McCoy's nightclub fight and the ongoing investigation

[3rdand12]

No matter what happened before the guy on the ground is defenseless, and then McCoy steps in and punmels him. That's a terrible set of facts for a defendant. Any other time McCoy avoids the pile and shakes and bakes to the sidelines, except in a video taped beatdown... %@!

Thats the funny thing about selective films clips.

You have no idea what happened just before that little blip.

The other guy coulda punched his girlfriend. you don't know that. I don't know that.

assumptions are for fools.

 

a frame at a time is not nearly the whole movie.

If perhaps i kicked you in the nuts, would you not come after me with reckless abandon?

I think you might.

 

so no matter what happened before the embarrassing weaknesses exposed by Lesean, we do not know what provoked that response.

 

If someone called my wife a whore. I might walk away and i might not. I might kill the mf.

ya just dont know do ya?

[Go Kiko go]

But let me go to a situation that may or not have happened in this case. If everyone in the aggressive group is participating in the pummeling of the victims but it can't be determined who did what when a victim was hurt to an aggravated assault level then isn't this a collective action type of event and a collective responsibility situation.

 

Probably. In that scenario, you probably don't even need to resort to complicity liability to establish guilt--you can probably establish that each one of them, independently, is liable for aggravated assault.

 

If you recall, you can be punished for aggravated assault just for attempting to cause serious bodily harm. If four people are pummeling a single person on the ground, it would be relatively easy for a jury to infer that each one of the group had the intent to inflict serious bodily harm, because that's usually what results when four people attack a single person. It doesn't matter if the officers didn't actually suffer any serious bodily injury, because, remember, you can be punished for just for attempting it. And since you don't have to prove that the victim actually suffered serious bodily injury, it also doesn't matter which person in the group actually caused the harm as long as you can establish that each person intended to cause serious bodily harm. The key is that, under the circumstances you've described, a jury could infer that each person in the group attempted to cause serious bodily harm. That's enough for liability.

 

Here's a great example from a Pennsylvania case (not to mention an amusing set of facts):

 

At approximately 3:00 p.m. on June 19, 2009, [the defendant] and Gail Horton and [Horton's] four school-aged grandchildren were in the principal's office at Harrity Elementary School in Philadelphia. [The defendant and Horton] became involved in an argument about a physical altercation that had occurred between [the defendant's] daughter and Ms. Horton's granddaughter. During the quarrel, Anthony Horton, Ms. Horton's son, arrived at the office. [The defendant] asked Mr. Horton in a profane manner who he was. Mr. Horton replied that he was not anybody and tried to diffuse the situation. Unmollified, [the defendant] escalated the confrontation by shouting and hurling obscenities at Mr. Horton and his mother. Mr. Horton left the office to telephone the police and then returned to protect his mother and the children. [When he returned, the defendant] was no longer there.

 

Approximately ten minutes later, [the defendant] returned to the principal's office with a large group, which was described as consisting of between six to twelve individuals. One of [the defendant's] companions was Abdul Ali, who was ten inches taller and fifty-five pounds heavier than Mr. Horton. The group immediately began to assault Mr. Horton. While school officials attempted to prevent the victim's beating, they were unsuccessful. [The defendant] and her cohorts pushed the other adults and children to the floor and continued to batter Mr. Horton. They tore his clothes, and, after he fell to the floor, began to punch and kick him all over the face and body. The assault lasted about one minute. By the time police arrived and transported Mr. Horton to the hospital, the criminals had fled.

 

Mr. Horton sustained bruising of his ribs, face, back and legs, cuts on his eyelid and lip, and swelling, lumps and cuts on his head. He was x-rayed and administered prescription pain medication. Due to the injuries incurred in the attack, the victim missed two weeks of work and was unable to continue to engage in his past-time activity of semi-professional football. Mr. Horton continued to experience pain from his injuries by the time of trial, which transpired two years after the episode.

