Frank Clark's Police Report (For Off Field Discussion)

[AbsolutNET]

I am going to call this "a regrettable situation with two victims and two suspects." Mistakes were made and if he has matured and continues to do so, then it's water under the bridge. He didn't deliver a haymaker because she used the wrong kind of mustard or was talking to another guy at the market, this isn't the same thing. Hopefully guys like Russ and Kam will be good influences on him and he can prove himself to Seattle.

 

[Donn2390]

After reading all the reports I'm going with those who say there was no DV involved. What leads me to believe he didn't hit her is, first of all, a man that size would do great damage if he had punched her in the face. She didn't have any more damage than what appears to be a heavy scratch, which could have come from anything during scuffle.
What I see from all reports, is for whatever reason, Diamond got mad and went physio b***h and started throwing things. Clark put his arms around her to hold her arms down to stop the throwing, and she countered by biting his nose.
I'm willing to give pc/js the benefit of the doubt, I don't think they just woke up as liars one day, they are good men who some here want to make out as villains for their own reasons.
Let's go with the second change and end all of this controversy now, it's over, he is a Hawk...

 

[nanomoz]

Both parties should have been charged with domestic violence. Ray Rice this is not. Journalists who are comparing it to Rice have no scruples and are looking for clicks.

Clark made some bad decisions, no doubt, and reacted poorly. But if I was drunk, and my wife was biting my nose to the point that flesh was tearing and blood was drawn, I might push her away a little too aggressively. I would also probably try to restrain her if she was throwing hard objects around--especially with 3 and 5-year-old children in the room.

People that keep sighting "eyewitness accounts" conveniently leave out the fact that the witnesses were small children.

 

[LTH]

His 2nd mistake (the one that ultimately got him arrested) was smacking her in the face after she bit him. A lot of people might react this way after being bitten, but it was unnecessary force against someone much smaller than he is. He could have restrained her without the smack to the face. Having said that, many people would react the same way in the heat of the moment. Hopefully, he has learned something from this event, as well as getting caught for the burglary.

In the same vein as Pete's explanations of The Rant™, when someone is biting your nose you shove them sorta hard into a lamp or onto the floor. Or ya punch them... but, given the size differences, he sure didn't punch her hard if he punched her at all.
The aggressor here wasn't the big old violent football player. It was the chick with the big teeth who admits to being angry.

I agree... this is self defense and Im actually surprised that she was not the one arrested... throwing a remoted alone is 4th degree assult let alone biting his nose...

LTH

 

[Melencause]

The article posted by DrCool said that the Seahawks did no speak to the prosecutor. They admitted to not speaking to the victims or the witnesses. They did speak with the officers. Poor "investigation" on their part IMO.
Here it is again: http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... -batterer/

The rest of your post seems reasonable. Yes, cut him if it happens again. I do not think this was a simple case of a big man attacking a woman to shut her up or to show dominance over her. There was a scuffle on both sides. She may have escalated it and may have caught the worst of it in the end (by all accounts, she was lying on the ground visibly shaken and possibly unconscious).

You think the Seahawks can only obtain information by going around saying. Hi I'm with the Seahawks?

The Bucs had PI's following Jameis Winston around. We know the Hawks employ former FBi investigators as part of their security team. You think they might be discrete?

This is a multi-million dollar decision that a known philanthropist would have to back (Allen).

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

Regardless of how much weight is placed on the police report, I think there are a few things that should/will happen.

Schneider is likely going to be forced to defend the comprehensiveness of his investigation. I think that's on the basis of his declared certainty that he was convinced Clark didn't hit her.

I'm not necessarily swayed by the Times assertion that just because the motel staffer and the two guests who called the disturbance in weren't contacted by John -- that indicates he didn't investigate it fully. Because they weren't contacted by the prosecutor either. It doesn't follow, nor do I see any evidence, that they actually saw anything that happened. Merely the aftermath of it. I'm comfortable in the idea that none of those three could state factually that they were eyewitness to anything.

I am not comfortable that full diligence was exercised here as asserted by John. And I think he's going to have to demonstrate that over time. I do believe him when he says he committed a lot of time to investigating the situation. But I do think that the standard for that needs to be laid out. Because there is enough evidence to suggest that it wasn't that comprehensive.

