Jump to content

SectionC3

Community Member
  • Posts

    7,507
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SectionC3

  1.   On 2/9/2016 at 2:12 AM, Doc said:

    Accomplice liability is an equal stretch, again without better video evidence showing he assisted the others.

     

    And from what I've heard so far, they were never identified as cops during the incident.

     

    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.

  2.   On 2/9/2016 at 1:37 AM, Doc said:

    Unless decent video shows Shady actually hitting/kicking someone and that hit/kick injuring him, not sure how he gets charged with assault, much less aggravated.

    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.

  3.   On 12/27/2015 at 10:32 PM, VaMilBill said:

    Rarely would I root for the bills to lose. But today I was hoping we would get steamrolled. I'm afraid that winning today helped Rex retain his job and big personnel moves are going to happen now. I believe the fallout could be comparable to Philly. That system is only used by chip Kelly and this system is only used by Rex. So when Rex is eventually fired in a year or two, we will have a very particular roster of players who can't play a 4-3. Rex is gonna stay with the bills and ultimately we will feel the effects for the next 5 years at least

    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.

  4. 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.

  5. I'm 36, and I remember every single one of the game highlights we've seen so far - to the point where I know who will catch the pass, miss the tackle, or make the hit. Since 1986 I've watched every minute of every game, and attended nearly every home game with my dad. I'm grounded in life, with a good job, nice house, great family, and I have my priorities straight. It still breaks my freaking heart every time I see that kick sail away. I just hope we can win a super bowl and share it with my dad. Just one. With him.

  6. Thanks Bill! Glad you're back.

     

    My thoughts:

     

    The secondary was outstanding, and I thought the defense as a whole played pretty well. I'll say it: in this scheme, we won't miss Mario if he's cut in the offseason.

     

    But we don't win this game without McCoy and Watkins. McCoy was electric - just amazing - and Watkins made the play of the game on the third and short in the fourth quarter. Maybe put Taylor in that category, too. I'm reluctant to say this, but the kid is reminding me more and more of Russ Wilson. Stat line isn't special, but he has a presence about him and he just wins. Taylor is only going to get better as he gets more experience, and it wouldn't surprise me to see him grow markedly as a passer next year.

  7.   On 9/4/2015 at 6:17 PM, NoSaint said:

    realistically, some of the last choices may be waiting to see who they get to the practice squad. like maybe they are more prone to cut cassel AFTER simms is there, just in case of early injury, as an example.

    Bingo. Can't cut cassel until Simms clears waivers.

  8. I think Fred is a little high and maybe also want have enough burst for the role. Agreed on Dixon though.

     

    Fair point about the yardage in the kc game. But if we were better up front, we probably don't make the foolish play call that led to Jeff Tuel throwing a 99-yard touchdown pass to kc. I had my bills meltdown moment when chan allowed brad smith to throw near the end of the game in az, and my dad had his at the Tuel interception. Ugh.

  9. Agreed. Although the offer to Bulaga (assuming it was made) might be evidence of a plan to slide Glenn inside.

     

    I'd like BPA tonight, but if the BPA analysis is close we should take a guard. In my view poor guard play has cost this team immensely over the past two years - at least two games in 2013 off the top of my head (cinci and kc), and it killed the screen and some aspects of the run game last year.

     

    Also, as an aside, we need a short yardage back in the worst way. Summers was the best of a bad lot recently, and I am only slightly exaggerating when I say that brad smith is the best short yardage back we've had in awhile. This won't be popular, but I get managements desire to cut Fred to save money and to find a back with short yardage ability (something at which fred isn't all that great).

  10.   On 4/30/2015 at 10:00 AM, scribo said:

    I completely agree with what John Murphy predicted last night. The Bills have gone through all this to entice those teams interested in Bryce Petty to trade for #50. I just feel bad for Jim Kelly - he may not get to announce the Bills pick until late tomorrow night.

