Ladies & Gentlemen... It is Commanders Week

[Skinsmaniac]

You're referencing a law that, in essence, pertains to somone who's wanted police (ie: "under authority of a warrant") and someone (ie: family member, spouse, friend, etc.) assists that person to avoid apprehension and prosecution. Michael Irvin was never charged with a crime. He couldn't be charged with a crime unless McIver pressed charges. It's a real simple premiss and I don't know why you're reaching for straws.

The facts are not even in dispute. Irvin believed that he should have gotten his haircut before McIver because Irvin was more senior. The stupidity of the whole thing can be debated, but a fight broke out and McIver punched Irvin square in the mouth and he saw red. As the fight continued, McIver was stabbed. Cowboys fans may not like it and we may want to write it off as "horse play" but that's how it happened. I've read an an interview with Irvin and he basically relates the same story (although I can't speak for the authenticity of the interview). But that doesn't make the event a crime. Plain and simple. And any settlement with McIver isn't a crime either.

Also, there is no subsection "D" that you referenced (see below). The penal code you referenced is a Misdemeanor unless the person that you're assisting has been charged with, convicted of, or is in custody for a felony. You can spit out half truths all you want, but you only make yourself look silly and it doesn't make your position any more true.

(c) [amended 9/1/95] An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the person who is harbored, concealed, provided with a means of avoiding arrest or effecting escape, or warned of discovery or apprehension is under arrest for, charged with, or convicted of a felony, or is in custody or detention for, is alleged in a petition to have engaged in, or has been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct that violates a penal law of the grade of felony, and the person charged under this section knew that the person they harbored, concealed, provided with a means of avoiding arrest or effecting escape, or warned of discovery or apprehension is under arrest for, charged with, or convicted of a felony, or is in custody or detention for, is alleged in a petition to have engaged in, or has been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct that violates a penal law of the grade of felony."

EDIT: Actually, I spoke too soon. This law definitely applies. The "under [FONT=&quot]the authority of a warrant or capias[/FONT]" language only related to the third subclause of subsection (a). Jones should have been guilty of a felony.

Now to the unimportant stuff: For many crimes a DA can prosecute even if the victim does not press charges. For example: murder and domestic violence. Therefore the DA could have probably charged Irvin with something. Secondly, my source for the Texas law was Westlaw which should be up to date, not sure what your source is.

Not sure how you can say "that doesn't make the event a crime." Attacking someone with scissors is likely a crime even if in self defense because scissors would constitute deadly force, disproportionate to the threat.

 

[zrinkill]

This troll is still trying to beat this dead horse?

I guess when you have no other argument ..... you have to make stuff up.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I wissssssshhhhhhhh I cud reed that posst

Signed

Dexter Manley

 

[BehindEnemyLinez]

I wissssssshhhhhhhh I cud reed that posst

Signed

Dexter Manley

Man, that's cold! Funny as hell, but cold nonetheless! GOOD JOB!!

 

[Dodger12]

EDIT: Actually, I spoke too soon. This law definitely applies. The "under [FONT=&quot]the authority of a warrant or capias[/FONT]" language only related to the third subclause of subsection (a). Jones should have been guilty of a felony.

I don’t know what it is about the bolded section below that you can’t understand or comprehend:

(c) [amended 9/1/95] An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the person who is harbored, concealed, provided with a means of avoiding arrest or effecting escape, or warned of discovery or apprehension is under arrest for, charged with, or convicted of a felony, or is in custody or detention for, is alleged in a petition to have engaged in, or has been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct that violates a penal law of the grade of felony, and the person charged under this section knew that the person they harbored, concealed, provided with a means of avoiding arrest or effecting escape, or warned of discovery or apprehension is under arrest for, charged with, or convicted of a felony, or is in custody or detention for, is alleged in a petition to have engaged in, or has been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct that violates a penal law of the grade of felony."

Michael Irvin was never under arrest for, charged with, convicted of, in custody or detention for, or was adjudicated for a felony. A quick search in Google will give you examples of where and how the law was used or applied and none of them fit your criteria, no matter how much you want it too.

Now to the unimportant stuff: For many crimes a DA can prosecute even if the victim does not press charges. For example: murder and domestic violence. Therefore the DA could have probably charged Irvin with something.

