Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

can we lock this thread now?

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

Is there much else to discuss today, dirtbag?

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]The big thing is how his teammates feel about him, and going by Cooley's recent comments in the Post he has the support of his team.

Fans are quick to forgive, especially once he starts smacking people around on the field, it won't be too long before fans are cheering for him again.[/QUOTE]

You may be right, but personaly I don't know that I can ever cheer him. This guy is waving guns around! This is not the run of the mill spoiled athelete behavior we all learn to overlook. This is serious...if this is true he is a complete thug regardless if anyone stole his ATV or not. Why does he even own a gun? I will most likely cheer a good play he makes in the heat of the moment but I will never cheer him individually. I guess time could change how I feel provided he cleaned up his act, but it will take more than just a few nice plays on the field to change my opinion of this thug...

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=RedskinRat]September 19th, Taylor crushes Drew Bledsoe on a saftey blitz, the love fest continues.[/QUOTE]

Not for me it doesn't! I will cheer the play and the other 10 men who executed it and the coaches who designed it, but none of my cheers will be for thug boy. This f-ing guy was waving guns around like he was trying out for a starring role in "Boys in the Hood II". There is a reason he could get 20 years for this.

I have been a diehard skins fan for 30 years...you don't need to love everyone who wears the uniform to love the team. I have a hard time imagining that I will ever like Sean Taylor as much as I would have before this incident. I just can't like a thug. If he gets out of this and keeps his nose clean for a while time may change the way I feel, but that is not going to happen this season.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=celts32]I have been a diehard skins fan for 30 years...you don't need to love everyone who wears the uniform to love the team. I have a hard time imagining that I will ever like Sean Taylor as much as I would have before this incident. I just can't like a thug. If he gets out of this and keeps his nose clean for a while time may change the way I feel, but that is not going to happen this season.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely agree Celts. I NEVER cheered for Deion Sanders, even when he played for the skins because I couldn't stand him as a person. It never got in the way of my fanaticism of the Skins, but him, I was not going to cheer for.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

Just saw this article from the washington post. Looks like it answers the question of mandatory minimums.

[url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20050606-123849-8725r.htm"]http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20050606-123849-8725r.htm[/url]

If ST only pointed the gun at the alleged victims, then he's looking at 3 years minimum if found guilty. If he fired the gun, he's looking at 20 years minimum. As far as plea bargaining, he had better hope he didn't fire the gun, because if he did, there is almost certainly no way the prosecutor would drop the charge down low enough for Taylor to avoid significant jail time. In other words, if he fired the gun, he could probably deal down to aggravated assault (3 years in jail). If all he did was point it, he may be able to plea down to simple assault (misdeamor with probably little or no jail).

Any good safeties left on the market? (I'm only partially joking)

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]Absolutely agree Celts. I NEVER cheered for Deion Sanders, even when he played for the skins because I couldn't stand him as a person. It never got in the way of my fanaticism of the Skins, but him, I was not going to cheer for.[/QUOTE]

Deion is the example that I had in my head but I didn't mention his name. I never once cheered Deion and really he never did anything near as bad as Taylor. I just couldn't stand him and whenever there was a good play that he was involved in(Few and far between) it even took a little away from my enjoyment that he was the one who made the play. Deion was an impossible guy to like.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=celts32]Deion is the example that I had in my head but I didn't mention his name. I never once cheered Deion and really he never did anything near as bad as Taylor. I just couldn't stand him and whenever there was a good play that he was involved in(Few and far between) it even took a little away from my enjoyment that he was the one who made the play. Deion was an impossible guy to like.[/QUOTE]

Exactly my point..........and you're right.......even Deion had better judgment than ST. If I could never bring myself to cheering for Deion, then how the heck am I going to cheer for a guy like ST? We're definitely on the same page here celts.:food-smil

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

i wouldn't cheer for deion. as for st, i would be willing to take all his jail time just so he could continue playing for the skins. that's how much of a skins fan i am, i'd take a hit for the team.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

Remember how "Prime Time" would return kicks for us? He'd just sit there dance around for 2 seconds and the get PLOWED.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=dirtbag2112]Remember how "Prime Time" would return kicks for us? He'd just sit there dance around for 2 seconds and the get PLOWED.[/QUOTE]

LOL......made Morton look like a pro bowler........ahh the memories.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]LOL......made Morton look like a pro bowler........ahh the memories.[/QUOTE]

How I HATED the move when we signed Neon Deion..........now this one ya gotta blame Snyder because that was HIS boy/his move............

