Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

And the poo scene! LOL

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

WT also indicates that shots were fired at ST, which is the first I have heard.
This makes a HUGE difference to Sean's defense.

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

i have a feeling that there wont even be a trail, i read somewhere that there was a second phase of the fight and one of the people shot at taylor. the police decide if they want to prosectue taylor or not, i dont think it will happen. or if it does, i bet he finds a way not to be found guilty

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

PSU Skins, what do you think about shots being fired at Sean in helping his defense?

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]PSU Skins, what do you think about shots being fired at Sean in helping his defense?[/QUOTE]

Really just depends on when they were fired.

If ST pulled the gun in the initial confrontation and waived it around, then got fired at, the shots probably don't have any bearing on the ST's defense. In fact, the other guys would have a strong self-defense argument that they feared ST was going to shoot them, so they had to fire at him in self-defense.

Certainly if the shots were fired before ST ever pulled his gun, he's absolutely home free. Pulling his gun out after being fired on would make for a very solid self-defense argument.

Now let's assume the shots were fired in the second confrontation, but that the other guys showed ST their guns in the first confrontation: In this situation, again, ST could claim that he only pulled his gun in self defense when he saw that the other men were armed. Again, he's home free.

Really it all just depends on the sequence of events. The key factor is going to be who was the first one to either threaten deadly force, or fire shots at the other. Whoever pulled their gun first is going to be the one that the prosecutor is going to go after. After a gun has been pulled or shots have been fired, then the prosecution's case gets much weaker because formidable (sp?) self defense arguments arise.

Do you see it the same way RamseyFan?

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

I'm also thinking about this. Since they proved that Sean did not discharge a weapon and if they prove that the other people did, isn't it Sean's word against theirs? And if they DID indeed fire a shot, it would make their case that much weaker.

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

Well, yes and no. Again, it's all going to come down to the sequence of events. If ST pulls his gun in confrontation #1........then comes back for more........now those guys all know he's packing. It could be reasonable for them to fire on him in self-defense if they believe he's going to shoot at them. In that case, the jury is probably going to sympathize more with the guys who just got confronted by a rather large man with a gun, and the other guys don't make bad witnesses (in this scenario).

Also remember that the criminal case is not a case of the other guys versus ST. Rather, it's going to be a case of the State versus ST. Yes, the other guys would be called as witnesses at ST's trial by the prosecution, but it's not a matter of the other guys having a case against ST. It will be their word versus his as witnesses, however, and that's where the facts will either make or break the case against ST. If ST pulled his gun first, and then the other guys shot at him, ST probably doesn't really have a self defense argument because he was the one that initiated the "gun play", if you will. If these other guys fired on or threatened ST first, then they would make terrible witnesses, ST would have a strong self-defense argument, and the prosecution probably would drop the case. It's all going to hinge on then the guns came out.

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

If he just wouldn't have come back the second time, it would be much easier to defend. If THEY pulled the guns first, why in the hell would he have come back NOT packing?

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

If they pulled the guns first, why in the hell would he have come back period?

That's why I'm concerned about the likely sequence of events. Obviously we're not dealing with rational and reasonable individuals (on either side), but I find it really hard to believe that ST would have come back if either the other guys flashed guns in the first confrontation, or shot at him in the first confrontation........and those might be the only scenarios that get ST off.

COMPLETE SPECULATION on my part, but doesn't it seem much more likely that ST surprised the other guys in the first confrontation, pulled a gun to scare the hell out of them, hit one of them with his fist, had his buddy chase one with a baseball bat...........and THEN came back for a second round (perhaps with more reinforcements) after a long enough time that the other guys could round up their guns and fire on ST as soon as they saw him? I hope I'm wrong, because he's screwed in that scenario. But I just can't figure out how he would have pulled his gun and not fired it AFTER being fired on by the other guys? Anything is possible I suppose. If he was dumb enough to confront them himself in the first place, he's dumb enough to go back and risk getting his head blown off I suppose.

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

You know who we haven't heard from yet? SC.

I bet he would be having a FIELD day.

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

Yep, another week or so til he comes back I think? Hopefully there is still some discussion flowing when he gets back to allow him to vent.........otherwise he may just explode with frustration.

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

The sequence of events, while not irrelevant, is really insignificant in the result of this trial. I have some experience in this sort of thing, and I have spoken to some people who have significantly more. My personal opinion, one which was strongly echoed by these more expert persons, is that Taylor will receive some combination of or all of the following: community service, probation, and fine. The key fact is that, while we all "know" Taylor to be kind of an idiot and perhaps a "thug," he has no criminal record. Due to this clean record, he will receive probation; that is, after all, the point of probation. The law makes provisions for the fact that a person can make a stupid decision that is out of character and doesn't warrant punishment that will affect the rest of their life. Of course, if they commit another crime, and thereby demonstrate a criminal tendency, the first comes back on them as well. The State Atty in this case will agree to a plea bargain that basically eliminates the 10-20-Life rule, which only applies to certain felony convictions. Aggravated assault is one of these, but simple assault is not, so I expect Taylor to cop to the simple assault and possibly the simple battery in order to take jail time out of the picture. The state will agree to this because A) their case is flimsy and B) Taylor will have a top-of-the-line lawyer on hand. The state does not want to risk a straight acquittal, so they will go along with a decent plea.

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

he's on vacation right now... left a couple days before this went down (go figure).

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

[QUOTE=e16bball]The sequence of events, while not irrelevant, is really insignificant in the result of this trial. I have some experience in this sort of thing, and I have spoken to some people who have significantly more. My personal opinion, one which was strongly echoed by these more expert persons, is that Taylor will receive some combination of or all of the following: community service, probation, and fine. The key fact is that, while we all "know" Taylor to be kind of an idiot and perhaps a "thug," he has no criminal record. Due to this clean record, he will receive probation; that is, after all, the point of probation. The law makes provisions for the fact that a person can make a stupid decision that is out of character and doesn't warrant punishment that will affect the rest of their life. Of course, if they commit another crime, and thereby demonstrate a criminal tendency, the first comes back on them as well. The State Atty in this case will agree to a plea bargain that basically eliminates the 10-20-Life rule, which only applies to certain felony convictions. Aggravated assault is one of these, but simple assault is not, so I expect Taylor to cop to the simple assault and possibly the simple battery in order to take jail time out of the picture. The state will agree to this because A) their case is flimsy and B) Taylor will have a top-of-the-line lawyer on hand. The state does not want to risk a straight acquittal, so they will go along with a decent plea.[/QUOTE]

yeah, usually they give you probation and let you know that if you screw up the probation or get arrested for something else, they'll have a suspended sentence (jail time) they can unthaw and throw at you.

Re: Taylor's 2005 Season Likely Unaffected by Charges
 

[QUOTE=jamf]e16 makes a great point with those stats. i will admit that i made an ignorant comment about miami-dade county.

unfortunatly race is a factor in some areas of the south and i think ST will be concerned about it.

If you feel the need to flame on, please keep the board clean and send it to my PM.i think i have room for 13 more pm's

I'm sorry for grouping the Whole south as racist. that was clearly a mistake, i should've worded things differently.[/QUOTE]

That was very big of you jamf, your stock just zoomed up the charts in my mind. Instead of getting defensive, you thought about your remarks and clarified things for us. Thanks for clearing that up.