Recap: Bobby Belt on Kelvin Joseph

[gimmesix]

"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.

OK ... you say I understand the point, but then I don't really get your point. That's why I said I'm not sure of your point.

No, I don't think he should be charged if everything he, his attorney, the police are saying is accurate. He is cooperating. That's what the police and prosecutors want. You are holding one choice against him, but not giving him credit for his actions after that choice. The police and prosecutors seem to be giving him credit for his actions after that choice. They understand that sometimes people make the wrong one. What you do today is what really matters, not what you did yesterday that you can't change.

 

[Haimerej]

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?

That statement is at the very least an admission that he failed to report the crime. The fact is the only people who know what happened were in that vehicle. I think the idea that he had these guys from his hometown surprise him by performing a drive-by stretches credulity when coupled with the fact no one reported a thing until their faces were on the news. I also don't think the DA or courts would want a protracted battle if they have two guys taking the rap. I wish I had your optimism about the legal system but I don't. The courts don't always care about justice.

 

[Haimerej]

OK ... you say I understand the point, but then I don't really get your point. That's why I said I'm not sure of your point.

No, I don't think he should be charged if everything he, his attorney, the police are saying is accurate. He is cooperating. That's what the police and prosecutors want. You are holding one choice against him, but not giving him credit for his actions after that choice. The police and prosecutors seem to be giving him credit for his actions after that choice. They understand that sometimes people make the wrong one. What you do today is what really matters, not what you did yesterday that you can't change.

It depends on what you did yesterday. There are plenty of men reaping their rewards or punishments based on what they did yesterday, i.e. all the guys sitting in jail because they were in the car when one of their buddies shot at a house.

I said you don't seem to get it because you keep implying that this is some personal attack on KJ. I'm making the case that standards should apply across the board.

 

[gimmesix]

It depends on what you did yesterday. There are plenty of men reaping their rewards or punishments based on what they did yesterday, i.e. all the guys sitting in jail because they were in the car when one of their buddies shot at a house.

I said you don't seem to get it because you keep implying that this is some personal attack on KJ. I'm making the case that standards should apply across the board.

And I'm saying the standards do apply across the board. Joseph not being charged is standard for someone who is cooperating and is not considered to have had a role in the actual crime. You are the one adding levels to the standard that is used, which makes it an attack on Joseph. If prosecutors charged everyone for failure to report no matter their level of cooperation, then it would be different, but that's not the case. There is a lot of give and take with the law. The main goal is to make sure those who committed a crime such as murder do not get away with it.

That you believe he should receive a punishment even though the police and prosecution haven't shown that they believe he should receive a punishment does make it seem like a personal attack. Every case is considered on its own merit.

 

[gimmesix]

That statement is at the very least an admission that he failed to report the crime. The fact is the only people who know what happened were in that vehicle. I think the idea that he had these guys from his hometown surprise him by performing a drive-by stretches credulity when coupled with the fact no one reported a thing until their faces were on the news. I also don't think the DA or courts would want a protracted battle if they have two guys taking the rap. I wish I had your optimism about the legal system but I don't. The courts don't always care about justice.

Again. There are a lot of assumptions here. I don't see why there's a need for that unless you want something to be true that we don't know.

As a journalist, I deal a lot with crime. There are certainly problems with the legal system,, but I think you have a very pessimistic view of it.

As far as the DA not wanting a protracted battle, there are a lot of lawyers who love to make their name with high-profile cases, so that can work both ways. However, knowing that he has the money for a good lawyer, they wouldn't want to go after him with weak charges and without plenty of evidence. Not reporting is a minor crime and not worth the effort, especially with him cooperating in a murder case.

OK, I said I was done with this earlier. Now, I'm going to stop because we're just going round and round and not getting anywhere.

 

[Haimerej]

And I'm saying the standards do apply across the board. Joseph not being charged is standard for someone who is cooperating and is not considered to have had a role in the actual crime. You are the one adding levels to the standard that is used, which makes it an attack on Joseph. If prosecutors charged everyone for failure to report no matter their level of cooperation, then it would be different, but that's not the case. There is a lot of give and take with the law. The main goal is to make sure those who committed a crime such as murder do not get away with it.

That you believe he should receive a punishment even though the police and prosecution haven't shown that they believe he should receive a punishment does make it seem like a personal attack. Every case is considered on its own merit.

You said earlier that you should be, "wary," of someone who didn't report the crime until their face was on the news. But that's lip service if you just accept his attorney's statement without skepticism. I mean, you're acting as though someone doesn't have an incentive to lie in this situation and it's unreasonable to even suggest you charge the millionaire who witnessed a murder with a misdeamenor.

The impasse is you think his actions are worth paying lip service to him getting a skeptical eye and I'm actually giving him the skeptical eye.

 

[Techsass]

Bobby Belt was just on 105.3 The Fan —

Kelvin Joseph was “completely” in the doghouse all of last season.

He was “incredibly” immature throughout rookie year.

Coaches had little to no trust in him.

“Very poor practice player.”

