News: Ezekiel Elliott's Lawyer: Alleged Dog Attack Victim Was Trespassing on Property

[cern]

I make some mean stuff. Ask @Runwildboys .
And he got an experimental flavor.

I converted a walk in cooler bought after a local packing company closed its doors into a smoker on the ranch. I smoke venison, elk, moose, beef, hogs and turkey. Even fish. It's the preferred xmas gift of many of my friends.

 

[Runwildboys]

Guilty before a trial is presumed, not assumed. The latter only requires common sense. The former is mandated.

Or they took the guilt from him.

 

[Corso]

I converted a walk in cooler bought after a local packing company closed its doors into a smoker on the ranch. I smoke venison, elk, moose, beef, hogs and turkey. Even fish. It's the preferred xmas gift of many of my friends.

You own my heaven.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

Actually, I am correct because I have dealt with that situation two different times and know for a fact.

She does not have to prove she was allowed to be there because 1) she was an employee and 2) she had access (either a key or access code).

Of course, if she broke in, that would justify trespassing.

Actually, I'm correct and have dealt with it more than 2 times.

 

[Maxmadden]

I have a pool in my backyard and if the next door neighbors kid wanders in and drowns then I am responsible?
Apparently by the law I am. I will accept that responsibility..I do not feel that is my responsibility but I will do what is necessary to negate that possible horrific outcome.

If somebody wanders in my backyard and I have a team of killer dogs that attack somebody because they don't check their security clearances then I am putting a lot of responsibility on a dog to be my head of security.

You can't have IEDS, killer dogs or killer robots protecting your property unless they can somehow learn to successfully discriminate, which dogs can't do.

The best dog in the world will do things in a pack that it would never do on it's own.

Zeke should pay as fast as he can and get this behind him, it is a lose lose situation for him.

 

[cern]

Actually, I'm correct and have dealt with it more than 2 times.

There are more shades of grey in the law than any other discipline on earth. It was deliberately written that way. That's why verdicts can be appealed. It's the reason multiple judges have to decide the corectness or error another judge. All the way up to our scotus which always has dissenting points of view about what the law actually says. Jurors are easily swayed. Judges can be prejudiced. Nothing in the law is clear cut, black and white.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

There are more shades of grey in the law than any other discipline on earth. It was deliberately written that way. That's why verdicts can be appealed. It's the reason multiple judges have to decide the corectness or error another judge. All the way up to our scotus which always has dissenting points of view about what the law actually says. Jurors are easily swayed. Judges can be prejudiced. Nothing in the law is clear cut, black and white.

Problem is some are confusing it as criminal trespassing and that's not what is going on.

 

[cern]

Problem is some are confusing it as criminal trespassing and that's not what is going on.

Clearly wasn't criminal trespass.

 

[Corso]

Problem is some are confusing it as criminal trespassing and that's not what is going on.

Interesting...

 

[CowboyRoy]

Ezekiel Elliott's Lawyer: Alleged Dog Attack Victim Was Trespassing on Property

Ezekiel Elliott 's attorney said Friday that the woman who is suing the Dallas Cowboys running back after allegedly getting attacked by his three dogs in March did not have permission to be on Elliott's property...

Frank Salzano provided TMZ Sports with the following statement:

"The plaintiff was unauthorized to be on the premises the day of the incident and either willfully disregarded and/or negligently ignored her employer's policy which required Elliott to be notified in advance of any visits. We look forward to further establishing the plaintiff's contributory negligence during the course of this matter."

Read Full Story

LOL...……….yah, she wasn't supposed to work that day.

Zeke is pretty much everything I hate about todays athlete. 2 more years and this fool is someone elses problem.

Simply cant win championships with these type of moron leading your team.

 

[CowboyRoy]

So she first tried to settle out of court, but Zeke wasn't interested. That's gotta give you pause, and make you think that maybe, just maybe he's not the one who was negligent.

He is just an idiot. He is going to wind up paying big big money now. I hope she takes the fool for all he is worth.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I will never give Zeke benefit of the doubt but IF the facts revealed result in trespassing then Zeke can not be blamed....Private Property is Private.

Silently folding my Tony Pollard jersey....

LOL...….oh yah, the poor lady tries to clean his pool and gets mauled by his dogs. She had it coming. LOL

 

[CowboyRoy]

If this is true, Zeke is innocent of any charges or responsibilities for what happened to her.

You cant be that stupid.

 

[kazzd58]

Give her $50k and a signed jersey and be done with it!

Shiddddd I ain’t Giving a thing u trespassing .. Had to be doing something she shouldn’t have ... oh well

 

[America's Cowboy]

You cant be that stupid.

Not as stupid as you, that's for sure big mouth.

 

[kskboys]

There are more shades of grey in the law than any other discipline on earth. It was deliberately written that way. That's why verdicts can be appealed. It's the reason multiple judges have to decide the corectness or error another judge. All the way up to our scotus which always has dissenting points of view about what the law actually says. Jurors are easily swayed. Judges can be prejudiced. Nothing in the law is clear cut, black and white.

Yup. Almost nothing is that clear. Plus, it's common for a jury to decide for the little guy over the rich guy, so Z could easily lose this case due to only that.

 

[cern]

Yup. Almost nothing is that clear. Plus, it's common for a jury to decide for the little guy over the rich guy, so Z could easily lose this case due to only that.

Without overwhelming evidence, it usually comes down to the litigant who has the best attorney.

 

[kskboys]

Without overwhelming evidence, it usually comes down to the litigant who has the best attorney.

Sometimes who is the most believable.

 

[Sevenup3000]

If you gave her a key (or access code) to your house, it would be very difficult to get a trespass ruling.

Again, I think most people are not reading what I am posting. I am not saying it is "right" or that the woman did nothing wrong.

I am saying that "trespassing" is very difficult to prove if they work for you or "sometimes" have permission to your house.

I am a licensed Texas attorney (although I practice bankruptcy law). Where are you getting this information?

In the first 2 weeks of Tort we learn that intent and motives are two separate considerations. Especially when it comes to the tort of trespassing. It does not matter one bit what this lady's motives were.

Under Texas Penal Code Section 30.05, criminal trespass includes the following elements: the person enters or remains on or in property of another; without effective consent and the person; and. when the person had notice that the entry was forbidden or received notice to depart but failed to do so.

Texas law recognizes a cause of action for trespass to real property. Trespass to real property is an unauthorized entry upon the land of another, and may occur when one enters, or causes something to enter, another's property.

No where in those definition does it talk about motive, i.e., she entered the property to commit a crime. The law doesn't care what your motive is...only your intent. For example, if you are lost, and you enter my property (driveway) with your car to do a u-turn, are you guilty of trespassing? Under most jurisdiction (including Texas), yes you are! It does't matter WHY you entered...only that the entry upon my property was unauthorized and that you intended to enter upon my property.

Your son kicks a ball into my yard...He goes to retrieve it without my permission. That also is trespassing. Your son (unless he was pushed) intended to enter onto my land without authorization.

So you keep saying "unless she was there to commit a crime." But that is irrelevant (and would be in any jurisdiction that I know).

Did she entered into Zeke's property, and if so, was the entry authorized? She clearly INTENTIONALLY entered...so that is one element...the only question, which Zeke's attorney clearly asserts it was not, was her intentional entry authorized by the Owner?

 

[cern]

Sometimes who is the most believable.

Was OJ believable. Or his key witnesses kato kaelin or rosa lopez? Was it a fair and impartial jury. The only justice was that the juice stiffed all his attorneys and didn't pay them.