Pacman faces two felony charges

[Stash]

He may have. But the whole case was a fiasco from start to finish. From the investigators to the prosecutors. They tripped over themselves the whole way. If you want to blame someone, that's fine, but don't blame the defense attorneys for doing their job.

And BTW, damning the entire legal system because of one case is pretty weak. You never addressed my point in the other thread, but here it is again...

Quote:
95% of all cases EVER filed in a court system are settled. That means that both sides come to an agreement that they think is good enough for them. So 95% of the cases, both sides are in agreement.

The rest -- 5% remember -- go to court and are actually litigated to a ruling, some by a jury, some by a judge. Out of that 5%, you can cite a handful of cases where, in your opinion, a wrong ruling resulted. OJ (the favorite fall back of critics of the justice system), Michael Jackson, then I'm sure you feel a few Supreme Court or Appellate Court cases have been wrongly decided.

Obviously these courts have made mistakes, evident in the ones that have been overturned. I'm sure some cases that are currently precedent will be overruled in the future. But out of ALL of the cases that are filed, I assure you it is a small majority. Even smaller than 10%.

So in a justice system where millions of cases have been filed, 95% settle. Based on that figure alone, I would say that is successful. The number of cases you cite that may have, again in your opinion, wrong decisions is probably 1-2% of the total cases ever filed in the justice system. Name me another industry that is wrong 1-2% of the time?




So 'settlement' = right?

Sorry, not buying that for a second.

Not to mention all I see are numbers provided by you.

And all things considered, I don't consider you an unbiased source of information.

 

[peplaw06]

So 'settlement' = right?

Sorry, not buying that for a second.

Not to mention all I see are numbers provided by you.

And all things considered, I don't consider you an unbiased source of information.

Well contrary to what is likely your opinion, a settlement cannot be forced upon someone. Both sides stand to gain something by settling. If the defendant or the State didn't feel like the deal they were getting was worth it, they wouldn't settle.

And question the numbers all you want, but they're the generally accepted numbers. You don't consider me "unbiased?" You think I'm making these numbers up?:laugh2:

 

[Stash]

Well contrary to what is likely your opinion, a settlement cannot be forced upon someone. Both sides stand to gain something by settling. If the defendant or the State didn't feel like the deal they were getting was worth it, they wouldn't settle.

And question the numbers all you want, but they're the generally accepted numbers. You don't consider me "unbiased?" You think I'm making these numbers up?:laugh2:

And plenty of lawsuits are settled, regardless of that settlement being the right thing to do. As you said yourself, if someone has something to 'gain'.

As for the numbers provided to me by a member of the legal system?

Let's just say I lack faith.

 

[peplaw06]

And plenty of lawsuits are settled, regardless of that settlement being the right thing to do. As you said yourself, if someone has something to 'gain'.

Damn straight both sides have something to gain. That's why if you settle, you cannot appeal. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying here?

As for the numbers provided to me by a member of the legal system?

Let's just say I lack faith.

Well which numbers are you questioning? The 95% is the generally accepted number... it could be even higher.

The rest of the numbers are, I admit, my estimates. But even if you assume that ALL cases that go to a judge or jury without being settled are WRONG, that's 5% of all cases. I was more conservative and gave a range of 20-40% of unsettled cases being "wrong." And even that may be high.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Damn straight both sides have something to gain. That's why if you settle, you cannot appeal. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying here?

Well which numbers are you questioning? The 95% is the generally accepted number... it could be even higher.

The rest of the numbers are, I admit, my estimates. But even if you assume that ALL cases that go to a judge or jury without being settled are WRONG, that's 5% of all cases. I was more conservative and gave a range of 20-40% of unsettled cases being "wrong." And even that may be high.

I think a relivant point to these numbers might be the question of, "What percentage of the 95%, or whatever the number is, are made up of Civil and what % is made up of criminal?" If its 50/50 right down the line, then that pretty well stands up. But if it's 70/30, then that does change things a bit IMO.