 

Now, interestingly, the trial court found that these injuries did not constitute "serious bodily injuries." As a result, the defendant argued two things: (1) she couldn't be liable for aggravated assault, because the victim didn't sustain serious bodily injury, and (2) she didn't intend for the victim to suffer serious bodily injury.

 

This is a lot like how you could imagine the Shady scenario unfolding. Group beatdown, police officers get injured but not injured enough to constitute "serious bodily injury", and you have Shady arguing that he didn't intend for any of the police officers to suffer serious bodily injury.

 

Doesn't matter, said the Pennsylvania appellate court, because under these circumstances, a jury could infer that each member of the gang intended to cause serious bodily harm, even though no serious bodily harm resulted and even though it wasn't clear which of the attackers was "leading the charge," so to speak:

 

[The defendant] and her posse launched a surprise assault on [the victim]. The cohorts pushed aside people who attempted to block the attack. Then, while the victim lay prone, the group repeatedly punched and kicked Mr. Horton about the head and body. As the trial court observed:

 

"Here, evidence was sufficient to show that Defendant attempted to cause serious bodily injury. Defendant and five members of her entourage accosted Mr. Horton and left him battered and bruised. Mr. Horton sustained injuries to his head, back, ribs, and legs and missed several weeks of work. Although this Court did not find Mr. Horton to have sustained serious bodily injury, the nature of the attack, in which [one-half] dozen individuals repeatedly struck a defenseless man, showed a complete disregard for Mr. Horton's safety and well being, thus it was not for lack of trying on the part of the Defendant and her gang [that Mr. Horton did not sustain serious bodily injury]."

 

We concur that the circumstances surrounding the attack demonstrated that Appellant intended to cause serious bodily injury.

 

The takeaway is that when multiple individuals punch and kick a person lying on the floor in a defenseless position, you can infer that each individual intended to cause serious bodily harm. That's all you need to convict.

 

Of course, we don't know if that's what happened with Shady and co. It's a pretty easy case if there's clear evidence that Shady and his group were engaged in a group beatdown of one of the officers, but if not, it's a lot trickier, and that's where the considerations I mentioned in my earlier post come into play.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Go Kiko go

[JohnC]

 

Probably. In that scenario, you probably don't even need to resort to complicity liability to establish guilt--you can probably establish that each one of them, independently, is liable for aggravated assault.

 

If you recall, you can be punished for aggravated assault just for attempting to cause serious bodily harm. If four people are pummeling a single person on the ground, it would be relatively easy for a jury to infer that each one of the group had the intent to inflict serious bodily harm, because that's usually what results when four people attack a single person. It doesn't matter if the officers didn't actually suffer any serious bodily injury, because, remember, you can be punished for just for attempting it. And since you don't have to prove that the victim actually suffered serious bodily injury, it also doesn't matter which person in the group actually caused the harm as long as you can establish that each person intended to cause serious bodily harm. The key is that, under the circumstances you've described, a jury could infer that each person in the group attempted to cause serious bodily harm. That's enough for liability.

 

Here's a great example from a Pennsylvania case (not to mention an amusing set of facts):

 

At approximately 3:00 p.m. on June 19, 2009, [the defendant] and Gail Horton and [Horton's] four school-aged grandchildren were in the principal's office at Harrity Elementary School in Philadelphia. [The defendant and Horton] became involved in an argument about a physical altercation that had occurred between [the defendant's] daughter and Ms. Horton's granddaughter. During the quarrel, Anthony Horton, Ms. Horton's son, arrived at the office. [The defendant] asked Mr. Horton in a profane manner who he was. Mr. Horton replied that he was not anybody and tried to diffuse the situation. Unmollified, [the defendant] escalated the confrontation by shouting and hurling obscenities at Mr. Horton and his mother. Mr. Horton left the office to telephone the police and then returned to protect his mother and the children. [When he returned, the defendant] was no longer there.

