boyst Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Can the Bills put him on the "exempt" list? I thought that had to happen from the NFL end. If the NFL puts him on this newfangled "exempt" list, yeah, Goodell can still suspend him once the legal stuff is sorted. I so do not like the "exempt" thing, I don't know why the owners are tolerating it in its present form, it's like "double whammy - you lose the services of your player, but yeah, you still get to pay him" the nfl has to do the exempt list, but the bills can put him on one of the inactive lists - PUP - most likely, since he was hurt in week 17 and use it as a method to suspend him. but i fully expect if this comes out with any worse than what we know now that he will be exempted. luckily, the police and their unions do not have the social relevance they once did. however, unfortunately for society - the LEO's are now less respected than ever and not many will balk about stiff penalties for mccoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Aggravated assault can be charged with intent and lesser injuries. The fact these men had to be stopped and pulled off this man on the ground shows intent to injure. The fact the man actually was injured more than bruises and cuts shows the depth of the beating. The intent initially was trying to rob a bottle of wine from these guys who have proof of ownership with a receipt. Just because it happened in a private club (bar), people want to label this a "bar fight". A bar fight is over a disagreement and the impairment leads to over-aggressiveness and a few punches or wrestling. It doesn't lead to an assault of 4 men beating 1 man after an attempt to take ones possessions. This will not be arguable, the intent to steal and injure happened, just the degree of the assault may slightly be in question because the assault was stopped in progress. A lawyerly analysis. A concise and clear analysis. A convincing analysis. An accurate description of what happened and how it relates to the elements in the law. You added clarity to an issue that many are trying to cloud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 A lawyerly analysis. A concise and clear analysis. A convincing analysis. An accurate description of what happened and how it relates to the elements in the law. You added clarity to an issue that many are trying to cloud. But he still didn't address whether the "victim" was talking ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) I don't think this will happen, Boyst. The players union argued successfully against a double-tier penalty in the case of Rice. The league will wait for the legal issues to settle (you are right, likely not before the season) then they will react with their own punishment 1x. The thing to fear is the new NFL "exempt" list, invented by Goodell to deal with a situation like Greg Hardy or Adrian Peterson where the legal process is ongoing and the league doesn't want to punish yet, but the publicity is such that the NFL doesn't want the players on the field. This is a "double whammy" for the team - they have to afford the player FULL PAY and it counts against the cap, but they have to do without his services for a year. The good news is that whacking or allegedly whacking wimmins and childs has the tar bubbling and the pitchforks sharp across the league. No one wants to see police officers beaten up but if a careful PR case is made that these were off-duty officers not identified as officers and the injuries were straightforward, I think people are more inclined to shrug about a bar brawl. I don't know if the Bills have the chops to orchestrate such a PR case in a fingerprintless way. As for McCoy, why should he care? He could potentially get paid $5M guaranteed $$ for sitting on his ass whilst lawyers wrangle next year. Source? How do you know this? Check out the last few sentences in the article. I want to make it clear that just because someone makes an anonymous statement that it doesn't mean that it is true. But this addresses the receipt issue admittedly coming from a source that is unknown to be credible or not. After googling I got the same results on this issue of the receipt for the champagne. http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/02/08/mccoy-investigated-brawl/80037486/ http://www.usnews.com/news/sports/articles/2016-02-08/lesean-mccoy-investigated-over-fight-with-off-duty-cops Edited February 14, 2016 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Did they try to "rob" the bottle at gun or knife point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Check out the last few sentences in the article. I want to make it clear that just because someone makes an anonymous statement that it doesn't mean that it is true. But this addresses the receipt issue admittedly coming from a source that is unknown to be credible or not. After googling I got the same results on this issue of the receipt for the champagne. http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/02/08/mccoy-investigated-brawl/80037486/ http://www.usnews.com/news/sports/articles/2016-02-08/lesean-mccoy-investigated-over-fight-with-off-duty-cops The article says "The fight over the bottle of champagne appeared to result from a misunderstanding. Stanford said a member of the football players’ party thought a bottle belonged to his group but receipts showed it did not." The post you laud as "A lawyerly analysis. A concise and clear analysis. A convincing analysis. An accurate description of what happened" says "The intent initially was trying to rob a bottle of wine from these guys who have proof of ownership with a receipt." If there was a misunderstanding about the ownership of the bottle, to me that is different than "an intent to rob", but perhaps I simply don't understand a "lawyerly" analysis so as to find it "convincing". One time at my daughter's school, the parent of another child took my daughter's backpack and walked out the door with it, believing it belonged to his daughter, although I have receipts showing it to be ours. I believe this was a misunderstanding but perhaps that's actually no different than an intent to rob, in the hands of a lawyerly convincing analysis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 The article says "The fight over the bottle of champagne appeared to result from a misunderstanding. Stanford said a member of the football players’ party thought a bottle belonged to his group but receipts showed it did not." The post you laud as "A lawyerly analysis. A concise and clear analysis. A convincing analysis. An accurate description of what happened" says "The intent initially was trying to rob a bottle of