News: Randle drug charges dropped; Ex-gf granted protection order

[DeaconBlues]

Yes. That is the far more common situation. Please continue applying the exception instead of the far more common occurrence.

I applied reality, based on the limited info given. 1) If she had a broken window, and she stated Randle broke it, he's arrested. 2). If she had a recent dent and she stated Randle caused it, he's arrested.

Common sense, unless you have a bias or an agenda.

And yes, what happened to me is a common instance. Not in majority of cases, but common enough.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You do realize that what happened to you, while terrible, has nothing to do with this woman or particular incident? Disregarding any potential DV situation because you had a bad experience is flawed thinking on your part.

Sure it does. It's a similar circumstance and the fact of the matter is it is not always the man's fault. Sorry to get in the way of your self assuring blanket condemnation and have doubts.

You want to discount the notion out of hand. You're worse than what you accuse him of doing. Sorry its inconvenient.

 

[AbeBeta]

No, it sounds like he want to try and use critical thinking in examining known facts.

All we have at this point is hearsay of the baby mama. For me, that is not enough.

No. Here is the critical thinking. Domestic violence is highly prevalent. The other poster wrote something that is very low probability and very uncommon. Occam's Freaking Razor dude

 

[links18]

What does "waved gun" mean? Does that mean he pointed it at them or not?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No. Here is the critical thinking. Domestic violence is highly prevalent. The other poster wrote something that is very low probability and very uncommon. Occam's Freaking Razor dude

Occam's razor does not bear out empirically. Oversimplification is just as much a problem as complication. It is a crutch and has no basis in binding legal decision making.

You also do not have any support about your commonality in any way shape or form. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how common or uncommon it was. The question is whether it was possible.

 

[JoeKing]

What the...? Why were the drug charges dropped? If this POS was caught with weed in his possession, he needs to be punished for it. The drug epidemic in this country gets perpetuated by lacks law enforcement such as this. If the laws are going to be ignored then why have them on the books.

 

[JoeKing]

What does "waved gun" mean? Does that mean he pointed it at them or not?

Learn the meaning of English words. Pointing is not waving. Either way, lawful handling of a firearm was ignored.

 

[AbeBeta]

Occam's razor does not bear out empirically. Oversimplification is just as much a problem as complication. It is a crutch and has no basis in binding legal decision making.

You also do not have any support about your commonality in any way shape or form. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how common or uncommon it was. The question is whether it was possible.

Yeah, actually it does. Especially when someone comes in with "well some people have never dealt with a vindictive woman" BS. You aren't thinking critically because you already are evaluating this from a biased perspective rather than a probabilistic one. Stick to breaking down film.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, actually it does. Especially when someone comes in with "well some people have never dealt with a vindictive woman" BS. You aren't thinking critically because you already are evaluating this from a biased perspective rather than a probabilistic one. Stick to breaking down film.

Actually no it doesn't otherwise Newtonian physics would work on the quantum level. It is much simpler than quantum field theory.

Further, you are making an assumption that her being at fault is somehow more complex than he. It's not complicated at all either way except when you start adding caveats about her being afraid or making up stories about her not doing what you would like to see.

We don't know but you seem intent on protecting from misogyny but you are just resorting to misandry making negative blanket assumption about men.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, actually it does. Especially when someone comes in with "well some people have never dealt with a vindictive woman" BS. You aren't thinking critically because you already are evaluating this from a biased perspective rather than a probabilistic one. Stick to breaking down film.

It also helps that if you are going to claim the probabilities then it helps to actually have numbers. You are just making assumption after assumption. It's not cavalier. It's irresponsible.

 

[JoeKing]

Yeah, actually it does. Especially when someone comes in with "well some people have never dealt with a vindictive woman" BS. You aren't thinking critically because you already are evaluating this from a biased perspective rather than a probabilistic one. Stick to breaking down film.

What? Occam's razor is just a devise to resolve conflict between competing hypotheses. It is not an empirical absolute.

If you've ever been the victim of a vindictive woman, you wouldn't call it BS. The phrase "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorn" is right. But even so, it is possible to put that aside a not bias your thinking.

Fuzzy had it right... "At the end of the day it doesn't matter how common or uncommon it was. The question is whether it was possible."

 

[Nightman]

Actually no it doesn't otherwise Newtonian physics would work on the quantum level. It is much simpler than quantum field theory.

