|
|
Post by toughatthetop on Feb 11, 2016 7:21:03 GMT 1
They had the same lawyer not common practice for two people accused as a lawyer representing 1 person is totally committed to trying to get their accusee off or minimise the damage now having the same lawyer for 2 is ludicrous
|
|
|
|
Post by livimoaner on Feb 17, 2016 13:36:21 GMT 1
Last sentence makes no sense...only a fool represents himself in court, so as soon as he was accused/charged he needed a lawyer regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty The principle of if he had obeyed the law and was doing the right things on the night the incident happened...he would not have needed a lawyer. |
|
|
|
Post by misdemeanor on Feb 24, 2016 18:33:29 GMT 1
As I said many moons ago, if you lie you eventually get caught. If you are prepared to do the crime, you need to do the time. If you are prepared to endanger someone's life same rules apply.
The lad was found guilty, end of, no maybes, buts or no. Guilty that`s it.....simples.
And the victim I see once again we rarely mention him. What if the victim had been your son or daughter? Different story then.
He got what was deserved for the crime committed he has now to serve the sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Feb 24, 2016 18:52:04 GMT 1
Where is anyone arguing that he is innocent?
|
|
|
|
Post by livimoaner on Feb 25, 2016 14:05:57 GMT 1
Where is anyone arguing that he is innocent? Someone had cut and pasted a facebook message from his bird saying how upset they were all because he was innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Feb 25, 2016 20:48:54 GMT 1
She's not on here though is she? And my reading of the reposting of it was more to say we shouldn't pontificate on something when we don't have or know all the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by toughatthetop on Feb 25, 2016 21:27:11 GMT 1
Facts are court and jury did him he knows he did it fact
|
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Feb 27, 2016 10:24:41 GMT 1
I'll say it again.... We all know he was involved, he admitted that much, the only denial was over using an "implement" and if I remember correctly he did not rule out that someone used an "implement" but denied it was him or his co-accused. Perhaps it is the use of an "implement" that his Mrs is claiming he is innocent of...which would be consistent with his own testimony. Another fact I will mention again is that the jury wanted the charge changed to exclude the use "of a bat or other implement" but the judge only amended the wording, thus the jury could only find him guilty as he had admitted involvement. Had there been separate charges, one relating to beating the guy up and another of using an "implement" then I suspect he'd have been found guilty of the one and innocent of the other, more serious charge....although clearly it was bad enough being involved at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by livimoaner on Feb 29, 2016 11:32:59 GMT 1
I'll say it again.... We all know he was involved, he admitted that much, the only denial was over using an "implement" and if I remember correctly he did not rule out that someone used an "implement" but denied it was him or his co-accused. Perhaps it is the use of an "implement" that his Mrs is claiming he is innocent of...which would be consistent with his own testimony. Another fact I will mention again is that the jury wanted the charge changed to exclude the use "of a bat or other implement" but the judge only amended the wording, thus the jury could only find him guilty as he had admitted involvement. Had there been separate charges, one relating to beating the guy up and another of using an "implement" then I suspect he'd have been found guilty of the one and innocent of the other, more serious charge....although clearly it was bad enough being involved at all. I think your argument is wrong. It is wrong on basic human grounds. If a person is being attacked you should help the person attacked. You may not be physically capable in which case you act as the best witness possible. So if instead of adding to the attack, he could either refuse to take part and or phoned the police...then he would not have been in court or have a shadow cast on his career. HE CHOSE BADLY. He is paying for that poor choice. |
|
|
|
Post by misdemeanor on Feb 29, 2016 14:23:30 GMT 1
I'll say it again.... We all know he was involved, he admitted that much, the only denial was over using an "implement" and if I remember correctly he did not rule out that someone used an "implement" but denied it was him or his co-accused. Perhaps it is the use of an "implement" that his Mrs is claiming he is innocent of...which would be consistent with his own testimony. Another fact I will mention again is that the jury wanted the charge changed to exclude the use "of a bat or other implement" but the judge only amended the wording, thus the jury could only find him guilty as he had admitted involvement. Had there been separate charges, one relating to beating the guy up and another of using an "implement" then I suspect he'd have been found guilty of the one and innocent of the other, more serious charge....although clearly it was bad enough being involved at all. Jesus...are you his Bird in disguise or something? FFS, he must be your love child. Never heard so much drivel in my days. Regardless whether the judge or whoever changed words or what ever circumstances evolved (none of us know because we were not there) the without question aspect is, he was in the presence of the guy being attacked, he did not stop it in anyway shape or form, Whether he struck the guy only he will know, but the evidence that has been presented to the Jury was cut and dried. They thought he was guilty and that is it. He has no defence, its not a "what if" scenario, regardless of "implement" Plus I will say again, have you given any thought to the victim?  ?..................Clearly not! |
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Mar 1, 2016 1:39:23 GMT 1
Where do you see me disputing that he was there? Where do you see me claiming he is innocent? Where do you see me putting forward a "what if" scenario? You have previously pegged him guilty, cut & dried no question about it....but now you're not even sure he even struck the guy. Make up your mind, cause if he didn't then he is innocent of what he was accused of. He was never charged with "standing by while the victim got a beating without trying to prevent it". And as you point out none of us were there...so how do you know the evidence presented to the jury was cut & dried? I recognise he hit the guy because (as I have said) he admitted it. But (as I have said) he denied using "a bat or other implement" - the jury wanted the charge amended to exclude these words so clearly they had some doubt as to whether he did use such a thing, therefore its not quite a case of "they thought he was guilty & that was it" but the judge said "I'll take bat out of the equation but not implement". These are all "facts" as reported in the press. So all I'm doing is regurgitating stuff that was already in the public domain, whereas you are actually contradicting yourself.
