Zebulon Dak wrote:expertise

pehawk wrote:I just saw he got an involuntary imprisonment charge. That's a charge which gets dropped, 99.999% of the time. It's what cops pass out, knowing full well it cant be prosecuted. I've never received one in a DV setting, but I know from prosecutors what it means in laymans.

For example.

If you get in a fight with a dude, the police decide it was "fair" but HAVE TO arrest someone, to cover their asses, this is a charge they'd pass to one party. If you kicked a phone out of his hand, or kept him from calling bouncers, voila, "II" charge.

Change your mind? Kinda does mine. My guess is they got called, both we're arguing, and they seperated them with a trumped arrest and a charge that wont stick.

pehawk wrote:Maybe he stood in front of the door, blocking her path? Unplugged phone? I'm not sure how'd it work in the home.

But, all you have to do is block someone from going where they'd prefer to go, and that's the charge. Some lil worm running to get the bouncers, you impede? There ya go, you got a charge that'd make Notorious BIG proud.

pehawk wrote:Youre right, Les. It is unlawful. My take on it remains the same, at least from what ive seen, its a throw-away charge.

AbsolutNET wrote:

pehawk wrote:Youre right, Les. It is unlawful. My take on it remains the same, at least from what ive seen, its a throw-away charge.

It's a weird one, Anthony.

SonicHawk wrote:He was a weakness on our defense so I don't see him being back anyways.

pehawk wrote:Ive never seen it not dropped. Always struck me as a charge a cop gave because brutality's frowned upon.

Anthony? My name's Ryan, Les.

Zebulon Dak wrote:I wonder what she did or said to him to piss him off.

RolandDeschain wrote:It's a bit disconcerting how much some of our posters know about laws relating to kidnapping and imprisoning other people.

Aros wrote:Either way, he's played his last down as a Seattle Seahawk. Book that.

Missing_Clink wrote:As a former prosecutor I can tell you that the crime of DV unlawful imprisonment is taken seriously, and you can bet they will push it as far as they can if this goes to trial. No reason not to. Perhaps they would drop it if he agrees to plead to felony assault, but depending on the extent that Leroy actually "imprisoned" her, you could see the most damning facts come in support of that charge. If we are talking about forcible, violent restraint preventing her from leaving, that is no throwaway charge.

Hawkscanner wrote:As far as Leroy being a Seahawk next year is concerned, that ship has long since sailed in my opinion for all the reasons I talked about before.

Now if we're talking about Leroy Hill the man and judging him simply in regards to this incident -- my thoughts on that are pretty simple and straightforward. I'm assuming that one way or another he's going to end up going to counseling --either he figures out there's some issue, someone close to him pressures him to go, or he's court ordered to go at some point in his life. (Those counseling situations are totally different animals, by the way)

So, if I were counseling Leroy Hill, this is the essence of the central question I would be posing to him. I would be asking him, "Leroy, why is it that your name keeps ending up in police reports?" I would also be asking him about the incident 2 years ago ... hopefully trying to get him to see a pattern and to identify his part in these blow-ups. You see, even if he ends up being totally innocent in this particular case ... the very fact that we have seen this kind of thing in connection to him before (and I will go out on a pretty firm limb and say that there have been plenty of other similar incidences that never ended up in a police blotter) speaks to the fact that he has WAY bigger fish than football to fry. It speaks to the fact that he has a problem -- a problem he's not going to be able to fix on his own.

pehawk wrote:No way. I just dont see it.

I respect and trust your career history, but I've had a prosecutor flat tell me it's a charge used as a throw away. That short of duct taping someone, its hard to prosecute. Now, maybe Leroy did that? Maybe it was the proper use of the charge.

pehawk wrote:

Missing_Clink wrote:As a former prosecutor I can tell you that the crime of DV unlawful imprisonment is taken seriously, and you can bet they will push it as far as they can if this goes to trial. No reason not to. Perhaps they would drop it if he agrees to plead to felony assault, but depending on the extent that Leroy actually "imprisoned" her, you could see the most damning facts come in support of that charge. If we are talking about forcible, violent restraint preventing her from leaving, that is no throwaway charge.

No way. I just dont see it.

I respect and trust your career history, but I've had a prosecutor flat tell me it's a charge used as a throw away. That short of duct taping someone, its hard to prosecute. Now, maybe Leroy did that? Maybe it was the proper use of the charge.

pehawk wrote:Ive never seen it not dropped. Always struck me as a charge a cop gave because brutality's frowned upon.

Anthony? My name's Ryan, Les.

Ben Roethlisberger wrote:It's funny because he's not actually talking to Les, but he's pretending that he is!

Matthew Stafford wrote:@Roethlisburger @CANHawk #LOL

Zebulon Dak wrote:Well I'm thinking Smitty has taken his job at this point, but I would think hope this type of info would make the moral condemners hold off on their judgement, at least for a little while.

pehawk wrote:Hill needs to learn compassion. He doesn't even have it for himself. Sad, really sad.

MysterMatt wrote:

pehawk wrote:Hill needs to learn compassion. He doesn't even have it for himself. Sad, really sad.

True. Otherwise he'll only ever be a pathetic almost-was.

The Radish wrote:"I would take that to mean the facts are especially egregious."

Anytime anyone uses the word "egregious" in a sports forum he's out of line. To me that means they have decided to use this place as a courtroom rather than a place to talk sports.

jesus.....save it for a judge, nothing but common folks here.

cdallan wrote:

MysterMatt wrote:
True. Otherwise he'll only ever be a pathetic almost-was.

Jesus. You've really got it in for Leroy Hill, don't you? Rein it in a little.

CANHawk wrote:

The Radish wrote:"I would take that to mean the facts are especially egregious."

Anytime anyone uses the word "egregious" in a sports forum he's out of line. To me that means they have decided to use this place as a courtroom rather than a place to talk sports.

jesus.....save it for a judge, nothing but common folks here.

There's nothing common about me. I'm fabulous!