skinsaddict Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 that artical had absolutly no worthwhile information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiJo Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I think it sounds like the DA knows he doesn't have a case and he's trying to bargain to save face. When he says the whole case is on the table I assume that to mean they're going to work out a guilty plea to a charge that doesn't carry the mandatory jail time. I think this is good news. This answer is correct :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Obviously the case against Taylor is questionable as the law, itself, is ludicrous in the first place. Mandatory jail time for simply HOLDING a gun is just a silly law for America to have on the books. But, beyond the foolishness of a state legislature that would put something like this on the books, the only witnesses against Taylor are people of low character who later shot at Taylor, yet, who do not face any charges for actually shooting a gun. The state went after the "star" in a way they'd never go after a regular citizen and in the end, probably just wants to show a Sean Taylor conviction for anything to boost a political future -- if that would even do so . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milliondollarslim Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 i think additional evidence will be presented by the prosecution to link Taylor to the Kennedy assasination. Of course Sean will deny involvement being the scoundrel that he is. "but judge i wasn't even born back then yada yada yada" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I kinda wish they'd start so, they can get it over with. In the end I think it'll be a bunch of consolations on both sides. You know the plaintiffs are looking for some money in the end. ST seems to have his mini dream team lawyers in place. The quicker they get it over with the more ST can just concentrate on getting on with his life. P.S. Hey ST if you're reading this, man you stand to lose more than the average Joe. I know you wanna stand up for your rights but sometimes its not worth it. Just walk away. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Obviously the case against Taylor is questionable as the law, itself, is ludicrous in the first place. Mandatory jail time for simply HOLDING a gun is just a silly law for America to have on the books. But, beyond the foolishness of a state legislature that would put something like this on the books, the only witnesses against Taylor are people of low character who later shot at Taylor, yet, who do not face any charges for actually shooting a gun. The state went after the "star" in a way they'd never go after a regular citizen and in the end, probably just wants to show a Sean Taylor conviction for anything to boost a political future -- if that would even do so . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasRoane Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 If SeanT was an average Joe this thing would have never made it on the docket. No prior convictions? No one really shot or hurt? The DA is trying to make a name for himself. I think the addition to the legal staff made this guy blink. He might make a name for himself. In a bad way! Hopefully though, SeanT has learned a big lesson. So I'm glad he's feeling a little uncomfortable about all this. If that's the case then it will help him in the long run. Having him show up for workouts is a very good sign. Maybe Gibbs and GW are getting to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommd Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I looked in the papers down here and couldn't find anything about a change in the case. Wouldn't be surprised to see this thing go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkart Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Obviously the case against Taylor is questionable as the law, itself, is ludicrous in the first place. Mandatory jail time for simply HOLDING a gun is just a silly law for America to have on the books. But, beyond the foolishness of a state legislature that would put something like this on the books, the only witnesses against Taylor are people of low character who later shot at Taylor, yet, who do not face any charges for actually shooting a gun. The state went after the "star" in a way they'd never go after a regular citizen and in the end, probably just wants to show a Sean Taylor conviction for anything to boost a political future -- if that would even do so . It's not just holding a gun Art, it's for holding a gun during a CRIME, that's when the mandatory comes into play. We can own, hold and shoot guns down here, just not while committing a crime. I'm not saying Taylor is guilty of anything, I'm just saying the mandatory jail time is not for just holding a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMetal Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Ok, I know not all of us in here sling burgers for a living Lawyers, legal analysts, pundits: What does this most likely mean? 1) Additional charges 2) Dropping some charges 3) Reclassifying charges 4) Dismissal of all charges Overall, is this more likely a positive development for Sean or a negative one? I realize I'm just grasping for speculation, but that's what we do here right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 It's not just holding a gun Art, it's for holding a gun during a CRIME, that's when the mandatory comes into play. We can own, hold and shoot guns down here, just not while committing a crime. I'm not saying Taylor is guilty of anything, I'm just saying the mandatory jail time is not for just holding a gun. What crime, exactly? No one was hit. There was some talking stuff, for sure. But, the same crime then happens every day on the basketball courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaK9Trainer Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 What crime, exactly? No one was hit. There was some talking stuff, for sure. But, the same crime then happens every day on the basketball courts. My take on the "whole case on the table thing" is that charges may be dropped altogether for whatever reason. Could be lack of evidence, tampered with evidence, illegally obtained evidence, OR...simply someone coming forward and changing their story. It could be a lot of things but I think all of this bodes well