 

Approximately ten minutes later, [the defendant] returned to the principal's office with a large group, which was described as consisting of between six to twelve individuals. One of [the defendant's] companions was Abdul Ali, who was ten inches taller and fifty-five pounds heavier than Mr. Horton. The group immediately began to assault Mr. Horton. While school officials attempted to prevent the victim's beating, they were unsuccessful. [The defendant] and her cohorts pushed the other adults and children to the floor and continued to batter Mr. Horton. They tore his clothes, and, after he fell to the floor, began to punch and kick him all over the face and body. The assault lasted about one minute. By the time police arrived and transported Mr. Horton to the hospital, the criminals had fled.

 

Mr. Horton sustained bruising of his ribs, face, back and legs, cuts on his eyelid and lip, and swelling, lumps and cuts on his head. He was x-rayed and administered prescription pain medication. Due to the injuries incurred in the attack, the victim missed two weeks of work and was unable to continue to engage in his past-time activity of semi-professional football. Mr. Horton continued to experience pain from his injuries by the time of trial, which transpired two years after the episode.

 

Now, interestingly, the trial court found that these injuries did not constitute "serious bodily injuries." As a result, the defendant argued two things: (1) she couldn't be liable for aggravated assault, because the victim didn't sustain serious bodily injury, and (2) she didn't intend for the victim to suffer serious bodily injury.

 

This is a lot like how you could imagine the Shady scenario unfolding. Group beatdown, police officers get injured but not injured enough to constitute "serious bodily injury", and you have Shady arguing that he didn't intend for any of the police officers to suffer serious bodily injury.

 

Doesn't matter, said the Pennsylvania court, because under these circumstances, a jury could infer that each member of the gang intended to cause serious bodily harm, even though no serious bodily harm resulted and even though it wasn't clear which of the attackers was "leading the charge," so to speak:

 

[The defendant] and her posse launched a surprise assault on [the victim]. The cohorts pushed aside people who attempted to block the attack. Then, while the victim lay prone, the group repeatedly punched and kicked Mr. Horton about the head and body. As the trial court observed:

 

"Here, evidence was sufficient to show that Defendant attempted to cause serious bodily injury. Defendant and five members of her entourage accosted Mr. Horton and left him battered and bruised. Mr. Horton sustained injuries to his head, back, ribs, and legs and missed several weeks of work. Although this Court did not find Mr. Horton to have sustained serious bodily injury, the nature of the attack, in which [one-half] dozen individuals repeatedly struck a defenseless man, showed a complete disregard for Mr. Horton's safety and well being, thus it was not for lack of trying on the part of the Defendant and her gang [that Mr. Horton did not sustain serious bodily injury]."

 

We concur that the circumstances surrounding the attack demonstrated that Appellant intended to cause serious bodily injury.

 

The takeaway is that when multiple individuals punch and kick a person lying on the floor in a defenseless position, you can infer that each individual intended to cause serious bodily harm. That's all you need to convict.

 

Of course, we don't know if that's what happened with Shady and co., and you'd have to convince the jury that they were involved in a group beatdown of a defenseless officer.

Your response was clarifying. Maybe this week we will get more specific information as to what is being alleged to have happened from the prosecution side. Then it has to be proven.

 

If I decide to stomp someone into oblivion I will give you a call. I hope your hourly rate is reasonable!

[ALF]

Another article on cap speculation if McCoy were cut.

 

http://www.pennlive.com/philadelphiaeagles/index.ssf/2016/02/some_pundits_have_called_for_t.html

[Dorkington]

I really don't understand cutting the guy. I can't imagine he gets more than a handful of games for this, and I don't seem to recall him having a history of legal trouble. Does he have a bit of an attitude? Sure, but so do a lot of guys. If we cut him, we lose one of our most valuable weapons, and take on a boat load of dead money for nothing in return. If we keep him, we miss him for a few games, but have him for the majority, which is really important considering our other running backs are a concussion prone bruiser, and a completely unproven street free agent.

