[PSUSkinsFan21]

I wish I could say that any of this surprised me, but this is about the type of behavior I would come to expect from ST. Wonder if anyone else is willing to try to teach this kid a lesson yet besides me. Of course he still hasn't missed any mandatory team events, so I guess we can all hold our heads high and proclaim that this guy deserves to be our starting safety.

Anyways, that's all I'm saying about any of that.

A few clarifications / opinions:

One key thing to remember with Aggravated Assault is that there is no requirement that ST actually touched or harmed the alleged victims. If he brandished a gun and pointed it at someone, and they felt threatened (the jury will assume this.......anyone who has a gun pointed at them is going to feel threatened), he is guilty of aggravated assault, period. Whether he actually fired the gun has no bearing on the charge of aggravated assault. Whether the alleged victim actually suffered any physical harm has no bearing on the charge.

As to the "self defense" arguments. Forget about them based on the accusations that have been made so far. First, if the alleged victim did not brandish a gun or other deadly weapon (and there has been no indication so far that he did), then ST cannot waive a gun at him and claim he felt threatened and was only protecting himself. If ST's life was not in imminent danger, he cannot escalate the situation by pulling out a gun and still rely on self defense. Second, someone stealing your property gives you no right to either inflict physical harm on them or to threaten them with a deadly weapon. I know some have said "I'd do the same thing if someone took my property".....and if that's true, you'd be breaking the law as well. Even assuming that the alleged victims had stolen ST's ATVs, that fact would still not excuse any of ST's alleged actions as a matter of law. The reasoning for this is simple: there is a public interest in prohibiting individuals from taking the law into their own hands. While the theft would make it more understandable in our eyes, it makes the alleged actions no less criminal. Third, someone has speculated that perhaps he could say "I took the gun, because I thought those thieves could be packing" (or something like that). Again, sorry, but no defense. The right to life supersedes the right to property, so the fact that he even went to the house of the alleged thieves with a gun is inexcusable. If ST has a true fear of what he might encounter, then he should have called the police. Taking a gun to try to retrieve property in inexcusable as a matter of law.

As for how difficult a case the prosecutor really has? Well, that's hard to tell at this early stage, but I will say that I don't believe it is as difficult as some would like to believe. Certainly if the alleged victims did, in fact, steal the ATVs, then ST's defense is stronger because it will attack the credibility of the victims and could provide reasonable doubt as to the conflicting testimony related to whether a gun was brandished. If, however, the alleged victims did not steal the ATVs, Sean is absolutely screwed. Period. Eye witness testimony is among strongest pieces of evidence a defendant can have against him. Certainly the defense will try to pick it apart, but if the guy says "he pointed a gun at me" and there is no serious challenge to his credibility, and the police can produce the gun, then he's going to be found guilty, plain and simple.

As to the fact that he's a first time offender? With a charge as serious as aggravated assault, where a gun was used, I doubt his being a first time offender will have any bearing at all. Certainly, first time offenders are still subject to whatever mandatory minimums exist under Florida law (and I am not familiar with the particulars of that). To the extent Florida law mandates a certain amount of jail time for gun crimes, he will serve that minimum IF found guilty.

As to the bail issue: it all depends on the parameters of the release. The judge would have set those parameters. In a situation like this where there is a very low likelihood of flight by ST (he's just too famous to try to run and hide), I imagine the judge would allow him to travel to D.C. and back for "work". Same situation with Kobe......he was out on bail during his trial and still allowed to travel back and forth.

As to the jury/fact issue: The jury is, indeed, the fact-finder. If the jury finds that "X" happened, then for purposes of the trial, "X" happened. If they find that "X" did not happen, then "X" did not happen. In criminal trials, all facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This, of course, leads to the inevitable situation where a jury finds that "X did not happen beyond a reasonable doubt". In that situation, yes, there are many times where a defendant has, in fact, committed a crime, but the jury cannot find that they committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." So both sides of the argument are correct. On one hand, the facts are the facts ..... regardless of what the jury says it doesn't actually change what REALLY happened. However, for ST's purposes, the only "facts" that have any bearing on his future are the ones that the jury finds to be true. Hence: OJ. For our purposes, we are under no obligation to wait for the jury to determine the facts. If we believe, based on the information available, that a certain fact is true, then we are free to say so. However, I think we all need to be careful not to take as "fact" what one person or one police report says. Let's not forget, unless the officer is actually there to view the incident, police reports are usually nothing more than a collection of witness statements that the officer makes a snap judgment on.

As for my thoughts on all this: I agree, we need to keep in mind that ST is innocent until proven guilty. However, regardless of whether he is guilty or innocent of the felony, or the misdemeanor, or whatever, I just don't understand how this guy manages to find himself in these situations. I mean come on, he wasn't arrested and charged because he excercised good judgment here. One way or the other he was somewhere he sould not have been in a situation he shouldn't have put himself into. I think he's a little old to be playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians or whatever it was he thought he was doing.