On the outside, it merely appears that we looked into his character -- probably much more deeply than with other prospects. But took the plea deal (no DV), and conversations with the counselor that we know he consulted with as the sole proof that he didn't hit his GF.

I think going forward, thoroughness should at minimum include conversations with the principal prosecutors. To at least get an understanding of perhaps the legal/evidence reasons why a player arrested for DV should be offered a plea that avoids DV on their record. That's even if that's legally allowed. If it's not, or if they aren't allowed to divulge that -- then I would hope it would come out in the coming days. Because it's entirely possible that John actually did investigate up to the point where he legally had right to do so.

At any rate, I don't get the sense that the public is comfortable with the assertion that we went as far as we should. If it's a case of we went as far as we could -- that's a different matter.

I don't think this issue is going to just go away. And at this point, I'm not even sure it's a Frank Clark thing now. It seem that it's more of a Seahawks organization thing now.

 

[xgeoff]

This topic is a little tricky to address. On the one hand, domestic violence is never acceptable. On the other hand, just because someone is a man doesn't mean they can't defend themselves against a woman.

Full disclosure, I have never hit a woman.

But I would, if the circumstances were right. If a woman assaulted me, bit me, scratched my eyes, etc, etc. I would defend myself. Vigorously. Regardless of gender.

I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm saying that when we make blanket statements about 'never hitting women' we paint ourselves into a corner. When what I *think* we really mean is that domestic violence is never ok.

And I think the problem here is that JS came out with a very blanket statement saying that we would never draft someone who hit a woman. And he said he's convinced Clark never hit his girlfriend, but there appears to be evidence to the contrary and it appears the Seahawks investigation was not really that extensive.

My personal opinion is that I fully support John Schneider and Pete Carroll taking Clark. And I am hopeful that Clark has learned some tough lessons and will turn a corner with the Hawks. But I hope that JS backs off from making these kind of broad-sweeping generalizations in the future because life is more often shades of gray than black and white. And his words are coming back to bite him in the ass now.

 

[Basis4day]

The Wells report was just released, so i think it will show which media members genuinely care about this story and which are looking for the hot button topic.

 

[Melencause]

The Wells report was just released, so i think it will show which media members genuinely care about this story and which are looking for the hot button topic.

This...^

 

[Rocket]

"The women next store called down to the front desk saying it sounded like a head was being bounced against a wall. They also corroborated the young kid running into his parents' room and saying "Frank is killing our sister.""

What exactly differentiates the sound of a head from the sound of a shoulder or the sound of a fist??? Were either of the ladies from the next room a sound engineer or was Dr. Armchair Presumption in the room?
A three year old screaming "Frank is killing our sister"??? Are we expected to take intent from a three year old? Or even a five year old? Or even two ladies quoting a five year old?
The two ladies mailed in their statements because the cop saw their credibility and relevance to be a tad bit thin. The meat of the local newspaper (Seattle) was the "testimony" of the two ladies.
I see a muddy story, cleared up by the local (Michigan) prosecutor and stirred by a local (Seattle) reporter who has a habit of jumping before the lines are painted.

 

[Rocket]

For the purposes of disclosure I've hit things during arguments, but they were all inanimate objects. I'm Croatian so we get our Irish up, so to speak. But you shouldn't hit people unless they hit you first.
Everyone else please disclose their history & preferences.

 

[MysterMatt]

I wanted to add that the witnesses didn't actually see the event or were not really credible. The two women next door heard a commotion and saw nothing except for the female lying on the floor, which matches the official story where Clark had her restrained and might have thrown her off the bed after she bit him. A 15 year old sibling was in the shower. He didn't see it. The other two were very young children who can't really be considered credible witnesses. The female did not wish to press charges and admitted to attacking first and second. There is no definitive proof that Clark ever attacked her.

C'mon man.

The younger kid gave the testimony that he went into the bathroom to get his older brother because F.C. was hitting her. He ran into his parents' room and said F.C. had killed her. He told the police that he saw him hit her.

The 15 year old brother said that when he came out of the shower he saw F.C. punching her, had her up against a wall, and picked her up by her throat and bodyslammed her.

She too said that F.C. punched her.