Bobby said he’d rather have Kelvin Benjamin than Kelvin Joseph.

Gave ya a LIKE, but I don't think I like the info.

 

[Haimerej]

Again. There are a lot of assumptions here. I don't see why there's a need for that unless you want something to be true that we don't know.

As a journalist, I deal a lot with crime. There are certainly problems with the legal system,, but I think you have a very pessimistic view of it.

As far as the DA not wanting a protracted battle, there are a lot of lawyers who love to make their name with high-profile cases, so that can work both ways. However, knowing that he has the money for a good lawyer, they wouldn't want to go after him with weak charges and without plenty of evidence. Not reporting is a minor crime and not worth the effort, especially with him cooperating in a murder case.

OK, I said I was done with this earlier. Now, I'm going to stop because we're just going round and round and not getting anywhere.

It seems you see my points but disagree on where the line is drawn. Appreciate the respectful conversation.

 

[AsthmaField]

The Texas law of parties[1] states that a person can be criminally responsible for the actions of another in certain circumstances, including "f, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy."

From the information that has been presented so far, none of the things here fit Joseph's role, and even if they did, "can be" is key wording here.

That sounds like if you are committing a felony and then someone in your group commits another felony that you didn’t plan on… then your still responsible for that additional felony as well.

Like if you break into a house to rob it and the crazy guy in your group shoots and kills the homeowner… then you’re still on the hook for murder, even if you never would have pulled the trigger yourself, because you knowingly were committing a felony to begin with.

Which makes me think that, in Joseph’s case, they weren’t attempting to carry out a felony to begin with… so does that mean the law of parties wouldn’t apply? They were (presumably) just leaving to go home. It wasn’t conspiracy to commit a felony to begin with… which makes me wonder if Joseph could even be held criminally responsible for the actions of another.

I don’t know. Like I’ve already mentioned, I’m certainly not a lawyer in the state of Texas, but the police there never charged Joseph with any crime.

 

[gimmesix]

That sounds like if you are committing a felony and then someone in your group commits another felony that you didn’t plan on… then your still responsible for that additional felony as well.

Like if you break into a house to rob it and the crazy guy in your group shoots and kills the homeowner… then you’re still on the hook for murder, even if you never would have pulled the trigger yourself, because you knowingly were committing a felony to begin with.

Which makes me think that, in Joseph’s case, they weren’t attempting to carry out a felony to begin with… so does that mean the law of parties wouldn’t apply? They were (presumably) just leaving to go home. It wasn’t conspiracy to commit a felony to begin with… which makes me wonder if Joseph could even be held criminally responsible for the actions of another.

I don’t know. Like I’ve already mentioned, I’m certainly not a lawyer in the state of Texas, but the police there never charged Joseph with any crime.

That's essentially how I took it, but I'm just a journalist. I try to rely on those who know the law to tell me what it means legally.

 

[HungryLion]

I don't agree that it's fair or valid, but it's certainly your right. I try not to be overly judgmental about people I don't know and situations I don't know enough about to have an informed opinion. The situation makes me wary of him ... but that's as far as I'm willing to go at this moment.

Fair enough. I just choose to judge someone
Who witnesses “friends” murder someone and then keeps his mouth shut for a month.

 

[gimmesix]

It seems you see my points but disagree on where the line is drawn. Appreciate the respectful conversation.

I guess you could say that. I don't want to presume guilt or that the standard the police/prosecutors are using in this case is any different than they would use in any case. It's possible, but I see no reason to say that they haven't charged him because they don't feel there's a reason to charge him.

Something may come out to prove differently, but I just don't think we should assume things we don't know. Doesn't mean I think Joseph should be completely trusted to be telling the truth, especially since he did not go to the police right away, just that I also don't know enough about him as a person to think that he's lying or guilty of anything more than being in the vehicle and not being initially forthcoming.

I appreciate you being respectful with your arguments as well. I don't think we're going to agree on where the line should be drawn, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Haimerej]

That sounds like if you are committing a felony and then someone in your group commits another felony that you didn’t plan on… then your still responsible for that additional felony as well.

Like if you break into a house to rob it and the crazy guy in your group shoots and kills the homeowner… then you’re still on the hook for murder, even if you never would have pulled the trigger yourself, because you knowingly were committing a felony to begin with.

Which makes me think that, in Joseph’s case, they weren’t attempting to carry out a felony to begin with… so does that mean the law of parties wouldn’t apply? They were (presumably) just leaving to go home. It wasn’t conspiracy to commit a felony to begin with… which makes me wonder if Joseph could even be held criminally responsible for the actions of another.

I don’t know. Like I’ve already mentioned, I’m certainly not a lawyer in the state of Texas, but the police there never charged Joseph with any crime.

I saw a possible application as regards the conspiracy language. Something like, "F@%! those guys! Let's show them what's up!" could've been the conversation after getting in the vehicle. They drive-by with the intent to shoot in their general direction just to scare them and end up killing someone.

I still have difficulty thinking that the guy in the car who had already earned over $3 million wasn't setting the tone and was just a bystander shocked by what transpired.