Do you have any info on this PL? Also, do you think that people settle, more times then not, because they can't afford the costs of what it would take to fight it out to the end or do you think it's more a situation of being happy with the compramise offered?

 

[Stash]

Damn straight both sides have something to gain. That's why if you settle, you cannot appeal. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying here?

What I'm saying is that not all cases have merit. All too often, someone 'settles' rather than engaging in a lengthy legal battle. They do it because it's the easier thing to do, not because it's the right thing to do.

Well which numbers are you questioning? The 95% is the generally accepted number... it could be even higher.

Again, those are based on your assumption that somehow settling = right. I don't share that opinion.

The rest of the numbers are, I admit, my estimates. But even if you assume that ALL cases that go to a judge or jury without being settled are WRONG, that's 5% of all cases. I was more conservative and gave a range of 20-40% of unsettled cases being "wrong." And even that may be high.

When I don't agree that settling = right, none of your other numbers really matter.

You apparently have faith in your chosen profession, I don't.

We can simply agree to disagree.

 

[peplaw06]

I think a relivant point to these numbers might be the question of, "What percentage of the 95%, or whatever the number is, are made up of Civil and what % is made up of criminal?" If its 50/50 right down the line, then that pretty well stands up. But if it's 70/30, then that does change things a bit IMO.

It's probably pretty close to 50/50. I do mostly family law, so I probably see more civil cases actually going to a hearing than attorneys in other areas of civil litigation. People don't really want to settle when they have to give up custody of their kids. But when kids aren't involved, settlement rates are probably higher. I will say the few criminal cases we do are almost all settled. The cost to go to jury trial is prohibitive for most criminal defendants, unless they have a court appointed attorney. And truth be told, most of them are guilty, so there's a good chance going to trial could get them more time or a bigger fine.

Do you have any info on this PL? Also, do you think that people settle, more times then not, because they can't afford the costs of what it would take to fight it out to the end or do you think it's more a situation of being happy with the compramise offered?

There are lots of reasons people settle, and it's probably a combination of all these reasons. t costs more money to go to trial, plus there's a huge risk of not knowing what a judge/jury will do.

If I can get my client a settlement they can live with, oftentimes that's worth it, rather than risk more money, stress, and time on the chance that you may get a better ruling. The trade off is worth it. You know the saying, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush..."

Like I said though, some issues just won't be settled.

 

[peplaw06]

What I'm saying is that not all cases have merit. All too often, someone 'settles' rather than engaging in a lengthy legal battle. They do it because it's the easier thing to do, not because it's the right thing to do.

Again, those are based on your assumption that somehow settling = right. I don't share that opinion.

When I don't agree that settling = right, none of your other numbers really matter.

Well if the parties feel it's "right" enough for them to agree to it, then what makes it not right in your mind?

You apparently have faith in your chosen profession, I don't.

We can simply agree to disagree.

I have faith because I've seen it in action, and have heard stories from those who have seen it in action. You may have been to court a couple of times, or may have seen a portion of some televised trial of the century, but base your opinion on a handful of highly publicized cases.

 

[Stash]

Well if the parties feel it's "right" enough for them to agree to it, then what makes it not right in your mind?

When someone else (say other smokers, or other insured folks), pick up the tab, I have a problem with that. That makes it 'not right' in my mind.

I have faith because I've seen it in action, and have heard stories from those who have seen it in action. You may have been to court a couple of times, or may have seen a portion of some televised trial of the century, but base your opinion on a handful of highly publicized cases.

And your supposedly 'unbiased' perspective comes from someone who works in that field.

Oh the irony.

 

[superpunk]

We have alot of posters who struggle to identify actual irony.

 

[Stash]

We have alot of posters who struggle to identify actual irony.

Do tell....

 

[peplaw06]

When someone else (say other smokers, or other insured folks), pick up the tab, I have a problem with that. That makes it 'not right' in my mind.

Then your problem is not with the judicial system, it's with economics and capitalism.

