xxxxxxxx
-
Posts
394 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by xxxxxxxx
-
-
2 hours ago, The Red King said:
I agree, and said as much. In fact, had someone arguing semantics with me on word choice for it. I never said her doing it to herself was the most likely possibility, only that it was a plausible one.
This just in. Plausible is a synonym for likely, reasonable, and believable. So if your shocked that someone took issue with your choice of words, then you are using words that sound smart to you without understanding how they are defined.When you say plausible you are asserting an above average degree of believability not a remote possibility.
No one, including the police or McCoy have made the assertion that she did it herself, yet you see no problem with waxing poetically over the fact that such an outcome, which is rare and unlikely, is in your eyes perfectly plausible. Its sloppy reasoning dressed up to sound smart, and a potential indicator of some baggage that you might be dragging along that makes you question women, who may have gone through pretty traumatic experiences, regularily, because yor more concerned about your football team than the effect that your suspicians may have on a potential victim of violence.
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, The Red King said:
This just in. It is completely impossible for a victim to self-inflict wounds and even entertaining the possibility that it might have occurred makes you a monster. From now on, always assume everything the victim says is true without question. Whelp, I learned something today. ?
It is a ****ty thing to do to someone who has potentially gone through a traumatic experience. Cause if your wrong, and you probably are, they also have to deal with all the **** talk, rumors, and dirt thrown at them in addition to having the crap kicked out of them. Your pals can give you all the likes you want, but I wager that most decent folk would agree with me, and that what you and your fellow internet sleuths are doing is reckless and ****ty.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, The Red King said:
When did I judge the victim? Where? Saying she might have framed him being plausible? Never said it was likely. There are a number of plausible explanations and I refuse to join a lynch mob without evidence, unlike others it seems.
I hate the whole "If yer not for us, you're 'gainst us!" mentality. There is not enough (any) evidence to conclude McCoy was responsible. Likewise...there is not enough (any) evidence yet to clear him, either!
Every single time you insist that a potential victim of violence might have done it themselves you judge them.
If you have reservations, you can keep them to youself, most sensible folk do that, instead of demanding proof.
-
Just now, Lurker said:
Oh wow. One story. I bet you use this one all the time. Your cute.
-
47 minutes ago, The Red King said:
...you're the only one jumping to conclusions, without evidence even. Many of us aren't ready to pass judgement either way without hard evidence, as it is just as possible he is being framed as he is guilty.
You've certainly jugged the potential victim quite harshly. And no all of the situations that you are mentioning are not equally possible given precidents. You watch too many movies dude. People are rarely framed for crimes. People commonly beat the crap out if their exes though or do something ****ty to an exe that !@#$s them up to get back at them. Ask any one in law enforcement to offer an opinon on that one.
-
21 minutes ago, Uncle Joe said:
Filed by a buddy, not a lawyer.
I don't know and I suspect that you don't know either. And I'm not about to take the internets word for it. Either way these things can be checked out. Having a friend file an eviction notice and not your lawyer when you are a millionaire sounds a bit off and silly, but it could have happened. What's specified could matter in court, but all he needs is charges filed and he's likely gone. And if that is in fact the document the return of items sentence could be enough to charge him.
And thats the red flag, because you don't usually ask for items to be returned on an eviction notice. And thats the point that all the reporters are making. Most landlords don't include items when they rent a place, and theft is usually covered by security deposits if the place is furnished.
ITS A HARD FACT, dispute it all you want. It would not have been reported if it wasn't so.
-
7 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
There was no lawyer nor any transcript. It's a document to begin the eviction process.
They exist, usually. The reports could be false, I guess, but local reporters can get access to that stuff. They don't post it online, usually. AND no, I'm not going to the court myself to check the transcript if there is one. Your making some pretty grand leaps of faith here: the very fact that he asked for the return of items in court will likely be admissable as evidence, and that makes it harder for him to deny any knowledge or connection to a break in. That is the point. Good day.
-
The items are contested, but he asked for items returned. The items might have be specified in court transcripts, verbally by his lawyer, and the journalists who report on this stuff usually check that stuff. Drop the sleuthing, please. Its a waste of time. I'm not going to the court house to pull the transcripts just to appease your suspicions.
-
5 minutes ago, Lurker said:
At least you got that right...
https://heavy.com/sports/2018/07/lesean-mccoy-delicia-cordon-home-court-documents/
Ok. Stop the troll. The doc says return items in his handwriting. That is what was talking about.
-
3 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
Over a year. Uh oh. Someone didnt clear their story with Mom. This looks really bad now. Damn.
-
2 minutes ago, Lurker said:
Not acording to anything other than the motion filed by the GF's lawyer. Which has no force of law, in and of itself. It's just a "she said" at this point...
No. It was in the court order he filed. What you are saying is not corect, I think your confused and stubnorn. Peace, I'm out.
