These "eye witnesses" should be arrested and charged with "enabling" for not breaking it up before Leonte came on the scene.
Caroo's 'friend '
- Thread starter Plum Street
- Start date
These "eye witnesses" should be arrested and charged with "enabling" for not breaking it up before Leonte came on the scene.
I agree with the premise of your post and don't wish to go on tangents in a silly thread, but the problem lies with the bolded phrase. If there's a life-threatening weapon being wielded and you are not in a position to walk/run away, circumstances have changed.
Bump .
Remember this thread and the idiotic responses in here ? People wanted to jump down my throat at the time . Now you see today's news . This thread was not areyounuts finest moment as he made a joke out of it.
Remember this thread and the idiotic responses in here ? People wanted to jump down my throat at the time . Now you see today's news . This thread was not areyounuts finest moment as he made a joke out of it.
AreYouNuts has an opinion on every topic/thread, just like everyone else. The difference is, he comments at least twice on each one and states his opinion matter-of-factly, or in a way as to make it seem like your opinion/idea/story is so incredibly dumb that how could you even think that.
my understanding is that in NJ when there is a claim of domestic violence the accused is immediately arrested-actually you can wind up in jail for weeks while stuff gets sorted out--there seems to be a presumption of guilt--but a lawyer or two specializing in this can respond
DV is not concerned merely with the home. It is concerned with violence between couples, no matter where it occurs. It would seem dumb to have laws that protect battered spouses only in the home and not when they are outside with their partners.
There is going to be a tremendous amount of crow eating from one group or another when this is done.
Yes and he also started a thread mocking this three saying 'I did it' or something of the sort . As if the whole thing was a joke .
II. Mandatory Arrest. A police officer must arrest and take into custody a domestic violence suspect and must sign the criminal complaint against that person if
- The victim exhibits signs of injury caused by an act of domestic violence. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21a(1).
Well, isn't it time for the crow eating ? I posted that this is what caroo's camp was going to claim and that's exactly what happened today .
I am going to wait until I hear a final verdict on this, but yes. When that happens, there will be a specific thread for people to repent who took clear sides one way or the other, prior to the real facts being known.
As always, we will know soon enough what really happened.
I don't think people were doubting that this is what Caroo's camp would claim. I think they were doubting that the claim would be viewed as legitimate without strong supporting evidence. (And I think it is hard to claim that the 16-second video is that strong evidence. However, a video showing LC's friend actually throwing the victim would probably be sufficient.)
Really? You know that Caroo is guilty? Is it just possible that he is being falsely accused?
Maybe Flood can send an email to the police chief from his personal email. Then he can meet him outside a library while being sure not to wear anything Rutgers related.
A 5-year old could have figured out what Caroo's "camp" was going to claim.
Hey I took your side on this one but then again I am a homer. Nuts is still pissed that Flood is our coach but I am surprised to see him bash a character like Caroo like that. He should be banned....again. Just kidding I don't give a crap who posts on here but Nuts was a pro RU guy like me not too long ago. Now he is anti RU all the way.
I have friends and family who know Caroo very well and I have heard nothing but great things about this kid. There are so many talented players out there who are aholes and he is the complete opposite. Humble, team player, etc. Everything we want in a player. If he made this mistake he has already paid for it. If he did not then what crime does the alleged victim get charged with for ruining his Sr season? It's crap.
I hope he is innocent. I hope he comes back and has a great season. He could be in the NFL already but came back here to help the team and program. Plus the WR class was deep last year IIRC.LOL.
"anti-RU" ...ME? That might be the single stupidest comment in the history of these boards. Please, btw, show me EXACTLY where I "bash a character like Caroo." I'll give you until day's end until I request that YOU be "banned" for spreading lies about another poster.
Wow.
Lol but you didnt . You were wrong and mocked this thread . Why don't you just admit you were wrong in this one case ?
There is a big difference between flat-out claiming "his friend did it," as you do in your OP, and my comment above.
Your comment: you know for a FACT that the "friend did it."
