Ahmad Brooks likely to join supplemental draft.

[DBoys]

You have no credibility dude to be slamming me for wanting a guy that had character issues.

I did some research and found out that you wanted Winston Justice on this team. http://dallascowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=818993#post818993

Well guess what almighty judge, here's a piece of fact from a draft site on Winston Justice.

Winston really screwed up last year (2004), he went from being a potential high NFL draft pick to possibly slipping due to character issues. Talent is not the issue, he was the first Trojan true freshman to start on the line since 1996, and he has had 23 starts in the last two years. He was suspended from the team for the entire year (2004) for pointing a gun at another student. Even though the gun was only a pellet gun it looked life-like and it turned out to be a big deal. He is also being investigated by the NCAA for supposedly having dealings with an agent. Justice was suspended for two semesters by USC's Office of Student Judicial Affairs and Community Standards after his arrest. The offensive tackle sat out the 2004 season, but is back with USC this spring and has resumed playing for the Trojans in 2005. Last July (2004), Justice was sentenced to three years of probation after pleading no contest to a misdemeanor count of solicitation of prostitution in Long Beach. As of this writing he has enrolled back at USC and appears to be making another run on the Gridiron. After staying out of trouble for the 2005 season and displayed the same form that made him a top prospect in 2003, then he has got a good chance at an early NFL Draft pick, that is, if a team wants to take a chance on him.
http://condraft.com/player.php?id=738
You probably have to join (it's free) to read the article on Justice.


So don't come to me with the character issues unless you're ready to band every player (including Cowboys) that has character issues.

What in the heck does this have to do with Brooks? Also how does dbair backing getting Justice in any way shape or form dismiss the fact Brooks is a pot head?

Argue the facts not the people.

 

[DBoys]

Not sure about the criminal definition, but tortiously, pulling a pellet gun on someone is definitely assault.

Physically harming someone (actually attacking them, ie landing a blow) is battery.

assault 1) v. the threat or attempt to strike another, whether successful or not, provided the target is aware of the danger. The assaulter must be reasonably capable of carrying through the attack. In some states if the assault is with a deadly weapon (such as sniping with a rifle), the intended victim does not need to know of the peril. Other state laws distinguish between different degrees (first or second) of assault depending on whether there is actual hitting, injury or just a threat. "Aggravated assault" is an attack connected with the commission of another crime, such as beating a clerk during a robbery. 2) n. the act of committing an assault, as in "there was an assault down on Third Avenue." Assault is both a criminal wrong, for which one may be charged and tried, and civil wrong for which the target may sue for damages due to the assault, including for mental distress.

Shows you how ******** law is assault means to hit but from the looks of it you are right. There is no way what Justice did was a felony but getting busted with drugs is.

 

[mschmidt64]

Not sure about the criminal definition, but tortiously, pulling a pellet gun on someone is definitely assault.

Physically harming someone (actually attacking them, ie landing a blow) is battery.

Check that....

Simple Assault is when someone:

(c) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

It's a misdemeanor.

Aggravated Assault requires there to be actual harm, or an actual attempt to cause harm (I doubt you could prove that JUST pulling a gun is an actual attempt to cause harm.... especially when its a pellet gun... you could say you were just trying to scare them).

However, even if you are just trying to scare someone, that is a simple assault, even if its with a non-real weapon... if you put them in fear of imminent serious harm (like getting shot).

Unless the gun looked totally fake and the person had no real reason to believe he was in danger, when Justice drew it on him, that's an assault.

 

[mschmidt64]

Shows you how ******** law is assault means to hit but from the looks of it you are right. There is no way what Justice did was a felony but getting busted with drugs is.

I don't think that's "********," that's just a public misconception of what the word "assault," means.

When people think assault, they generally think of the definition of a battery, in reality.

Heck, if I pretend I'm going to punch you, but then I deliberately miss, that could be an assault.... if a punch qualifies as "serious bodily injury" which I would say it does.

Remember to tell your kids that next time a bully is picking on them at school. Tell him that you're gonna call the cops and have him arrested for misdemeanor assault, lol.

 

[mschmidt64]

Good thing we don't have a 4th rounder.

PS...

The pick we give up would be a pick from NEXT year's draft, if we choose him in the supplemental. So we WOULD have a fourth to use.

 

[DBoys]

I don't think that's "********," that's just a public misconception of what the word "assault," means.

When people think assault, they generally think of the definition of a battery, in reality.

Heck, if I pretend I'm going to punch you, but then I deliberately miss, that could be an assault.... if a punch qualifies as "serious bodily injury" which I would say it does.

Remember to tell your kids that next time a bully is picking on them at school. Tell him that you're gonna call the cops and have him arrested for misdemeanor assault, lol.

To claim that someone yelling at you or threatning you is assault is absurd to me. While our legal system may claim that it is that is not saying much because our legal system is a joke.