-
1 minute ago, Doc said:
Records of what? Items he wanted returned and she obviously knew he wanted returned?
Read please. Already covered.
-
7 minutes ago, Lurker said:
The only thing he filed was an eviction request. Nothing about jewlery from his end...
Demand of returned items, was filed. As has been quoted by others. He's screwed.
-
3 minutes ago, Doc said:
Hardly. Again it's a "she said" thing.
Nope. Its not. He said she said is when you don't have records. There are court records. He might think that and you might think that, but its not the same thing. They don't have to go on her word when they can cite legal proceedings as evidence.
-
20 minutes ago, The Red King said:
Again, the victim's story is plausible. At the same time, it's equally plausible that this was all setup, or that she was legitimately attacked, but the attack wasn't related to Shady...and she lied to pin it on him. Any of those three scenarios are equally plausible right now. We only have her word that the attacker demanded those specific items. There is no concrete evidence currently. None.
a court order that he filed is concrete though. Thats the problem that will likely end his career. He will have difficulty getting out of this, and she will probably also go after him in civil court. I can't see a team keeping him around given the media circus this will create. Its the reality of the world we now live in.
-
7 minutes ago, fridge said:
That's just what her attorney says. That is not an established fact.
It doesnt matter to the NFL if it was established or not; the point is that it will be hard for him to deny involvement if he had already asked for the same items in court.
-
7 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
Where are you getting that?
Report posted above. Rodrak. Irregardless of what happened, that could be enough to try him on. And he doesn't need to even be charged for the incident to be considered detrimental to the league.
Its my opinon, of course. But if he had requested womans jewelery returned but says she was just a tenant I don't see a cop or the league buying it.
-
4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
Reported via other sources earlier and taken from the ex-gf's lawyer's press release. We'll see what comes out later that is corroborated.
Yeah, the items stolen were items he had requested in a court order. He's screwed. Gone. Out of the league. Will never play again. What a meathead. He will be lucky if he avoids jail.
-
7 minutes ago, LittleJoeCartwright said:
Remember also, soon after the Bills traded for McCoy, he did a party invite, where he invited only hot women. This incident is low on the scale but showed somewhat the type of person we're talking about here.
Yeah. I will be surprised if the first statement from the team is not that he is being released immediately.
-
34 minutes ago, KingBoots8 said:
His only saving grace is that if she knew the objects in question and pegged this assault on him, she could add credibility to her story by stating that the intruder asked for those specific items.
There are a lot of concerning circumstances related to the situation at hand. I won’t make any declarations until the investigation has had time to sort the half truths from the truths. I hope McCoy didn’t do anything, but should he be guilty I’ll be happy to move on from him.
Almost never happens. That could be the case, sure, but it would be a rare one, and really hard to prove-unless she had prior arrests for similar behavior and spoke openly about it. More likely is that he agreed to let a woman live with him rent free that he was sleeping with and didn't know that when you do that it can be really difficult to get her to leave when you stop sleeping with her and she doesn't want to, especially if she doesn't have alot of money, she has a kid to support, and the place is expensive. Those cases are way more common (they happen every day).
So yeah, if you want to believe him, feel free, but his story sounds like total b.s, and will sound like b.s to the cops.
-
18 minutes ago, BUFFALOKIE said:
We already covered that. They did not cohabitate for more than enten years and Georgia abolished common law marriage any way.
My point is that these laws can be pretty complicated. And if they were in a relationship and living together there are alot of laws and precidents which could apply. She, more likely than not, is in a different legal situation based on having been romantically linked. And you can't just go on statutes, common law rulings made in Georgia likely apply.
I cant speak on Georgia, but there are a lot of places where you can't move in with someone who your in a relationship with and demand that they leave when you break up. She might not have paid rent ever, and he probably owns the place.
-
2 minutes ago, BUFFALOKIE said:
Nope. She has tenants rights, not marital rights. What is so hard to understand.
Not if they were common law partners. Those distinctions vary based on jurisdiction. If they were in a relationship and living together its a whole different ball game.
-
4 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:
The fact that she won’t leave his house raises enough questions about her character to maintain a healthy skepticism about all of this.
He was dumb enough to file a court order asking for the return of objects. He's done, out of the league, and will never play again. And he will probably go to jail.
-
12 minutes ago, Putin said:
Really?
4 years in Miami 400 receptions and over 4000 yards , ( with bad QB’s )
Just imagine how many receptions & receiving yard J L will have in Cleveland playing ( for the first time ) with the best QB he had ever played !!!
And he's entering his prime. It will be fun to see what they can do together. Seriously, some folk on here need to get their heads checked and realise that their are other teams in the league that are not the bills. If Landry plays well alot of weight will be taken of Tyrods shoulders, and its Cleveland people, optimism is all they have.
LeSean McCoy allegations
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by MURPHD6
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.