- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Saints met with Joe Mixon tonight...
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:35 am to nola000
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:35 am to nola000
quote:
Yes. How is it not? If someone hits you in the face what are you supposed to do? He doesnt know what this woman is capable of. What if she pulls out her CCW and caps his arse out of feminazi anger? He quelled the threat.
Under that rationale, he would have been justified shooting her after a minor slap. She assaulted him and could have been carrying.
1
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:37 am to TigerBait1127
quote:
If only he made a statement about his group following her into the store....
This may be what ruined his case. I wasnt aware of the details I was only responding to what I saw in the video. If he followed her into the store that may be seen as a threat.
BTW, a DA charging you doesnt mean shite. Neither does a plea deal indicate guilt. You could have an ambitious young DA trying to make a name for himself on a high profile football player case and Mixon may have taken the plea deal to avoid a court case, especially with a big payday and the draft coming up.
Do you even law, bro?
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 11:38 am
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:38 am to nola000
quote:
She initiated contact, twice. She has no case. Period.
Then why did Joe Mixon agree to an Alord plea, which means that he professes innocence while acknowledging the there is evidence to convict? Since he was convinced he did nothing wrong at the time (he repeated that gem in Dec 2015), why not fight to prove his innocence?
Oh yeah, he would have been convicted in the criminal case.
I'm just amazed that Mixon didn't flinch at all when she slapped him. After all, Mixon stated:
quote:
And after that, like, I was so shocked, because she hit me so hard. It felt like a dude hit me.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:42 am to NOFOX
quote:
Under that rationale, he would have been justified shooting her after a minor slap.
Could have, sure. I agree with a previous poster who mentioned that the response has to be in proportion to the threat, in most cases. In this case the response seemed equal. An aggressor pushes and slaps in the face. Victim punches back. Eye for an eye.
It all comes down to what a jury would decide and Mixons attorney must have thought it would be hard to get a jury that would see things impartially and side with law and instead be sympathetic to the woman simply because she is a woman(reverse sexism, btw) since there are people like Lsupride87 out there.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:43 am to nola000
quote:
In this case the response seemed equal.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:43 am to nola000
quote:
BTW, a DA charging you doesnt mean shite. Neither does a plea deal indicate guilt.
quote:
You could have an ambitious young DA trying to make a name for himself on a high profile football player case and Mixon may have taken the plea deal to avoid a court case, especially with a big payday and the draft coming up.
This happened in 2014
quote:
Do you even law, bro?
Dude:
quote:
She has no case. Period.
Turned out there was a case since he pleased guilty now, right?
quote:
Again, he has legal standing to defend himself considering he didnt initiate physical contact.
Well apparently not much of one.
Crazy. The law and court system, along with Mixon, say you're wrong.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:44 am to nola000
quote:
It all comes down to what a jury would decide and Mixons attorney must have thought it would be hard to get a jury that would see things impartially and side with law and instead be sympathetic to the woman simply because she is a woman(reverse sexism, btw) since there are people like Lsupride87 out there.
fricking crazy for having, and I'll quote:
quote:
no case. Period.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:48 am to bbrownso
quote:
which means that he professes innocence while acknowledging the there is evidence to convict?
There is always evidence to convict in every case. That doesnt mean the evidence is convincing enough for a jury to go guilty. He may not have liked his chances because juries are made up of people and people are emotional and irrational.
quote:
why not fight to prove his innocence?
Again, deciding to fight your case in court can be a losing battle even if the letter of the law is on your side. Juries return incorrect convictions all the time. He probably would have had to appeal and ruin his chance at the draft. He chose a payday over battling for his innocence.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:50 am to nola000
quote:
. He probably would have had to appeal and ruin his chance at the draft. He chose a payday over battling for his innocence.
This happened in 2014...He's played in 2 seasons since then after being "suspended for the 2014 season"
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:50 am to Fun Bunch
Fun Bunch.
Ok. You laugh. So if a guy does a roundhouse kick to your 3rd vertebrae your only legally justified response is to also execute a perfect roundhouse kick to the attackers 3rd vertebrae?
Youre splitting hairs.
Ok. You laugh. So if a guy does a roundhouse kick to your 3rd vertebrae your only legally justified response is to also execute a perfect roundhouse kick to the attackers 3rd vertebrae?
Youre splitting hairs.
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 11:51 am
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:55 am to TigerBait1127
quote:
Turned out there was a case since he pleased guilty now, right?