Battery is another word for assault and shares the same meaning. Assault is attacking someone I don't care what our government thinks it is.

 

[DBoys]

PS...

The pick we give up would be a pick from NEXT year's draft, if we choose him in the supplemental. So we WOULD have a fourth to use.

Yep forgot about that but it doesn;t really matterwe will never pick the guy up.

Yeah lets draft another Quincy

 

[mschmidt64]

To claim that someone yelling at you or threatning you is assault is absurd to me. While our legal system may claim that it is that is not saying much because our legal system is a joke.

Words cannot be assault.

It has to be a physical threat.

Pulling a gun, brandishing a baseball bat, throwing a rock at someone, etc.

Battery is another word for assault and shares the same meaning. Assault is attacking someone I don't care what our government thinks it is.

No, it doesn't. You even looked up the definition and you saw what the word means. The word assault is to threaten. To physically harm is battery. They don't share the same meaning at all.

This is like objecting because society uses the word "cool," to mean trendy and the legal system uses the word to mean, "low temperature."

Sorry.... the public has taken the word and twisted it to have a new meaning. Not that I have any problem creating that new social definition, but don't get pissed off just because people still use the REAL definition.

The real definition is physical threat, not actual attack. It doesn't share the same meaning, that is your own mistaken understanding due to a larger public misconception about the reality of the word's definition.

 

[DBoys]

Words cannot be assault.

It has to be a physical threat.

Pulling a gun, brandishing a baseball bat, throwing a rock at someone, etc.




No, it doesn't. You even looked up the definition and you saw what the word means. The word assault is to threaten. To physically harm is battery. They don't share the same meaning at all.

This is like objecting because society uses the word "cool," to mean trendy and the legal system uses the word to mean, "low temperature."

Sorry.... the public has taken the word and twisted it to have a new meaning. Not that I have any problem creating that new social definition, but don't get pissed off just because people still use the REAL definition.

The real definition is physical threat, not actual attack. It doesn't share the same meaning, that is your own mistaken understanding due to a larger public misconception about the reality of the word's definition.

Who said I was pissed? Ok let me get this straight assault is to threaten but you add an ted, ing, or s and then it becomes an action hmmm

Main Entry: assaultPart of Speech: nounDefinition: attackSynonyms: advance, aggression, charge, incursion, invasion, offensive, onset, onslaught, rape, storm, storming, strike, violation

Main Entry: assaultPart of Speech: verbDefinition: attackSynonyms: abuse, advance, assail, bash, beset, blast, blitz, bushwhack, charge, go for, invade, jump, lay into, light into, rape, ruin, set upon, shoot down, slam, slap around, storm, strike, trash, violate, work over, zap

Main Entry: batterPart of Speech: verbDefinition: strikeSynonyms: assault, bash, beat, break, bruise, buffet, clobber, contuse, cripple, crush, dash, deface, demolish, destroy, disable, disfigure, drub, hurt, injure, lacerate, lambaste, lame, lash, mangle, mar, maul, mutilate, pelt, pommel, pound, pummel, punish, ruin, shatter, smash, thrash, wallop, wreck


So attack is only verbal right

 

[Hostile]

Not sure about the criminal definition, but tortiously, pulling a pellet gun on someone is definitely assault.

Physically harming someone (actually attacking them, ie landing a blow) is battery.

You are 100% correct.

 

[mschmidt64]

Ok let me get this straight assault is to threaten but you add an ted, ing, or s and then it becomes an action hmmm

Listing a bunch of synonyms doesn't mean anything. I already conceded that socially the meaning of the word has shifted. Like the word cool.

If you type that in, you will get "cold," as a synonym but you will also get "trendy."

But the original -- and true -- meaning of the word "cool" is more like cold.

And the real meaning of assault is a threatening. Even though now we use it to mean attack.

But we're the ones who are off base when we do that, not the legal system.

 

[silverbear]

pellet guns and wanting to pay 10 bucks for getting his knob polished are a little different than getting kicked off a team for drugs

David

Oh, so a guy who smokes weed is a "turd", but a guy who solicits hookers and points guns at people isn't??

Guess what, pal, both players broke the law... both players have character issues...

If you don't like Brooks, that is of course your right, and he has given you some reason not to do so... you also have legitimate points about his weight issues, which is of course an ON-field concern...

But if you're gonna run around callin' players "turds" (are you aiming to be the next Mike Florio??), if you're gonna make character an issue, you have an obligation to wield that axe fairly...

Frankly, it comes off like you're just extremely judgemental about the drug thing, and when you found Brooks had that problem, you went postal on him... within limited parameters, the point you make about wasting a pick on him if he gets suspended by the league is legitimate, but others have a point too when they tell you that if the league got serious about rooting out all the players who have smoked some weed, it would be hard for most teams to field a 40 man roster...