[Doc]

 

Probably. In that scenario, you probably don't even need to resort to complicity liability to establish guilt--you can probably establish that each one of them, independently, is liable for aggravated assault.

 

If you recall, you can be punished for aggravated assault just for attempting to cause serious bodily harm. If four people are pummeling a single person on the ground, it would be relatively easy for a jury to infer that each one of the group had the intent to inflict serious bodily harm, because that's usually what results when four people attack a single person. It doesn't matter if the officers didn't actually suffer any serious bodily injury, because, remember, you can be punished for just for attempting it. And since you don't have to prove that the victim actually suffered serious bodily injury, it also doesn't matter which person in the group actually caused the harm as long as you can establish that each person intended to cause serious bodily harm. The key is that, under the circumstances you've described, a jury could infer that each person in the group attempted to cause serious bodily harm. That's enough for liability.

 

Here's a great example from a Pennsylvania case (not to mention an amusing set of facts):

 

At approximately 3:00 p.m. on June 19, 2009, [the defendant] and Gail Horton and [Horton's] four school-aged grandchildren were in the principal's office at Harrity Elementary School in Philadelphia. [The defendant and Horton] became involved in an argument about a physical altercation that had occurred between [the defendant's] daughter and Ms. Horton's granddaughter. During the quarrel, Anthony Horton, Ms. Horton's son, arrived at the office. [The defendant] asked Mr. Horton in a profane manner who he was. Mr. Horton replied that he was not anybody and tried to diffuse the situation. Unmollified, [the defendant] escalated the confrontation by shouting and hurling obscenities at Mr. Horton and his mother. Mr. Horton left the office to telephone the police and then returned to protect his mother and the children. [When he returned, the defendant] was no longer there.

 

Approximately ten minutes later, [the defendant] returned to the principal's office with a large group, which was described as consisting of between six to twelve individuals. One of [the defendant's] companions was Abdul Ali, who was ten inches taller and fifty-five pounds heavier than Mr. Horton. The group immediately began to assault Mr. Horton. While school officials attempted to prevent the victim's beating, they were unsuccessful. [The defendant] and her cohorts pushed the other adults and children to the floor and continued to batter Mr. Horton. They tore his clothes, and, after he fell to the floor, began to punch and kick him all over the face and body. The assault lasted about one minute. By the time police arrived and transported Mr. Horton to the hospital, the criminals had fled.

 

Mr. Horton sustained bruising of his ribs, face, back and legs, cuts on his eyelid and lip, and swelling, lumps and cuts on his head. He was x-rayed and administered prescription pain medication. Due to the injuries incurred in the attack, the victim missed two weeks of work and was unable to continue to engage in his past-time activity of semi-professional football. Mr. Horton continued to experience pain from his injuries by the time of trial, which transpired two years after the episode.

 

Now, interestingly, the trial court found that these injuries did not constitute "serious bodily injuries." As a result, the defendant argued two things: (1) she couldn't be liable for aggravated assault, because the victim didn't sustain serious bodily injury, and (2) she didn't intend for the victim to suffer serious bodily injury.

 

This is a lot like how you could imagine the Shady scenario unfolding. Group beatdown, police officers get injured but not injured enough to constitute "serious bodily injury", and you have Shady arguing that he didn't intend for any of the police officers to suffer serious bodily injury.

 

Doesn't matter, said the Pennsylvania appellate court, because under these circumstances, a jury could infer that each member of the gang intended to cause serious bodily harm, even though no serious bodily harm resulted and even though it wasn't clear which of the attackers was "leading the charge," so to speak:

 

[The defendant] and her posse launched a surprise assault on [the victim]. The cohorts pushed aside people who attempted to block the attack. Then, while the victim lay prone, the group repeatedly punched and kicked Mr. Horton about the head and body. As the trial court observed:

 

"Here, evidence was sufficient to show that Defendant attempted to cause serious bodily injury. Defendant and five members of her entourage accosted Mr. Horton and left him battered and bruised. Mr. Horton sustained injuries to his head, back, ribs, and legs and missed several weeks of work. Although this Court did not find Mr. Horton to have sustained serious bodily injury, the nature of the attack, in which [one-half] dozen individuals repeatedly struck a defenseless man, showed a complete disregard for Mr. Horton's safety and well being, thus it was not for lack of trying on the part of the Defendant and her gang [that Mr. Horton did not sustain serious bodily injury]."