:doh:

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=monk81]How I HATED the move when we signed Neon Deion..........now this one ya gotta blame Snyder because that was HIS boy/his move............

:doh:[/QUOTE]

Indeed you are correct Monk........at least it seems like Danny Boy has been learning when you compare those days to our current off-season (either that or he's just smart enough to know to stay out of personel decisions and let JGibbs and GWilliams handle it all).

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]Indeed you are correct Monk........at least it seems like Danny Boy has been learning when you compare those days to our current off-season (either that or he's just smart enough to know to stay out of personel decisions and let JGibbs and GWilliams handle it all).[/QUOTE]

Yes PSUSKINSFAN21........Snyder has matured as an owner......although he revealed a bit of the old fire, with his threat to Coles about not trading him and buying him plasma TV and making him sit on his butt and watch the games all season....but even with that......calmer heads prevaled (ie Joe Gibbs).......but I did enjoy Snyder's comments...............

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

"here's the story of the hurricane, the man the authorities came to blame!"

(that's probably all of the song that applies)

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=monk81]Yes PSUSKINSFAN21........Snyder has matured as an owner......although he revealed a bit of the old fire, with his threat to Coles about not trading him and buying him plasma TV and making him sit on his butt and watch the games all season....but even with that......calmer heads prevaled (ie Joe Gibbs).......but I did enjoy Snyder's comments...............[/QUOTE]

:lol: Gotta admit.......it was pretty funny...........could you imagine the face of Coles if BestBuy would have showed up at his doorstep with a new plasma screen and a card from Snyder? It would have read like a Mastercard commercial:
One disgruntled WR sitting at home all season: $9.5 million,
One 50 inch plasma screen: $7,000,
Saying "F You" to your least favorite NFL player in a unique and inventive way: PRICELESS!

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

I wish Snyder would send me a Plasma to watch all the games on!

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

1200+ posts?! Goddamn.

Daseal, tell him you're not going to be a fan anymore and that you love yourself.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]In practice, thousands of defendants are convicted on a daily basis entirely because of eye-witness testimony. Eye-witness testimony is really only questioned when the defense is trying to show mistaken identity. [/QUOTE]

I understand that perfectly well, i'm just saying that scientificly, witnesses and memory tend to be very unreliable as far as accounting for how things actually were when there is a time gap between the event and the recounting (from many many psych experiments etc)...

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

PSU,

While it is true that thousands are convicted on a (weekly/monthly) basis entirely because of eye-witness testimony, it is far from true that eye-witness testimony is questioned when the defense is trying to show mistaken identity.

The purpose of cross-examination is to impeach the credibility or reliability of the witness. [B]I'd say in 99% of cross-examinations, eye-witness testimony is questioned on grounds other than potential mistaken identity.[/B]

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

Now they're saying Taylor didn't fire the shots, he was shot [URL=http://washtimes.com/sports/20050607-120506-9397r.htm]at[/URL]

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

At least he didn't FIRE it, thank God.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]PSU,

While it is true that thousands are convicted on a (weekly/monthly) basis entirely because of eye-witness testimony, it is far from true that eye-witness testimony is questioned when the defense is trying to show mistaken identity.

The purpose of cross-examination is to impeach the credibility or reliability of the witness. [b]I'd say in 99% of cross-examinations, eye-witness testimony is questioned on grounds other than potential mistaken identity.[/b][/QUOTE]

Before my quote is taken out of context, I was simply responding to the statement that eye witness testimony is unreliable and would be insufficient. In fact, eye witness testimony is all that most prosecutors need to convict someone of a crime. Regardless of what phsychiatrists have said or what studies are done, in our legal system eye witness testimony is still highly regarded and acts as very damaging evidence against a defendant. Furthermore, a witness may only testify as to the information he knows at the time of questioning. Prior unsworn-to statements are inadmissible as hearsay unless they are being used to impeach the witness for inconsistencies.

Second, I am well aware of the purposes of cross examination. However, as it relates to "eye-witness" testimony, and given the facts that we have so far, I don't believe the defense has much to work with here. Obviously mistaken identity won't work. That, by the way, is essentially the same thing as reliability. When an eye-witness's testimony is questioned on reliability grounds, the defense is essentially challenging whether the eye-witness was in a position to see what he says he saw. They would challenge the lighting, the eyesight of the witness, whether the witness was under the influence of any drugs or alcohol, etc. I've not yet seen any facts that would support a challenge along those lines, but, of course, it is still early.

