ChiefPowhatan17 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Only if he had attended the off season workouts last year this would've never happened. Hind sight is 20 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants 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 . Do we have a link about the witnesses, and they're character? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Given the suspicions about the supposed victims in this case, it's not surprising that the case may change. Any change would seem to be a good thing for him because right now he appears to be the target of the prosecution effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva 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. Let me drop some knowledge, Art. Actually, the distinctions between common law assult and battery are often ignored by many jurisdictions and typically both can be charged even in the absence of physical contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Do we have a link about the witnesses, and they're character? No, but if the witnesses are the people who stole the ATV's then ST's defense lawyers will have a field day destroying their credibility during cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiddleField Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 completely pointless article - the most interesting aspect is that ST turns 23 tomorrow. 23?!? pls don't let this man go to jail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synergist Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I would tend to believe this is a positive thing for S.T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 All I know is based on that myspace link for this lawyer, he is a total lightweight that is likely to get just creamed by some heavyweight defense lawyers ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsman4u Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Yeah absense at the OTAs last year kind of hurt ChiefPowhatans' comment. And yeah, we all kind of ended up with an OTA an ATV and an APB on that one. But yeah even if you work for yourself, its best to try and be where you should when you should. Hell I try not to be out too much after sun set...yeah I know you got to live your life right...but man its dangerous as hell out here..and I'm down in Petersburg, VA. But when I come to my parents place, Clinton , MD...I don't mess around too much after dark...use too when I was at Birney Elementary/ Eastern H.S., D.C. But now? Naaah... I might want to send Sean some flowers (no they won't be red roses) but just to let him know: hey thanks great season and we (The 12th Man) care and appreciate you as one of our favorites. Sean's cool, humble and he'll stop and say hi too you, too. Sean's cool. But everything will work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Do we have a link about the witnesses, and they're character? Yeah. Their criminal records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 This news combined with Sharpstein's comment in the Post a couple of days ago that they were OK with ST being in DC because of recent "new developments" makes me think the changes are for the good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eeyeats 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. let me just add to what skins4eva was saying- art, to clarify your above statement, assault isn't just "angry words" it's the intentional creation, other than by mere words, of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of imminent bodily harm. in taylor's case, the alleged presence of the gun, coupled with the alleged words/threats by taylor is what made this assault. the gun he had served as an aggravating circumstance, which makes the charge more severe. just trying to be helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 let me just add to what skins4eva was saying-art, to clarify your above statement, assault isn't just "angry words" it's the intentional creation, other than by mere words, of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of imminent bodily harm. in taylor's case, the alleged presence of the gun, coupled with the alleged words/threats by taylor is what made this assault. the gun he had served as an aggravating circumstance, which makes the charge more severe. just trying to be helpful. Yes, sir---very good definition of assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eeyeats Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Yes, sir---very good definition of assault. thanks, nice to know the law school loans weren't a complete waste i'm VERY interested to see what transpires in this case over the next couple days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsman4u Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 let me just add to what skins4eva was saying-art, to clarify your above statement, assault isn't just "angry words" it's the intentional creation, other than by mere words, of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of imminent bodily harm. in taylor's case, the alleged presence of the gun, coupled with the alleged words/threats by taylor is what made this assault. the gun he had served as an aggravating circumstance, which makes the charge more severe. just trying to be helpful. Great info. Can you post your reference....where's the source document of this definition...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Are you in law school now or did you graduate already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Great info. Can you post your reference....where's the source document of this definition...? go to black's law dictionary...probably online Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eeyeats Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Are you in law school now or did you graduate already? i graduated last year and am practicing in maryland, mostly in the baltimore area. you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 graduated last year too--practicing in NYC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 http://lawyerintl.com/modules/dictionary/search.php assault An act by a defendant that places the plaintiff in apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive bodily contact. crim. law. An assault is any unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness; for example, by striking at him or even holding up the fist at him in a threatening or insulting manner, or with other circumstances as denote at the time. an intention, coupled with a present ability, of actual violence against his person, as by pointing a weapon at him when he is within reach of it. 6 Rogers Rec: 9. When the injury is actually inflicted, it amounts to a battery. (q. v.) 2. Assaults are either simple or aggravated. 