Ok. So poor choice of words. In a perfect legal world she would have no case. People with their soft emotions frick that up. Would you like to argue my points or just engage in the logical fallacy of "the fallacy fallacy".
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:56 am to TigerBait1127
quote:
Well apparently not much of one.
Crazy. The law and court system, along with Mixon, say you're wrong.
We will never know since he chose not to have his day in court. He arranged a plea deal.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 11:58 am to TigerBait1127
quote:
This happened in 2014...He's played in 2 seasons since then after being "suspended for the 2014 season"
Again, do you even law, bro? Court cases drag on for years. Add on a possible appeal and he could have been dealing with this forever.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:00 pm to nola000
quote:
There is always evidence to convict in every case. That doesnt mean the evidence is convincing enough for a jury to go guilty. He may not have liked his chances because juries are made up of people and people are emotional and irrational.
LINK
quote:
Every person who willfully and wrongfully commits any act which grossly injures the person or property of another, or which grossly disturbs the public peace or health, or which openly outrages public decency, including but not limited to urination in a public place, and is injurious to public morals, although no punishment is expressly prescribed therefor by this code, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
With the video showing him punching the victim, and the fact that the woman had injuries, this constitutes a prima facie case against Mixon (i.e. a case that would result in a guilty verdict under the law).
So apparently, his attorney felt that the fact that the her friend supposedly said a racial slur and then she pushed and then slapped Mixon, would not be enough to rebut that evidence.
Let's not overlook the fact that she was talking to another OU running back, David Smith. This fact caused the police to question whether the racial slur was uttered.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:04 pm to nola000
quote:
Ok. So poor choice of words. In a perfect legal world she would have no case. People with their soft emotions frick that up. Would you like to argue my points or just engage in the logical fallacy of "the fallacy fallacy".
He is physically dominant to her and could have easily defended himself with less force. She lightly slapped him. He knocked the shite out of her. Under your thought process, if a 7 year old kicks you in the shin, you would be justified in knocking him unconscious.
The response in force has to be similar. He was not simply defending himself. He was assaulting a woman. A slap from a small woman is not equivalent to a haymaker from a 6' 220 jacked up athlete even if you think so.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:14 pm to bbrownso
quote:
With the video showing him punching the victim, and the fact that the woman had injuries, this constitutes a prima facie case against Mixon (i.e. a case that would result in a guilty verdict under the law).
Depends on the State. Most States have laws that allow assault in defense of ones self or in the defense of others. For example. LA RS 14:22.
quote:
So apparently, his attorney felt that the fact that the her friend supposedly said a racial slur and then she pushed and then slapped Mixon, would not be enough to rebut that evidence.
That may have been the case. I didnt follow it closely.
quote:
This fact caused the police to question whether the racial slur was uttered.
I think in todays climate many people are skeptical of such claims with the frequency that the race card is played. This is another problem with law in society. Fervor and zeitgeist.
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 12:27 pm
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:19 pm to NOFOX
quote:
The response in force has to be similar. He was not simply defending himself. He was assaulting a woman. A slap from a small woman is not equivalent to a haymaker from a 6' 220 jacked up athlete even if you think so.
The law doesnt differentiate between the size, profession or physical stature of the individuals involved. A juror might but the law doesnt.
If what you say is true then no woman ever should be physically manhandled by law enforcement during arrest since almost all male law enforcement officers are much stronger and bigger in stature than most women and trained in hand-to-hand combat.
The lesson here to all women: being a woman doesnt give you license to be a bitch. A lesson I will teach my daughter. KEEP YOUR frickING HANDS TO YOURSELF.
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:24 pm to nola000
quote:
Depends on the State. Most States have laws that allow assault in defense of ones self of in the defense of others. For example. LA RS 14:22.
Well I linked and quoted the Oklahoma law that Mixon was charged under in his case.
So yes, there was clearly a prima facie case against him that he would have needed to rebut to not be guilty.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:26 pm to bbrownso
quote:
So yes, there was clearly a prima facie case against him that he would have needed to rebut to not be guilty.
Im sure OK has self defense laws as well.
Posted on 3/8/17 at 12:32 pm to nola000
quote:The law is not on his side here.......
It all comes down to what a jury would decide and Mixons attorney must have thought it would be hard to get a jury that would see things impartially and side with law and instead be sympathetic to the woman simply because she is a woman(reverse sexism, btw) since there are people like Lsupride87 out there.
According to you, you are legally allowed to knock out a 10 year old for kicking you in the shin or slapping you in the face......
This post was edited on 3/8/17 at 12:33 pm
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News