Sean Taylor fined 4 games checks, will not be suspended

[Bob Sacamano]

Sure.

Doss was drunk(speculation) and was firing his unlicensed gun outside of a resturaunt. Michael Pittman beat his wife. Sean got into a fight with another guy.

You tell me what's worse. Since the punishments are up to the discretion of the commish I don't see how anyone can say it's unfair that Taylor isn't suspended.

a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor, there is no degree

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'll explain it so there's no questions...no contest means that a defendant neithers admits or disputes the charges. In this case, I think it was pretty clear that the DA had no case. In all likelihood, this deal was offered to Sean to bypass the inconvenience of a futile trial that would have occupied a large chunk of the summer or regular season.

if it was pretty clear that the DA had no case, why did ST feel the need to take the plea? I mean, just go to court and beat the charge, so maybe it wasn't that cut and dried then huh?

 

[AbeBeta]

Refusing to take a blood alcohol test.

that case was under appeal at last report

however, the appeal was supposed to have been heard several months ago.

anyone know how that appeal turned out? or whether that conviction is considered a traffic citation rather than a misdemeanor?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

that case was under appeal at last report

however, the appeal was supposed to have been heard several months ago.

anyone know how that appeal turned out? or whether that conviction is considered a traffic citation rather than a misdemeanor?

when you get your license, you agree to take a blood test and/or blow, that's why they suspend licenses for failure to do either, the appeal probably won't go very far, and it's considered a citation I believe, the DUI/DWI is a misdemeanor

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Look at the big picture of this case, instead of legal details. The DJ/DA (before being fired) offered Sean a plea of no jail time on a triple-felony charge if he would plead guilty to two misdemeanors - Sean declined a chance at no trial b/c he said he wouldn't plead guilty to something he didn't do. The DA that took over the case after the DJ was suspended reviewed the case for a few weeks and offered Sean a similar deal (no contest plea). Do you think the prosecution wanted to avoid a trial? Maybe, just maybe, he was innocent. We'll never know, though. Sean accepted this deal at the advice of his attorneys to avoid any risk associated with a trial as well as the inconvenience of missing any work.

can I see a link where his attorney states that?

btw, people don't ususally accept plea bargains just to avoid inconveniences

 

[AbeBeta]

can I see a link where his attorney states that?

btw, people don't ususally accept plea bargains just to avoid inconveniences

no they don't.

they do it because there is a legit risk of conviction -- but the prosecutors also felt there was a legit risk of acquital. pleas happen in cases like this because neither side wants to lose.

if there was truly no case, Taylor would never have accepted a plea. also, it wouldn't have been terribly inconvenient since if there was no case, it would have been a pretty damn short trial.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

no they don't.

they do it because there is a legit risk of conviction -- but the prosecutors also felt there was a legit risk of acquital. pleas happen in cases like this because neither side wants to lose.

if there was truly no case, Taylor would never have accepted a plea. also, it wouldn't have been terribly inconvenient since if there was no case, it would have been a pretty damn short trial.

I understand that, but these stink fans are mistaking "no contest" for "not guilty", like it's a clear barometer, and it's obviously not if you know what you're talking about

 

[AbeBeta]

I understand that, but these stink fans are mistaking "no contest" for "not guilty", like it's a clear barometer, and it's obviously not if you know what you're talking about

the only difference between those two is that no contest doesn't count as an admission of guilt in a civil case, right? Otherwise, no contest is the same as a guilty plea.

According to the personal conduct policy excerpt below, it is pretty clear how the league views it.

Persons Convicted of Criminal Activity
Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a criminal violation (including a plea to a lesser included offense; a plea of nob contendere or no contest; or the acceptance of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, disposition of supervision, or similar arrangement) will be subject to discipline as determined by the Commissioner.

 

[sacase]

Look at the big picture of this case, instead of legal details. The DJ/DA (before being fired) offered Sean a plea of no jail time on a triple-felony charge if he would plead guilty to two misdemeanors - Sean declined a chance at no trial b/c he said he wouldn't plead guilty to something he didn't do. The DA that took over the case after the DJ was suspended reviewed the case for a few weeks and offered Sean a similar deal (no contest plea). Do you think the prosecution wanted to avoid a trial? Maybe, just maybe, he was innocent. We'll never know, though. Sean accepted this deal at the advice of his attorneys to avoid any risk associated with a trial as well as the inconvenience of missing any work.

Get real that is just a poor excuse. It is not like this was a capital murder case where there are weeks and weeks of testimony. It would have lasted a week at the very most and that is pushing it. Only guilty people take pleas.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

the only difference between those two is that no contest doesn't count as an admission of guilt in a civil case, right? Otherwise, no contest is the same as a guilty plea.

According to the personal conduct policy excerpt below, it is pretty clear how the league views it.

Persons Convicted of Criminal Activity
Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a criminal violation (including a plea to a lesser included offense; a plea of nob contendere or no contest; or the acceptance of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, disposition of supervision, or similar arrangement) will be subject to discipline as determined by the Commissioner.

I think "no contest" is similar to nolle prosequi, or, no prosecution, where there is no indication of either guilt or innocense, and yes, the league doesn't look too favorably upon someone going to court, unless the verdict is not guilty

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Get real that is just a poor excuse. It is not like this was a capital murder case where there are weeks and weeks of testimony. It would have lasted a week at the very most and that is pushing it. Only guilty people take pleas.

I was watching Court TV the other night, and this guy's felony, murder trial for robbing a Wells Fargo truck, and shooting the driver, lasted 2 days, so yeah, that is a poor excuse, works for the laymen though

 

[Avery]

Who cares? I'd rather have him not be suspended.

If ST's not on the field and we beat the Skins, you can pretty much determine what the excuse would be. If he is there, that's one less excuse.

Besides, 12.5%-25% reduction in salary is pretty big. Of course, when that salary is in the millions, it doesn't have the exact same effect as our peons, but it's still money.

Get over it and bring on the season I say.

 

[AbeBeta]

Besides, 12.5%-25% reduction in salary is pretty big. Of course, when that salary is in the millions, it doesn't have the exact same effect as our peons, but it's still money.

it is still a big chunk -- but I think it is based on his salary of 305k -- so the fine is around 70k. The rest of his deal is in bonus -- and that can't be fined.

70k is a lot of money.

Does anyone know if that is a pre-tax deduction or not? He may not only have to pay the fine but he might also have to pay taxes on that 70k, even though he doesn't get it. :

 

[dboyz]

For the record if memory serves Irvin also pleaded no contest.

A no contest plea essentially has the same result as a guilty plea. It just allows the defendant to save a little face, but the result is the same.

 

[yazzmode621]

a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor, there is no degree

Actually there are different classifications of misdemeanors.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Actually there are different classifications of misdemeanors.

yeah, but pulling a gun on someone isn't a lesser class of misdemeanor, they go for petty offenses and traffic citations, which pulling a gun isn't one of them

 

[yazzmode621]

yeah, but pulling a gun on someone isn't a lesser class of misdemeanor, they go for petty crimes

He allegedly pulled a gun. You cant say he definitely did it. His accusor is a thief. He was arrested for stealing ANOTHER set of ATVs. Not to mention it was Sean Taylor's car that was shot at and they never found the people responsible.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

He allegedly pulled a gun. You cant say he definitely did it. His accusor is a thief. He was arrested for stealing ANOTHER set of ATVs. Not to mention it was Sean Taylor's car that was shot at and they never found the people responsible.

whatever the case may be, random C is wrong

 

[Bob Sacamano]

and it's everybody else's fault but Sean

 

[AbeBeta]

He allegedly pulled a gun. You cant say he definitely did it. His accusor is a thief. He was arrested for stealing ANOTHER set of ATVs. Not to mention it was Sean Taylor's car that was shot at and they never found the people responsible.

all that matters is the exact charge he plead to -- because once you are convicted of the charge all that contextual stuff goes out the window.

who was accusing etc. certainly factored into the type of charge Taylor had to accept -- you can't then point to the charge he plead to and say "yeah, but" -- the "yeah, but" part knocked the charge down and kept him out of jail. Sean is out of "yeah, buts"