WeownU Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 I mock your logic, because, it proves my point. Jurors happen to be among the most informed individuals with regards to the specific case at hand. The "most people" who you had previously referred to are -- correct me if I wrong, but I know i'm not -- the average sports fan who follows the NFL. All I'm saying is you have no more of an idea that he is innocent than I have an idea that he is guilty. If he were a dallas player you would hope he goes to jail. Simple as that. But, the fact that he is now in the petite jury and it has gone to court in the first place, is more than enough reason to question his innocence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chow184 Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 sometimes opposing fans just need to STFU this is a skins forum not a dallas forum,and arguing here is going to get you any where besides hopefully banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 All I'm saying is you have no more of an idea that he is innocent than I have an idea that he is guilty. If he were a dallas player you would hope he goes to jail. Simple as that. Right, I'd hope he would go to jail, but I certainly wouldn't claim that I know that he's guilty. This also contradicts what you originally wrote, but whatever. Before, you were so sure that even if found innocent, "don't kid yourself and believe he really was [innocent]". But, the fact that he is now in the petite jury and it has gone to court in the first place, is more than enough reason to question his innocence. How so, when the core argument of the defense at this point is that the prosecuting attorney's motives for bringing the case to trial were potentially skewed? You don't know this, either, any more than you or I know true innocence or guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Class???? None of these teams are run with Class. None of them. You draft players (well the redskins don't) you hope they represent your team well, if they do, great, if they don't.........they at least better be a big time player, or else they're cut. You think Lil Danny cares about class? Or Jerry Jones? Jerry cared about class for about 2 years. The two years after Irvin got in trouble he cared about class...........then when we started losing, the class is out the window, its about winning. We drafted Antonio Bryant.........no class. He didn't have enough talent so BAM, he was gone. Now we're on the TO chapter. Again.....no class. So the Cowboys have just about as much class as playoff wins in the past 10 years - NONE!! Was Snyder classy when he didn't give Shottenheimer a fair shake to get Spurrier? Nope - I didn't like the move then, but things turned out alright. But that again pales in comparison to the treatment Landry and Johnson got, and they did infinitely more for the Crackboys than Schotty did for the Skins. So once again, while the Skins have made classless moves, the Crackboys far surpass it. Or when Spurrier spouted off about Jim Haslett? Spurrier is an idiot - but then again do I need to bring up Switzer here? Or when Gibbs said dallas fans are "Ugly". I sincerely hope your kidding about this one...do you know a joke when you hear it? Class.............give me a break. You are in a whole different world than anyone else if you think the NFL cares one iota about class. Gimme a break. Obviously you do, or you wouldn't be making such a stink about Taylor. And, as I recall, one of the reasons they drafted Taylor was he did not have any character issues at the time. And how many times have players with "character issues" plummeted down draft boards? Moss is in Oakland, Culpepper is in Miami for those very reasons. TO is in Dallas for that reason. So yeah, I am going to say teams do care about class to a certain extent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DaysLatr Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 I guess he needs to go snort some coke and bang hookers with michael irvin before you like him then. Now that's funny right there. Oh man, it's true.... ouch!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCRunner Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 This is incorrect. If they dropped the charges, they could refile them at a later date. Double jeopardy is activated when the jury selection begins and the initial jury panel is seated. Not to quibble, but jeopardy attaches after jury selection is completed and the jury is sworn. Sometimes a jury is selected one day and the trial begins the next morning or even after a weekend - it is always wise to wait to swear in the jury until just before the trial begins just in case some last minute problem arises like a missing essential witness. This is a rare occurrence but it is awfully sweet when it does occur. In a bench trial (just a judge - no jury), jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn and gives testimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 A bit more class??????? You've got to be kidding me. Lets run down just how classy ST is........DUI Not returning calls from Coach Gibbs Spitting incident Waving a gun at people. Real classy. C'mon Art, you sould be more objective than that. . When is the SOB going on permanent vacation? Listen up, you are a pathethic troll and dispicable liar. DUI? He was found not guilty, you stupid inbred. Spitting incident? Inconclusive, at best - it's on tape. Gibbs issue? Irrelevant and now resolved. Waving a gun at people? The case, based on trumped up charges by a seedy asst. DA, hasn't even gone to trial yet. Go back to Brokeback Mt. Zone where you belong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XSean21TaylorX Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rf0LDiYP7LsJ:profile.myspace.com/index.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Duser.viewprofile%26friendid%3D28631678+ultimate+myspace+survey!+YOU+YOU+YOU...+Full+Name::,%20%20+Michael+C.+Grieco.+Nicknames::,%20%20+esq+...+Prosecutor/Assistant+State+Attorney+Felony/Homicide+.&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 heres a link to griecos page before he edited it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOVA2Tampa Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rf0LDiYP7LsJ:profile.myspace.com/index.