OT: Shady McCoy allegedly beat his gf

[TheRainMaker]

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

I know. I wrote this in my initial post.

 

[Ring 6]

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

Absolutely correct, but what you left out is that he has to do it LEGALLY. There are laws that define the process require to have someone removed from your property if they will not go willingly.
They do not include threatening or beating the person you want out.

 

[Uptown]

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.

Andy, I totally understand where you’re coming from. Of course we all have opinions, but I was more so coming from an angle where people are McCoy names such as “scum” “P.O.S” “trash” & saying he should “rot in hell” BEFORE getting the facts. A little harsh, no? But like I said, IF HE DID commit these detestable acts, throw not just the Kitchen sink at him; but the entire kitchen, and then some!

 

[TheRainMaker]

Absolutely correct, but what you left out is that he has to do it LEGALLY. There are laws that define the process require to have someone removed from your property if they will not go willingly.
They do not include threatening or beating the person you want out.

yes, I get that. I’m not saying that you can just get your goons to go in there and beat her and to get her out.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, I totally understand where you’re coming from. Of course we all have opinions, but I was more so coming from an angle where people are McCoy names such as “scum” “P.O.S” “trash” & saying he should “rot in hell” BEFORE getting the facts. A little harsh, no? But like I said, IF HE DID commit these detestable acts, throw not just the Kitchen sink at him; but the entire kitchen, and then some!

I think it’s fair to make those comments based upon IF when someone is accused.

I think McCoy is a scumbag POS who should rot in hell based upon the information that I have. If there is more information that comes out I will reevaluate.
If I was the prosecutor that would be a bad thing, but my opinion of McCoy is totally and entirely irrelevant to anything.

 

[XLIX]

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.

I find it very hard to believe you have done it before because so much of what you said is wrong (and you're still getting it wrong). Unless there is a lease, you generally have to give someone 30-day notice. But here's the part which you probably won't believe (but I am including it here for the benefit of the rest of the group):

When those 30 days are over, if the person refuses to leave, you still have to go through the courts to get a court order removing them from the house. You can't just call the police after 30 days and expect the sheriff will do a darn thing about it.

The bottom line is this: The police will not force a tenant from their residence without a court order to do so. A letter of eviction - even with 30/60 days notice - is a good first step but the police won't act on just that letter.

 

[XLIX]

yes, I get that. I’m not saying that you can just get your goons to go in there and beat her and to get her out.

But what you are saying is "Unless she is on title or paying rent, there’s no reason why he can’t get her out of the house." That's just not true on quite a few levels.

 

[TheRainMaker]

I find it very hard to believe you have done it before because so much of what you said is wrong (and you're still getting it wrong). Unless there is a lease, you generally have to give someone 30-day notice. But here's the part which you probably won't believe (but I am including it here for the benefit of the rest of the group):

When those 30 days are over, if the person refuses to leave, you still have to go through the courts to get a court order removing them from the house. You can't just call the police after 30 days and expect the sheriff will do a darn thing about it.

The bottom line is this: The police will not force a tenant from their residence without a court order to do so. A letter of eviction - even with 30/60 days notice - is a good first step but the police won't act on just that letter.

dude, seriously just stop. You do not have to have a lease in California if it’s less than a year. If it’s been longer than a year then the tenant gets 60 days prior to lease expiration If you are not renewing their lease. If they stop paying or refuse to leave then you go through the legal process to evict them.

I’m going by California laws which I clearly stated in my other posts. I don’t know what the laws are out there which I also stated in my other posts. My whole point is that you can get her out if you want to given that you were going through proper legal process.

But what you are saying is "Unless she is on title or paying rent, there’s no reason why he can’t get her out of the house." That's just not true on quite a few levels.

oh boy. Let’s just call it a day shall we?

 

[Ring 6]

But what you are saying is "Unless she is on title or paying rent, there’s no reason why he can’t get her out of the house." That's just not true on quite a few levels.