for Sean Taylor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarvman Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 What crime, exactly? No one was hit. There was some talking stuff, for sure. But, the same crime then happens every day on the basketball courts. I thought someone was hit with a baseball bat ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did I hear something about witness tampering at one point ? Or was that another case ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkart Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 What crime, exactly? No one was hit. There was some talking stuff, for sure. But, the same crime then happens every day on the basketball courts. Art, he was charged with a crime (some kind of assault), I'm not saying the charge is true. Just saying it's not for just holding a gun, but for holding a gun during an "alleged" crime. The gun law is not so ludicrous or silly when when you add "during the act of a crime". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 damn, the trials starts in a little over a week. anyone else a little nervous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hogskin1 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 What crime, exactly? No one was hit. There was some talking stuff, for sure. But, the same crime then happens every day on the basketball courts. Art, it really sounds like you should go back and read about the charges. While I believe (based on all the reports) that the state has absolutely no case against ST, he clearly WAS accused of a crime. The accusers claim he and his friend assaulted them. They CLAIM that one was hit with a club by his friend. Even though ST is not accused of wielding the club, if that DID happen while he and his friend were going after these lowlifes, AND if he WAS holding a gun, then the state has it 100% right. Guys do not gang up on a basketball court and go after other guys, while one of them CLUBS a victim. That is 100% the wrong tack to take on this case. Here is what it will come down to: Is there ANY real evidence, other than the so-called victims' statements, that ST did have a gun?? I really do not think so. Is there ANY real evidence that ST's "accomplice" really did club anyone?? I strongly doubt it. ST's friend (reportedly not even a close friend), had the opportunity to go completely free of charges simply by ratting out ST. He refused and stuck to his original story. If all the reports of the above are accurate, ST has nothing to worry about. Let's hope that is the case!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I think it sounds like the DA knows he doesn't have a case and he's trying to bargain to save face. When he says the whole case is on the table I assume that to mean they're going to work out a guilty plea to a charge that doesn't carry the mandatory jail time. I think this is good news. That's exactly what's going on...i don't think they're going to get a guilty plea...maybe a no contest to a lesser included offense. Let me add one more point: if there was any witness tampering...then we could actually see more charges added, although I find that very unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critz1407 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Really this artcile has no meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Art, he was charged with a crime (some kind of assault), I'm not saying the charge is true. Just saying it's not for just holding a gun, but for holding a gun during an "alleged" crime. The gun law is not so ludicrous when when you add "during the act of a crime". There you go. I'll take that. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I don't understand, why was this article even written? There was no information given at all. It was almost like Elfin just wanted to get people to start speculating about what he could possibly be talking about. Yes, it looked like a modifier for charges was missing. They've already charged him, haven't they? So they'd be considering adding, altering or dropping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins4life234 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I think they are ethier goign to try a plea bargin, maybe like 100 hrs service, propation, and like a month in jail. Or just drop the charges.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkart Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 There you go. I'll take that. . Right after I typed the word "alleged" I thought that would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Sean Taylor WILL not plea bargain to anything especially if it requires him to miss game time next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsman4u Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 man whats goin on serious? i feel sorry 4 ST bet hes really nervous about all this. hopefully though this case cleares up and ST can get back 2 playing football 4 the skins. and maybe this time he can stay out of trouble. Sean's not in trouble, who said that? He has a matter at hand, and he's taking care of it and isn't worried. If he departs Redskin Park today or prior to APR3 then be worried, if not don't worry. Sean is okay. :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Hogskin1, Sounds like you ought to know what battery is and what assault is. No one was charged with hitting anyone with anything. One of Taylor's friends was SAID to be carrying a bat. But, no one was struck with it. Assault is verbal in nature and ludicrous in the extreme as a general crime. Assaulting someone merely requires some anger to the words you say to them. I assaulted the hell out of my wife last night for spending $1,000 on pictures of my child :0. This is a simple situation where Taylor and some buddies jumped up on some guys who they think -- likely correctly as street info on such things is pretty reliable -- stole property from him. He probably cornered these guys with his buds and said something to the effect of, "You must be crazy taking stuff from me. You'll get it back to me or you're gonna bleed." Then, he and his boys drove off, only to be shot at by these guys. Yet, no charges for that. No charges or investigation for that OR the stolen property. Only business for Sean doing a little manning up. I like what he did. It resonates to the baser intincts in me. Should to most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.