    A more sinister possibility is that somebody within the organization who does not like Petty and who does not want the team to select him leaked news of the visit to broadcast the interest in him.

  11.   On 4/16/2015 at 5:11 AM, Beerball said:

    No, Hernandez "fires" this team and another files an appeal. They claim incompetence and they have the jurors own words to back up their claim.

    He should have a different appellate attorney. It's a different specialty, and it allows Hernandez to make the ineffective assistance of counsel contention on appeal. The jurors' words will not be material here. Read one of my recent posts for explanation. I'll add here that it would be a little odd for Hernandez to contend on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective and then have the same attys defend him in the other murder case, but that's how it goes.

  12.   On 4/16/2015 at 12:33 AM, 3rdand12 said:

    another offseason Win !is it true that he will be confined within a mile of Gillette stadium ?

    How ironic that might be?

    Think the guards might let him into the playground when the home game is on. Just for the rub?

    He will do intake at a max facility very close to Gillette. Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous, is it not?

      On 4/16/2015 at 12:21 AM, Mr. WEO said:

    This is just silly on it's face. There should be few adults in this country who truly are not familiar with the possibility a person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.

     

    I'm completely certain a guy like Spikes is not one of those people.

     

    Also, you cannot disconnect circumstantial evidence (which is overwhelming in this case) from the concept of guilt by the preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

     

     

    As for the jury--they were shocked that the defense conceded he was at the murder scene in closing. Obviously they already concluded he was there.

    You must have read Florio. In something he posted this morning he mentioned the preponderance of the evidence standard in connection with this case.

  13.   On 4/15/2015 at 11:14 PM, Kelly the Dog said:

    How does all of that you say reconcile with the entire jury agreeing that they were "shocked" in final arguments to hear that Hernandez was at the scene?

    I don't believe they meant that they were shocked to hear the lawyer say it, I think they meant that they were shocked to learn for sure that he was

     

    I didn't see the comments of the jurors, but I think the words "for sure" might be key in your post. If I'm trying that case, and if my understanding of the evidence is correct, he was at the scene. Granted, the evidence placing him there is arguably circumstantial, but I think the defense had to acknowledge that he was there to try and salvage some credibility with the jury. The fact that, in hindsight, the jury was "shocked" by this "revelation" is just "one of those things." Acknowledging Hernandez's presence was the best play they had, and the fact that it didn't work is just life (pun intended).

     

    Indeed, sometimes jurors aren't all that smart. Think of one of the male jurors who was interviewed after the Corasanti criminal trial. To paraphrase, this guy went on TV and said that Corasanti was "reckless" in striking the victim with his automobile, but just not "reckless enough." Here's the deal. Recklessness in that context was a black or white thing. The actions either were reckless, or they were not. There was no question of degree there, and perhaps because that guy and a few others on the jury were a little slow on that point Corasanti was spared a state prison sentence. It's possible that there could have been some dullards on this jury who didn't pick up on the facts I noted above (assuming I have the facts right).

     

    I'll also pose a question. What was the better play here for the defense? Maybe to stand silent, argue that the evidence wasn't sufficient to prove murder 1, and hope for murder 2 and the possibility of parole? The case was about as strong a circumstantial case as you can have---like I said before, there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence. So I have no idea what the play is other than to admit he was there, which I think to any reasonable observer was a safe thing, and then argue that the prosecution couldn't prove that Hernandez either pulled the trigger or shared an intent to kill with the guy who pulled the trigger.

     

    Finally, about the appellate issues, to the extent an ineffective assistance of counsel contention hinges on the admission of Hernandez's presence at the scene of the murder, there is absolutely, positively, 100%, bet my house, no way Hernandez prevails on that question. Counsel is not ineffective (it is a double negative) when there is a strategic explanation for the alleged error. Here there obviously is. So Hernandez loses. In this state the jurors' comments with respect to surprise almost certainly wouldn't make a record on direct appeal---counsel could maybe sneak it in through a post trial motion---, but in any event the appellate court wouldn't consider it in evaluating an ineffective assistance contention. (There might be other ways to bring up the comments in NYS, and I'm not sure if Mass has similar mechanisms. But even if those comments get before a court, Hernandez will lose on this point because of the strategy reason.)