wine from these guys who have proof of ownership with a receipt." If there was a misunderstanding about the ownership of the bottle, to me that is different than "an intent to rob", but perhaps I simply don't understand a "lawyerly" analysis so as to find it "convincing". One time at my daughter's school, the parent of another child took my daughter's backpack and walked out the door with it, believing it belonged to his daughter, although I have receipts showing it to be ours. I believe this was a misunderstanding but perhaps that's actually no different than an intent to rob, in the hands of a lawyerly convincing analysis? Didn't the person in the McCoy party show intent to rob by allegedly grabbing the bottle out of the cop's hands? I would understand your comparison to your daughter's backpack better if the other parent grabbed it out of your hands and then walked away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) The article says "The fight over the bottle of champagne appeared to result from a misunderstanding. Stanford said a member of the football players’ party thought a bottle belonged to his group but receipts showed it did not." The post you laud as "A lawyerly analysis. A concise and clear analysis. A convincing analysis. An accurate description of what happened" says "The intent initially was trying to rob a bottle of wine from these guys who have proof of ownership with a receipt." If there was a misunderstanding about the ownership of the bottle, to me that is different than "an intent to rob", but perhaps I simply don't understand a "lawyerly" analysis so as to find it "convincing". One time at my daughter's school, the parent of another child took my daughter's backpack and walked out the door with it, believing it belonged to his daughter, although I have receipts showing it to be ours. I believe this was a misunderstanding but perhaps that's actually no different than an intent to rob, in the hands of a lawyerly convincing analysis? Did you track down the mother and then punch her in the face and stomp on her when she was down? Even if she had the intent to steal your daughter's cute and beloved backpack (which she didn't) the forceful response would be the criminal act that would be addressed by the authorities. The central issue has little to do with robbing or believing someone robbed from anyone. The central issue is who assaulted who? Who initiated the fight? Who threw the punches and who stomped on who? The impending charge relates to the assault. The issue of robbing or misunderstanding is of little legal consequence although it does explain the reason for the brutal response. But he still didn't address whether the "victim" was talking ****. It doesn't matter whether the victim was talking smack or not. The response by the McCoy crew was not only an unjustified response but it was also a criminal act. There is no legal transgression in talking smack (which hasn't been established). There is certainly a legal transgression in punching someone in the face and stomping on a person when he is down. Edited February 14, 2016 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Did you track down the mother and then punch her in the face and stomp on her when she was down? Even if she had the intent to steal your daughter's cute and beloved backpack (which she didn't) the forceful response would be the criminal act that would be addressed by the authorities. The central issue has little to do with robbing or believing someone robbed from anyone. The central issue is who assaulted who? Who initiated the fight? Who threw the punches and who stomped on who? The impending charge relates to the assault. The issue of robbing or misunderstanding is of little legal consequence although it does explain the reason for the brutal response. It doesn't matter whether the victim was talking smack or not. The response by the McCoy crew was not only an unjustified response but it was also a criminal act. There is no legal transgression in talking smack (which hasn't been established). There is certainly a legal transgression in punching someone in the face and stomping on a person when he is down. Dude, I'm simply responding to your overwhelming encomiums on USABuffaloFan's post. You went all in: "A lawyerly analysis. A concise and clear analysis. A convincing analysis. An accurate description of what happened and how it relates to the elements in the law. You added clarity to an issue that many are trying to cloud." Since USABuffaloFan's post included the information "The intent initially was trying to rob a bottle of wine from these guys who have proof of ownership with a receipt. Just because it happened in a private club (bar), people want to label this a "bar fight". A bar fight is over a disagreement and the impairment leads to over-aggressiveness and a few punches or wrestling. It doesn't lead to an assault of 4 men beating 1 man after an attempt to take ones possessions. This will not be arguable, the intent to steal and injure happened, just the degree of the assault may slightly be in question because the assault was stopped in progress." and you eulogize this as convincing, accurate, clear, concise, and adding clarity to an issue, it would appear that 1) you believe that intent to rob was clear 2) you believe that assault did not begin over a disagreement with impairment leading to over-aggressiveness but rather as an unprovoked follow-on response to an intentional act of theft 3) you believe this will not be arguable Me, I think nothing much was clarified by that post. First off, a disagreement over property does not indicate intent to rob, with or without a receipt. Second, as you point out, the key issue isn't whether there was intent to rob, it's who assaulted whom. We've seen cell phone video of the fight in progress, but nothing at all that shows who initiated the fight or the assault and nothing in that post adds clarity to that critical issue. Third, if we stipulate Porter and company initiated the assault, whether their actions and their injuries amount to aggravated assault under the laws of Pennsylvania seems to be another critical issue. Moreover, that post says "A bar fight is over a disagreement and the impairment leads to over-aggressiveness and a few punches or wrestling", I don't think that's clear at all. I've seen the aftermath of plenty bar fights which started with some stupid disagreement and ended with the guy's friends piling on over-aggressively. They aren't pretty and don't take place by Queensbury rules these days. I don't see what evidence we have that excludes a bar fight starting with a disagreement and ending in over-aggressiveness. I