He was in the SUV. His lawyers said so. He said he wasnt involved in the shooting.
You all need to watch First 48 on A&E. A detective stated that it is the best show for criminals to watch. You will be amazed how many perks officers get because they make statements without lawyers.I think @baltcowboy is right on here
We have a novelist in the zonePoetic justice would be if he somehow was directly involved in the murder but got away with it only to come out with a track implicating himself in the murder.
Too Short not enough gangsterWe passed on Asante Samuel Jr. for this guys, didn't we?
Our FO is a joke.
I have lived through a similar situation.
My first wife's brother came to our house needing a place to sleep. Because him and his girlfriend had gotten into a fight. He swear he was done with her and about to get his own place. He asked me to drive him to a guy's house who owed him money. When leaving this guy's house my ex-brother-in-law shot at the guy, because the guy said he owed him nothing. So I drive off and go back home. I kicked his butt out my house then called the cops. When the detective showed up, he told me the victim was dead. I then asked the detective...So what do I get accessory to murder? The detective told me...We don't have accessory to murder in Texas. I was let go scott free. I slept in my own bed that night.
So you do you think has the best information on this subject? The guy who lived through it first hand or the guy who's reading about it on the internet?
Take a nap dude, we're done here.
Your screen name suggest your from California. California and Texas have different laws, JFYI.
If I was waving pom poms, it would take a while for me to spin a narrative where he wasnt involved somehow given that information. The big questions are will his involvement be limited to where he can avoid jail by giving testimony? And if he can, do the Jones take the moral approach, or do they view it as losing an asset. A guy they were counting on being their #2 CB?Oh wow
If he can make a deal to avoid jail time, do the Joneses go the Arnette/Gladney route? Or do they hold on to him.
What do you think they should do?
Here's an case where a guy was sentenced to death in Texas for accessory to murder as the getaway driver.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ry-challenged-by-defense-lawyer-idUSKCN10S249
My guess is he starts the season on the exempt list. Then get suspended in 2023. Brent got 10 games for his responsibility in Jerry Browns death in 2013I amend my previous point; I cannot fathom being in the car with a drive by shooter who murdered the guy you just beat up and only getting a 2-4 game ban. If he doesn’t get a year or indefinite ban, that would be really surprising. A man is dead.
But Jerry I think will still hold on to him Gregory-style and say something like “kicking him to the street is the worst thing we could do for him right now”
That, is an empty argument to the court. No one cares whether he wants to be a snitch or not. If he hinders the investigation, he will most likely be charged.
And it is still unknown the level of his involvement. But he did not have to stay in that vehicle and go hunting. He chose to put himself at risk and the Cowboys better not ignore that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_partiesThey call it “Law of Parties” in Texas but it’s the same legal concept. Oz doesn’t want to understand that.
Not the same thing. Gregory is not a thug lowlife, he was just a stoner. He would hold onto him thinking he might play.I amend my previous point; I cannot fathom being in the car with a drive-by shooter who murdered the guy you just beat up and only getting a 2-4 game ban. This is absolutely premeditated by the killer if they’re going back to someone they met earlier. You’re hanging out with a guy while he’s planning first degree murder? If he doesn’t get a year or indefinite ban, that would be really surprising. A man is dead.
But Jerry I think will still hold on to him Gregory-style and say something like “kicking him to the street is the worst thing we could do for him right now. He needs support and we’re the best place for that”
Here what I see without knowing anything specific:
A. Kelvin is with 5-ish guys. They beat up a dude talking smack. We know that happened.
B. Later, some collection of the guys who beat him up come back and shoot the man dead.
C. Kelvin is not the shooter, and his defense is he had no knowledge they were coming back to do that.
This means that…
D. This is first degree murder. First degree means it was premeditated, it’s not a result of impulse in the moment. They went somewhere, then came back to search for the specific person to kill. So even if Kelvin really had no knowledge this was about to happen, he was hanging out with a dude or dudes who were In the middle of planning to kill someone.
I personally cannot fathom how you could be with a group prepping to do that and be entirely oblivious to it. Why did he think they were going back to the nightclub? The shooter needed to brandish the weapon and have it loaded before they rolled up, how does Kelvin not see this if he’s in the front seat? What effort did he make to stop the shooter?
Such a crazy scenario, I wonder how this will play out