Actually, yeah I have thought about the victim, lost his job for being beaten up apparently...found that a bit odd. My reading of it is that he was that he may have been involved in instigating the incident or at least inflaming the situation....doesn't excuse what happened to him of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Mar 1, 2016 1:51:11 GMT 1
I'll say it again.... We all know he was involved, he admitted that much, the only denial was over using an "implement" and if I remember correctly he did not rule out that someone used an "implement" but denied it was him or his co-accused. Perhaps it is the use of an "implement" that his Mrs is claiming he is innocent of...which would be consistent with his own testimony. Another fact I will mention again is that the jury wanted the charge changed to exclude the use "of a bat or other implement" but the judge only amended the wording, thus the jury could only find him guilty as he had admitted involvement. Had there been separate charges, one relating to beating the guy up and another of using an "implement" then I suspect he'd have been found guilty of the one and innocent of the other, more serious charge....although clearly it was bad enough being involved at all. I think your argument is wrong. It is wrong on basic human grounds. If a person is being attacked you should help the person attacked. You may not be physically capable in which case you act as the best witness possible. So if instead of adding to the attack, he could either refuse to take part and or phoned the police...then he would not have been in court or have a shadow cast on his career. HE CHOSE BADLY. He is paying for that poor choice. I agree with you, I don't know what argument you think you are disagreeing with; I've never said what he did was right or acceptable at any level. The only thing I am querying is the point of law; initially when I read what his appeal was based on I thought it was tenuous; but the more I think about it the more I can see why his lawyer appealed on those grounds. Its almost like the judge forced the jury to find him guilty of being involved & using an implement by refusing to amend the charge beyond that despite the jury requesting it. I still think it was a long shot that the appeal would have been upheld though not as tenuous a reason as I initially thought. |
|
|
|
Post by misdemeanor on Mar 2, 2016 18:45:26 GMT 1
Where do you see me disputing that he was there? Where do you see me claiming he is innocent? Where do you see me putting forward a "what if" scenario? You have previously pegged him guilty, cut & dried no question about it....but now you're not even sure he even struck the guy. Make up your mind, cause if he didn't then he is innocent of what he was accused of. He was never charged with "standing by while the victim got a beating without trying to prevent it". And as you point out none of us were there...so how do you know the evidence presented to the jury was cut & dried? I recognise he hit the guy because (as I have said) he admitted it. But (as I have said) he denied using "a bat or other implement" - the jury wanted the charge amended to exclude these words so clearly they had some doubt as to whether he did use such a thing, therefore its not quite a case of "they thought he was guilty & that was it" but the judge said "I'll take bat out of the equation but not implement". These are all "facts" as reported in the press. So all I'm doing is regurgitating stuff that was already in the public domain, whereas you are actually contradicting yourself. Actually, yeah I have thought about the victim, lost his job for being beaten up apparently...found that a bit odd. My reading of it is that he was that he may have been involved in instigating the incident or at least inflaming the situation....doesn't excuse what happened to him of course. Do you think he will play for us again. Good behaviour would tell you that would eligible for parole in around a years time? The aspect whether I thought he has hit him, yes he is guilty so in that context he must have hit the guy. As for the victim maybe in scenarios there is two sides to a story... |
|
|
|
Post by toughatthetop on Mar 2, 2016 19:06:38 GMT 1
Where do you see me disputing that he was there? Where do you see me claiming he is innocent? Where do you see me putting forward a "what if" scenario? You have previously pegged him guilty, cut & dried no question about it....but now you're not even sure he even struck the guy. Make up your mind, cause if he didn't then he is innocent of what he was accused of. He was never charged with "standing by while the victim got a beating without trying to prevent it". And as you point out none of us were there...so how do you know the evidence presented to the jury was cut & dried? I recognise he hit the guy because (as I have said) he admitted it. But (as I have said) he denied using "a bat or other implement" - the jury wanted the charge amended to exclude these words so clearly they had some doubt as to whether he did use such a thing, therefore its not quite a case of "they thought he was guilty & that was it" but the judge said "I'll take bat out of the equation but not implement". These are all "facts" as reported in the press. So all I'm doing is regurgitating stuff that was already in the public domain, whereas you are actually contradicting yourself. Actually, yeah I have thought about the victim, lost his job for being beaten up apparently...found that a bit odd. My reading of it is that he was that he may have been involved in instigating the incident or at least inflaming the situation....doesn't excuse what happened to him of course. Do you think he will play for us again. Good behaviour would tell you that would eligible for parole in around a years time? The aspect whether I thought he has hit him, yes he is guilty so in that context he must have hit the guy. As for the victim maybe in scenarios there is two sides to a story... good behaviour would mean 18 months not 12 |
|
|
|
Post by Auldnick on Mar 2, 2016 20:38:35 GMT 1
Do I think he will play for us again? I suspect not but I would not be against it; I wasn't against him playing for us while he was awaiting his appeal & I certainly wouldn't be against him playing for us after he serves his time.
There are always two sides to these things; but regardless of provocation no one should suffer the type of beating the victim got; I still wonder if there were more assailants than the 2 who were done for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by livimoaner on Mar 7, 2016 12:48:02 GMT 1
Should a player play again?
I think that committing a crime should not be a bar, the type of crime is important.
So the two recent sex related crimes that have been in the press, in those cases the player should not be allowed to play football again because of the contact possible with vulnerable persons, (the young) like a teacher or policeman the player should be barred.
On other crimes such as theft or assault there should be no issue except if it had a football element, ie the player's attack was football motivated, then a decision should be made and I would think a suspension would be just, but not a life time bar.
|
|
?..................Clearly not!