And your supposedly 'unbiased' perspective comes from someone who works in that field.

Of course I'm biased. So are you, most people are. I just don't consider that enough to completely disregard what I'm saying. Although I may be biased, I am pretty well informed on the matter. Your only issue with what I say is that I happen to be in the field. Well, I'm not gonna go ask a doctor or someone in some other field for information on how many lawsuits are settled. When I have a question about a field, my initial reaction is to ask someone in the field. You discredit it BECAUSE I'm in the field... Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Oh the irony.

What SP said +1.

 

[Stash]

Then your problem is not with the judicial system, it's with economics and capitalism.

Yeah. And if you look back, I've said that. Unfortunately, that stuff overtook democracy and 'doing what's right' a long time ago.

Of course I'm biased. So are you, most people are. I just don't consider that enough to completely disregard what I'm saying. Although I may be biased, I am pretty well informed on the matter. Your only issue with what I say is that I happen to be in the field. Well, I'm not gonna go ask a doctor or someone in some other field for information on how many lawsuits are settled. When I have a question about a field, my initial reaction is to ask someone in the field. You discredit it BECAUSE I'm in the field... Doesn't make much sense, does it?

The very fact that you're employed in that field eliminates you from being unbiased. I'm obviously not unbiased with regard to these subjects and I never claimed to be. I'm quite opinionated ( as anyone can see).

The point is that you have your opinion and I have mine. We agree to disagree. And for what it's worth, I hope you can fix what's wrong.

What SP said +1.

Yeah, a lot of 'substance' there.

As usual.

 

[peplaw06]

The point is that you have your opinion and I have mine. We agree to disagree. And for what it's worth, I hope you can fix what's wrong.

My "opinion" is that the legal system is not a "joke." I'm biased there, fine. But I'm more informed than you are there too. I have a more educated opinion.

The "facts" are that 95% of cases settle. There's no bias in those facts. I offer facts and you discredit them because I'm in the field. That doesn't make sense.

 

[jimmy40]

My "opinion" is that the legal system is not a "joke." I'm biased there, fine. But I'm more informed than you are there too. I have a more educated opinion.

The "facts" are that 95% of cases settle. There's no bias in those facts. I offer facts and you discredit them because I'm in the field. That doesn't make sense.

I don't know about all that but Pac-man has the biggest helmet since Rick Moranis.

 

[Big Dakota]

Lawyers: Pacman will fight charges
Associated Press
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Suspended NFL player Adam "Pacman" Jones will surrender to authorities in Nevada and fight felony charges in a strip club melee that preceded a triple shooting.

Lawyers for the Tennessee Titans cornerback disclosed their client's plans Thursday. Attorneys Manny Arora and Robert Langford, however, said they had no information about a deadline of noon Friday set by police.

Arora said he was working with Clark County District Attorney David Roger's office on arrangements for Jones to surrender Friday or Monday in Las Vegas. Roger declined comment and said police were handling negotiations.
Las Vegas police Capt. James Dillon confirmed that authorities gave Jones, Sadia Morrison and Robert Reid until midday Friday to turn themselves in or face arrest in the melee at the Minxx strip club that took place during the NBA All-Star Game weekend.
Police have described Reid as Jones' bodyguard, and Morrison as a member of an entourage of about six people who arrived with Jones before the pre-dawn Feb. 19 fracas at the club, several blocks off the Las Vegas Strip.
The charges in Las Vegas have cast more doubt on Jones' playing status with the Titans. Since he was drafted in April 2005, he has been arrested five times - although he has not been convicted of any crimes. Jones has been involved in at least 11 separate police investigations, authorities say, and is currently sought by Atlanta-area police for questioning in a shooting early Monday after a fight at a strip club there.
The NFL and Titans owner K.S. "Bud" Adams Jr. declined comment about Jones until he serves at least 10 weeks of his season-long suspension.
The 23-year-old player faces two counts of felony coercion stemming from accusations he threatened to kill Minxx club employees and that he bit a bar bouncer.
Coercion is the act of threatening or physically interfering with a person trying to do something that he or she has a right and responsibility to do. If convicted, Jones faces a maximum of 12 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Arora accused police of leaking information about Jones because he is a celebrity. He said investigative reports were released before charges were filed and before arrest warrants were issued.
"Police keep saying they want to treat him like everyone else," Arora said. "It's infuriating. He isn't being treated like everyone else."
Langford also represents Reid, 37, of Carson, Calif., who faces one felony coercion charge alleging he attacked a bouncer who tried to restrain Jones, and Morrison, 25, of New York.
Morrison faces five charges, including coercion, felony assault with a deadly weapon and battery stemming from allegations that she hit a bouncer in the head with a bottle and attacked other club employees with a chair and a stanchion. No one is identified as the shooter, which left a club employee paralyzed and a bouncer and female patron with less serious wounds. But police contend Jones instigated the mayhem inside the club by attacking a dancer who tried to pick up cash Jones showered on stage from a plastic trash bag.

