Send A Letter to the Nashville DA

[peplaw06]

Shoes are considered a deadly weapon when they are used to kick someone in the head

Wrong. That would be like saying a glove is a deadly weapon when you punch someone in the face.

A deadly weapon is typically something that is inherently dangerous. Shoes are not inherently dangerous.

I seriously doubt anyone's ever been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for kicking someone in the head.

 

[BigDFan5]

Wrong. That would be like saying a glove is a deadly weapon when you punch someone in the face.

A deadly weapon is typically something that is inherently dangerous. Shoes are not inherently dangerous.

I seriously doubt anyone's ever been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for kicking someone in the head.

Saying its wrong does not make it wrong.

Anything can be considered a dangerous weapon as long as it is used malciously

Look it up. The spit of an HIV positive person has been considered a dangerous weapon, In Dallas the prosecuted some college kids for hazing, and classified WATER as a deadly weapon in the case.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

What is the point of sending a letter? A million people saw what happened.

It shows that the people believe that the incident was a crime. I am a bit leery of calling crimes from events in actual sports games. The DA may be in the same boat and think because they were playing football, it's not really a crime. The big problem with sending letters is I don't think the DA cares too much about them unless he's getting them from citizens from Nashville.


YAKUZA

 

[peplaw06]

Saying its wrong does not make it wrong.

Anything can be considered a dangerous weapon as long as it is used malciously

Look it up. The spit of an HIV positive person has been considered a dangerous weapon, In Dallas the prosecuted some college kids for hazing, and classified WATER as a deadly weapon in the case.

I don't have to look it up. I work in a DA's office. A SHOE is not a deadly weapon and Water is not a deadly weapon either. There may have been something IN the Water that made it deadly, but water in and of itself is not a deadly weapon.

I'd love to see your case where the spit of an HIV person was considered "deadly." Not saying that's not true, stranger things have happened. but the SPIT wouldn't be deadly. The virus would be, and if you had the intent to transfer the virus and you can prove that, then there's some justification for considering that a deadly weapon. Think about it like this... would the spit of a HIV free person be a deadly weapon?

 

[George]

I doubt he would sue or press for charges anyways.

IF his eye had perm damage than maybe I could see him pressing on with it, but I just don't think he would otherwise.

Man, I don't know about having 30 stitches from a jagged cut in my forehead. Every time Gurode looks at a mirror he'll see that scar. Some black folks end up with real thick scars so he might need some revisional plastic surgery. I see a lawsuit coming and I think it would be justified.

 

[Smith22]

I don't have to look it up. I work in a DA's office. A SHOE is not a deadly weapon and Water is not a deadly weapon either. There may have been something IN the Water that made it deadly, but water in and of itself is not a deadly weapon.

I'd love to see your case where the spit of an HIV person was considered "deadly." Not saying that's not true, stranger things have happened. but the SPIT wouldn't be deadly. The virus would be, and if you had the intent to transfer the virus and you can prove that, then there's some justification for considering that a deadly weapon. Think about it like this... would the spit of a HIV free person be a deadly weapon?

You make it sound like he stepped on his head with a tennis shoe. Not quite the case..... This shoe happened to have spikes on it.

 

[jimmy4713]

I hate the fact that we both support the same team. I hope none of you are stupid enough to think legal action needs to be taken.

Right back at you. I guess if Andre had lost his sight and career you would feel differently. That is what was on the line when AH raked his spiked shoes across his head. He needs to be punished. Let this behavior go and it happens again. Make an example of this thug to the fullest extent possible. Makes me furious.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Man, I don't know about having 30 stitches from a jagged cut in my forehead. Every time Gurode looks at a mirror he'll see that scar. Some black folks end up with real thick scars so he might need some revisional plastic surgery. I see a lawsuit coming and I think it would be justified.

I figure the league/players union would take care of that although I very well could be wrong.

 

[peplaw06]

You make it sound like he stepped on his head with a tennis shoe. Not quite the case..... This shoe happened to have spikes on it.

1) If you'll go back to the OP I quoted, abersonc, said categorically a shoe is considered a deadly weapon. He THEN said this was not your ordinary shoe. That's what I was disputing.

2) I COULD see a SLIGHT possibility that "spikes" would raise the crime to assault with a deadly weapon, but I'd have to have more information... like what kind of "spikes" as you say are on the shoe. I couldn't see it with plastic spikes, metal, maybe. I just don't know what kind of shoes Haynesworth was specifically wearing. I don't know if metal cleats are outlawed in the NFL. If they are, and these were plastic cleats, it's not a deadly weapon IMO.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I don't have to look it up. I work in a DA's office. A SHOE is not a deadly weapon and Water is not a deadly weapon either. There may have been something IN the Water that made it deadly, but water in and of itself is not a deadly weapon.

I'd love to see your case where the spit of an HIV person was considered "deadly." Not saying that's not true, stranger things have happened. but the SPIT wouldn't be deadly. The virus would be, and if you had the intent to transfer the virus and you can prove that, then there's some justification for considering that a deadly weapon. Think about it like this... would the spit of a HIV free person be a deadly weapon?

Just curious.

Although the shoe may not be considered a deadly weapon, unless a shoe contained a knife edge or something like that.

What about the old tales we have heard that if someone is say a professional fighter (kick boxer, kung **, boxing so on or has special forces training in a military) and hits or kicks a guy causing huge damage. Is the old tale of a persons hands or feet being considered a deadly weapon (in those cases not albertas case) really accurate?

Just curious.

 

[nathanlt]

Shoes are considered a deadly weapon when they are used to kick someone in the head

Who throws a shoe? Honestly!