I'm a big Cavs fan, but like some others in here have stated, Parcells is certain to get some input from his old buddy Al Groh on this guy, and I'll be content to let the coach make his decision based on what he learns...

I know you have strongly held opinions, and are not exactly bashful about expressing them, but I won't criticize you for that, 'cause I'm pretty much the same way... LOL...

But reading this, yeah, you did get rather rabid in your criticisms...

 

[silverbear]

not really, since he apparently doesnt understand that doing drugs is a little worse than brandishing a pellet gun

David

No, it isn't... the guy he brandished that pellet gun at didn't KNOW it was just a pellet gun...

And if you're gonna engage in moral shading that way, consider that Brooks' people claim that his last drug test showed just trace amounts of THC in his system, and that it got there as the result of breathing in some second hand smoke at a party...

Having been to a few parties down in Charlottesville in a younger day, I can tell you it's tough to find one where some weed ISN'T being smoked...

So, while you're inclined to forgive a player that you apparently like for a coupla "minor" infractions of the law, would you be similarly inclined to lighten up on Brooks if his claims were true?? I can tell you're virulently anti-drugs, but can you tell me that you've NEVER been to a party where folks were passing a joint around?? Have you NEVER smelled the stuff before??

Well, son, if you have, and if you were required to take a drug test afterward, you'd test positive for THC too...

Just something to think about while you're busily trying to portray Brooks as some hard-core druggie... he might be, or he might not... Groh wouldn't be able to make such a distinction, in his situation he HAD to draw a hard line... but without knowing the facts, calling the guy a turd was a little over the top...

 

[silverbear]

Since when is pulling a pellet gun on someone assault? Assault is when you attack someone.

Pull a gun on somebody when a cop's around, and see what you're charged with...

Assault is a rather broad category, it can even include yelling threatening remarks at somebody... it's not just when you punch somebody out (indeed, in most states that's a separate crime, called battery)...

Good thing we don't have a 4th rounder.

We do in next year's draft, and any team that acquires Brooks in the supplemental draft will forfeit a pick from that one, not this one... this year's draft will be long over by the time the supplemental draft rolls around (usually in July, IIRC)...

 

[silverbear]

What in the heck does this have to do with Brooks? Also how does dbair backing getting Justice in any way shape or form dismiss the fact Brooks is a pot head?

Argue the facts not the people.

I think the argument was that it's hypocritical to dismiss Brooks out of hand (calling him a "turd"), making character a big issue, then turning around and calling for the Boys to draft a player with character issues his own self...

I'd say if character matters (and I think it does), then it matters for every player... and if you're gonna make it as big an issue as dbair has here, then you shouldn't advocate signing ANY player with ANY serious character issues...

But apparently, dbair sees patronizing hookers as something minor, while smoking dope is something terrible... perhaps he's done the former, but never done the latter...

Well, I've never done the former, but have done the latter, which might explain why my opinions are somewhat different from his... my only concerns when it comes to a player with a drug history is that he'll lack the discipline to stay away from it once he gets into the NFL, and get himself suspended... for example, I'm bitterly disappointed in Ricky Williams, I was a big fan of his in college... and of course, long-time Cowboys fans all shake their heads at what Leon Lett did to his career, and to the Cowboys... ditto Nate Newton (though that came after his playing days) and Michael Irvin...

So part of dbair's argument resonates with me, but he applies his standards in a rather illogical fashion, I think... I'm actually kind of offended that he keeps on saying "doing drugs is worse than pulling a gun on somebody", because doing drugs just hurts the the drug user, while pulling a gun puts other people at risk... to me, that's FAR worse...

What you should understand in all of this is that dbair is one of my favorite posters... I take no great pleasure in taking issue with him on this, but I strongly believe that he's morally wrong...

 

[silverbear]

To claim that someone yelling at you or threatning you is assault is absurd to me.

What's absurd is your inability to admit that you don't properly understand what constitutes an assault...

Battery is another word for assault and shares the same meaning.

No, it isn't, and no, it doesn't... battery means you BATTER someone, as in, you STRIKE them physically... it is a very specific term, aimed at a very specific offense...

Assaults most assuredly can be verbal, as in verbal intimidation...

Assault is attacking someone I don't care what our government thinks it is.

Here's hoping you never try to float that argument in a court of law...

"Your honor, I don't care what the court says, I didn't assault that woman, I just screamed that I was gonna kill her"...

ROTFLMAO... what YOU think assault is doesn't really matter, does it??

 

[mschmidt64]

Assaults most assuredly can be verbal, as in verbal intimidation...

Are you sure about that?

I know there can be intentional infliction of emotional distress via verbal expression but I'm not sure about assault, either criminally or tortiously.

 

[silverbear]

Are you sure about that?

I know there can be intentional infliction of emotional distress via verbal expression but I'm not sure about assault, either criminally or tortiously.

