SectionC3

Well done. I laughed out loud.

The juror would have to have a state of mind likely to preclude him or her from rendering an impartial verdict. I don't think the video alone would be enough to remove for cause. But others may feel differently.

actually a lot of it is good. Anonymity allows role who might not speak to an issue to chime in. I bet it happens a lot on football matters. Could be happening here too. I see some pretty good thoughts on this thread.

The concept you're alluding to is called justification. Basically, if you're not the aggressor in a fight you can respond with like force to protect yourself. Assuming that the football layers here didn't start the fight, the question might become whether the response was appropriate. Based on the videos I have my doubts on that point, but a complete picture of the events is needed to make that call.

All of this is very interesting information, and it may lead to problems for the victims of what appears to have been an assault. But assuming the info is correct, that theft or attempted theft occurred does not justify the violence that appears to have ensued. Maybe a better way of saying it is just because my mechanic overcharges me doesn't mean I can try to cave his face in.

No. 3 and 12. Agreed on the last sentence. It's a subjective judgment. Consider Andre Jenkins. When I google that guys story I think "disgusting human being" and "idiot." He, on the other hand, seems content to have taken a life bit out of his misguided sense of omertà. In any event, the problem for the guy we're discussing is that the price inevitably has to be paid. Eventually we'll see what the "bill" is here.

Not sure what you mean. We're bs'ing about whether our running back will be eligible to play football this year. Our running back is worried about a suspension, loss of income, and maybe even the temporary loss of his freedom. So while its noble for one to stick up for his friends, like any other action it has a "price." Here the price could be a significant one.

Yes. Accomplice liability.

Your code is respectable. Maybe stupid, too, but you're probably a great guy to be friends with. For real. The problem here is that the aftermath isn't fantasy, it's reality. For us the reality involves a running back and a game that falls somewhere between entertainment and passion. For the guy were discussing the reality involves much more serious consequences.

And now you know why victims are usually called "complainants." The rest of your comments don't merit a response.

Why not? Your point is that they're "interested" or biased witnesses because they got tuned up. Which is kind of the point. There wouldn't be a problem here if no such "tuning" occurred. The weight (or lackthereof) to be accorded the testimony of such witnesses is usually for a trier of fact.

i guess it is kind of how these things go. The next tale of combative victory in a police report will be the first such tale.

The first sentence raises an interesting point. Based on what we know (which is very, very little) I might disagree if this was a NY case. Im basing that on the TMZ video that, from what I read and am given to understand, shows our pro bowl running back throwing at least one punch. In my reading, the punch was described as a haymaker. The same player also apparently kicked someone who was on the floor/ground. Again, we hardly know any details, but I wouldn't close the door on accomplice liability because of those alleged actions. Hakim Scott would probably agree with you, however. In any event, not sure how it would play out under PA law. Interesting point to research.

I am not a PA lawyer, so can't comment on laws there. But as far as I recall in NY there are limits on the extent of the "deal" a defendant may receive. Without getting too technical, a plea can only "drop" a charge so far. So if a defendant faces a higher class of felony, he or she might not be able to plead to a lesser charge that would normally allow avoidance of prison.

To illustrate the physical evidence points imagine if a witness says "I saw person A kick the victim." Then imagine there is blood on the shoes of person A, and that bloopd matches the blood of the victim who was kicked. That's a big problem for person A.

On an iPhone in an airport. Apparently I need a new microphone. Or my enunciation sucks. Probably the latter.

It doesn't seem like an NCIS case, but one of the prior posters made an excellent point. If I was there, and my clothes are clean, I want those clothes preserved. It may help support my point that I was not involved in kicking or punching or even near one of the victims when The blows were delivered. Again, at this point all of the discussion a speculative. But, if I'm clean in a situation like this, it doesn't hurt to be able to say so later.

I basically agree with all of this, except I'm not sure how important physical evidence will be here. I suppose a print could help prove a bottle strike, or at least the identity of the person who will do the bottle. Maybe if the injuries are particularly significant, or if there was a lot of blood, footprints might matter. Spatter could be important to improve so much participation in the assault. Another good reason to get a lawyer and start the investigation.

How do you know the victims testimony is worthless? At this point, nobody knows that. Yet another good reason for shady to get counsel and start his own investigation. It should be happening already. Also, , Doc, I don't mean to pick on you in responding to your post. I think you are one of the most intelligent posters here, and I always enjoy reading your opinion. It's not just you, but in this instance I think A lot of the discussion is wildly speculative. We don't know who the witnesses are, and therefore we have no idea as to their credibility or lack there of. Also, we have no idea how many videos are floating around. Frankly, there are very few people who actually know what happened, and I suspect that even the people who were there and perhaps even the people who were involved don't have a full picture of what actually occurred.

Eyewitness testimony. Maybe the video if someone can decipher it. Maybe another video. Maybe somebody in the group rolls. Not saying shady did or didn't do anything, but the point remains that (at least in NY) the incomplete sketch of the facts leaves open the possibility that he could be charged as an accomplice. I believe in NY the test would be whether he shared a community of purpose with the assailant. google NY penal law 20.00 for quick background on the theory in NY.

Not sure about that. The video sucks. And it seemingly doesn't capture entire incident. Let's hear what eyewitnesses say. But point remains that you asked (essentially) how he gets charged if didn't land a blow, and accomplice liability is answer. Fact that not ID'ed as cops at time they were getting tuned up is of no moment. We have a couple of banged up cops and shady in the middle of it. Right wrong or uninvolved he needs someone who can work with DA office.

Accomplice liability. Not sure about PA (have no reason to expect different from NY), but the greater the injuries and the greater the number of assailants the greater the penalty. This mess could have resulted in a gang assault charge in NY; not sure if there is a PA equivalent. Also, picking on cops (no matter whether cops deserved it) is always a bad plan. McCoy needs an attorney with a good relationship with the DA's office. Could be tough to negotiate a case like this otherwise.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the Rex situation this way. Because of the personnel changes required to effectively run his defense, we either dump him now or deal with him for at least two more years. Personally, I'm on the "dump him now" side of things. Not because of the results, bad as they may be. I see a defense that is unprepared, a frustrated, fractured locker room, an offense that can play with a lead but that cannot move quickly enough to play catch up and that grossly underutilizes its best player (Watkins), and a horribly undisciplined team. In fairness on the Watkins point, losing harvin hurt more than a lot of people realized at the time. Hogan is a drop machine, and woods is not a threat.

I'm not a reactive person, but it may be that Rex has to go. We have some problems to address on the offensive side of the ball - potentially the entire line save for center and WR2 down the depth chart. We can't fix both sides of the ball in the same offseason, and keeping Rex means finding lots of new starters and a bunch of new depth on D. It's a lot easier to change the coach than it is to dump our competent 4-3 personnel to find players to fit this mess of a scheme. So maybe biting the bullet and moving on from Rex is the better play. If he's here next year we better plan on seeing him the year afterthat, too, because I just don't see how we successfully go can go from 4-3 (2014) to incomprehensible mess (2015) to 3-4 (2016) back to 4-3 (assuming a new coach and a 4-3 in 2017). Defensive system changes take awhile, and with the talent we have we might be better off dumping the system as opposed to dumping the players. As an aside, can anyone identify our base d? Hybrid doesn't count as a description. To these eyes it's a mess.