| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TiberiusRising
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 5578
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 8:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| NCOUGHMAN wrote: | | oakdb36 wrote: | | TiberiusRising wrote: | | From my view everything on the field thus far he has shown is just pure talent. |
It amazes me how we can all watch the same game and see totally different things. |
yup |
I am not saying he is a superstar. I am saying anything good he does is just because of his natural talent. He often makes mistakes because he is inmature, not in his playbook and not following his responsilities in the defense. And finally not leading the defense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bitty
Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 2989
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| dante9876 wrote: | | McClain shows his immaturity in the video thats about it. But like you said the video has been edit. The first clip with sounds is actually what happens after the second clip. Also the guy saying put the gun away is the guy that got beaten up. The guy obviously didnt want to fight. But they all was basically telling him he had to. Please dont give me he could have just walked away. He could not. Somebody(story has it was McClain) set him up for that ambush. Invited him over like everything was cool, to watch him get his but whooped. If I was in the skinny dude shoes I would have done the samething. He didnt have a real friend in the room. He had to walk outside and swing. You dont let a dude that big get off the first punch on you. The best defense is a good offense unless you are Mayweather. |
I grew up with Mo Vaughn and people always took care of him.
Those guys are jerkoffs. Someone should of grabed the video and got Ro out of there |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DirtyHarry
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 1167
Location: Foster City,CA
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The only thing Rolando is clearly guilty of is having a poor choice in friends. He's young hopefully he learns but I'm not gonna slam the guy.
_________________
| JonesDrew32 wrote: | 38-10 Chargers
This game should definitely bring some lulz from the Raiders side. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LivingLegendWFC
Joined: 28 Oct 2009
Posts: 10956
Location: BP On The Geno Sig
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
In any event McClain showed questionable judgement and immaturity. Can he turn that around? Without a doubt he can, but its up to him if he wants to grow up.
You cant go around acting like a high schooler when your an adult, let alone an adult that has the privilege of pro football. McClain needs to dedicate himself to improving as a football player and distances himself from clowns that want to act like those in this video.
I hope McClain learns from this and grows, ive made my share of mistakes, so I wont condemn him to a life like the one in the video, people grow and change all the time. Hopefully Ro understands whats at stake and that acting like that is unacceptable. Who knows if he will, but hes got the time to change it, but its got to start now.
Looking at that video, im not so much worried about legal implications or suspension from the NFL, it goes much deeper then that, and that is putting yourself in situations like that can become seriously ugly. Things can get out of hand and someone could be seriously hurt, killed, etc. McClain has to stop putting himself and others in dangerous situations that can spin out of control.
Its never easy to leave the place that you grew up and the friends and family you grew up with, but sometimes you have to realize that those people dont want what is best for you, and your loyalty shouldnt lie to a place that breeds negativity. I grew up in a bad neighborhood with bad people. Most of my friends from that area are either dead, in jail, or heading down one of those paths, and I put myself in bad situations much like McClain did. At some point you have to ask yourself if this is the way that you want your life to continue. Some guys in those situations never have the chance to get out, I was lucky enough to be able to, McClain has the ability to, the ball is in his court on whether or not he does.
_________________
Favorite Prospects - Tank Carradine, Kwame Geathers, Gerald Hodges, Justin Hunter, Luke Joeckel, Barrett Jones, Jarvis Jones, Corey Lemonier, Bacarri Rambo, Sheldon Richardson, Geno Smith, Larry Warford, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dante9876
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 17530
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| NCOUGHMAN wrote: | | dante9876 wrote: | | McClain shows his immaturity in the video thats about it. But like you said the video has been edit. The first clip with sounds is actually what happens after the second clip. Also the guy saying put the gun away is the guy that got beaten up. The guy obviously didnt want to fight. But they all was basically telling him he had to. Please dont give me he could have just walked away. He could not. Somebody(story has it was McClain) set him up for that ambush. Invited him over like everything was cool, to watch him get his but whooped. If I was in the skinny dude shoes I would have done the samething. He didnt have a real friend in the room. He had to walk outside and swing. You dont let a dude that big get off the first punch on you. The best defense is a good offense unless you are Mayweather. |
i thought rolo pulled the gun to help the dude in the jordan jacket that was getting mollywhoped. rolo was instigating like a mug tho saying "fight back, fight back". Dude coulda walked away but he went outside and threw the first punch then big dude just kept throwin down on him. Whose house was that anyways with the sheets for curtains. |
How could he had walked away? This is dudes he is going to see and be around every day. They was making him fight. There was no chance he could have left that night without fight. McClain was manhandling him when he was in the house. He was threaten. Dudes was telling him all you got to do is fight back. He wasnt walking away from that without fighting. He did the right thing. A good lawyer would argue him throwing those first punches was self -defense cause he felt threaten and had no choice. Self-defense aint always about who swing first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cellomac1212
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 1733
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| LivingLegendWFC wrote: | In any event McClain showed questionable judgement and immaturity. Can he turn that around? Without a doubt he can, but its up to him if he wants to grow up.
