Recap: Bobby Belt on Kelvin Joseph

[gimmesix]

Do you think as they got in the car and drove towards the guys they just fought any one of them said anything at all about using their weapons? Or do you suppose it was spontaneous, i.e. they drove that way and then the shooters surprised everyone. I think that goes to the question of, "carrying out of the conspiracy."

I mean, I have a hard time believing they just walked away from a fight and no one said anything.

I have no idea ... and you don't either. The difference is that I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt based on the information that has been presented while you are "thinking" of what his level of involvement might be. You wouldn't make a very good juror.

 

[Haimerej]

They are not going to charge him with failure to report if he is cooperating and helping them put away the actual murderers, which appears to be what is happening. Not sure why you are bent on him being charged with something when law enforcement doesn't appear to be.

As I've said over and over, they routinely charge everyone in the car in these situations. I'm wondering why Joseph gets special treatment.

Furthermore, I don't buy the innocent bystander hypothesis. Whether he's charged or not isn't up to me but it also doesn't address whether he did something wrong.

 

[gimmesix]

As I've said over and over, they routinely charge everyone in the car in these situations. I'm wondering why Joseph gets special treatment.

Furthermore, I don't buy the innocent bystander hypothesis. Whether he's charged or not isn't up to me but it also doesn't address whether he did something wrong.

It doesn't, but it also doesn't suggest that he did anything wrong. That's all you.

 

[Haimerej]

I have no idea ... and you don't either. The difference is that I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt based on the information that has been presented while you are "thinking" of what his level of involvement might be. You wouldn't make a very good juror.

Why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt?

 

[Haimerej]

It doesn't, but it also doesn't suggest that he did anything wrong. That's all you.

Not just me. There's plenty of people who feel like witnessing a murder comes with the responsibility of reporting it.

 

[gimmesix]

Why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, not the presumption of guilt.

 

[gimmesix]

Not just me. There's plenty of people who feel like witnessing a murder comes with the responsibility of reporting it.

Didn't say that it doesn't, just that it doesn't make him guilty of the murder or anything else that the state is going to prosecute. I would like to think if I was in the vehicle with someone who committed murder that I'd report it immediately, but I can't say that I know exactly how I'd handle the situation. If the people who did the shooting were my friends, would I hesitate because of my relationship with them? Would I hesitate because I'm afraid that I might be charged with something?

Everybody makes bad choices, some worse than others. You can't go back and change that. All you can do is move forward and do what's right. As far as the information we've got goes, he's doing right now on this murder. Doesn't matter how he reached that point because that's open to speculation, only that he's doing it.

Some of you act like this is just some common occurrence in Joseph's thug life, but as far as we know, this is the only time he's been witness to a murder. That should be a very hard thing to process unless he's the thug you seem to believe he is.

 

[Haimerej]

Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, not the presumption of guilt.

To a point. Some people do things which cause doubt... like not going to the police when you're in a vehicle from which shots were fired that resulted in the death of another human being.

 

[gimmesix]

To a point. Some people do things which cause doubt... like not going to the police when you're in a vehicle from which shots were fired that resulted in the death of another human being.

Didn't say that means you completely trust that person. But there's a difference in being wary of them and believing that they did something that no one has said they did. Benefit of the doubt is that he only did what he has told the police. Obviously, he could be lying, but the police have conducted interviews and don't seem to believe he is.

 

[Haimerej]

Didn't say that it doesn't, just that it doesn't make him guilty of the murder or anything else that the state is going to prosecute. I would like to think if I was in the vehicle with someone who committed murder that I'd report it immediately, but I can't say that I know exactly how I'd handle the situation. If the people who did the shooting were my friends, would I hesitate because of my relationship with them? Would I hesitate because I'm afraid that I might be charged with something?

Everybody makes bad choices, some worse than others. You can't go back and change that. All you can do is move forward and do what's right. As far as the information we've got goes, he's doing right now on this murder. Doesn't matter how he reached that point because that's open to speculation, only that he's doing it.

Some of you act like this is just some common occurrence in Joseph's thug life, but as far as we know, this is the only time he's been witness to a murder. That should be a very hard thing to process unless he's the thug you seem to believe he is.

I don't think whether or not we feel like we would have the strength to do the right thing matters on what is right. Standards are there for a reason. We should not tolerate murder. We should not tolerate those who would witness a murder and stay quiet.