The women next store called down to the front desk saying it sounded like a head was being bounced against a wall. They also corroborated the young kid running into his parents' room and saying "Frank is killing our sister."

They also saw her not moving and seemingly unconcious on the ground before F.C. slammed the door on them.

You can try to pick off each of these accounts in a war of attrition, but the story here is pretty clear, IMO.

And with that, I'm outta the thread again.

(and yeah, much of this thread does remind me of Ravens fans after the Rice incident, 9ers fans after the McDonald incident (which turned out not to be what we thought; I jumped the gun and wanted him to be immediately cut), Vikings fans after the Peterson incident, etc.).

You're totally right. All cases where DV violence between a man and a woman must be treated exactly the same. Every single one. Context means nothing; credibility of witnesses means nothing; circumstances mean nothing. If a man defends himself, he's totally guilty. If he overreacts to a crazy situation then he's guilty. If he does anything other than calmly flee the situation then he's guilty. If a man does anything that a sober, cool-headed, media agent or anonymous internet participant disapproves of, he's guilty.

The only way to ever solve DV is to make sure that anyone who even brushes up against the notion of being violent toward women in any way is detached from his career, publicly humiliated, and treated like a pariah for the rest of his life. Sure, we may get it wrong lots of times, but that is a small cost when you consider the benefit of us feeling good about ourselves.

:sarcasm_off:

 

[mikeak]

To be clear, if Hawks fans are fine with the team giving him a "second chance" I'm sincerely not objecting to that. It's not what my response was when what seemed to be a similar case happened with my favorite team (I wanted them to cut McDonald immediately), but it's truly a matter of opinion about what behavior is and isn't deserving of "second chances."

Instead, the ONLY thing I'm objecting to is those who are trying to argue that this isn't even a "second chance" by insisting that Clark didn't do anything wrong in the first place. A "second chance" I'm fine with, that he never did anything wrong in the first place so he doesn't even need a "second chance" is just too far me.

YES - nail on the head and as a Seahawk fan I agree. The excuses for this incident sickens me even more than the incident itself. It is what enables people to continue hitting women. The fact that excuses are made up and accepted. To say that throwing a remote should have gotten her arrested and it justifies him forcefully restraining her on the bed and to go on from there.

 

[MysterMatt]

To be clear, if Hawks fans are fine with the team giving him a "second chance" I'm sincerely not objecting to that. It's not what my response was when what seemed to be a similar case happened with my favorite team (I wanted them to cut McDonald immediately), but it's truly a matter of opinion about what behavior is and isn't deserving of "second chances."

Instead, the ONLY thing I'm objecting to is those who are trying to argue that this isn't even a "second chance" by insisting that Clark didn't do anything wrong in the first place. A "second chance" I'm fine with, that he never did anything wrong in the first place so he doesn't even need a "second chance" is just too far me.

YES - nail on the head and as a Seahawk fan I agree. The excuses for this incident sickens me even more than the incident itself. It is what enables people to continue hitting women. The fact that excuses are made up and accepted. To say that throwing a remote should have gotten her arrested and it justifies him forcefully restraining her on the bed and to go on from there.

Right, because she just tossed the remote at him and calmly sat down to read her bible. You know what's disgusting to me, as a Seahawks fan? People who can only see black and white and who are so easily cajoled into a witch hunt. Yes, actual DV and battery of women...of ANYONE...is horrible. HORRIBLE. But the fact is that two people of the opposite sex getting into an ugly altercation, a fight, does not equal domestic violence. It really is that simple.

No doubt the women in the next room heard something really dreadful and were freaked out. No doubt everyone in Clark's room was really freaked out. No doubt that after the episodes of Rice and Peterson last year that everyone from the media to fans is freaked out. Even so, cooler heads have to prevail. Cooler heads like the police, the DA, the courts, and people like John Schneider.

Go ring your hands over this all you want, it's a terrible situation made worse by all the sensation that's followed, but kindly leave off with your sanctimonious "as a Seahawks fan...." nonsense. This is your problem as a person and if it puts your "fan" status at risk then feel free to check your card in at the door. The reason you and the media want Clark to bow down on his knees and ask for a second chance is because it makes you feel good, no matter the actual reality of the situation.