You cant go around acting like a high schooler when your an adult, let alone an adult that has the privilege of pro football. McClain needs to dedicate himself to improving as a football player and distances himself from clowns that want to act like those in this video.
I hope McClain learns from this and grows, ive made my share of mistakes, so I wont condemn him to a life like the one in the video, people grow and change all the time. Hopefully Ro understands whats at stake and that acting like that is unacceptable. Who knows if he will, but hes got the time to change it, but its got to start now.
Looking at that video, im not so much worried about legal implications or suspension from the NFL, it goes much deeper then that, and that is putting yourself in situations like that can become seriously ugly. Things can get out of hand and someone could be seriously hurt, killed, etc. McClain has to stop putting himself and others in dangerous situations that can spin out of control.
Its never easy to leave the place that you grew up and the friends and family you grew up with, but sometimes you have to realize that those people dont want what is best for you, and your loyalty shouldnt lie to a place that breeds negativity. I grew up in a bad neighborhood with bad people. Most of my friends from that area are either dead, in jail, or heading down one of those paths, and I put myself in bad situations much like McClain did. At some point you have to ask yourself if this is the way that you want your life to continue. Some guys in those situations never have the chance to get out, I was lucky enough to be able to, McClain has the ability to, the ball is in his court on whether or not he does. |
Good post!
_________________
I hoped for a playoff appearance, but the passing of Al met terms for my sig removal after 3+ years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NCOUGHMAN
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 12586
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| dante9876 wrote: | | NCOUGHMAN wrote: | | dante9876 wrote: | | McClain shows his immaturity in the video thats about it. But like you said the video has been edit. The first clip with sounds is actually what happens after the second clip. Also the guy saying put the gun away is the guy that got beaten up. The guy obviously didnt want to fight. But they all was basically telling him he had to. Please dont give me he could have just walked away. He could not. Somebody(story has it was McClain) set him up for that ambush. Invited him over like everything was cool, to watch him get his but whooped. If I was in the skinny dude shoes I would have done the samething. He didnt have a real friend in the room. He had to walk outside and swing. You dont let a dude that big get off the first punch on you. The best defense is a good offense unless you are Mayweather. |
i thought rolo pulled the gun to help the dude in the jordan jacket that was getting mollywhoped. rolo was instigating like a mug tho saying "fight back, fight back". Dude coulda walked away but he went outside and threw the first punch then big dude just kept throwin down on him. Whose house was that anyways with the sheets for curtains. |
How could he had walked away? This is dudes he is going to see and be around every day. They was making him fight. There was no chance he could have left that night without fight. McClain was manhandling him when he was in the house. He was threaten. Dudes was telling him all you got to do is fight back. He wasnt walking away from that without fighting. He did the right thing. A good lawyer would argue him throwing those first punches was self -defense cause he felt threaten and had no choice. Self-defense aint always about who swing first. |
thats a first. i thought self defense meant defending your self. if you throw the first punch you are initiating the fight. from what i heard the guy who beat him down didnt threatened him he was jus like if you got a problem we can handle it outside. courts dont care about street rules they go by the book. ive seen guys talk hella trash to each other and not even fight. dude got all pumped up by the instigators and thought he had the juice and tried a haymaker and failed badly. Ive been in a situation just like that where I didnt get in trouble cause of self-defense and it was because I didnt throw the first punch.