Well, similar discussions have arisen on other boards, lawyers have chipped in, and that's what they've told me... the example they use is of the big ol' truck driver who has fender bender with a little blue-haired lady, then gets up in the lady's face screaming dark threats about physical harm...

Those lawyers say that truck driver has created a reasonable fear of physical harm in that little old lady, and as a result has committed an assault...

Mind you, I'm not a lawyer myself, and who knows, maybe the lawyers who opined on that subject were bad lawyers, but that's what I took away from the discussion... and that's as "sure" as I'm willing to be on this subject, LOL...

Which is a little off the main topic of this debate anyway, since I'm pretty sure that pulling a gun-- even a pellet gun-- IS assault in all 50 states... well, maybe not in Texas, where I've heard they're considering a bill making it mandatory to carry a concealed weapon...

 

[mschmidt64]

Well, similar discussions have arisen on other boards, lawyers have chipped in, and that's what they've told me... the example they use is of the big ol' truck driver who has fender bender with a little blue-haired lady, then gets up in the lady's face screaming dark threats about physical harm...

Those lawyers say that truck driver has created a reasonable fear of physical harm in that little old lady, and as a result has committed an assault...

Mind you, I'm not a lawyer myself, and who knows, maybe the lawyers who opined on that subject were bad lawyers, but that's what I took away from the discussion... and that's as "sure" as I'm willing to be on this subject, LOL...

Which is a little off the main topic of this debate anyway, since I'm pretty sure that pulling a gun-- even a pellet gun-- IS assault in all 50 states... well, maybe not in Texas, where I've heard they're considering a bill making it mandatory to carry a concealed weapon...

Ayuh, I'm a lawyer in training.... pulling a pellet gun is definitely assault.

As those lawyers correctly pointed out (from my knowledge) assault revolves around whether there is apprehension (meaning anticipation, not fear) of a physical threat. You don't have to actually be scared of it even, you just have to perceive it (though if you KNOW the gun isn't loaded, for example, then there really is no threat so you can't have perceived one).

The elements I have written down are:

1. Intent by the assaultor to cause apprehension
2. Apprehension (anticipation) in the mind of the assaultee
3. Of an imminent battery (the striking/harm)
4. Coupled with the apparent ability to effectuate the attempt.

I remember an example given was a question our teacher asked... if I am running at you from across a football field with my fist raised like I want to hit you, at what point does it become assault? The answer: at the point you reasonably perceive the battery as imminent.

It could be 99 yards away or 2 yards away. Whenever you think, "Oh, crap, he's serious..." is when it becomes an assault.

So it all resides in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

I have explicitly written down in my notes *** WORDS CANNOT CONSTITUTE ASSAULT *** (even though they can color ambiguous action).

But I suppose it is possible that a court might rule (or has ruled) that a huge truck driver towering over a little lady and yelling at her is perhaps sufficiently physical to cause apprehension of an imminent battery, even if he has done no other such motion than get in her face. That is where the "words can color ambiguous language" would come into play I suppose... his actions alone -- getting in her face -- might not be enough, but the words, the yelling at her, combined with the action of getting in her face, might be enough, even though neither by itself is sufficient.

So anyway, that is my take.

 

[silverbear]

Ayuh, I'm a lawyer in training.... pulling a pellet gun is definitely assault.

As those lawyers correctly pointed out (from my knowledge) assault revolves around whether there is apprehension (meaning anticipation, not fear) of a physical threat. You don't have to actually be scared of it even, you just have to perceive it (though if you KNOW the gun isn't loaded, for example, then there really is no threat so you can't have perceived one).

The elements I have written down are:

1. Intent by the assaultor to cause apprehension
2. Apprehension (anticipation) in the mind of the assaultee
3. Of an imminent battery (the striking/harm)
4. Coupled with the apparent ability to effectuate the attempt.

I remember an example given was a question our teacher asked... if I am running at you from across a football field with my fist raised like I want to hit you, at what point does it become assault? The answer: at the point you reasonably perceive the battery as imminent.

It could be 99 yards away or 2 yards away. Whenever you think, "Oh, crap, he's serious..." is when it becomes an assault.

So it all resides in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

I have explicitly written down in my notes *** WORDS CANNOT CONSTITUTE ASSAULT *** (even though they can color ambiguous action).

But I suppose it is possible that a court might rule (or has ruled) that a huge truck driver towering over a little lady and yelling at her is perhaps sufficiently physical to cause apprehension of an imminent battery, even if he has done no other such motion than get in her face. That is where the "words can color ambiguous language" would come into play I suppose... his actions alone -- getting in her face -- might not be enough, but the words, the yelling at her, combined with the action of getting in her face, might be enough, even though neither by itself is sufficient.

So anyway, that is my take.

Your take is more or less the way I understand it, and well stated...