 

[MVP53]

JS really comes out of this whole thing looking like a horse's ass

Not quite yet... but close. Depends on what comes next.
I'm torn between his public explanation versus him just laying low. Depends on the background of what JS saw/heard. I believe that Allen was in on this decision based on what I've read. It'd be the ultimate lame move to throw Schneider under the bus when it probably wasn't his call alone.

He just handled the initial press conference so poorly. When he was confronted with what he had previously said about the team's DV policy, he either lied about what he knows happened with Clark or displayed some seriously pathetic beneficial ignorance. The way he then described the half-assed investigation the team did also really did not help. We all know some DV went down in that room. A large man hurt a woman much smaller than he.

What JS should have done rather than his embarrassing and tone-deaf response is acknowledge that the team is no longer holding firm on the no-DV-in-your-past policy, but rather is willing to look at each player on a case-by-case basis and evaluate whether they believe that player can and has learned from their mistake, and whether they are worthy of a second chance. He could have said that the team acknowledges Clark's DV history, but believes he can and will redeem himself.

Had he done this, the conversation then becomes not whether Schneider is a lying buffoon who led a piss-poor investigation and has lost his credibility, to a very interesting and meaningful debate as to whether a young man who gets involved in DV deserves a second chance. It would have been a way for the team to accept accountability for drafting a player with this history and it gives the player a chance to turn his life around.

Perfectly put. Hard to imagine smart guys like Schneider & Carroll would butcher the PR of this so poorly, or that Paul Allen would even allow it to be handled this way.

The other thing is, if Frank Clark has a nice, clean, career in the NFL, no one will even remember this happened. Heck, I heard a Seattle sports radio interview with Leroy Hill just a few weeks ago. Don't think there was any mention of his multiple DV incidents.

 

[dontbelikethat]

The Wells report was just released, so i think it will show which media members genuinely care about this story and which are looking for the hot button topic.

Great timing. :lol:

 

[mikeak]

To be clear, if Hawks fans are fine with the team giving him a "second chance" I'm sincerely not objecting to that. It's not what my response was when what seemed to be a similar case happened with my favorite team (I wanted them to cut McDonald immediately), but it's truly a matter of opinion about what behavior is and isn't deserving of "second chances."

Instead, the ONLY thing I'm objecting to is those who are trying to argue that this isn't even a "second chance" by insisting that Clark didn't do anything wrong in the first place. A "second chance" I'm fine with, that he never did anything wrong in the first place so he doesn't even need a "second chance" is just too far me.

YES - nail on the head and as a Seahawk fan I agree. The excuses for this incident sickens me even more than the incident itself. It is what enables people to continue hitting women. The fact that excuses are made up and accepted. To say that throwing a remote should have gotten her arrested and it justifies him forcefully restraining her on the bed and to go on from there.

Right, because she just tossed the remote at him and calmly sat down to read her bible. You know what's disgusting to me, as a Seahawks fan? People who can only see black and white and who are so easily cajoled into a witch hunt. Yes, actual DV and battery of women...of ANYONE...is horrible. HORRIBLE. But the fact is that two people of the opposite sex getting into an ugly altercation, a fight, does not equal domestic violence. It really is that simple.

No doubt the women in the next room heard something really dreadful and were freaked out. No doubt everyone in Clark's room was really freaked out. No doubt that after the episodes of Rice and Peterson last year that everyone from the media to fans is freaked out. Even so, cooler heads have to prevail. Cooler heads like the police, the DA, the courts, and people like John Schneider.

Go ring your hands over this all you want, it's a terrible situation made worse by all the sensation that's followed, but kindly leave off with your sanctimonious "as a Seahawks fan...." nonsense. This is your problem as a person and if it puts your "fan" status at risk then feel free to check your card in at the door. The reason you and the media want Clark to bow down on his knees and ask for a second chance is because it makes you feel good, no matter the actual reality of the situation.

What makes you think that you can put words in my mouth? Where did I say this put my fan status at risk?

What makes you think you know ANYTHING about what makes me feel the way I feel? Did I say what you feel? No I said what I feel about others thoughts on this

And on this site don't make personal attacks - I didn't have a problem as a person. I now have a problem with YOU

 

[LymonHawk]

Go ring your hands over this all you want, it's a terrible situation made worse by all the sensation that's followed, but kindly leave off with your sanctimonious "as a Seahawks fan...." nonsense. This is your problem as a person and if it puts your "fan" status at risk then feel free to check your card in at the door. The reason you and the media want Clark to bow down on his knees and ask for a second chance is because it makes you feel good, no matter the actual reality of the situation.