  14.   On 4/15/2015 at 9:51 PM, Bills Fan in MD said:

    The more I read and think about it, it's crazy that the defense admitted that he was present for the crime. To believe that he was there, but didn't participate in any way defies common sense. AH was the star athlete with millions of dollars. Everything I've seen indicates that he was the leader among his group of friends, the "alpha dog" or whatever you want to call it. He gave the instructions, paid for everything, and directed where they went and when. For him to claim that he was just an innocent bystander (who subsequently took everyone back to his house and then smashed his own security tapes and cell phone) is just plan crazy.

    I strongly disagree. Read my earlier post in the thread. Short of a plea to murder 2 (which carries the possibility of parole), this was the best chance the defense had. There was no way around the fact that the evidence put him at the scene, and the defense had to come up with an explanation for how he could be there and not be responsible for what happened.

     

    The proof on this point will be in the pudding that will be the appeal. I'm not licensed in Massachusetts, but I would be very surprised if appellate counsel doesn't contend that trial counsel was ineffective in admitting Hernandez's presence at the scene on summation. In layman's terms, to say that a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel means that defense counsel was so bad it was like having no attorney at all. That contention won't fly here because there is a strategic explanation for counsel's argument (the explanation I gave earlier in the thread).

     

    On balance, from what I understand the evidentiary rulings were favorable to Hernandez and there was no funny business at trial, so my guess is the best shot Hernandez has will be to argue that there isn't enough evidence to convict him of murder 1, and that his conviction should be reduced to murder 2. I wouldn't hold my breath.

     

    EDIT: I just read Florio's post on PFT on the topic. I think he's a smart guy, but I don't agree with at least a few things he's had to say about the trial. From what I understand, Hernandez's DNA was on a blunt found at the scene, tire tracks identified at the scene match the tread on the tires of the vehicle Hernandez drove on the night of the murder, and a shoe print found at the scene matches a sneaker photographed in Hernandez's closet during the execution of a search warrant prior to Hernandez's arrest. All due respect to Florio, but if I have all of that right, Hernandez was at the scene. I think it would have been fair comment for the prosecution to say as much, and I think the nitpicking here is simply misguided.

  15.   On 4/11/2015 at 3:04 PM, over 20 years of fanhood said:

    I could see a player being on the board. It's sort of like anonymous Twitter...

     

    In sort of the same vein, I have long suspected that a certain poster on the board is a member of the front office. Won't ID the poster or the member of the front office, but some of the language the poster uses "fits" the way the member of the front office speaks.

  16.   On 4/11/2015 at 2:24 PM, NoSaint said:

    I believe we've seen articles on Massachusetts law from pft or the like saying that a beat down gone bad is still a conviction on the charge?

    Depends what the charge in Mass is. The equivalent charge in NYS is probably murder second, which is found in Penal Law 125.25. Subdivision 1 of that section (there are several parts) states that

     

    "A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when . . . [w]ith intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person . . . ."
    Ergo, no intent to cause death = no murder conviction. In this state the "beat down gone bad" theory could still result in a conviction on a lesser charge, such as manslaughter in the first degree. Someone is guilty of that crime when "with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person." Serious physical injury has its own definition, which I won't get into here, but the obvious difference between murder and manslaughter in this context is the difference in intent.
    Assuming that Mass has similar penal laws of this state, and assuming that those similar laws are in play in the Hernandez trial, if the jury believes that Hernandez did not have or share the intent to kill the vic, there can be no murder conviction. So again, this is why the PCP defense is genius.
×
×
  • Create New...