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Duser.viewprofile%26friendid%3D28631678+ultimate+myspace+survey!+YOU+YOU+YOU...+Full+Name::,%20%20+Michael+C.+Grieco.+Nicknames::,%20%20+esq+...+Prosecutor/Assistant+State+Attorney+Felony/Homicide+.&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1heres a link to griecos page before he edited it! Is that for real??? What a tool...ST gonna walk, baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 I don't know that he really hyped himself. I know thats the popular theory around this board, but I haven't seen any evidence saying he did. In fairness, I haven't looked nearly as hard as most of you. Now if he did do this, then absolutely, I'm with you 100%. I just havnen't seen that evidence yet.Just because the guy has a myspace account for his business doesn't mean that he only is taking on ST to promote the business. I have to believe any DA anywhere before he takes someone to trial MUST have other DA's look at the case to make sure he has enough evidence right? Especially on a high profile case right? Cause the state doesn't want to be made to look like fools, right? I'm no lawyer, but I would have to believe somebody signed off on pursuing the case. Also, isn't this the petite jury? Or is it the Grand Jury? If it is the Petite, then they already held a hearing and there were obviously enough citizens who said ".......yes, there is enough evidence to go to trial............. cause thats what Grand Juries do. i feel for chris henry.how will he wiggle out of his? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Jeopardy in a jury trial attaches when the court impanels the jury. In a bench trial, it attaches when the judge begins receiving evidence. Under these rules, the prosecution can theoretically dismiss a case after voir dire and before impanelment, but that tactic won't be without without potential consequences since there may be some serious issues, such as those with due process, that will arise.As for Grieco, that guy deserves to be fired. The dude used his public office for private gain. Hello?! He outta to feel lucky to get away with just being fired. The defense is wise to seek dismissal this time (as opposed to the last, which barely passed the laugh test). One theory they should explore is the fact that the jury pool has been tainted by all the celebrity and other extrinsic stimuli that has now irreparably damaged any prospect at any even-handed proceeding. The prosecution, of course, could argue that the trial be moved if that's the case, but with all the delay, Taylor can respond by contending that his right to a speedy trial is now being infringed upon (provided that he's not given a blanket waiver of that right already). At any rate, any delay for that reason may very well result in the judge simply getting rid of the case given the endless, comical machinations this case has gone through. Golden, What are your thoughts on Greico's prospects for disbarrment or substantial rebuke from the Fl Bar Association? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 "Most people" do make final judgements in regards to the law. They're called "Jurors". Maybe you've never served on one, but I have several times. It is people like you and me that decide the fate of people like ST every day of the week. Its called the legal system.............check into it. Ummm, I think it's YOU who needs to check into the legal system. Jurors make judgment calls on matters of FACT, not the LAW. The latter is the domain of the judicial branch of government. If you watched that Three Ring Circus (i.e., three branches of government) cartoon on Schoolhouse Rock back in the day, you'd have a small clue as to what each branch of government does. As to your assertion regarding the fact that Taylor may be acquitted but in fact may have done the deed he was charged for, refresh your recollection on your reference to Steve Garvey and figure how that can't be at odds with your logic here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Golden,What are your thoughts on Greico's prospects for disbarrment or substantial rebuke from the Fl Bar Association? Bar associations are a joke. They've got too much going on to go after lawyers like Greico. The high priority cases -- and usually the main ones they pursue -- are those where a lawyer screws a client. Why? Because a lawyer is a fiduciary to the client and, because there's that position of trust, a breach of it is a pretty serious thing. Other than that, bar associations are too busy holding receptions for judges, hosting seminars, and dealing with bar exams. Maybe, just maybe, the Florida bar will be different. But I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Not to quibble, but jeopardy attaches after jury selection is completed and the jury is sworn. Sometimes a jury is selected one day and the trial begins the next morning or even after a weekend - it is always wise to wait to swear in the jury until just before the trial begins just in case some last minute problem arises like a missing essential witness. This is a rare occurrence but it is awfully sweet when it does occur. In a bench trial (just a judge - no jury), jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn and gives testimony. Missing or conveniently absent witnesses are not such a rare thing. If that happens, the judge will often allow some latitude in continuing a trial provided that the party requesting the continuance was somehow not at fault for the witness in absentia. If it's the prosecution that's short on the witness, they might have a speedy trial problem if the defendant hasn't already waived that right (which is, nowadays, almost pro forma). If the defense has someone disappear on them, they'll somehow concoct some argument that the missing witness is a violation of their due process because of something the prosecution did (like continuing a trial). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangSteve Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Thauy looks guilty to me. Are sure taylor wasn't featured on america's most wanted? He pulled a gun on someone! I cannot believe you guys are backing this fool Strait from a fan of the drug ring in Dallas :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.