OT: Shady McCoy allegedly beat his gf

[Tuck]

If McCoy was involved, there will be no sympathy and no mercy for him, nor should there be. My pet theory is that he sent a guy to retrieve his jewelry from the house and the woman woke up and started resisting, and that guy assaulted her. That would make McCoy responsible for what actually happened, even if the assault wasn’t part of the plan.

I agree. Your theory seems plausible given what's been reported. Is it true that he would be held responsible by the courts as if he had actually committed the assault himself? Assuming of course the evidence only shows he sent someone to retrieve the jewelry and a situation escalated from there.

 

[Ring 6]

Not going back & forth with you dude. Simple. If he happens to be guilty, crucify him. If not, people need to learn not to RUSH to judgement based on social media & other people’s opinions without proper context. Many people cannot & do not think for themselves.

So your opinion is you can never have an opinion until after a trial?

So you disagree that Brown, Suggs, Lewis, Rice and hardy should be considered scumbags. That’s an interesting approach but one I do not agree with.

 

[The Brandon Five]

My wife's Mary Kay rep has that name.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/delicia-otero-7a00b3143/

 

[lancerman]

OMG Deuce, just STFU already. Better yet: just admit you were out'f line or wrong for once in your life. I swear to ya, boys: this guy, Deuce Awry, acts like he's afraid that he's gonna burst into flames if he ever admits a mistake. It's all riiiiiiiiight, Deuce.

Well tbh he likely will

 

[XLIX]

I agree. Your theory seems plausible given what's been reported. Is it true that he would be held responsible by the courts as if he had actually committed the assault himself? Assuming of course the evidence only shows he sent someone to retrieve the jewelry and a situation escalated from there.

This is an excellent question. I would be lying if I said I knew 100% for sure. If my theory of what happened is true then, from a legal standpoint, what is working against McCoy is that the guy was sent to the house with the intent to engage in illegal activities. That would make McCoy responsible for the repercussions. Legally he becomes an accomplice to the crime and an accomplice can be held responsible for other foreseeable outcomes.

The textbook example is suppose 2 guys plan to rob a bank. One goes in, the other waits in the car to use as a getaway. If the guy that goes into the bank shoot and kills a bank teller, the getaway driver can still be charged with murder even if he never held a gun and just wanted some money and not to have anyone get killed.

 

[XLIX]

There is a legitimate way that McCoy could be relatively clean in this situation. His issues with this woman (hopefully she makes a full recovery) were ongoing and well documented. Over the course of it, McCoy could have talked about it with some shady acquaintances. One of these hypothetical guys, knowing how much money/jewelry was at his house, with only a single woman staying there, made the attempted robbery without McCoy's knowledge.

Not saying this is a likely scenario at this point, just a thought.

This is a scenario I brainstormed too. I am just spitballing here, but it could be possible that the guy knew McCoy and perhaps was even friends with McCoy, but was acting without McCoy's knowledge or permission. That makes things very complicated regarding what to do with McCoy.

Of course, working against that hypothetical is the lawyer's claim that there was no forced entry into the house.... but IMHO it is still worth considering...

 

[Deus Irae]

In 8 years here I have never once seen you admit you're wrong about anything.

You're either a liar or a selective reader of my posts.

 

[KDPPatsfan85]

 

[LaterGator]

Possible, also possible he asked the guy to try to get the jewelry back and things went sideways without shady's knowledge. It looks like he was on the verge of her getting legally evicted so why do this the day before. Lot of unanswered questions at this point.

I don't know about her being evicted. She lives in Atlanta he bought the house to be with her, she was living in the house, and he had left. Don't get me wrong, I think she's as "shady" as he is. But that's why you don't think with the wrong head.

I think more than likely he's screwed whether or not force was intended. He gave her jewelry as a gift then demanded it back. That is documented, as was his past attempt to physically move her stuff out - which is totally illegal. He had zero right to the jewelry. She has no legal reason to return it. Her lawyer might be able to argue the house was a gift too.

It sucks worse to be Browner, but this (actually these meaning Shady & Delicia) loser is no gem.

 

[XLIX]

I don't know about her being evicted. She lives in Atlanta he bought the house to be with her, she was living in the house, and he had left. Don't get me wrong, I think she's as "shady" as he is. But that's why you don't think with the wrong head.

