SectionC3

This is not indicative of what will happen in the Deflategate appeal, but yesterday the appellate court that will decide that case slighted the trial judge. That kind of thing is rare, and it means that the judge is on the appellate court's radar. Again, it doesn't suggest a result in the case we care about, but it's interesting nonetheless.

This is sad news, but I'm grateful that I've had the chance to read your work over the years. I can get from my seat in the stadium to my house in about 15 minutes. Too often when I leave the stadium I'm shaking my head asking the question "how did that just happen?" By the time I get home I'm ready for your thread. Your work will be missed.

Seconded. I don't care of people are making idiotic cack about a billionaire or someone with two nickels to his or her name. I hope somebody can delete tha crap.

Those are a different kettle of fish. "For cause" basically means not fit to serve, whereas a peremptory challenge removes a juror fit to serve but who the challenger does not want to serve. Peremptories are limited, which is why the distinction is important.

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.