Bill_with_it]

4 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

He seems nice.

Same guy that fabricated the story about the police discriminating against him.. not surprising 

[Clyde Smith]

Uh oh, I see the tiki torches are out. If you reply back, then you’re probably the one(s) I’m talking about.

[Teddy KGB]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Seahawks DE Michael Bennett Named Nominee For Walter Payton NFL Man Of The Year Award

 

#wokerthankap 

#oppressedonlythreebugattis

[vincec]

1 hour ago, CuddyDark said:

But he didn't even hit her. He pushed passed them. She didn't fall to the ground. She wasn't knocked out. He's probably a prick but this is a flop because he's rich. I wouldn't pay her.

Exactly. She's obviously a kitty.

[Teddy KGB]

7 minutes ago, Clyde Smith said:

Uh oh, I see the tiki torches are out. If you reply back, then you’re probably the one(s) I’m talking about.

 

Nazi’s or KKK or both ? 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 hours ago, CuddyDark said:

 

Clearly a money grab. Don't pay her one cent. I'd fight it. I'd even go to jail for 10 yrs rather than pay her if it was me.

I'm not. But most in this thread want Bennett to get a comeuppance simple because they disagree with him.

 

Or because he’s a liar. 

[CuddyDark]

5 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Or because he’s a liar. 

At least your not dancing around. Man enough to admit it. I respect it.

[MPT]

4 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

Folks, take note. This is what's wrong with Society

 

This kind of question in this line of thinking is everything that is wrong with the world we live in today.  The snowflakes should be upset and the population of this world that actually has and IQ in the triple digits should also be offended. Why can't a woman of elderly status work security? Should she have to work security? I can't answer that. Can you? Further why should you have to tell somebody like Michael Bennett or anybody else to keep themselves in line?

 

Further if you ever been to a place like this they often rely on these older folks just to keep the calm and watch out for the field. They're not there to do a police beat down like this douchebag deserves, but let's bet he will claim he got one just like in Vegas. They're there to keep things organized. They're not sitting there dealing with hellions or folks trying to cause a ruckus. There there simply to maintain a little bit of order and act more as an usher than security. 

 

But, folks let it be obvious. This is what's wrong with this world when you ask this question especially at this point

 

I thought snowflakes were the ones who were easily upset and offended? You know, like when they go on a "this is what's wrong with the world" rant in response to a completely logical question.