I think more than likely he's screwed whether or not force was intended. He gave her jewelry as a gift then demanded it back. That is documented, as was his past attempt to physically move her stuff out - which is totally illegal. He had zero right to the jewelry. She has no legal reason to return it. Her lawyer might be able to argue the house was a gift too.

The jewelry? Yes.
The house? Not in a million years.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Possible, also possible he asked the guy to try to get the jewelry back and things went sideways without shady's knowledge. It looks like he was on the verge of her getting legally evicted so why do this the day before. Lot of unanswered questions at this point.

This is probably McCoy’s only out.

I don't know about her being evicted. She lives in Atlanta he bought the house to be with her, she was living in the house, and he had left. Don't get me wrong, I think she's as "shady" as he is. But that's why you don't think with the wrong head.

I think more than likely he's screwed whether or not force was intended. He gave her jewelry as a gift then demanded it back. That is documented, as was his past attempt to physically move her stuff out - which is totally illegal. He had zero right to the jewelry. She has no legal reason to return it. Her lawyer might be able to argue the house was a gift too.

It sucks worse to be Browner, but this (actually these meaning Shady & Delicia) loser is no gem.

Unless she is on title or paying rent, there’s no reason why he can’t get her out of the house. I don’t know what the laws are out there, but if he gave her reasonable amount of time (what ever the law states) to get out FOR ANY REASON and she refused, you would just get the sheriff involved and kick her a** out. At least that’s how it works out here in California but it could be a long dragged out process.

It’s amazing how people make things more complicated than they have to be.

 

[LaterGator]

Jewelry without any doubt, nor did he have any justifiable reason to get it. Niether he nor his 'assistant' have any right to be there after it.

House??? They got the house while they were together. We don't know the agreement in place.

 

[XLIX]

Unless she is on title or paying rent, there’s no reason why he can’t get her out of the house. I don’t know what the laws are out there, but if he gave her reasonable amount of time to get out FOR ANY REASON and she refused, you would just get the sheriff involved and kick her a** out. At least that’s how it works out here in California but it could be a long dragged out process.

That's not true. She can certainly establish that is her residence despite not paying rent, especially if they were living together. Once she does that, the police won't touch her absent a court order.

 

[TheRainMaker]

That's not true. She can certainly establish that is her residence despite not paying rent, especially if they were living together. Once she does that, the police won't touch her absent a court order.

It doesn’t matter, that is not her property. He has a right to get her out.

 

[LaterGator]

It doesn’t matter, that is not her property. He has a right to get her out.

We don't know the arrangement. Do we know it's in his name only? Is there other documentation entitling her to be there?

 

[XLIX]

It doesn’t matter, that is not her property. He has a right to get her out.

Sorry but that's just not true. IF she can establish she was living there (and not, like, just a guest) then he has to go through the process of eviction which is a long, drawn out process. He can't just tell her to up and get out, even though he owns the house.

 

[TheRainMaker]

We don't know the arrangement. Do we know it's in his name only? Is there other documentation entitling her to be there?

The only thing I need to know is whether she was paying rent or she’s actually on title. If not, he has a right to get her out for any reason. Just because she she squats there doesn’t mean she can just live there forever. There’s other loopholes to get her out as well.

I’ve dealt with this in California I’m sure it’s not that much different out whatever this is.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

It doesn’t matter, that is not her property. He has a right to get her out.

Depending on the state and how long she’s been living there eviction can be a lengthy process.

 

[KDPPatsfan85]

Here is the police report...There was no forced entry...Interesting

 

[TheRainMaker]

Sorry but that's just not true. IF she can establish she was living there (and not, like, just a guest) then he has to go through the process of eviction which is a long, drawn out process. He can't just tell her to up and get out, even though he owns the house.

You missed where I said that in my initial post about the eviction. It’s the last sentence.

And yes he can tell her to get out but he has to give her reasonable amount of time which stated in the Landlord Tenant laws out there. It’s 60 days in California if you’ve stayed in the home longer than one year. He could also get her out if he wanted to put the house on the market. She would have to get out after 60 days days assuming she’s lived there for one year. Or, he could tell her to get out because he wants to rent it out to someone else after giving her reasonable amount of time to get out or 60 days assuming she has lived there for longer than one year.

And you telling me it’s not true is untrue because I’ve actually done this before Lol.