LeSean McCoy allegations

[Paul Costa]

In her lawyers response they claim Shady didn’t call to check on her after he heard about a break in? I think if someone is staying at my house and it gets broken into the person staying there would reach out to me and let me know what happened ?

[BillsBytheBay]

Just now, NewDayBills said:

Once again, putting words in my mouth on the whole daughter thing, I never attacked your daughter and I've never attacked you, just your posts.

Good day

[thebandit27]

1 minute ago, Commonsense said:

Or that brings the security camera question back into play. As her attorney asked in their statement was he able to see the house from his computer? 

 

Indeed.

 

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how this works, but if there's a CCTV security system, could the police demand access to the tapes via warrant or subpoena?  

 

Just now, Wayne Cubed said:

 

Do they have a child together? I thought the mother of his child was someone else, girl named Steph. Who's already come out and said he wasn't abusive towards their son.

 

Ah...ok, thanks.  I hadn't heard that she came out in his defense regarding the abuse allegation.  Info has been flying so fast in this thread; is there a link?

[nucci]

1 minute ago, x-BillzeBubba said:

Cogs knows all! So we're good

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/11/richie-incognito-claims-to-know-the-whole-story-regarding-lesean-mccoy/

A reliable source...

[Heavy Kevi]

5 minutes ago, dollars 2 donuts said:

 

It's interesting, Shotgunner, the information that has trickled out so far has been just enough to feed the monster from both sides.  Hopefully (really hopefully) something comes out more definitively, either way, to spare us the continued drama

 

That's when these things get real ugly, when it can't be proven true or untrue. If it's a he said/she said situation, we probably won't have much info until the prospective trial is over, and the cloud would linger over Shady for possibly the whole year. In this social media world of mob justice and complete ignorance of the law standard "innocent until proven guilty", it could/would/will be a mess. Just like religion and politics, people will pick sides and be adimant about it, even with a lack of evidence. 

 

If untrue, it's a damn shame that Shady will be shouted down, called a wife beater, animal, scumbag -and every name in the book-... His good name will be dragged through the mud, and a portion of the population will always assume him guilty, and he will never escape that label. Obviously if it's true he deserves that, but folks won't wait to find out. It's already started. The internet (especially social media) in 2018 is a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad place.

[BillsBytheBay]

9 minutes ago, NewDayBills said:

I never attacked your daughter and I hope for your sake you were drunk posting yesterday.

I don't drink. And considering many others on this board seem to share my values, it's insulting for you to make another personal attack.

 

just stop. I'm not going to have a conversation with someone who turns it personal every time you don't agree.

Edited July 11, 2018 by JaxBills

[The Red King]

Just now, MURPHD6 said:

Your not still. The Oxford lists multiple definitions, and you haven't identified a legal definition yet. Still stuck on colloquial.

 

So...to recap.

 

"The Merriam-Webster definition says you're wrong, use the Oxford!"

"Umm...the Oxford definition supports me."

"Not that definition, the other one!"

"The only other one is '1.1 (of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive.' which doesn't fit at all!

"You're an idiot for just using the obvious listed definitions for a word!  There's another definition buried somewhere in there which I will not point out or quote/list at all that proves me right!"

"Of course there is, bud.  Of course there is."

 

...yeah, I'm done talking to you.  You insisted we use the Oxford definition, which I then hung you with.  Game, set and match.  I think I'll keep using the word the way I have been, given that every definition and dictionary supports it.  Ta!

[nucci]

Just now, Shotgunner said:

 

That's when these things get real ugly, when it can't be proven true or untrue. If it's a he said/she said situation, we probably won't have much info until the prospective trial is over, and the cloud would linger over Shady for possibly the whole year. In this social media world of mob justice and complete ignorance of the law standard "innocent until proven guilty", it could/would/will be a mess. Just like religion and politics, people will pick sides and be adimant about it, even with a lack of evidence. 

 

If untrue, it's a damn shame that Shady will be shouted down, called a wife beater, animal, scumbag -and every name in the book-... His good name will be dragged through the mud, and a portion of the population will always assume him guilty, and he will never escape that label. Obviously if it's true he deserves that, but folks won't wait to find out. It's already started. The internet (especially social media) in 2018 is a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad place.

[The Red King]

2 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Not at all.   Per the Cornell Legal Institute:   https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/colorable_claim

 

"A plausible legal claim.  In other words, a claim strong enough to have a reasonable chance of being valid if the legal basis is generally correct and the facts can be proven in court.  The claim need not actually result in a win."  

 

"If the glove don't fit..." was plausible.    It didn't mean it had an above average degree of believability...

 

Bam!  You are my hero, dude.  Not that he'll listen, of course...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Thus thread is worth alllllll the popcorns 

[ghostwriter]

I think Shady gets out of this.

[Royale with Cheese]

Just now, joesixpack said:

Thus thread is worth alllllll the popcorns 

 

Except kettle corn because that's gross.