That is true. He will eventually get her out, he just needs to go through the legal steps.
No court is going to award her permanent right to reside in a house he owns.

 

[Ring 6]

I find it very hard to believe you have done it before because so much of what you said is wrong (and you're still getting it wrong). Unless there is a lease, you generally have to give someone 30-day notice. But here's the part which you probably won't believe (but I am including it here for the benefit of the rest of the group):

When those 30 days are over, if the person refuses to leave, you still have to go through the courts to get a court order removing them from the house. You can't just call the police after 30 days and expect the sheriff will do a darn thing about it.

The bottom line is this: The police will not force a tenant from their residence without a court order to do so. A letter of eviction - even with 30/60 days notice - is a good first step but the police won't act on just that letter.

Which is why landlords get an eviction notice in court then call the sheriff.
You seem to think people don’t understand that the sheriff won’t evict someone for you because you say they should get out. No one implied that at all.

 

[Uptown]

I think it’s fair to make those comments based upon IF when someone is accused.

I think McCoy is a scumbag POS who should rot in hell based upon the information that I have. If there is more information that comes out I will reevaluate.
If I was the prosecutor that would be a bad thing, but my opinion of McCoy is totally and entirely irrelevant to anything.

Respect.

 

[LaterGator]

"Possible, also possible he asked the guy to try to get the jewelry back and things went sideways without shady's knowledge."

This is probably McCoy’s only out.

That is no out. They had no right to the jewelry whatsoever. Shady can ask, demand, theaten and pout all he wants. It's hers to do with as she pleases.

 

[Ring 6]

Respect.

I do get the side of the argument where people make snap judgments then never bother to find out the facts but that’s about them.

 

[Ring 6]

"Possible, also possible he asked the guy to try to get the jewelry back and things went sideways without shady's knowledge."



That is no out. They had no right to the jewelry whatsoever. Shady can ask, demand, theaten and pout all he wants. It's hers to do with as she pleases.

The “out” is if they cannot connect him to the thug.

 

[TheRainMaker]

"Possible, also possible he asked the guy to try to get the jewelry back and things went sideways without shady's knowledge."



That is no out. They had no right to the jewelry whatsoever. Shady can ask, demand, theaten and pout all he wants. It's hers to do with as she pleases.

my bad. I miss read it and thought that shady had no knowledge of sending the guys over there. That’s what I meant.

 

[Ring 6]

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

Have they arrested a suspect?

 

[LaterGator]

The “out” is if they cannot connect him to the thug.

The thug who was demanding the same item Shady is on record for demanding? Good luck with that.

 

[KDPPatsfan85]

Have they arrested a suspect?

Not to my knowledge.

 

[Ring 6]

The thug who was demanding the same item Shady is on record for demanding? Good luck with that.

Robbing someone of something another person wanted them to give back does not equal proof of conspiracy.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

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...

Here's a link to the section of Georgia's Penal Code related to conspiracy.

Here's the text, which I've emphasized a few parts of:

A person commits the offense of conspiracy to commit a crime when he together with one or more persons conspires to commit any crime and any one or more of such persons does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy.

Regarding the Penalty for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and assault:

A person convicted of the offense of criminal conspiracy to commit a felony shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than one-half the maximum period of time for which he could have been sentenced if he had been convicted of the crime conspired to have been committed.

Checking the Georgia statue for armed robbery, there's a 10 year minimum for someone convicted, so under my simplistic look, Shady would face 1-5(+) years for conspiracy if convicted.

However, in this case, the woman was assaulted with a gun (pistol whipped, I believe) which would be another crime that conspirators would be held liable for. Even if Shady had specifically said "don't hurt her, just get the jewels" he's still liable for the assault as a conspirator.

TLDR - Don't conspire to do a crime. You'll be held accountable for every crime that occurs in the course of the conspiracy.

EDIT - In this case - McCoy could also be charged with solicitation. A similar, but different crime from conspiracy.