TwilightError
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,344
- Reaction score
- 225
kearly":lmq9y4ol said:It's ruined his life.
I see that I am a lot more steep than you on this matter, but "it" did not ruin his life. He ruined his life.
kearly":lmq9y4ol said:It's ruined his life.
kearly":1b7epu52 said:And Janay's. Janay wants to move on and start healing. For the rest of her life her husband is gonna be one of the most disgraced people in America. Some of that disgrace falls on her as well.
Anyway, my point is that she'd want her husband to have a second chance. She's said so, and passionately.
kearly":3eea5z00 said: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.
Popeyejones":27vy7469 said:kearly":27vy7469 said: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.).
Hold on, not talking to witnesses doesn't imply they ignored police reports.hawknation2015":21qv2aw4 said:kearly":21qv2aw4 said:I personally feel that JS mismanaged his explanation to the media. He should have taken as much time as neccessary to explain to them why he thought it was the right thing to do, instead of giving vague answers and copping out to the media's witch hunt philosophy by saying Clark never hit her instead of doing the more proper thing and playing the 2nd chances angle. JS is only setting himself up to be an easy target of scrutiny.
But I don't think it will matter much. This will likely be a forgotten topic by October, unless Clark has another incident, of course.
I hope so. Reports are coming out that the team didn't interview any witnesses about the incident, which makes it sound like we took his word for it and ignored the police report/photos.
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/05/05/seattl ... estigation
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... raft-pick/
jlwaters1":2x9xdi0r said:there were no eye witnesses on the incident, no one was actually present, so there's not a whole lot to be gleaned Imo.
Popeyejones":3aihqa8r said:kearly":3aihqa8r said: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.).
Gast-King also spoke with Hurt, who was 20 at the time of the incident, and her mother. But the prosecutor declined to disclose details of their conversation, saying it was confidential. “The facts were not as they initially appeared,” she said.
But after interviewing Clark and Hurt later on, she decided: “The police did everything exactly right, but I’m trying to be delicate because I don’t want to involve Diamond (Hurt) too much in this. Let’s just say she can take care of herself.’’
Scottemojo":156vhs53 said:Popeyejones":156vhs53 said:kearly":156vhs53 said: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.).
Of course it reminds you of those things. Tribalism is a poor mix with objectivity.
I read the reports prior to the draft. I'm on record here as saying I would love for the Hawks to pick this guy well before the draft. So I think I can safely say I'm not defending him out of tribalism. I am fine with it for these reasons:
1. He has already been suspended and effectively fined, the incident cost him millions in potential earnings in his draft slide, and he wasn't in the NFL when it happened. Did he learn from the incident? I have no idea. I do know his contract will be very team friendly should he have another DV issue. If I am the Hawks, there is specific language in it about both DV AND alcohol abuse. The Hawks are in the business of winning football games.
2. The Hawks spoke to the prosecutor. Who has all the evidence, all the eye witness accounts, has actually spoken to the arresting officers, and unlike both the Seattle media and yourself, has actually spoken to the two involved. By all logic, the prosecutor and Frank himself are the sources of the Schneider statement about him not hitting a woman. Speculating further about what Frank and Diamond said to the DA is pointless for me, suffice it to say that Ms Hart has apparently told the DA that the police report you keep referencing is not accurate in it's details. Yes, I am speculating just a bit. But those conclusions are logical, not born of my fandom, and as I said, conclusions I reached before Frank was a Hawk.
People want to hold Schneider's feet to the fire for saying Frank never hit Ms. Hart. Schneider was at the school within days, he spoke to the one person who actually has spoken to Clark and Hart, has a full report, and no doubt the verbal accounts from those same officers we will never be privy to. The same DA who reduced DV charges to something far, far smaller in magnitude. What else is there? I think it is ignorant hubris to think I know more about this whole incident than the Seahawks staff, the Michigan coaches, and the DA's office because I read a police report.
3. There is one other thing. The Hawks have a good track record with these 2nd chances. Browner got a 2nd chance, they knew his status in the drug policy, when he did it again, they did not renew him. They had a backup QB who got a DUI, after he got treatment they brought him back, he got another DUI, instant cut.
Bruce Irvin had a minor issue days before the draft. Compared to some of his former endeavors, it was minor anyway. But they had vetted his support staff, and made sure that if they took him that guy would be here in Seattle with him. He has stayed out of legal trouble since he got here.
Tharold Simon had a police incident just before the draft. They checked it out, drafted him anyway, and he has stayed out of trouble so far.
I don't really have a reason to think Schneider is full of shit or that he and Pete tacitly approve of domestic abuse. Yes, the police report is sensational stuff. But to take it as gospel is not something people with direct knowledge of the case are doing.
I agree with your perspective.... By the way thanks for the link Rocket.Rocket":3mx5r9ka said:Not quite yet... but close. Depends on what comes next.Missing_Clink":3mx5r9ka said:JS really comes out of this whole thing looking like a horse's ass
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.
My mistake. Schneider spoke with NFL security, not the DA. Still, the statements from the DA seem to back up that the police report is not to be taken as a gospel account of what happened.aawolf":54qm2bev said: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).
Interesting, everything I've read states the kid was in the shower, but your saying he saw the whole thing, I'm not sure what to believe.Popeyejones":2afmeb9b said:kearly":2afmeb9b said: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.).
Popeyejones":2afmeb9b said:jlwaters1":2afmeb9b said:there were no eye witnesses on the incident, no one was actually present, so there's not a whole lot to be gleaned Imo.
There were MANY eyewitnesses to the incident. While it's true that none of them witnessed the ENTIRE incident, all of their statements create a timeline and line up with each other, corroborating each other, and also corroborated by the photographic evidence.
*The five year old saying he was hitting her is corroborated by his 15 year old brother who said he came out of the bathroom and Clark was punching her, and her testimony that Clark punched her, and the physical evidence of the broken lamp which he said she fell into when Clark punched her.
*The 15 year old brother's statement that he was pushing her up against the wall before lifting her up by her neck and bodyslamming her is corroborated by the women next door who called the front desk because it sounded like somene's head was being banged against the wall and also by the broken light fixture on the wall.
*The women next door saying they saw her lying on the floor seemingly unconcious is corroborated by a five year old running out of the room crying that he "killed her," by the hotel manager who said she witnessed the same thing, and by her statement about where she ended up on the floor.
Basically you're left to contrast all this with Frank Clark's statement to the police that he "didn't do s**t to her,"didn't touch that woman," and him lying to the police about only being there with her (several of whom witnessed what happened). To top it all of he told them that she might be pregnant.
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.
Scottemojo":ovgkytai said:Of course it reminds you of those things...
jlwaters1":cfn9xpyl said:Interesting, everything I've read states the kid was in the shower, but your saying he saw the whole thing, I'm not sure what to believe.