DanInUticaTampa

me too

a better link 4 this is http://boards.buffalobills.com/showthread.php?t=127203

the tooth fairy

jackson and rhodes are only 2 years apart. by the time we trade lynch, they will probably be retiring. unless we trade lynch really soon

haha

because they cant pack a stadium

having 4 posts in a row makes it look like you are talking to yourself. then after no one found your posts interesting to reply to, you turned those post to threads. i guess it is just sad to watch...

next year we will probably play NE In T.O

why did you just post 4 times in a row?

the pats* have a london game haha.

our sched was more easy last year

the team needs to trademark that soon.

we get a thrs game.... bah

That is what I am thinking. Someone said something like "him fighting in front of police" is easy to prosecute or something like that. But i looked and i couldn't find anything about him fighting. There isn't that much info out there. the police said whitner went through a police barrier and "looked like he was about to join the fight." He didn't attack anyone from the looks of it. If he did hit someone, he would have a lot more charges. It looks like what you said. The police told him to stay away, he ignored them, the police grabbed him and he put up a struggle and resisted the arrest. When he struggled, they tasered him. It is hard to tell, because there isn't much that we know. but from experience, these charges are hard to make stick. especially from what i seen down here.

Some law has a big gap, some is cut and dry. If you rob a bank, it is cut and dry. No one is going to argue what robbing a bank means. Everyone knows it means stealing from the bank. But if you want to argue "disorderly conduct," it isnt cut and dry like robbing a bank. it isn't clearly defined. "offensive language" could mean anything. Some kid could be wearing a shirt that says "blondes are better than brunettes" and a brunette girl can think it is offensive. But clearly, not everyone is going to think it is offensive. Someone could wear a shirt that says "i hate white people" and think it is offensive. but not everybody is going to think that. some people might think that yelling on the phone is "disorderly conduct", but not everyone. Some people might think that running through the park is "disorderly conduct" because it bothers their dogs or whatever. The law "disorderly conduct" IS open to interpretation more than most laws. It is not clearly defined for the most part. you can't draw a clear line on what is offensive and what isn't. You just can't. there is a lot of wiggle room, and it IS hard to prosecute. when you go in the gray area, the odds are with the defendent. the burdon of proof is up to the prosecuter. not the defense. I think i made my point as to why "disorderly conduct" is hard to prosecute because it is a vague term

good for atlanta. they have a solid team

Well, i don't follow Ohio law. I have never been. I didn't realize they had it more detailed. Even so, even though it is more detailed than some laws, "disorderly conduct" is still a vague term, even by those standards. the only thing that is clear in it is "Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior." The rest is retoric to most other states. If whitner was involved in fighting, he would have been charged for more than disorderly conduct. So i assume he wasn't "fighting." If he was fighting, and that is what he was arrested for, then all the lawyer has to do is say "if he was really fighting, why aren't they charging him for assault?" So it looks like he never actually attacked or fought with anyone physically. but other things don't have a clear interpretation of the law. for instence, the very next thing "Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person" What is "unreasonable noise?" What is unreasonable to one person isnt unreasonable to the next. it is a matter of opinion. Same with abusive language. What is offensive to one person isn't offensive to the next. the same goes for the rest of the Law. "Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;" again. What is insulting or what could provoke a violent reponse is open to interpretation. I only went through the begining of the law, but for the most part, with very few exceptions, it is open to interpretation. Sorry if you didn't like my previous reponse.

Because it is. Unless there was one person involved in the cause, and people are outraged and were witness to it and hurt by it, it is hard to prove. And i don't see any newspapers with that many witnesses or info on what happened. So I assume the police are fuzzy on the details too. In order to win this in front of a judge, the prosecuter would have to show the "disorderly conduct" through evidence, which is hard to prove. It takes more than a police statement that says "he was fighting." The police officer has to say exactly what he was doing, who else was involved, what caused it, etc. Since not much has been released on this story, it looks like the police aren't that aware of what happened. Any small crime is hard to prove. Small crimes usually have sloppy arrests. I am not sure what the stats are, but i know in my criminology class way back when, the percent of convictions/arrests in small crimes had a big gap. It takes too much time to just slap a guy on the wrist for something stupid. This stuff happens all the time. And I don't see anything that shows that he needed to be tasered. He isnt being charged for anything that would make the taser needed at least. But whenever a small charge is put on you, you always fight it. Small crimes are hard to prove. Police aren't as meticulous as they would be if it were a homocide or something. So they are going to make a lot of mistakes. Even if the police did do the right thing, you could get arrested for jaywalking, but if a prosecuter were to charge you for it, the case would get thrown out. It is a waste of a judge's time. Don't be surprised if Whitner walks into court in two weeks and the judge throws the whole case out the window.

i agree

"aggravated disorderly conduct" is very hard for the prosecuter to prove. it is almost a dead end. it is an easy arrest, but not to convict. the term "aggravated disorderly conduct" is very a vague term. as for resisting arrest, i am sure they have better things to do. Hell i know ppl who have had worse charges dropped. And they only had a cheap lawyer. what the hell do you think a high priced lawyer is going to do?

apparently you havent dealed much with the law, but charges get dropped all the time

no. unless he is guilty. if you are innoent, a plea isnt a good option

uless it is bloopers

ya

you probably will quit posting here in 6 months and people here will forget all about you.