Everyone makes bad choices and everyone should accept the consequences of bad choices. I think it shows great strength and honor to accept discipline with dignity. But some want to add this as just the next minor inconvenience on KJ's path to football greatness. Good thing he can afford his lawyer, right?

Regarding, "some common occurrence," that's a red herring. I've referred to his own actions in this situation. Again, it's about having a standard and holding everyone, even the privileged people like KJ, to that standard.

 

[Haimerej]

Didn't say that means you completely trust that person. But there's a difference in being wary of them and believing that they did something that no one has said they did. Benefit of the doubt is that he only did what he has told the police. Obviously, he could be lying, but the police have conducted interviews and don't seem to believe he is.

He didn't report it until his face was on the news. I mean, failure to report is clearly violated. I don’t care if the government agrees with my assessment.

Does the idea that he thought he got away with it hold any weight in your judgment? I mean... I think that's clear and it does, imo, factor into the question of, as another poster noted, "forthrightness." There's a difference between, "I felt bad and wanted to tell you." and, "My face was on the news but I didn't do it."

 

[gimmesix]

I don't think whether or not we feel like we would have the strength to do the right thing matters on what is right. Standards are there for a reason. We should not tolerate murder. We should not tolerate those who would witness a murder and stay quiet.

Everyone makes bad choices and everyone should accept the consequences of bad choices. I think it shows great strength and honor to accept discipline with dignity. But some want to add this as just the next minor inconvenience on KJ's path to football greatness. Good thing he can afford his lawyer, right?

Regarding, "some common occurrence," that's a red herring. I've referred to his own actions in this situation. Again, it's about having a standard and holding everyone, even the privileged people like KJ, to that standard.

Didn't say it makes it right. But there is a difference in what is right and what results in punishment. It isn't right to break the speed limit. There are laws against it. Yet people do it every day and are not punished for it.

I don't agree with your level of intolerance. We should not be happy with someone who witnesses a murder and initially stays quiet. But we shouldn't continue to hold that against him when he comes forward and tells the truth. The standard should be telling the truth. If he is now, I can live with that. Can't change the past.

That you appear to want him to suffer consequences seemingly no matter what and think the only reason he isn't is because he can afford a good lawyer tells me that I need to end this discussion because it is going nowhere. I'll wait to see what happens with Joseph rather than judge the rest of his life based on one moment of it.

 

[gimmesix]

He didn't report it until his face was on the news. I mean, failure to report is clearly violated. I don’t care if the government agrees with my assessment.

Does the idea that he thought he got away with it hold any weight in your judgment? I mean... I think that's clear and it does, imo, factor into the question of, as another poster noted, "forthrightness." There's a difference between, "I felt bad and wanted to tell you." and, "My face was on the news but I didn't do it."

We do not know if he thought he got away with it and would not have gone to the police even if his face wasn't on the news. That's an assumption, not a fact.

Your assessment doesn't really matter. Neither does mine.

 

[Haimerej]

Didn't say it makes it right. But there is a difference in what is right and what results in punishment. It isn't right to break the speed limit. There are laws against it. Yet people do it every day and are not punished for it.

I don't agree with your level of intolerance. We should not be happy with someone who witnesses a murder and initially stays quiet. But we shouldn't continue to hold that against him when he comes forward and tells the truth. The standard should be telling the truth. If he is now, I can live with that. Can't change the past.

That you appear to want him to suffer consequences seemingly no matter what and think the only reason he isn't is because he can afford a good lawyer tells me that I need to end this discussion because it is going nowhere. I'll wait to see what happens with Joseph rather than judge the rest of his life based on one moment of it.

You're taking everything to extremes to paint me as a loon. "Judge the rest of his life"? It's not even personal to KJ. I didn't even pay attention to him until I heard about this. I couldn't care less about his rap career, for example. It's about having standards.

 

[Haimerej]

We do not know if he thought he got away with it and would not have gone to the police even if his face wasn't on the news. That's an assumption, not a fact.

Your assessment doesn't really matter. Neither does mine.

How often do people confess to unsolved crimes?

 

[gimmesix]

You're taking everything to extremes to paint me as a loon. "Judge the rest of his life"? It's not even personal to KJ. I didn't even pay attention to him until I heard about this. I couldn't care less about his rap career, for example. It's about having standards.