don't see where asserting that the incident started with "intent to rob" (when no evidence of "intent to rob" has been presented) adds any clarity or credibility to a claim that the fact someone broke up the fight shows "intent to injure" which consistitutes aggrevated assault. I really appreciated GKG's careful and thorough attempt to dissect the wording of the law on this point and show how the courts have interpreted it, but that didn't seem to indicate "intent to injure" as sufficient, nor a fight needing to be broken up as demonstrating that something rises to the level of aggrevated assault. But hey, it appears accurate and adds clarity for you, whatevs. Didn't the person in the McCoy party show intent to rob by allegedly grabbing the bottle out of the cop's hands? I would understand your comparison to your daughter's backpack better if the other parent grabbed it out of your hands and then walked away. No, I don't think so, not to my understanding. If the parent grabbed the backpack out of my hands under the belief it was their child's backpack, their intent would be to recover their property, not to rob me. To have intent to rob, they would have to clearly understand that it was my daughter's backpack and grab it anyway. At least that's my understanding. So to return to McCoy, no, they didn't show intent to rob by grabbing the bottle from the complainant's hands unless it was not a misunderstanding (as has been reported, including in the 2 articles John linked) but rather they understood clearly it was the officer's bottle and grabbed it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Did you track down the mother and then punch her in the face and stomp on her when she was down? Even if she had the intent to steal your daughter's cute and beloved backpack (which she didn't) the forceful response would be the criminal act that would be addressed by the authorities. The central issue has little to do with robbing or believing someone robbed from anyone. The central issue is who assaulted who? Who initiated the fight? Who threw the punches and who stomped on who? The impending charge relates to the assault. The issue of robbing or misunderstanding is of little legal consequence although it does explain the reason for the brutal response. It doesn't matter whether the victim was talking smack or not. The response by the McCoy crew was not only an unjustified response but it was also a criminal act. There is no legal transgression in talking smack (which hasn't been established). There is certainly a legal transgression in punching someone in the face and stomping on a person when he is down. Maybe not for talking smack, but talking **** is good cause for an unmitigated ass-whooping. He will, however, have the burden of establishing enough evidence of his affirmative defense to raise reasonable doubt in the mind of the finder of fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) Maybe not for talking smack, but talking **** is good cause for an unmitigated ass-whooping. He will, however, have the burden of establishing enough evidence of his affirmative defense to raise reasonable doubt in the mind of the finder of fact. On the streets, this is understood. But in Pennsylvania law, is it considered legal justification for a physical altercation? There are legal concepts "fighting words" and "incitement" but these seem to be interpreted in an increasingly narrow way? Edited February 14, 2016 by Hopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) God you keep harping over this Do you REALLY think this is what is in the best interests of the team? To cut a talented running back on a team where the scheme is to stress the run? To hear some of you describe it, you'd think it's somehow a good thing when your $40 million back faces an imminent arrest warrant on what may result in a felony conviction. Edited February 14, 2016 by truth on hold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 To hear some of you describe it, you'd think it's somehow a good thing when your $40 million back faces an imminent arrest warrant on what may result in a felony conviction. May Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Breaking: Shady is tweeting about Kobe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Breaking: Shady is tweeting about Kobe Are they both retiring? Or going to the same party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spillerhighlife Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 This entire mccoy scenario seems like the plot of an "Its always 'shady' in Philadelphia" episode. PS y'all are cray cray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pattisonave/Jim-Kenneys-comments-about-LeSean-McCoy-Steve-Smith-criticized.html Not sure if the Mayor's and others' comments have been discussed here, but I just read the linked story today. It really looks like the mayor and the head of the PBA are more pissed off about their cops LOSING the fight than anything else. Edited February 15, 2016 by Gugny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pattisonave/Jim-Kenneys-comments-about-LeSean-McCoy-Steve-Smith-criticized.html Not sure if the Mayor's and others' comments have been discussed here, but I just read the linked story today. It really looks like the mayor and the head of the PBA are more pissed off about their cops LOSING the fight than anything else. I don't know about that, and not to get too political, but I think it's more about how there have been numerous stories about cops using excessive force against civilians, mainly blacks, and here you have black men using excessive force against cops, albeit off-duty ones. And the funniest thing about McNesby's comments is that Shady is from nearby Harrisburg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDS73 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pattisonave/Jim-Kenneys-comments-about-LeSean-McCoy-Steve-Smith-criticized.html Not sure if the Mayor's and others' comments have been discussed here, but I just read the linked story today. It really looks like the mayor and the head of the PBA are more pissed off about their cops LOSING the fight than anything else. I don't think anyone other than some Bills fans see it as an actual "fight", so I kinda doubt that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) I don't think anyone other than some Bills fans see it as an actual "fight", so I kinda doubt that. What are you talking about? Bunch of drunk guys fighting at 2am sounds like a fight. Someone's gotta take the L Did anyone find out if they were talking #%^* ? Edited February 15, 2016 by Ryan L Billz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts