LeSean McCoy allegations

[Doc Brown]

4 minutes ago, njbuff said:

If nothing comes of this pertaining to McCoy, would the NFL still have legs to suspend McCoy?

 

I would think not, but Goodell is more "shady" than McCoy's nickname.

Roethlisberger got 4 games without being charged, arrested, or convicted so who knows.

[DCOrange]

26 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

 

Pretty sure there are court papers asking her to leave, and I'm pretty sure the MULTIPLE previous evictions indicates that, yes, she is in fact, a squatter...

 

I would guess that her lawyer is saying:

 

1. She's never technically been a squatter because she's never unlawfully lived somewhere. The lawyer would argue she's always had a legal case for living where she lives.

2. That McCoy has never personally asked her to leave; hence all the references to other people doing things for him (i.e. a non-lawyer submitting legal papers to a minor, McCoy's mother taking things from the house without McCoy ever talking to Cordon, etc.

[Lurker]

6 minutes ago, Uncle Joe said:

Maybe she was looking for a place across the Pond. I hear the Jags play there often and they have NFL players.

 

The perfect solution would be for her to move in with Marcel Dareus.   That would be a match made in heaven...

[Royale with Cheese]

6 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:

Welcome back, Shady! We never had a doubt!

 

Shady needed a dad like Jack Arnold.

[Ittakestime]

6 minutes ago, njbuff said:

If nothing comes of this pertaining to McCoy, would the NFL still have legs to suspend McCoy?

 

I would think not, but Goodell is more "shady" than McCoy's nickname.

 

So a random person says something on social media and that is going to be the basis for suspension?

 

if that is the case, you will have a lot of accusations against players to get them suspended.

[Gugny]

Just now, Ittakestime said:

 

So a random person says something on social media and that is going to be the basis for suspension?

 

if that is the case, you will have a lot of accusations against players to get them suspended.

 

Edelman got suspended without knowing what he got popped for.

[Ittakestime]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

Edelman got suspended without knowing what he got popped for.

 

What?  He got suspended for a failed test.

[uticaclub]

33 minutes ago, Yav said:

I have had issues myself with off duty cops who got drunk and started crap. Cops seem to think because they are cops they can get drunk and be jerks to people and cause problems. Sometimes you need to put them in their place with a good ass kicking. Being a cop doesn't give them a right to get drunk and start **** and it should give them the right to break laws. I don't care what someone does for a living, if you're gonna be a jerk and start something you're gonna get cracked in the head.

Exactly, cop, accountant, sales manager, construction worker, no matter the profession people get drunk, act like an ass, and need an ass kicking here and there 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, SouthNYfan said:

I was laughing at the notion that people think that if it turns out shady was sending somebody to get stuff from his house, and that person took it upon themselves to go Scarface on the residents, it's as bad as what Rice did (which was awful).

 

If it comes out that McCoy sent people to do his collection work for him and didn't 100% make it clear that "no force...no one gets hurt", then I personally would kinda think what he did was worse than Rice.  Legally, I think it could also be considered worse.

[YoloinOhio]

42 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

Pistol Whipped on a Dime?

That’s just wrong

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, Ittakestime said:

 

What?  He got suspended for a failed test.

 

Edelman positive test was “triggered by a substance that wasn’t immediately recognizable, and there are scientists analyzing it.”

 

So he was suspended because they found something that nobody can identify.  If that happened to a Buffalo Bill, there would be a 152-page thread going within days of it happening.

[YoloinOhio]

9 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

 

I would guess that her lawyer is saying:

 

1. She's never technically been a squatter because she's never unlawfully lived somewhere. The lawyer would argue she's always had a legal case for living where she lives.

2. That McCoy has never personally asked her to leave; hence all the references to other people doing things for him (i.e. a non-lawyer submitting legal papers to a minor, McCoy's mother taking things from the house without McCoy ever talking to Cordon, etc.

I read that statement and thought that she has no proof he asked her to leave with those specific forms of communication.  But that certainly doesn’t mean he didn’t ask her. I don’t see Shady as the type to type up a formal follow-up communication in an email after telling her to move out to her face, or on InstaSnapFaceChatGram.

[PromoTheRobot]

So what now? Jeremy White already had Shady cut and thrown out of the league...................while waiting for the evidence.

Edited July 13, 2018 by PromoTheRobot

[Royale with Cheese]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

If it comes out that McCoy sent people to do his collection work for him and didn't 100% make it clear that "no force...no one gets hurt", then I personally would kinda think what he did was worse than Rice.  Legally, I think it could also be considered worse.

 

I would agree with this.  Rice absolutely shouldn't have done what he did but his seemed more impulsive and I wouldn't be surprised if alcohol was involved.

 

If McCoy did plan this out.....then it would be worse IMO.

[Dablitzkrieg]

7 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

So what now? Jeremy White already had Shady cut and thrown out of the league...................while waiting for the evidence.

I wouldn't worry about anything that clown has to say.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Dablitzkrieg

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

If it comes out that McCoy sent people to do his collection work for him and didn't 100% make it clear that "no force...no one gets hurt", then I personally would kinda think what he did was worse than Rice.  Legally, I think it could also be considered worse.

This is starting to sound like a made for TV movie.....but I'm not sure if it'll be on Comedy Central or Lifetime...with all their other "I married a woman hater" feature length classics.

[Stank_Nasty]

47 minutes ago, Yav said:

I have had issues myself with off duty cops who got drunk and started crap. Cops seem to think because they are cops they can get drunk and be jerks to people and cause problems. Sometimes you need to put them in their place with a good ass kicking. Being a cop doesn't give them a right to get drunk and start **** and it should give them the right to break laws. I don't care what someone does for a living, if you're gonna be a jerk and start something you're gonna get cracked in the head.

I have an officer friend that has invited me out with other officer buddies..... I wont go anywhere with them anymore. they totally reinforce every stereotype I already had about cops.

 

I have very little doubt the officers in that incident a couple of years ago had it coming to them.

 

FTR I also train 3 different local state trooper/city police officers here at my gym and they are extremely kind people. so i'm not trying to bundle them all into that catergory. I just know first hand that some can be that "type"

Edited July 13, 2018 by Stank_Nasty

[SouthNYfan]

10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

If it comes out that McCoy sent people to do his collection work for him and didn't 100% make it clear that "no force...no one gets hurt", then I personally would kinda think what he did was worse than Rice.  Legally, I think it could also be considered worse.

 

Not necessarily.

They would have to prove he intended for force/injuries to be in the equation, he doesn't have to prove that he said they weren't.

[That's No Moon]

This is getting crazy.  The woman, her friends and the lawyer are trying to get this case tried in the court of public opinion and are doing it poorly.  Hence the multiple statements some of which now contradict each other, etc.  The only benefit to doing this for the client is if you are hoping for a settlement.  I would expect a decent lawyer with a case to advise their client to keep their mouths shut in order to prevent what is happening now.  You have the lawyer making statements that now contradict what her client actually said on the 911 call.  Presumably the lawyer's statement was made to address the Instagram post made by the friend who has now posted again saying that the lawyer forced her to take the post down but that she stands by what she originally said.  Well, dummy, that defeats the purpose of taking down the other post and is undercutting what the lawyer is trying to do.  You also have the contradiction of the original claim of bruises on the woman's wrist where the assailant couldn't get the bracelet off which I call BS because if someone just pistol whipped you and told you to take a bracelet off you are taking it off.  No person is that much of a hard ass staring down the barrel of a gun at 3am.  The bracelet was apparently one of the borrowed items that Shady had asked for previously so of course you'd want to include that in your statement right?  Except it doesn't make sense for someone to steal that from you because, as it was loaned to them in the first place, they still have to pay for it if it's not returned.  It would be a little odd for the bracelet suddenly to show up back at the jeweler's.  So now the story changes again to say it was only a ring that McCoy gave her as a gift, nothing else.  