And yet, the DA didn’t press charges in the Irvin/McIver incident. Just like the DA in the Westbrook/Davis fight, which was pretty brutal, didn’t press charges. Why is that? And why is it that I don’t hear an outcry from you regarding the Westbrook/Davis incident since you’re riding some high horse of morality and justice when it comes to the Cowboys.

Not sure how you can say "that doesn't make the event a crime." Attacking someone with scissors is likely a crime even if in self defense because scissors would constitute deadly force, disproportionate to the threat.

This is absolutely laughable and you have absolultely no clue. The DA, the police and the Probation Department didn’t see it your way but you’re the one that’s right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Skinsmaniac]

I don’t know what it is about the bolded section below that you can’t understand or comprehend

I really hope that you don't give legal advice to anyone.
" [FONT=&quot]An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the person who is harbored, concealed, provided with a means of avoiding arrest or effecting escape, or warned of discovery or apprehension is under arrest for, charged with, or convicted of a felony"[/FONT]
That last part is read in conjunction with the rest of the section. Now let me ask you, if the statute is to punish those who hinder the arrest of a person how can that person already be convicted? The only way to make the bolded language logical is if the person being harbored is later convicted. Thus, if Irvin had later been convicted of a felony, Jones would have been guilty of a felony under this statute.
Edit: It is possible that the statute is designed to punish those who are protecting someone already convicted of a different crime. If that is the case, then it would be a misdemeanor.

Michael Irvin was never under arrest for, charged with, convicted of, in custody or detention for, or was adjudicated for a felony.

He doesn't need to be.
" [FONT=&quot](a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to hinder the arrest, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for an offense[/FONT]...he... [FONT=&quot](2) provides or aids in providing the other with any means of avoiding arrest or effecting escape; [/FONT]"
I hope you don't use google searches in court.

And yet, the DA didn’t press charges in the Irvin/McIver incident. Just like the DA in the Westbrook/Davis fight, which was pretty brutal, didn’t press charges. Why is that? And why is it that I don’t hear an outcry from you regarding the Westbrook/Davis incident since you’re riding some high horse of morality and justice when it comes to the Cowboys.

What Westbrook did is obviously wrong. How does that make what Irvin did right? Surely you can see the difference between a punching fight and cutting someone's neck with scissors.

This is absolutely laughable and you have absolultely no clue. The DA, the police and the Probation Department didn’t see it your way but you’re the one that’s right and everyone else is wrong.

The police and DA could not possibly have gone forward without cooperation from McIver. I fail to see how because Jones was able to pay off McIver, and succeeded in quieting him, that that is ok. It's time to take off your Cowboy glasses and put on your human being glasses.

 

[Hostile]

I wonder why Skinsmaniac doesn't say a word about the Commanders player who committed murder since he's so up in arms about his interpretation of "scissorsgate?"

Maybe, just maybe, once again, he doesn't know his own team's History?

Shall I bust out the whooping stick again SM? Your call.

 

[Skinsmaniac]

I wonder why Skinsmaniac doesn't say a word about the Commanders player who committed murder since he's so up in arms about his interpretation of "scissorsgate?"

Maybe, just maybe, once again, he doesn't know his own team's History?

Shall I bust out the whooping stick again SM? Your call.

The classic Hostile defense: "but he did it too mom." So we are agreed that Irvin and Jones should have been put in jail?

 

[Hostile]

The classic Hostile defense: "but he did it too mom." So we are agreed that Irvin and Jones should have been put in jail?

No, I don't.

Not going to talk about an actual murder by one of your players? Then I will.

His name was Raphel Cherry and he was a DB out of the University of Hawaii (he played QB there) drafted in the 5th round of the 1985 Draft. He strangled his wife to death after she filed for divorce.

In fact that was quite a Draft class that year wasn't it? Should I bring up Barry Wilburn too?

 

[Skinsmaniac]

No, I don't.

Not going to talk about an actual murder by one of your players? Then I will.

His name was Raphel Cherry and he was a DB out of the University of Hawaii (he played QB there) drafted in the 5th round of the 1985 Draft. He strangled his wife to death after she filed for divorce.

In fact that was quite a Draft class that year wasn't it? Should I bring up Barry Wilburn too?

And I can say that Raphel Cherry should die in prison. Why can't you admit that Irvin should have spent some time there.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

And I can say that Raphel Cherry should die in prison. Why can't you admit that Irvin should have spent some time there.