_________________
| green24 wrote: | | NCOUGHMAN >>>>>> all of you |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dante9876
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 17530
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| NCOUGHMAN wrote: |
thats a first. i thought self defense meant defending your self. if you throw the first punch you are initiating the fight. from what i heard the guy who beat him down didnt threatened him he was jus like if you got a problem we can handle it outside. courts dont care about street rules they go by the book. ive seen guys talk hella trash to each other and not even fight. dude got all pumped up by the instigators and thought he had the juice and tried a haymaker and failed badly. Ive been in a situation just like that where I didnt get in trouble cause of self-defense and it was because I didnt throw the first punch. |
| Quote: | CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Self-defense, non-lethal force:
Criminal liability is distinguished from civil liability in that it is the state which brings charges against the defendant, as opposed to the victim or his estate. The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this position. The critical language under this standard is ‘reasonable belief’, ‘unlawful’, ‘about to’ and ‘necessary and proportionate’.
In order to establish a reasonable belief, the court will use both a subjective and an objective standard. The subjective standard determines whether this defendant did in fact believe that an attack was imminent (whether reasonably or unreasonably). In arriving at this conclusion, the defendant’s state of mind is relevant. Thus, a paranoid defendant might introduce evidence of his condition to show that his belief, however unreasonable, was at least genuine.
The reasonableness of the defendant’s actions is judged by an objective rather than a subjective standard. The reasonable person standard is one of the most difficult aspects of the law to understand. In an effort to do justice to both sides, the law requires the trier-of-fact (usually the jury) to consider whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position would believe that force was about to be used against him. The defendant’s (and the assailant’s) physical characteristics and past history will be taken into account, but mental condition is of no concern. Thus, comparative size, weight, strength, handicap or pre-existing injury may support a reasonableness finding, but unusual sensitivity or fear will not.
There is no simple formula for the legal application of force in self-defense under American law. The confusion is due, in part, to the complexity of the issue itself, and in part to the variety of state laws within the American legal system. The requirement that the force defended against be unlawful simply excludes the right of self defense when an ‘assailant’, such as a police officer, is legally authorized to use force. It must be noted however, that a majority of jurisdictions allow the use of force, including deadly force, in resisting an attack by a person not known to be a police officer, and the use of non-deadly force against a known police-officer attempting to make a wrongful arrest. Pennsylvania does not allow the use of force in resisting wrongful arrest, but it does allow the use of force if an arresting officer unlawfully threatens to use deadly force, or does not identify himself.
‘About to’ refers to the imminence requirement for the right to self-defense. It is not enough that the assailant threatens to use force in the future, or upon the happening of a certain event. Thus the statement "If you do that one more time, I’ll punch you" is insufficient to trigger the right to self-defense. The threatened use of force must be immediate.
The force used in self defense must reasonably appear to be necessary to prevent the attack, and must be proportionate to the gravity of the attack. Thus, for example, if an assailant is about to slap the victim, responding with the use of a fire-arm would be excessive and therefore beyond the scope of the right to self-defense. The proportionality standard under Pennsylvania law is articulated as a prohibition on the use of excessive force, but the fact that death results does not automatically produce a finding of excessive force. |
http://www.ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm
If you feel threaten you can throw the first punch and still use the self-defense. His lawyers will use testimony and the video to prove that a fight was avoidable. IMO just watching that choopy video I feel that he was going to have to fight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlackPrestige92
Joined: 08 Nov 2011
Posts: 2622
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Slowlondo didn't have to pull out a BIZKUT! 
If the kid from SD state unseats him in the middle of the season I wouldn't be surprised. The guy looks like Clark Kent in Silver & Black and he carries himself like a real down to earth G. RoMac better watch his spot....
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RaiderX
Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 17114
Location: Crown Town, CA
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Just another day in Alabama.
_________________
| SaveourSonics wrote: | | Yea, RaiderX wins. We can all just top acting like this is a matter of opinion. MY GOD. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
true2form
Joined: 01 Jan 2010
Posts: 671
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| dante9876 wrote: | | NCOUGHMAN wrote: |
thats a first. i thought self defense meant defending your self. if you throw the first punch you are initiating the fight. from what i heard the guy who beat him down didnt threatened him he was jus like if you got a problem we can handle it outside. courts dont care about street rules they go by the book. ive seen guys talk hella trash to each other and not even fight. dude got all pumped up by the instigators and thought he had the juice and tried a haymaker and failed badly. Ive been in a situation just like that where I didnt get in trouble cause of self-defense and it was because I didnt throw the first punch. |
| Quote: | CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Self-defense, non-lethal force:
Criminal liability is distinguished from civil liability in that it is the state which brings charges against the defendant, as opposed to the victim or his estate. The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this position. The critical language under this standard is ‘reasonable belief’, ‘unlawful’, ‘about to’ and ‘necessary and proportionate’.