My comment: it's pretty obvious what a legal team would do, for their client, in a case as such
...hey, if Leonte didn't do what she claims he did, I'll be a happy guy - he plays for the team/program that I love - but being that I wasn't there - unlike you - I'm not going to make a claim such as "his friend did it" or "he did it." I've actually made no claims, whatsoever, throughout all of this as I've had NO information, other than what's posted here and written in the papers, to form an opinion on, and that's really not enough, wouldn't you agree?
Nuts ,
I said 'or at least that's what his camp would claim '. If you really felt that his camp may claim it , why didn't you say that instead of going mock this thread ? Is it so hard to admit you were wrong in this one case ?
I said 'or at least that's what his camp would claim '. If you really felt that his camp may claim it , why didn't you say that instead of going mock this thread ? Is it so hard to admit you were wrong in this one case ?
Fine, but you DO realize I'm not the only one who was "mocking" this thread, right? Let's be fair, okay, and call out others, as well, if you're going to call me out. Not cool, either, wouldn't you agree?
Ah yes my apologies to Herm Edwards - I knew it was a guy with Eagles connections. Thanks for the correction.
Cam,
Why does that seem dumb to you? The reason, I believe, we have these laws is the simple fact that it can be impossible for a victim to escape violence when it occurs where she lives. Wouldn't you agree a sex buddy who lives in a different zip code is free not to see her assailant unlike a victim who is a cohabitant of hers.
Yes, I would say you have a fair point . I only called you out because you started the mock thread . But I agree you are right.
I was actually having a bad week - on top of all the RU crap - so when I saw multiple threads with multiple versions of what happened, well, I got a little over-the-top I guess.
All I want is the same as you, Plum, a good football team. The rest of this crap just puts me in a bad mood, along with the rest of the board, and we all do/say stupid things. [thumb2]
Sounds to me like a case where the prosecution wants to over-charge to drive a plea bargain. By making it domestic violence they get new options and a big stigma attached that could cost Caroo millions, if not real jail time. Then they come in and suggest.. plea to this and you save millions and months or years.
The whole thing sounds "off".. including "slamming" someone into the ground when the "victim" also said something about being "dropped". Sounds like he (or his friend) picker her up to get her away from the others and then let her go and she fell.
Has anyone read anything anywhere that suggest who instigated the encounter? The "victim" makes it sound like she got off work and people were waiting there to "jump" her. But t is also the spot where Caroo would go to meet his family after the game. So we know Caroo and his family were where they were expected to be. But how about the "victim"? Did she have official duties that day and when were those duties concluded? Should she have stayed at work longer? Or did she hang around just to be able to meet Caroo as he left? Did she alter her exit to be there to see Caroo and his new GF? Was she stalking him?
The whole thing sounds "off".. including "slamming" someone into the ground when the "victim" also said something about being "dropped". Sounds like he (or his friend) picker her up to get her away from the others and then let her go and she fell.
Has anyone read anything anywhere that suggest who instigated the encounter? The "victim" makes it sound like she got off work and people were waiting there to "jump" her. But t is also the spot where Caroo would go to meet his family after the game. So we know Caroo and his family were where they were expected to be. But how about the "victim"? Did she have official duties that day and when were those duties concluded? Should she have stayed at work longer? Or did she hang around just to be able to meet Caroo as he left? Did she alter her exit to be there to see Caroo and his new GF? Was she stalking him?
Yes agreed . I think sometimes we all lose sight that we want the same same things here. We may have different thoughts and opinions about how we get there , but we all want a school and a football team that represents Rutgers well.
I don't think that's a good argument. Certainly assaulting one's partner in a grocery store or on the street is no different from the home. In both situations, the victim is being exposed to violence from a partner from which he or she cannot easily escape at the risk of losing his or her home.
You didn't address my argument, though. In your example, the couple, while in a grocery store at the time of violence, cohabitate.
Why extend this to two people who do not cohabitate? Simply because they hook up? The policy being advanced escapes me. I'm trying to see it your way.
Sorry for misunderstanding your question. The State's position seems to be that it does not want violence against ex-cohabitants. Exes are often in danger from exes, even more than from current cohabitants, and my guess is that the legislature wanted to take action against this threat by making it possible for the ex to obtain a permanent restraining order against the perp.