1. A simple assault is one Where there is no intention to do any other injury. This is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment. 2. An aggravated assault is one that has in addition to the bare intention to commit it, another object which is also criminal; for example, if a man should fire a pistol at another and miss him, the former would be guilty of an assault with intent to murder; so an assault with intent to rob a man, or with intent to spoil his clothes, and the like, are aggravated assaults, and they are more severely punished than simple assaults. General references, 1 East, P. C. 406; Bull. N. P. 15; Hawk. P. B. b. 1, c. 62, s. 12; 1 Russ. Cr. 604; 2 Camp. Rep. 650 1 Wheeler's Cr. C. 364; 6 Rogers' Rec. 9; 1 Serg. & Rawle, 347 Bac. Ab. h. t.; Roscoe. Cr. Ev. 210. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Slap on the wrist incoming. #36 errr, #21 will be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsman4u Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 http://lawyerintl.com/modules/dictionary/search.php 1 East, P. C. 406; Bull. N. P. 15; Hawk. P. B. b. 1, c. 62, s. 12; 1 Russ. Cr. 604; 2 Camp. Rep. 650 1 Wheeler's Cr. C. 364; 6 Rogers' Rec. 9; 1 Serg. & Rawle, 347 Bac. Ab. h. t.; Roscoe. Cr. Ev. 210. Okay skins4eva, good post; got it and thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 let me just add to what skins4eva was saying-art, to clarify your above statement, assault isn't just "angry words" it's the intentional creation, other than by mere words, of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of imminent bodily harm. in taylor's case, the alleged presence of the gun, coupled with the alleged words/threats by taylor is what made this assault. the gun he had served as an aggravating circumstance, which makes the charge more severe. just trying to be helpful. I have absolutely NO reason to doubt your legal definition of assault. But, the application of assault by the people doing the charging don't always match the legal definition. Taylor, undoubtedly pulled up hard on some guys he thought stole his stuff, pointed a gun and said, "You'd better let me know where my stuff is." Perhaps more colorfully. Then, later, he drove back and got into some fisticuffs without a gun, which is simple battery. Maybe that's aggravated assault. Maybe it isn't. Point being, hearing the charge might make you think something very bad happened, when, in reality, something fairly typical -- a man demanding his stuff back from someone who took it -- happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountdrago Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 let me just add to what skins4eva was saying-art, to clarify your above statement, assault isn't just "angry words" it's the intentional creation, other than by mere words, of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of imminent bodily harm. in taylor's case, the alleged presence of the gun, coupled with the alleged words/threats by taylor is what made this assault. the gun he had served as an aggravating circumstance, which makes the charge more severe. just trying to be helpful. Just to clarify a bit, as defined by Florida law - to be assault there has to be the intentional, unlawful threat to do harm to another coupled with the apparent ability to follow through on that threat AND doing some act that creates a well founded fear in the person so threatened. If the allegations are true and proved (note I make a distinction), there is a very real crime here above just words spouted in anger (you are safe Art, at least in Fla.). I'll side with Taylor here for now, since he should be presummed innocent and for what we know of the evidence (which is very little) it seems that nothing can be proved (whether or not he actually did anything). But if the allegations are proved, he will deserve little sympathy by anyone who thinks that the crime alleged to be committed was no real crime at all. Now, he might deserve sympathy by those of us with a temper that can, at times, lead us to take actions, in the heat of the moment, that are not well thought through. But, alas, at least whatever mistakes most of us make, are not prone to being picked up by every paper and media outlet in the country within a few hours of the event occurring. For reference the definition of assualt and aggrevated assualt in the State of Fla. are included below: Assault - An assault is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent. Aggravated Assault - An aggravated assault is an assault: with a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or with an attempt to commit a felony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 http://lawyerintl.com/modules/dictionary/search.phpassault An act by a defendant that places the plaintiff in apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive bodily contact. crim. law. An assault is any unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness; for example, by striking at him or even holding up the fist at him in a threatening or insulting manner, or with other circumstances as denote at the time. an intention, coupled with a present ability, of actual violence against his person, as by pointing a weapon at him when he is within reach of it. 6 Rogers Rec: 9. When the injury is actually inflicted, it amounts to a battery. (q. v.) 2. Assaults are either simple or aggravated. 1. A simple assault is one Where there is no intention to do any other injury. This is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment. 2. An aggravated assault is one that has in addition to the bare intention to commit it, another object which is also criminal; for example, if a man should fire a pistol at another and miss him, the former would be guilty of an assault with intent to murder; so an assault with intent to rob a man, or with intent to spoil his clothes, and the like, are aggravated assaults, and they are more severely punished than simple assaults. General references, 1 East, P. C. 406; Bull. N. P. 15; Hawk. P. B. b. 1, c. 62, s. 12; 1 Russ. Cr. 604; 2 Camp. Rep. 650 1 Wheeler's Cr. C. 364; 6 Rogers' Rec. 9; 1 Serg. & Rawle, 347 Bac. Ab. h. t.; Roscoe. Cr. Ev. 210. That just makes me laugh. Holding a fist in an insulting manner can be assault. Laws amuse me :0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.