Football players don't go to jail.

 

[Skinsmaniac]

Football players don't go to jail.

It's sad, but it's true.

 

[Hostile]

And I can say that Raphel Cherry should die in prison. Why can't you admit that Irvin should have spent some time there.

Because I don't believe he should have if the injured party didn't seek it. I would feel that way if he weren't a Dallas Cowboy by the way. I felt then that the whole thing was blown out of proportion and your stuck in the 1990's ranting about something no one gives a crap about.

My original post compared the squawking from Commanders fans about Irvin's drug use to Manley's drug use. There is no comparison. You're pointing a finger and 3 of them are pointing back at you. That was the point. It is the point. And all of this stuff you are bringing up now doesn't change the point.

 

[Skinsmaniac]

Because I don't believe he should have if the injured party didn't seek it. I would feel that way if he weren't a Dallas Cowboy by the way. I felt then that the whole thing was blown out of proportion and your stuck in the 1990's ranting about something no one gives a crap about

The injured party often doesn't seek jail time for the assaulter. Battered wives and children often beg police not to arrest their husbands/fathers. But whether it is love or fear or money that stops the victims from pressing charges, attackers should still be held accountable and punished under the law.

 

[Hostile]

The injured party often doesn't seek jail time for the assaulter. Battered wives and children often beg police not to arrest their husbands/fathers. But whether it is love or fear or money that stops the victims from pressing charges, attackers should still be held accountable and punished under the law.

Dude, do you need a Kleenex? Stop your pathetic crying.

 

[Dodger12]

I really hope that you don't give legal advice to anyone.
" [FONT=&quot]An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the person who is harbored, concealed, provided with a means of avoiding arrest or effecting escape, or warned of discovery or apprehension is under arrest for, charged with, or convicted of a felony"[/FONT]

And you must have been a trip trying to write a book report since comprehension is not your strong suit. When the law references "convicted of a felony" (which you have bolded), it refers to the crime in question, not a previous offense for which Irvin was already adjudicated and on probation for. In other words, a defendant may have been convicted of a crime (felony) and is awaiting sentencing and decides to flee. Anyone assisting him/her would be in violation of the statute you quoted. The wording of the statute refers to every stage of the legal process so all the bases are covered.

Now let me ask you, if the statute is to punish those who hinder the arrest of a person how can that person already be convicted?

See above. A person can be out on bail and go through the whole judicial process, to include sentencing, and still not have spent a day in jail except for any time spent in jail between his/her arrest and the bail hearing. Sometimes, a judge will order a date for the offender to report to prison to begin his sentence and that offender is technically "a convicted felon", thus the need for the wording in the statute that you bolded above. But your still reading it wrong anyway. You're confusing an arrest with the investigation. You may belive that Jerry Jones hindered the "investigation" into the Irvin/McIver incident, which he did not, but he never hindered Irvin's "arrest" since he wasn't charged and there was no warrant issued to begin with.

The only way to make the bolded language logical is if the person being harbored is later convicted. Thus, if Irvin had later been convicted of a felony, Jones would have been guilty of a felony under this statute.

The bolded section is logical if the person you're aiding is charged with a felony, then that makes your conduct rise to the level of a felony. But Irvin had to be charged FIRST or have charges knowingly pending, which he wasn't, so Jones in no way protected or aided him from getting arrested. If felony charges were pending against Irvin and Jones knowingly gave him money to flee the country, then Jerry could be charged with the statute.

I hope you don't use google searches in court.

Google is your friend when you're trying to understand something you know nothing about. Look up the statute that you yourself provided to support your theory and you'll see case law as to how it was applied. It should give you every indication and evidence that your argument is flawed.

What Westbrook did is obviously wrong. How does that make what Irvin did right? Surely you can see the difference between a punching fight and cutting someone's neck with scissors.

I never said what Irvin did was right. I think it was a stupid argument that escalated for no reason. Based on the facts, a fist fight and cutting someone's neck with a scissors could both rise to level of agravated assault or worse, depending on the condition of the victim. Someone could shoot a victim and that offender can get charged with attempted murder, but if the victim doesn't testify, then the charges are often dropped. You need a victim to have a crime in this instance. McIver wasn't going to press charges so there was no point in law enforcement going any further with this.

The police and DA could not possibly have gone forward without cooperation from McIver.

It took a while but slowly and surely, you're starting to come around.

