Sean Taylor - Will he play this season?

[RedskinRat]

Yes or no? I get the feeling that we'll see him in Cow-Bitches uni after some jail time.

[Daseal]

He'll be acquitted.

[PSUskinsfan11]

He will play, it takes forever for this type of thing to get worked out. He will most likely get suspended by the league a few games like Jamal Lewis and maybe a few more by the skins. I am going to go out on a limb and say not only will he play but he will make the pro bowl.

[Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor]

i don't believe he is going to be convicted but he better be careful next time if he gets into that situation again. he will be a redskin not a cow-girl. e is just too valuable to our team.

[BossHog]

I read this type of felony is somewhat of a zero-tolerance law but, I haven't heard of a minimum sentence. I would hate to lose him for any time because he's one of the guys playing on defense who puts fear in opposing recievers hearts.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by BossHog

I read this type of felony is somewhat of a zero-tolerance law but, I haven't heard of a minimum sentence. I would hate to lose him for any time because he's one of the guys playing on defense who puts fear in opposing recievers hearts.

Minimum sentence is 3 years in jail if convicted of aggravated assault involving a gun (which is what he's been charged with). Minimum is 20 years if he fired the gun.

[BossHog]

Thanks PSU'. I just reread and understood another article. It doesn't look good. I would havet to say no. He won't play again... for us.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by BossHog

Thanks PSU'. I just reread and understood another article. It doesn't look good. I would havet to say no. He won't play again... for us.

It certainly looks like a tough case for ST at this point, but it's still early. Who knows what "facts" will be arising over the next few days. From what I've heard though, ST stands a very real chance at significant jail time.

[Daseal]

I don't see it, what sort of evidence do they really have on him?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I don't see it, what sort of evidence do they really have on him?

An eye witness saying "he pointed a gun at me." Find the gun and that's really all you need.

It doesn't hurt the prosecution's case either that he went there twice and got into a fight with one of the guys the second time, while his friend chased another with a baseball bat.

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

An eye witness saying "he pointed a gun at me." Find the gun and that's really all you need.

It doesn't hurt the prosecution's case either that he went there twice and got into a fight with one of the guys the second time, while his friend chased another with a baseball bat.

You know this is interesting. Because if the people did steal the ATV's, they'd get in trouble for that too. So I wouldnt be suprised if they all came to some agreement or somthing. I dont really know if that sort of thing would happen, I'm not a big legal guy.

However, at this point, I dont know if Taylor is oging to play or not. I defintley think he will get a slap on the wrist by either the league or Joe Gibbs; so he wont play a full season. But I wouldnt be shocked if he played at some point during the season.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

You know this is interesting. Because if the people did steal the ATV's, they'd get in trouble for that too. So I wouldnt be suprised if they all came to some agreement or somthing. I dont really know if that sort of thing would happen, I'm not a big legal guy.

Actually the fact that these alleged victims called 911 at all seems to suggest to me that they didn't steal the ATVs to begin with. If they did, why in God's name would they want the cops around? If they stole them, I would think they'd let it go, unless they are the dumbest criminals in history.

As to any deal, at this point it is out of both ST's and the alleged victims/thieves' hands. The prosecution has pressed charges. Once the state is involved, only the state can make the case go away. No private agreement between ST and the others would have any effect on the state prosecuting its case against ST.

[Daseal]

An eye witness, who happened to have stolen his ATV's? I'm sure the defense will have trouble poking holes in his credability.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Daseal

An eye witness, who happened to have stolen his ATV's? I'm sure the defense will have trouble poking holes in his credability.

Well, first you are making an assumption that they did, in fact, steal the ATVs. Putting that aside for a moment and assuming that you are correct, it would certainly make for a weaker case for the prosecution. However, let's not forget that the theft of the ATVs in NO WAY exonerates ST of his crime. It does not excuse it, and it will not be a defense to the charges. In fact, a rather significant battle (to which the jury would not be privy) would, I'm sure, take place between the prosecution and the defense as to whether or not the theft is even admissible to impeach the witness. The main reason being that accusing ST of this crime in no way helps the alleged thief escape liability for his own crime. Trust me when I say a full analysis of whether the alleged theft is admissible would take pages to brief, and I'd have to do some research into Florida evidence law to do it (and I don't have time and i'm guessing most people won't care), so let's just say the theft isn't a sure bet for ST to get off (again, assuming the alleged victim did, in fact, steal the ATV).

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Well, first you are making an assumption that they did, in fact, steal the ATVs. Putting that aside for a moment and assuming that you are correct, it would certainly make for a weaker case for the prosecution. However, let's not forget that the theft of the ATVs in NO WAY exonerates ST of his crime. It does not excuse it, and it will not be a defense to the charges. In fact, a rather significant battle (to which the jury would not be privy) would, I'm sure, take place between the prosecution and the defense as to whether or not the theft is even admissible to impeach the witness. The main reason being that accusing ST of this crime in no way helps the alleged thief escape liability for his own crime. Trust me when I say a full analysis of whether the alleged theft is admissible would take pages to brief, and I'd have to do some research into Florida evidence law to do it (and I don't have time and i'm guessing most people won't care), so let's just say the theft isn't a sure bet for ST to get off (again, assuming the alleged victim did, in fact, steal the ATV).

It's just ridiculous to pull a gun in that situation. Tayor has so much money it would be like you or I pulling a gun on someone for stealing your mountain bike. You can't threaten someone with death for thinking they might have stolen something.

If he caught the guys with the ATVs when he found them, whipped thier butts, and took his stuff back, I don't think I would have as much of a problem with it.