 

We concur that the circumstances surrounding the attack demonstrated that Appellant intended to cause serious bodily injury.

 

The takeaway is that when multiple individuals punch and kick a person lying on the floor in a defenseless position, you can infer that each individual intended to cause serious bodily harm. That's all you need to convict.

 

Of course, we don't know if that's what happened with Shady and co. It's a pretty easy case if there's clear evidence that Shady and his group were engaged in a group beatdown of one of the officers, but if not, it's a lot trickier, and that's where the considerations I mentioned in my earlier post come into play.

 

Was every member of the gang convicted of aggravated assault or just the defendant?

[YoloinOhio]

@viccarucci

Attorney for LeSean McCoy tells me "possible update around noon" on #Bills RB's alleged involvement in Philadelphia nightclub incident.

[CodeMonkey]

@viccarucci

Attorney for LeSean McCoy tells me "possible update around noon" on #Bills RB's alleged involvement in Philadelphia nightclub incident.

He has enough money to get out of it. Will King Roger let him skate is the question. He almost can't after giving Big Ben a few games without even being arrested.

[YoloinOhio]

He has enough money to get out of it. Will King Roger let him skate is the question. He almost can't after giving Big Ben a few games without even being arrested.

way too early to tell. We haven't heard anything but one side. As far as Ben, he was accused of rape not once, but twice. Edited February 16, 2016 by YoloinOhio

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I really don't understand cutting the guy. I can't imagine he gets more than a handful of games for this, and I don't seem to recall him having a history of legal trouble. Does he have a bit of an attitude? Sure, but so do a lot of guys. If we cut him, we lose one of our most valuable weapons, and take on a boat load of dead money for nothing in return. If we keep him, we miss him for a few games, but have him for the majority, which is really important considering our other running backs are a concussion prone bruiser, and a completely unproven street free agent.

 

I agree with you. I think we will wait to see how the situation plays out.

 

McCoy does not have a history of this type of legal trouble. If he did, you can bet that the media would be digging it up and also that the league would deal with him more harshly.

 

While it's a different sort of offense, it might be instructive to look at the Vikings and Adrian Peterson.

In May, 2014, AP disciplined his 4 year old son with a switch, leaving cuts and bruises.

 

In early September, AP was indicted for Felony Child Abuse and a public furor erupted regarding the Vikings letting him play. AP was placed on the NFL "exempt" list. His 2014 salary is listed as $11,750,000 or $734k/game. It was widely speculated that the Vikings would cut him or trade him, but they did not.

 

In early November, AP pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, "reckless assault", paid a $4k fine, and agreed to perform community service and attend parenting classes. He has stated he would never discipline that way again.

 

In 2015, AP started all 16 games, rushed for 1435 yds, 4.5 ypa, and and was clearly a strong reason why the Vikes went to the playoffs.

[YoloinOhio]

@viccarucci

Spokesman for Philadelphia DA's office: "Continuing to investigate" LeSean McCoy case & "don't know how long it will be" until conclusion.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

Here's a great example from a Pennsylvania case (not to mention an amusing set of facts):

 

At approximately 3:00 p.m. on June 19, 2009, [the defendant] and Gail Horton and [Horton's] four school-aged grandchildren were in the principal's office at Harrity Elementary School in Philadelphia. [The defendant and Horton] became involved in an argument about a physical altercation that had occurred between [the defendant's] daughter and Ms. Horton's granddaughter. During the quarrel, Anthony Horton, Ms. Horton's son, arrived at the office. [The defendant] asked Mr. Horton in a profane manner who he was. Mr. Horton replied that he was not anybody and tried to diffuse the situation. Unmollified, [the defendant] escalated the confrontation by shouting and hurling obscenities at Mr. Horton and his mother. Mr. Horton left the office to telephone the police and then returned to protect his mother and the children. [When he returned, the defendant] was no longer there.

