- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Messages
- 33,218
- Reaction score
- 44,411
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.You can't really compromise between felony and misdemeanor, and the key here is the felony. Dennard's attorney is already conceding on resisting arrest.
You wanted facts maybe you should read first before you comment. Clearly you have zero clue what the crime of disorderly conduct is. I have court tomorrow and I am going to let the prosecutors look at your post so we can laugh together.
You're clowning yourself. First, you got pretty much everything wrong in the post of yours that I initially responded to. Now, you're calling testimony "facts" when you know better. I have no dog in this fight and have avoided jumping on anyone, which is not particularly my inclination when a police officer says really wrong things about the law such as
when that's nowhere near the case in all situations.
Now, I'm going to leave off posting in response to you, because it's clear you have an agenda without information, since your retort had absolutely nothing to do with my actual post, and I don't care to get this thread sent to D.C. over someone of that ilk.
More facts
Nebraska Statutes > Chapter 15 > § 15-256 - Public safety; disturbing the peace; power to punish
Current as of: 2010
Check for updates
A primary city may punish disturbance of the peace or good order, clamor, intoxication, drunkenness, fighting, obscene or profane language, or other violations of the public peace by indecent or disorderly conduct, or blockading any street, sidewalk, way or space, or interfering with the passing of people.
I think it just got handed to you!
I wasn't commenting on the facts of the case. You're ridiculously biased and either don't read what people are posting or are in need of a remedial comprehension class. In either case, we're done here.
Regardless of whether or not we all agree on certain issues, it's still pretty interesting to hear the weigh ins of not only a police officer, but also an attorney too. Hearing the opinions of two experts is pretty cool, and just as in the case of real life, they are often differing viewpoints.
Let's hope that Dennard can get off as easy as possible, and continue his progression to becoming a quality CB on the field.
Wait, wait, you just told me that I should know the facts and I just posted the facts and I guess you were wrong and the fact pattern didn't favor your argument.
Ok not every state has grand jury. but does have PC hearings and a judge found PC and that is a fact.
Do yourself a favor and don't comment unless you know the story. Clearly you don't in this case. The ADA has been on record in the papers saying that they went to trial because the Cop refused to allow the felony to be pled down. Since the cop was off-duty, he is considered the victim. Not to mention that, as Deus pointed out, the ADAs tend to support what the officers want for the reason that they have to work with them on a regular basis.
Next, your experience doesn't mean anything because how each state prosecutes things is different.
Clearly you missed the part about the cop being OFF-DUTY. Second, getting into an argument is not disorderly conduct. If you arrested people for that, then you should be fired for wasting the taxpayer's money. Third, Kopsa's testimony mentioned nothing about Dennard assaulting someone prior to being told to leave.
Again, we only have the COP's word that he told Dennard to go home twice. As for what it sounds like to you, that and $5 will get you a Starbucks coffee. You'll have to forgive me but 99% of the time Cops stick up for other cops regardless of reality.
Or the cop who was not on duty but acting as a bouncer didn't really have a case to arrest Dennard in a bar full of witnesses to begin with and decided to make an example of Dennard by setting him up.
It makes no difference what you would do. You weren't the off-duty cop.
This is false. Only Kopsa claimed to have seen Dennard drop his shoulder into Samani (not punch per your statement). All McBride saw was Kopsa wave to him for help with Dennard and then Dennard punch Kopsa. McBride didn't see the events leading up to that.
Also, you have no idea what the lighting was like so you have no idea what Kopsa saw. In fact, considering that the person who Dennard supposedly assaulted can't definitively ID Dennard when he was standing right next to him, how could Kopsa, from 70 ft away, definitively say what happened?
What is clear is that your bias for your brothers in blue is showing through.
This is your post correct? You would agree with me that you wrote "Off Duty" and I should be fired for "Disorderly conduct". So far I have posted the law and the fact pattern in the case and that fact pattern does not reflect in your posts.
Dude......
You need to learn to read the names of the posters you're quoting. Hell, I've got that poster on ignore and only see his posts if I'm on certain computers and someone else quotes him.
And I think that's probably the answer, even as surprising as it may be to me personally, the fact that the charge was a 3rd degree felony and there wasn't really any room to move with that specific charge (which is also obviously the main and most important charge) is likely why the officer's wishes have been given so much importance.
So in some possibility, what is being reported in the media about not wanting the felony pushed down to a misdemeanor is true, but there could still have been the possibility that they did also offer something of a compromise for the lesser charges and the overall punishment.
You can't really compromise between felony and misdemeanor, and the key here is the felony. Dennard's attorney is already conceding on resisting arrest.
The amount of unmitigated ball washing of Dennard here is laughable. It's ok to say he punched a cop and shouldn't have done so. That doesn't make him the second coming of Charles Manson.
I got a good chuckle at the plainclothes observation as if that excuses Dennard's assault. For disclosure purposes I've been a city cop (sergeant) for 25 years many of which in plainclothes an anti crime unit. I never lost a case simply because I was not in uniform when I made an arrest.
It's a natural reaction for fans to dismiss or mitigate the actions when one of "their" players is arrested. If this were Jets player I doubt the internet lawyers here would be waxing poetic with the excuses and justifications. However it's disheartening to see the vague and not so vague police critiques by those who have never done the job. Then again like the saying goes "Law Enforcement- the only profession where those who have never done the job are experts on how to do the job".
It appears that Dennard simply made a stupid mistake and is being held accountable for it. He will likely pay a modest fine and serve zero jail time as a first offender. Again the NFL is littered with players who've done things much worse. Dennard made a mistake and is not a villian...niether is the cop.
Law Enforcement- the only profession where those who have never done the job are experts on how to do the job
I'm not sure if I worded my thoughts properly. Do you think that there is any possibility that since the felony charge of assault on an officer cannot/will not be lessened, that the prosecution may still have offered an overall deal that lessens or drops one or both of the misdemeanors?
In other words, could the prosecution still have tried to give him a plea that included something in the range of a 6-12 month jail sentence (for example--although there could still be a debate to whether or not that would include the possibility of a suspended concurrent sentence) which included the felony but lessened or dropped the other charges, and maybe that could be why Dennard's reps did not want to accept it?
I obviously don't have the experience that you do practicing law, but I have an education and major in the subject of criminal justice, so I am just trying to learn more and see things from all of the angles.
In many cases that we studied and some of the cases from an internship, many pleas were still offered that included jail time (even though it was often quite less than what the potential guilty charges would bring) and yet many times they were not taken due to the client/defendant not wanting to do any jail time whatsoever. I'm just wondering if that could come into play here at all, where they still won't budge to the 3rd degree felony but were willing to still offer some sort of possible plea arrangement?
The amount of unmitigated ball washing of Dennard here is laughable. It's ok to say he punched a cop and shouldn't have done so. That doesn't make him the second coming of Charles Manson.
I got a good chuckle at the plainclothes observation as if that excuses Dennard's assault. For disclosure purposes I've been a city cop (sergeant) for 25 years many of which in plainclothes an anti crime unit. I never lost a case simply because I was not in uniform when I made an arrest.