As to credibility, again, I'm not so sure there are strong grounds to challenge the witnesses there either. First, assuming the alleged victims called the police, it seems more likely than not that they didn't actually steal the ATVs (of course that's an assumption on my part). Second, even if they did steal them, accusing ST of aggravated assault doesn't help them escape their own liability for stealing the ATVs, so I wouldn't be so sure that the court would allow a credibility challenge based on the alleged theft. As I'm sure you know, there would be a challenge to the relevance of that accusation by the prosecutor, and the court would have to decide if the probative value of the information regarding the alleged theft outweighs its prejudicial effect. Furthermore, as you know (at least under the federal rules of evidence.....not sure about Florida), evidence of past crimes is only admissible if there was a conviction. Evidence related to specific instances of conduct (i.e. the alleged theft, to which no conviction has been obtained) are only admissible to the extent they challenge a witness's truthfulness or untruthfulness. The theft of the ATVs is unrelated to truthfulness because it has no bearing on whether the witness has a propensity to tell the truth.

All I'm saying is let's not just downplay eye-witness testimony and think "oh heck, is that all they have? A guy saying ST pointed a gun at me." I think we need to recognize that in the typical case, that's all the prosecutor really needs to get a conviction. The battle over challenging the credibility of the witness would be a fierce one, and would be one that both sides would brief thoroughly (which neither of us are prepare to do here).

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

FINALLY someone said something. I was worried for a minute. :)

Seriously though, anyone think he'll actually do jail time if convicted?

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]FINALLY someone said something. I was worried for a minute. :)

Seriously though, anyone think he'll actually do jail time if convicted?[/QUOTE]

If convicted of what he's been charged with? ... he has to. Mandatory minimum of 3 years. If he pleas down to a lesser charge, I'd say either no time or only during the next off-season.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

Go plea bargain go...

After all this, I couldn't be more unhappy with him. He has insurance to replace his ATVs if they WERE stolen. Not only that, who knows if those people had guns themselves (it seems like SOMEONE did) and he could have been killed?

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]Now they're saying Taylor didn't fire the shots, he was shot [url="http://washtimes.com/sports/20050607-120506-9397r.htm"]at[/url][/QUOTE]

This is certainly some very good news for Taylor. At least now the defense knows where they start their bargaining from. If he fired the gun, he was looking at 20 years. Now, we know that the worst case scenario is three years on the aggravated assault charge. If they can bargain down from that charge, there is a very real possibility he could escape jail time.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[b][u]VERY[/u][/b] Poor decision making, no doubt MC. :banghead: :smashfrea

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

You think there is any way the facts might shift to where he was pointing a gun in self defense? Or is that chance completely gone?

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]You think there is any way the facts might shift to where he was pointing a gun in self defense? Or is that chance completely gone?[/QUOTE]

Hey, there's always a chance. It doesn't seem plausible right now just because why would the other guys point a gun at ST, not fire on him, have him pull a gun on them, still not fire at ST, and then fire on him after he comes back a second time? So right now, it doesn't seem like that's what happened, but who knows.....it's still really early.

The more likely scenario is ST shows up, waives a gun at them, punches one of them, then takes off. By the time he comes back 10 minutes later, the other guys have had time to go get their guns and it's all ganster warfare from there. Again though, all speculation at this point.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

Argh.

I don't know why I'm trying to defend him. The fact is he DID point a gun at someone, and in my book that is almost inexcusable. How can he have SO many problems in only ONE freakin' YEAR?!

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

Got me. If he'd have just shown up at those "voluntary" workouts like I've been bitching about for weeks, we wouldn't have these problems. ;)

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

I know this. He definitely hangs out with a terrible crowd in Miami.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

Oh now, let's not be hasty. I'm sure his friend plays baseball for the Hurricanes and that's why he just happened to have a baseball bat nearby......LOL :laughing-

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

The thing I'm most entertained by is that Taylor felt the NEED to get a gun or a bat. Isn't he diesel enough?

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]Before my quote is taken out of context, I was simply responding to the statement that eye witness testimony is unreliable and would be insufficient.

All I'm saying is let's not just downplay eye-witness testimony[/QUOTE]

wow, you obviously totally misread what i was saying... eye witness testimony is UNRELIABLE at best, but i never said it was INSUFFICIENT.