 

Approximately ten minutes later, [the defendant] returned to the principal's office with a large group, which was described as consisting of between six to twelve individuals. One of [the defendant's] companions was Abdul Ali, who was ten inches taller and fifty-five pounds heavier than Mr. Horton. The group immediately began to assault Mr. Horton.

 

Again, I'm not familiar at all with Pennsylvania law, but it seems to me in this case you describe, the fact that the defendant left the scene of a confrontation and then returned some time later with a large group of people who weren't originally present and who immediately commenced a physical assault, potentially represents a legally significant difference between this and the McCoy situation. The defendant would appear to have recruited a group of people to accompany her onto the premises for the common purpose of assault.

 

The parallel situation would be if McCoy had left the club and returned with his driver and 2 bodyguards who immediately grabbed the complainant and started to assault him, urged on by McCoy. But that's not what happened, at least as far as the leaving the scene of the altercation and returning with people who weren't originally part of it and immediately commenced an assault.

way too early to tell. We haven't heard anything but one side. As far as Ben, he was accused of rape not once, but twice.

 

Yes, that was def. a factor with the league's response: "I'm seeing a pattern here, Benjamin". And even then, his suspension was reduced from 6 to 4 games.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Hopeful

[YoloinOhio]

@joebuscaglia

Just spoke to the Philadelphia district attorney's office. "The investigation continues" was the phrase used to me on the McCoy case.

[Go Kiko go]

 

Was every member of the gang convicted of aggravated assault or just the defendant?

 

Unfortunately, the appellate court opinion doesn't say (it doesn't even mention whether any other individuals were charged with crimes), and state trial court opinions aren't always the easiest things to locate electronically.

 

 

Again, I'm not familiar at all with Pennsylvania law, but it seems to me in this case you describe, the fact that the defendant left the scene of a confrontation and then returned some time later with a large group of people who weren't originally present and who immediately commenced a physical assault, potentially represents a legally significant difference between this and the McCoy situation. The defendant would appear to have recruited a group of people to accompany her onto the premises for the common purpose of assault.

 

The parallel situation would be if McCoy had left the club and returned with his driver and 2 bodyguards who immediately grabbed the complainant and started to assault him, urged on by McCoy. But that's not what happened, at least as far as the leaving the scene of the altercation and returning with people who weren't originally part of it and immediately commenced an assault.

 

In my mind, that does bolster the conclusion that the person in that case had an intent to cause serious bodily injury, but interestingly, both the appellate court and the trial court paid little attention to it. Take a look at the explanation the trial court provided, which doesn't even mention that factor:

 

Here, evidence was sufficient to show that Defendant attempted to cause serious bodily injury. Defendant and five members of her entourage accosted Mr. Horton and left him battered and bruised. Mr. Horton sustained injuries to his head, back, ribs, and legs and missed several weeks of work. Although this Court did not find Mr. Horton to have sustained serious bodily injury, the nature of the attack, in which [one-half] dozen individuals repeatedly struck a defenseless man, showed a complete disregard for Mr. Horton's safety and well being, thus it was not for lack of trying on the part of the Defendant and her gang [that Mr. Horton did not sustain serious bodily injury].