Further, you are making an assumption that her being at fault is somehow more complex than he. It's not complicated at all either way except when you start adding caveats about her being afraid or making up stories about her not doing what you would like to see.

We don't know but you seem intent on protecting from misogyny but you are just resorting to misandry making negative blanket assumption about men.

The fact that she had put the baby in the car and was in the process of leaving gives her the benefit of the doubt. Him following her out to the parking lot and breaking out the window would be escalating the argument. Because women have lied in the past has no bearing on this case and the fact that men have threatened their women before doesn't either.

But based on what has been reported, people can only draw their own conclusions. We are not a court of law. If it ends up we were wrong, I will gladly apologize, but it doesn't look good.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The fact that she had put the baby in the car and was in the process of leaving gives her the benefit of the doubt. Him following her out to the parking lot and breaking out the window would be escalating the argument. Because women have lied in the past has no bearing on this case and the fact that men have threatened their women before doesn't either.

But based on what has been reported, people can only draw their own conclusions. We are not a court of law. If it ends up we were wrong, I will gladly apologize, but it doesn't look good.

There was a broken car window?

 

[links18]

Learn the meaning of English words. Pointing is not waving. Either way, lawful handling of a firearm was ignored.

Dude, tone it down. I think we are making the same point.

 

[Nightman]

There was a broken car window?

“I just couldn’t imagine seeing my son get shot by his own father,” Jacobs said. “Joseph puts his gun up. He walks back to the car, he looks in it, and then he just punches it with his fist,” said Jacobs. “Glass splatters everywhere. There’s glass in my son’s hair. It hit him and that’s when he starts crying.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rotection-order-says-joseph-randle-waved-gun/

 

[Danger]

Randle ain't a thug. He's just an idiot. Might as well cut him IF the allegations prove to be true.

 

[dragon_mikal]

Sure it does. It's a similar circumstance and the fact of the matter is it is not always the man's fault. Sorry to get in the way of your self assuring blanket condemnation and have doubts.

You want to discount the notion out of hand. You're worse than what you accuse him of doing. Sorry its inconvenient.

I never said it was always the man's fault and I'm not discounting anything. I'm perfectly aware of situations where the man is the actual victim and that the male in a relationship oftentimes gets the short hand of the stick in broken relationships especially when children are involved.

I'm not, however, going to imply that the woman is some money grubbing tramp that is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes simply because some women actually fit that description.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

“I just couldn’t imagine seeing my son get shot by his own father,” Jacobs said. “Joseph puts his gun up. He walks back to the car, he looks in it, and then he just punches it with his fist,” said Jacobs. “Glass splatters everywhere. There’s glass in my son’s hair. It hit him and that’s when he starts crying.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rotection-order-says-joseph-randle-waved-gun/

Ahh yes that was from the restraining order. It doesn't have his statements. Randle's account is via his agent:

“There was zero "violence" of any kind, domestic or otherwise,” he wrote. “[Randle] was asking 3 ppl to exit his room, who didn't want to leave. It was loud. Cops were called. Ticket issued. People and officer left. He went to bed."

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article9416579.html

SO were the police there when she left or not? i doubt he busted the window with them there. If he did bust it out in the hotel parking lot I imagine there is security footage unless he is staying at the roach motel.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never said it was always the man's fault and I'm not discounting anything. I'm perfectly aware of situations where the man is the actual victim and that the male in a relationship oftentimes gets the short hand of the stick in broken relationships especially when children are involved.

I'm not, however, going to imply that that the woman is some money grubbing tramp that is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes simply because some women actually fit that description.

Your benefit of the doubt is biased away from men. Got it.

 

[Nightman]

Ahh yes that was from the restraining order. It doesn't have his statements. Randle's account is via his agent:



http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article9416579.html

SO were the police there when she left or not? i doubt he busted the window with them there. If he did bust it out in the hotel parking lot I imagine there is security footage unless he is staying at the roach motel.

You are making a lot of assumptions to fit your story. With multiple witnesses I'm sure more will be known.

As to why he wasn't arrested, who knows?? Maybe the girl was scared and didn't accuse Randle right away. Maybe the police just messed up and wrote the citation as a CYA. The supposed gun wasn't found on scene, so maybe the police didn't believe her.

I'm just saying it doesn't look good and a person filing a protection order is a big step. He also got served with child support papers, so he is negligent there as well.