:th2thumbs:

I don't think I've ever seen so much sanctimonious BS in one thread before. :les:

 

[MVP53]

This is ridiculous.

Whether he is innocent or not is immaterial.

He was hired to do a job and if he does it, then I don't care.

I don't even understand why I am supposed to care.

Maybe he hit her, maybe he didn't. Maybe she instigated it, maybe not.

The question is "Did he sack the QB or tackle the RB for loss?"

The rest does not matter.

Especially considering he did it while not being an employee of the Seahawks. He didn't represent the brand yet so my response is so what?

It isn't my interest or concern what he does in his personal life or whether or not there is conflict there. And football being a game that cultivates + rewards violent behavior - probably shouldn't pearl clutch at the reality that some of these people are likely violent as a personality trait.

I supported bringing Hardy here, and won't give a Cowboys fan grief for cheering for Hardy or Gregory. Because you rarely cheer for the person, you cheer for the position they play. You cheer the Seahawks LB or the Seahawks TE, or the LDE when he makes a great play.

You usually don't know half these people anyway, so why should it matter?

Good character is a bonus, not a requisite.

If you found out the guy who sold you your cell phone smacked his wife around, would you return it? Probably not. But, most people think of their sports teams and players as more than just a product.

The thing I find interesting is those who feel a guy like Frank Clark shouldn't be allowed to play in the NFL. Like not being on an NFL roster would prevent the DV from occurring. It's the same people who think the Patriots should be punished for drafting Aaron Hernandez. If Hernandez wasn't a Patriot, he would have just been "guy who worked at Foot Locker, who committed murder".

 

[Hawkfan77]

To be clear, if Hawks fans are fine with the team giving him a "second chance" I'm sincerely not objecting to that. It's not what my response was when what seemed to be a similar case happened with my favorite team (I wanted them to cut McDonald immediately), but it's truly a matter of opinion about what behavior is and isn't deserving of "second chances."

Instead, the ONLY thing I'm objecting to is those who are trying to argue that this isn't even a "second chance" by insisting that Clark didn't do anything wrong in the first place. A "second chance" I'm fine with, that he never did anything wrong in the first place so he doesn't even need a "second chance" is just too far me.

YES - nail on the head and as a Seahawk fan I agree. The excuses for this incident sickens me even more than the incident itself. It is what enables people to continue hitting women. The fact that excuses are made up and accepted. To say that throwing a remote should have gotten her arrested and it justifies him forcefully restraining her on the bed and to go on from there.

Right, because she just tossed the remote at him and calmly sat down to read her bible. You know what's disgusting to me, as a Seahawks fan? People who can only see black and white and who are so easily cajoled into a witch hunt. Yes, actual DV and battery of women...of ANYONE...is horrible. HORRIBLE. But the fact is that two people of the opposite sex getting into an ugly altercation, a fight, does not equal domestic violence. It really is that simple.

No doubt the women in the next room heard something really dreadful and were freaked out. No doubt everyone in Clark's room was really freaked out. No doubt that after the episodes of Rice and Peterson last year that everyone from the media to fans is freaked out. Even so, cooler heads have to prevail. Cooler heads like the police, the DA, the courts, and people like John Schneider.

Go ring your hands over this all you want, it's a terrible situation made worse by all the sensation that's followed, but kindly leave off with your sanctimonious "as a Seahawks fan...." nonsense. This is your problem as a person and if it puts your "fan" status at risk then feel free to check your card in at the door. The reason you and the media want Clark to bow down on his knees and ask for a second chance is because it makes you feel good, no matter the actual reality of the situation.

What makes you think that you can put words in my mouth? Where did I say this put my fan status at risk?

What makes you think you know ANYTHING about what makes me feel the way I feel? Did I say what you feel? No I said what I feel about others thoughts on this

And on this site don't make personal attacks - I didn't have a problem as a person. I now have a problem with YOU

Take your own advice then and stop accusing people who don't agree wiith you as enablers.