Seriously, though... the NFL will suspend him and at his paycheck, it should be a substantial fine for the games alone. Any additional fine will hurt as well.

Now, as far as criminal charges go, it could happen, whether or not Gurode initiates them. Haynesworth is smart to say that he'll accept the punishment whatever it is. He might feel genuine remorse for what he did, but that should not affect his sentence in any way. I don't think what he did was premeditated in the sense that he planned this before the game. It was more out of frustration and anger during the heat of the game. He deliberately ripped off the helmet and made a stomping motion with substantial force, not all his weight, but enough of it to do serious damage. Whatever the NFL does will probably not be enough. Whatever the courts do should add to it. I'm glad Fisher will add to the punishment.

 

[peplaw06]

Just curious.

Although the shoe may not be considered a deadly weapon, unless a shoe contained a knife edge or something like that.

What about the old tales we have heard that if someone is say a professional fighter (kick boxer, kung **, boxing so on or has special forces training in a military) and hits or kicks a guy causing huge damage. Is the old tale of a persons hands or feet being considered a deadly weapon (in those cases not albertas case) really accurate?

Just curious.

Sounds like a Chuck Norris joke...

In my mind a "deadly weapon" is typically something outside of your body that could be used to inflict harm. I think that a punch/kick that can do huge damage would still garner only assault charges. I can't see a fist or a foot being classified as a deadly weapon.

 

[AbeBeta]

Sounds like a Chuck Norris joke...

In my mind a "deadly weapon" is typically something outside of your body that could be used to inflict harm. I think that a punch/kick that can do huge damage would still garner only assault charges. I can't see a fist or a foot being classified as a deadly weapon.

It might not have anything to do with the shoe (but the cleats do make it more serious). Leg muscles generate far more force than arms -- plus we are talking about a pro athlete who has some pretty serious leg strength -- plus we are talking about a 300lb person stomping on someone.

Just curious -- a lawyer posted yesterday and indicated that the correct charge would be battery -- as assault is the threat to do harm whereas battery is the act itself. You have a different take on that?

 

[peplaw06]

Just curious -- a lawyer posted yesterday and indicated that the correct charge would be battery -- as assault is the threat to do harm whereas battery is the act itself. You have a different take on that?

Nope, that's correct. Assault could be considered a lesser included offense to a battery charge though.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Wrong. That would be like saying a glove is a deadly weapon when you punch someone in the face.

A deadly weapon is typically something that is inherently dangerous. Shoes are not inherently dangerous.

I seriously doubt anyone's ever been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for kicking someone in the head.

I don't know about that. They may not have been convicted, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities for a DA to pursue such charges.

I'm looking up the Ricky Manning Jr. case now. Reason being is that I read one of the charges was based on the person using their foot to kick the complainant in the head as part of the assault.

It may have been the charge dropped against Maurice Jones-Drew, but I know that they were pursuing a charge because of something along those lines.

 

[Wimbo]

True. As far as that goes a hand can be a deadly weapon.

I know Kung **.​

 

[peplaw06]

I don't know about that. They may not have been convicted, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities for a DA to pursue such charges.

I'm looking up the Ricky Manning Jr. case now. Reason being is that I read one of the charges was based on the person using their foot to kick the complainant in the head as part of the assault.

It may have been the charge dropped against Maurice Jones-Drew, but I know that they were pursuing a charge because of something along those lines.

Sure there are some runaway DA's who trump up charges, but that's why I said convicted. Most juries aren't going to convict on that.

I don't recall the charges in the Manning-Drew case. Was there an assault with a deadl weapon charge for the kick to the head, or was it just simple assault and battery?

 

[WoodysGirl]

Sure there are some runaway DA's who trump up charges, but that's why I said convicted. Most juries aren't going to convict on that.

I don't recall the charges in the Manning-Drew case. Was there an assault with a deadl weapon charge for the kick to the head, or was it just simple assault and battery?

Just basic researching says assault with a deadly weapon charge, partially because video tape shows he kicked the complainant in the head. I found this blurb, but I'm still looking.

Manning pleaded no contest in Los Angeles Superior Court to a felony charge of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury for his role in the attack on Soroush Sabzi in the early hours of April 23. He was ordered to undergo anger-management counseling for 52 weeks and to perform 100 hours of community service. A civil suit looms.
Jim Ivler, Manning's agent, said legal counsel strongly advised Manning to accept the deal because it was considered a felony with Manning still on probation for his role in an assault in April 2002. Ivler also said taking the case to trial would have left Manning open to the risk that he might miss time during the season.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/73254,CST-SPT-bear27.article

EDIT: Article from ESPN about original charges.

Police said Manning was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon despite not being armed because he was aided by companions, and because great bodily force was used.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2419713

 

[peplaw06]

Manning pleaded no contest in Los Angeles Superior Court to a felony charge of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury for his role in the attack on Soroush Sabzi in the early hours of April 23.

OK, So he wasn't convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. This is different.

Police said Manning was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon despite not being armed because he was aided by companions, and because great bodily force was used.

Yeah, I think the DA gave a lot of weight to this part. But it's not unusual to see charges beyond what the state can prove or convict on.

 

[AbeBeta]

OK, So he wasn't convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. This is different.

Yeah, I think the DA gave a lot of weight to this part. But it's not unusual to see charges beyond what the state can prove or convict on.

I'm not understanding the distinction here. He plead no contest -- that's the same as a conviction (except with regard to civil cases) - GBI is the same as deadly weapon in the CA penal code (the code reads ADW or GBI) . If the DA sought charges beyond what they could have proven here then why exactly would have plead to that charge.