 

My thoughts.

1. It makes no sense for this to have been set up by McCoy.  The assailant left without getting all the items in question.  There is no reason for them to do that.  They presumably had control of the situation, they then had the time and ability to go get whatever they needed to get before leaving.  Also, McCoy had already previously stated to police his apprehension regarding getting jammed up by this particular person over false claims.  He recognized the problem a year ago.  Did he suddenly forget when he supposedly set this crime up?  If he chose to ignore that knowledge he then set it up for the people to do a half-assed job?  The woman was just out of the country.  He knew she wasn't home based on security footage he controlled.  He could have had the house cleaned out while she was gone and claimed it was a burglary.  He didn't do that.  The security cameras were installed to make sure the woman didn't clean out the house or destroy the house.  The lawyer says there is no text or phone record or documentation form Shady telling her to leave.  Well, that's the lawyer telling you in her own words that McCoy hadn't contacted the woman in a very long time because in terms of phone records, anything could have been said in a phone call.  To say there is no record means there was no call. 

 

2.  It makes no sense for this to have been a targeted crime.  Again, they would not have left valuables in the house once they gained control of the house.  Nothing.  All the jewelry, cell phones, etc. would have been gone.  The woman certainly wouldn't have been left to call 911 as soon as the assailant left.  She'd have been found on the floor in zip cuffs by her son who heard the commotion, snuck out his window, and returned later.

 

3. It makes a TON of sense to have this set up by the victim herself.  It explains why that single specific piece of jewelry was taken and not anything else.  It explains why she was able to make a 911 call so soon afterward.  Let's get back to the 16 year old for a minute.  Why exactly had he climbed out of his window that night?  To avoid the crime?  Let's start with that.  He was smart enough to sneak out of the house and knew his mother was being robbed and assaulted.  He didn't go to the neighbor's house?  He didn't call the cops himself?  What 16 year old in his situation doesn't have a cell phone?  He was far enough away that his mother later said he was taking an Uber home.  Where the hell did he go that he was a cab ride away?  How did he learn that it was safe to come home if not for, again, the cell phone?  So, to me, all of that doesn't make a ton of sense so let's explore the sneaking out.  Maybe he snuck out to go do things 16 year olds do and picked a really bad night to do it.  OK that makes sense.  I want to know what time he left and where he went.  I also want to know what his plan was to get back in the house - climb back up?  That's not as easy as it sounds.  Did he leave the front door unlocked or bring his own key?  That seems more likely.  That also explains how another person could have entered the home without forced entry.  Why sneak out the window though?  Going out the window avoids the security cameras in the house which, again if you are a smart 16 year old is something you want to do, but Mom doesn't have control of the new cameras and can't see what you've been doing anyway.  Why the effort to avoid the camera then?

 

None of this means Shady DIDN'T set it up.  It's entirely possible.  I'm just not seeing the logic of it from a person who had clearly gone to great lengths to insulate himself from this person (not having any direct contact, sending his mother to get his stuff, etc.) and her ability to make false claims about him and who was already following the legal process to get her removed from the house.  Sabotaging all of that over 1 ring seems pretty stupid when he was a month away from completing the eviction process and being done with it.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

54 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

 

Pretty sure there are court papers asking her to leave, and I'm pretty sure the MULTIPLE previous evictions indicates that, yes, she is in fact, a squatter...

 

Legally, I think a "squatter" is someone who occupies property without the permission of the owner....usually abandoned or unoccupied property.

 

Apparently at the beginning of her occupancy of the house, McCoy purchased it and invited her to live there with him.  Since she had the permission of the property owner to occupy the property and lived there for a period of time (in Georgia, apparently >6 months), then as I understand it, no, she's not a squatter, she has tenant rights and thus must be evicted.