Jones is accused of threatening the life of club employees, punching a man whom police identify as his own business manager, and walking away from the club with a man wearing a baggy black T-shirt and blue jeans.
Minutes later, police say a similarly dressed man standing next to a palm tree fired five or six shots toward people at the front of the club.
Police have released an image of a person who Dillon said police wanted to identify and talk with as a "person of interest" in the shooting."
Dillon said Las Vegas police also wanted to question Jones in a fight reported at another area strip club several days before the Minxx shooting. That fight is not cited in court records, and Dillon did not immediately provide details.

 

[silverbear]

Attorneys Manny Arora and Robert Langford, however, said they had no information about a deadline of noon Friday set by police.

Las Vegas police Capt. James Dillon confirmed that authorities gave Jones, Sadia Morrison and Robert Reid until midday Friday to turn themselves in or face arrest in the melee at the Minxx strip club that took place during the NBA All-Star Game weekend.

Must be some REALLY good lawyers, there... LOL...

The 23-year-old player faces two counts of felony coercion stemming from accusations he threatened to kill Minxx club employees and that he bit a bar bouncer.

How exactly would biting a bar bouncer lead to a charge of "felony coercion"?? Assault, I could understand, but felony coercion??

"Police keep saying they want to treat him like everyone else," Arora said. "It's infuriating. He isn't being treated like everyone else."

Oh, please... if we were talking about Six Pack Jones, rather than Pac-Man Jones, the guy would have been sitting in a jail cell a long time ago... and Arora wouldn't care, because he wouldn't be representing the guy...

Morrison faces five charges, including coercion, felony assault with a deadly weapon and battery stemming from allegations that she hit a bouncer in the head with a bottle and attacked other club employees with a chair and a stanchion.

Rumor has it that she's in negotiations to sign with the WWE... they're always on the lookout for somebody who knows how to swing a chair...

 

[superpunk]

Do tell....

It would seem that I just did. A lawyer believing in the justice system isn't ironic anymore than whatever summer mistakenly thought was irony earlier in this thread.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It would seem that I just did. A lawyer believing in the justice system isn't ironic anymore than whatever summer mistakenly thought was irony earlier in this thread.

I didn't mistakenly think anything

he labled everyone who are behind Goodell suspending Pac-Man as people who were quick to villify the Duke Lacrosse players, in another thread

but now he takes offense to being labled as making excuses for Pac-Man

so again, how ironic

 

[peplaw06]

I didn't mistakenly think anything

he labled everyone who are behind Goodell suspending Pac-Man as people who were quick to villify the Duke Lacrosse players, in another thread

I never made any such accusation...

but now he takes offense to being labled as making excuses for Pac-Man

I don't take offense. That would be like me taking offense for you saying the sky is orange. You would just be wrong. No offense taken.

so again, how ironic

Bobby Sac strikes [out] again. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, I award you zero points, and may God have mercy on your soul...