I agree that was extreme, but the application of your standards seems to be as well. There's no level of forgiveness. He didn't go to the police, so he deserves some kind of punishment for it even if he's since tried to make it right. He's only trying to make it right because he's a millionaire and can afford a good lawyer who tells him to instead of considering the possibility that he wants to make it right. You are being extreme IMO, so I used an extreme comment. Glad you can recognize when someone is being extreme toward you. Too bad you can't recognize when you're being extreme to Joseph. He deserves consequences is extreme. It does not take into account a myriad of possibilities, including the conclusions that have been reached for the moment in the case. It assumes that he didn't want to tell the truth, that his involvement was greater than what has been given, etc. There is no reason to go there.

 

[gimmesix]

How often do people confess to unsolved crimes?

Not sure your point. Are you saying he wouldn't have gone to the police because very few people do that in unsolved crimes. If so, then why are you upset with him for being like everyone else? I don't assume that he wouldn't have gone to the police no matter what. I don't know. All I know is that he did eventually go to the police and it appears they are satisfied by what he said to them (and what other witnesses said) that he wasn't involved and that he was telling the truth. There are a lot of people who handle a situation wrongly, then turn around and make amends for it. I believe that they deserve credit for doing the right thing as much as they deserved blame for doing the wrong one.

 

[Haimerej]

I agree that was extreme, but the application of your standards seems to be as well. There's no level of forgiveness. He didn't go to the police, so he deserves some kind of punishment for it even if he's since tried to make it right. He's only trying to make it right because he's a millionaire and can afford a good lawyer who tells him to instead of considering the possibility that he wants to make it right. You are being extreme IMO, so I used an extreme comment. Glad you can recognize when someone is being extreme toward you. Too bad you can't recognize when you're being extreme to Joseph. He deserves consequences is extreme. It does not take into account a myriad of possibilities, including the conclusions that have been reached for the moment in the case. It assumes that he didn't want to tell the truth, that his involvement was greater than what has been given, etc. There is no reason to go there.

The point isn't that his attorney told him to tell the truth. Where did you get that? Him having a high priced attorney helps him in his defense even if they have a case against him. Attorneys can muddy the waters pretty easily if they're so inclined.

Which brings me again to the point about, "benefit of the doubt." Which of the 3 guys arrested in Jackson County gets the benefit of the doubt? The first one who talks?

 

[Haimerej]

Not sure your point. Are you saying he wouldn't have gone to the police because very few people do that in unsolved crimes. If so, then why are you upset with him for being like everyone else? I don't assume that he wouldn't have gone to the police no matter what. I don't know. All I know is that he did eventually go to the police and it appears they are satisfied by what he said to them (and what other witnesses said) that he wasn't involved and that he was telling the truth. There are a lot of people who handle a situation wrongly, then turn around and make amends for it. I believe that they deserve credit for doing the right thing as much as they deserved blame for doing the wrong one.

"Not sure [my] point," but then clearly show you understand the point. Your rebuttal that I should be upset with, "everyone else," who doesn't report an unsolved crime shows you don't really get my point. I mean... yeah... I'm upset at people who don't report crimes. Thought that was pretty clear.

So you don't think he should be charged with a misdeamenor? Failure to report is a misdeamenor.

 

[gimmesix]

The point isn't that his attorney told him to tell the truth. Where did you get that? Him having a high priced attorney helps him in his defense even if they have a case against him. Attorneys can muddy the waters pretty easily if they're so inclined.

Which brings me again to the point about, "benefit of the doubt." Which of the 3 guys arrested in Jackson County gets the benefit of the doubt? The first one who talks?

There's no reason, though, to assume that his attorney is muddying the water. That's just assuming evil without any proof of it.

As far as benefit of the doubt goes, you certainly don't give it to the individuals who confessed to the shooting. Why would you? They said they did it. You do give it to the individual or individuals who the police say they believe didn't take part in the shooting.

Again, this is what his attorney said.

"Kelvin Joseph did not shoot Cameron Ray," Sorrels told The Dallas Morning News. "Mr. Ray's death is a tragedy, and Kelvin extends his deepest condolences for the family's loss. On the night of March 17, Kelvin was unarmed and was not looking for violence. He found himself in a situation that escalated without his knowledge or consent. Along with condolences to the Ray family, Kelvin apologizes to the Dallas community for being anywhere near this type of incident. The investigation is ongoing, and we intend to respect the process."

Why exactly should we not believe it until it is proven wrong?