[xxxxxxxx]

5 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Not at all.   Per the Cornell Legal Institute:   https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/colorable_claim

 

"A plausible legal claim.  In other words, a claim strong enough to have a reasonable chance of being valid if the legal basis is generally correct and the facts can be proven in court.  The claim need not actually result in a win."  

 

"If the glove don't fit..." was plausible.    It didn't mean it had an above average degree of believability...

Hehehe, you found it. Good for you. You deserve a gold star.

You forgot to tell me to do my homework though.

[thebandit27]

3 minutes ago, JaxBills said:

I don't drink. And considering many others on this board seem to share my values, it's insulting for you to make another personal attack.

 

just stop. I'm not going to have a conversation with someone who turns it personal every time you don't agree.

 

As an outsider, can I just say that I have no clue why you and @NewDayBills are arguing? 

[Wayne Cubed]

6 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

Ah...ok, thanks.  I hadn't heard that she came out in his defense regarding the abuse allegation.  Info has been flying so fast in this thread; is there a link?

 

Not sure there is, it was floating around here earlier that I saw that.

[BillsBytheBay]

Just now, thebandit27 said:

 

As an outsider, can I just say that I have no clue why you and @NewDayBills are arguing? 

Good, because I'm done with it. I don't even know anymore. 

[ghostwriter]

1 minute ago, thebandit27 said:

 

As an outsider, can I just say that I have no clue why you and @NewDayBills are arguing? 

He accused me of saying Shady was guilty, I never said that, I said I want him cut if guilty.

 

I actually don't know the truth but I think he gets out of this.

[dave mcbride]

3 hours ago, MURPHD6 said:

Dear Internet detective keyboard warrior. Merriam webster sucks. HARD. Its a silly American Dictionary, with no etymological context. No one who knows anything about etymology (look that word up too) or semantics gives a crap about what it says. Its used by grade school kids, so I think your quoting a definition meant for 4th graders. Try looking the word up in the Oxford, the 4th (legal) definition might surprise you. Then stop telling people to do research. Because your research is at the level of an elementary school student who just learned how to google, but doesn't have the attention span to read beyond a few sentences.

As someone who has worked for Oxford University Press for a dozen years, I can assure you that you are wrong. Yes, the OED is rightly the standard (and you did not actually cite the OED, btw; you'd need a quite expensive subscription to be able to do that), but Webster's New World College Dictionaries are fine dictionaries that do all of the things you say they don't. I am currently looking at the second edition of the Webster New World College Dictionary, and it provides etymological context etc. As I'm sure you know, Merriam-Webster is the corporate owner of the Webster name when it comes to dictionaries. As for Oxford, we publish all types of dictionaries, including American ones and ones that are meant for 4th graders. The Webster New World College Dictionary is the official dictionary of the NYT, WSJ, and AP.

 

(God, I feel like Marshall McLuhan in "Annie Hall"!)

Edited July 11, 2018 by dave mcbride

[DCOrange]

34 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

I'm not saying what really happened, because at this point we really have no idea about who did it and what their motives were, and the only facts we have (I may be missing some) that have been publicly released are:

-mccoy and this girl dated and lived together in his Georgia home

-mccoy no longer lives at this home

-the ex refuses to leave the house since they broke up

-there is an active court case involving McCoy trying to evict her from the premise

-police were called to the house, she was found beaten and locked in a bathroom, and taken to the hospital

-mccoy was not the one who entered the house, rock solid alibi of being in another state

 

Everything else is speculation 

We have accusations of a break in, robbery, and assault.

If it was all staged by her then all that goes out the window.

There are a million possibilities and variables here that we don't know.

 

Ask yourself one question:

Who benefits from this?

Surely not McCoy, but the victim?? Other than the beating, she has everything to gain here with a civil suit afterwards.

 

Again I honestly don't know, but for those of you who keep acting like it's completely impossible for somebody to have staged this on themselves, I want to to look up one name:

 

Tawana Brawley

 

After you've read about her case, tell me that Delicia staging this is not something that somebody would do.

 

The issue is that people don't always commit crimes because it logically makes sense for them to do so. In fact, it almost never makes logical sense. Just because McCoy doesn't have anything to gain from our perspective doesn't mean he didn't have anything to gain from his. Hell, just because a crime was committed doesn't mean that the perpetrator had anything to gain at all.

 

But assuming that the attacker required having something to gain, the simple answers:

 

1. McCoy gets what he views as his possessions back.

2. McCoy gets the power/control of the situation/her.

3. McCoy scares her out of going to court/out of the house.

 

And most of all, since McCoy isn't personally carrying out the act, he thinks he can slip by since he technically has an alibi.

 

I am not saying that McCoy is guilty. Obviously Cordon's statement makes it look pretty bad but that's also obviously just her side of the story and the major red flag in it (the attacker requesting the specific items that McCoy wanted) is strictly based on her word and nothing else. We should clearly sit back and see how things develop. My point is simply that crimes aren't always committed because the criminal has something to gain, and even if it doesn't seem like it to us, McCoy may have thought that he had something to gain anyways.

[Royale with Cheese]

3 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

As an outsider, can I just say that I have no clue why you and @NewDayBills are arguing? 

 

I see you as Darry.