I fail to see how because Jones was able to pay off McIver, and succeeded in quieting him, that that is ok. It's time to take off your Cowboy glasses and put on your human being glasses.

IF Jones gave McIver money and McIver was fine with it, then it is what it is. Do you really believe that guys like Jones and Snyder would do anything of the sort without speaking to best lawyers money could buy? If Jerry got involved in this mess, then you can bet it was legal. The DA, Police and Probation saw it that way, why can't you?

 

[tomson75]

The injured party often doesn't seek jail time for the assaulter. Battered wives and children often beg police not to arrest their husbands/fathers. But whether it is love or fear or money that stops the victims from pressing charges, attackers should still be held accountable and punished under the law.

Unfortunately for your argument, that's the way it is. If you don't like the way our judicial system works, run for office, take the Bar, something...

I doubt whining about it here is going to garner much sympathy.

 

[zrinkill]

The injured party often doesn't seek jail time for the assaulter. Battered wives and children often beg police not to arrest their husbands/fathers. But whether it is love or fear or money that stops the victims from pressing charges, attackers should still be held accountable and punished under the law.

Are you really this stupid?

The cops investigated it .... and found it to be two guys horsing around.

Case closed.

You saying over and over again that something is fishy about a 14 year old incident only makes you look silly and biased.

Are you really this scared about the game this weekend? :laugh2:

 

[DaBoys4Life]

The injured party often doesn't seek jail time for the assaulter. Battered wives and children often beg police not to arrest their husbands/fathers. But whether it is love or fear or money that stops the victims from pressing charges, attackers should still be held accountable and punished under the law.

IDK this could be contributed to others factors like if they husband goes to jail and leaves the wife at human with X amount of kids and the wife is a stay at home mom how will the bills get paid?

 

[Skinsmaniac]

See above. A person can be out on bail and go through the whole judicial process, to include sentencing, and still not have spent a day in jail except for any time spent in jail between his/her arrest and the bail hearing. Sometimes, a judge will order a date for the offender to report to prison to begin his sentence and that offender is technically "a convicted felon", thus the need for the wording in the statute that you bolded above. But your still reading it wrong anyway. You're confusing an arrest with the investigation. You may belive that Jerry Jones hindered the "investigation" into the Irvin/McIver incident, which he did not, but he never hindered Irvin's "arrest" since he wasn't charged and there was no warrant issued to begin with.

You are right. The "convicted" language makes most sense for someone already convicted but not yet serving time. It would have been a misdemeanor.

The bolded section is logical if the person you're aiding is charged with a felony, then that makes your conduct rise to the level of a felony. But Irvin had to be charged FIRST or have charges knowingly pending, which he wasn't, so Jones in no way protected or aided him from getting arrested. If felony charges were pending against Irvin and Jones knowingly gave him money to flee the country, then Jerry could be charged with the statute.

Preventing an investigation is "hindering" an arrest, whether or not charges have yet been filed. There is no requirement that charges already be filed. Now maybe prosecutors have decided that it is not worth pursuing charges in these cases. If that's the case Jones should be treated the same as everyone else, but by the letter of the law his actions were illegal.

I never said what Irvin did was right. I think it was a stupid argument that escalated for no reason. Based on the facts, a fist fight and cutting someone's neck with a scissors could both rise to level of agravated assault or worse, depending on the condition of the victim. Someone could shoot a victim and that offender can get charged with attempted murder, but if the victim doesn't testify, then the charges are often dropped. You need a victim to have a crime in this instance. McIver wasn't going to press charges so there was no point in law enforcement going any further with this...

There is a difference between not going forward with a case because of lack of evidence and because the offender doesn't need to be punished. It was pointless for the police to go forward because they couldn't have secured a conviction, but in terms of punishment and deterrence, Irvin should have been put behind bars.

IF Jones gave McIver money and McIver was fine with it, then it is what it is.

McIver, Jones and Irvin are free to settle a civil case, not obstruct a criminal one.

Do you really believe that guys like Jones and Snyder would do anything of the sort without speaking to best lawyers money could buy? If Jerry got involved in this mess, then you can bet it was legal.

If it was legal then why deny it? Either they didn't do it or they did and lied about it.

The DA, Police and Probation saw it that way, why can't you?

No, the DA and police saw that it was a waste of resources to go forward, not that Irvin shouldn't be punished.