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

PSU,

First, let me say that I agree with much of your post. Anything I didn't quote I agreed with. Second, let me say that even though I disagree with some of your post - it was thoughtful, articulate, and intelligent. But, the following is what I disagree with:


[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]
Second, even if they did steal them, accusing ST of aggravated assault doesn't help them escape their own liability for stealing the ATVs, so I wouldn't be so sure that the court would allow a credibility challenge based on the alleged theft. As I'm sure you know, there would be a challenge to the relevance of that accusation by the prosecutor, and the court would have to decide if the probative value of the information regarding the alleged theft outweighs its prejudicial effect. [/QUOTE]

That Taylor's ATVs were stolen would come up in the trial (if there is one). It doesn't have to be brought up to overtly impeach the credibility of the victim - it is as likely to come up during the prosecutor's opening statements, direct examination or cross-examination of witness as it is for the defense. Moreover, assuming that the victims are the same people who shot at Taylor, that they allegedly shot at Taylor is going to impeach the credibility of the victims in the eyes of the jury.

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]
Furthermore, as you know (at least under the federal rules of evidence.....not sure about Florida), evidence of past crimes is only admissible if there was a conviction. Evidence related to specific instances of conduct (i.e. the alleged theft, to which no conviction has been obtained) are only admissible to the extent they challenge a witness's truthfulness or untruthfulness. The theft of the ATVs is unrelated to truthfulness because it has no bearing on whether the witness has a propensity to tell the truth.[/QUOTE]

Evidence of past crimes is admissible in many states even when there are no convictions....they're called "prior bad acts/crimes." Also evidence of prior crimes is admissible in many states for purposes other than impeachment (I'd be more than happy to cite some specific statutes if you really want me to).

Do you really think that the issue of the stolen ATVs wouldn't come up in trial? If so, I very much differ with you. The stolen ATVs go to Taylor's motive and are relevant to a defense Taylor might mount (I'd be happy to elaborate if you want me to).

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

If I'm not mistaken, Florida has recently altered its laws concerning the use of deadly force. This state has been granting MORE rights to gun owners to use their weapons, even when they can retreat. Here's a quote from a recent post article on the new law:

[COLOR=Red]Florida law already lets residents defend themselves against attackers if they can prove they could not have escaped. The new law would allow them to use deadly force even if they could have fled and says that prosecutors must automatically presume that would-be victims feared for their lives if attacked.[/COLOR]

It now seems easier to prove self defense, even though the penalties for gun crimes has gone up. Sean knew these guys were dangerous. He went to ask them about the ATVs, felt threatened, pulled his piece, even though he could have retreated. A scuffle insued. Sean and co. left the scene without shooting. They were later SHOT AT by the folks they confronted, substantiating the fear that led to the pulling of the pistol.

I very much doubt that this is anything like what occurred, but the door is open to self defense, given the new law. Also, the prospect of this defense may make a plea bargain more likely.

Now, Sean's gun was most likely not registered, but we haven't seen a charge of possessing an unlicensed fire arm--Florida is a big NRA state. So the tough sentencing rules are somewhat offset by the rights of gunowners. We'll see how it plays out in the courts.

[URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html]Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense[/URL]

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

[QUOTE=JWsleep]If I'm not mistaken, Florida has recently altered its laws concerning the use of deadly force. This state has been granting MORE rights to gun owners to use their weapons, even when they can retreat. Here's a quote from a recent post article on the new law:

[COLOR=Red]Florida law already lets residents defend themselves against attackers if they can prove they could not have escaped. The new law would allow them to use deadly force even if they could have fled and says that prosecutors must automatically presume that would-be victims feared for their lives if attacked.[/COLOR]

It now seems easier to prove self defense, even though the penalties for gun crimes has gone up. Sean knew these guys were dangerous. He went to ask them about the ATVs, felt threatened, pulled his piece, even though he could have retreated. A scuffle insued. Sean and co. left the scene without shooting. They were later SHOT AT by the folks they confronted, substantiating the fear that led to the pulling of the pistol.

I very much doubt that this is anything like what occurred, but the door is open to self defense, given the new law. Also, the prospect of this defense may make a plea bargain more likely.

Now, Sean's gun was most likely not registered, but we haven't seen a charge of possessing an unlicensed fire arm--Florida is a big NRA state. So the tough sentencing rules are somewhat offset by the rights of gunowners. We'll see how it plays out in the courts.

[URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html]Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense[/URL][/QUOTE]


JWSleep! That is a very creative and thoughtful defense! Call D. Rosenhaus!

Re: Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault
 

Unfortunately JWSleep, the right of self-defense doesn't extend to situations where you (ST) go looking for criminals (the thiefs).