 

Now, in that case, the defendant was also charged with a separate offense of conspiracy, which was based on the fact that the person left to go find her "gang" prior to the assault. But with respect to just the aggravated assault charge, both the trial court and the appellate court focused on the circumstances of the attack itself (the number of people, the fact that the victim was on the floor, in a vulnerable position, the fact that the "gang" kicked and punched his head and body), rather than her recruitment of the "gang" ahead of time. In other words, I think a conviction for aggravated assault would have still be upheld under these circumstances even absent the premeditation, because the circumstances surrounding the fight itself are sufficient to establish intent to cause serious bodily harm.

 

It's worth noting in connection with this example that, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Pennsylvania courts look to a number of factors to determine whether a person had the intent to cause serious bodily injury, such as the relative size of the perpetrator and the victim, whether the attack was voluntarily discontinued, and any statements made by the perpetrator. Additionally, they consider whether "the victim participated in the fight, or whether the attack was a surprise assault on an unsuspecting victim." That's a key difference between the case above and Shady's case, and may weigh in favor of a finding that Shady and co. didn't intend to cause serious bodily injury.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Go Kiko go

[YoloinOhio]

Oddly worded?

 

@scottswenson4

All of us @news4buffalo in daily contact with officials on McCoy case. Something other than investigation continues. Will have it for you.

[Doc]

Unfortunately, the appellate court opinion doesn't say (it doesn't even mention whether any other individuals were charged with crimes), and state trial court opinions aren't always the easiest things to locate electronically.

 

I couldn't find anything either other than Ms. Cave (just curious, why did you redact her name?) being the only one charged. Which makes me wonder whether they just charged the "ring leader" for aggravated assault.

[Fingon]

The DA definitely has a problem. 100% guaranteed the standard operating procedure for aggravated assault isn't to wait until hours later, after the witnesses have gone home, to report it. They're cops and they can't make a quick phone call to get people down there to start taking names/addresses of witnesses? Seems to me that the delay is intentional, in order to give them time to rehearse their stories and make witnesses far harder to find.

[Maury Ballstein]

@joebuscaglia

Just spoke to the Philadelphia district attorney's office. "The investigation continues" was the phrase used to me on the McCoy case.

How complicated can it be? Just confiscate the club videos that the cops made disappear and let's put this baby to bed.

[Nanker]

Oddly worded?

 

@scottswenson4

All of us @news4buffalo in daily contact with officials on McCoy case. Something other than investigation continues. Will have it for you.

Bills making a trade with Green Bay. Shady for Scott Tolzien.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

How complicated can it be? Just confiscate the club videos that the cops made disappear and let's put this baby to bed.

 

Ha ha we do have suspicious minds, some of us, don't we? How convenient the internal security video "wasn't operating".

 

The DA definitely has a problem. 100% guaranteed the standard operating procedure for aggravated assault isn't to wait until hours later, after the witnesses have gone home, to report it. They're cops and they can't make a quick phone call to get people down there to start taking names/addresses of witnesses? Seems to me that the delay is intentional, in order to give them time to rehearse their stories and make witnesses far harder to find.

 

From the point of view of determining the truth of what really happened it's certainly unfortunate that the complainants chose not to call 911 or otherwise make a report and start an investigation at the time. Purely from a practical viewpoint, it would have been far easier to obtain witness names and addresses, make a forensic collection of cell phone video, look for any physical evidence etcetera.

 

 

In my mind, that does bolster the conclusion that the person in that case had an intent to cause serious bodily injury, but interestingly, both the appellate court and the trial court paid little attention to it. Take a look at the explanation the trial court provided, which doesn't even mention that factor: (....) It's worth noting in connection with this example that, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Pennsylvania courts look to a number of factors to determine whether a person had the intent to cause serious bodily injury, such as the relative size of the perpetrator and the victim, whether the attack was voluntarily discontinued, and any statements made by the perpetrator. Additionally, they consider whether "the victim participated in the fight, or whether the attack was a surprise assault on an unsuspecting victim." That's a key difference between the case above and Shady's case, and may weigh in favor of a finding that Shady and co. didn't intend to cause serious bodily injury.

 

Interesting. Well, time will tell what the courts make of it.