In order to establish a reasonable belief, the court will use both a subjective and an objective standard. The subjective standard determines whether this defendant did in fact believe that an attack was imminent (whether reasonably or unreasonably). In arriving at this conclusion, the defendant’s state of mind is relevant. Thus, a paranoid defendant might introduce evidence of his condition to show that his belief, however unreasonable, was at least genuine.
The reasonableness of the defendant’s actions is judged by an objective rather than a subjective standard. The reasonable person standard is one of the most difficult aspects of the law to understand. In an effort to do justice to both sides, the law requires the trier-of-fact (usually the jury) to consider whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position would believe that force was about to be used against him. The defendant’s (and the assailant’s) physical characteristics and past history will be taken into account, but mental condition is of no concern. Thus, comparative size, weight, strength, handicap or pre-existing injury may support a reasonableness finding, but unusual sensitivity or fear will not.
There is no simple formula for the legal application of force in self-defense under American law. The confusion is due, in part, to the complexity of the issue itself, and in part to the variety of state laws within the American legal system. The requirement that the force defended against be unlawful simply excludes the right of self defense when an ‘assailant’, such as a police officer, is legally authorized to use force. It must be noted however, that a majority of jurisdictions allow the use of force, including deadly force, in resisting an attack by a person not known to be a police officer, and the use of non-deadly force against a known police-officer attempting to make a wrongful arrest. Pennsylvania does not allow the use of force in resisting wrongful arrest, but it does allow the use of force if an arresting officer unlawfully threatens to use deadly force, or does not identify himself.
‘About to’ refers to the imminence requirement for the right to self-defense. It is not enough that the assailant threatens to use force in the future, or upon the happening of a certain event. Thus the statement "If you do that one more time, I’ll punch you" is insufficient to trigger the right to self-defense. The threatened use of force must be immediate.
The force used in self defense must reasonably appear to be necessary to prevent the attack, and must be proportionate to the gravity of the attack. Thus, for example, if an assailant is about to slap the victim, responding with the use of a fire-arm would be excessive and therefore beyond the scope of the right to self-defense. The proportionality standard under Pennsylvania law is articulated as a prohibition on the use of excessive force, but the fact that death results does not automatically produce a finding of excessive force. |
http://www.ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm
If you feel threaten you can throw the first punch and still use the self-defense. His lawyers will use testimony and the video to prove that a fight was avoidable. IMO just watching that choopy video I feel that he was going to have to fight. |
I just don't see it in that video. If he was backed into a corner or surrounded and threw the first punch I would completely agree with you, but you can't just run at somebody and start throwing punches and then claim self defense.
Obviously the video doesn't show everything. Did the guy even try to leave or go to his car? Any guy with half a brain would have done absolutely nothing. If he had waited and forced someone else to attack him than it's clear cut and he could have even had a large civil suit to go after McClain with. He has nothing IMO from that video. Of course it all depends on what wasn't seen and if you believe this guy over the others.
_________________
 Mad props to BP for the sig! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LivingLegendWFC
Joined: 28 Oct 2009
Posts: 10956
Location: BP On The Geno Sig
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BlackPrestige92 wrote: | Slowlondo didn't have to pull out a BIZKUT!
If the kid from SD state unseats him in the middle of the season I wouldn't be surprised. The guy looks like Clark Kent in Silver & Black and he carries himself like a real down to earth G. RoMac better watch his spot.... |
Burris is an OLB, hes not a threat to take Ro's spot. If anybody will its Stupar from PSU or Goethel. Both seem unlikely to me.
_________________
Favorite Prospects - Tank Carradine, Kwame Geathers, Gerald Hodges, Justin Hunter, Luke Joeckel, Barrett Jones, Jarvis Jones, Corey Lemonier, Bacarri Rambo, Sheldon Richardson, Geno Smith, Larry Warford, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TiberiusRising
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 5578
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| true2form wrote: | | dante9876 wrote: | | NCOUGHMAN wrote: |
thats a first. i thought self defense meant defending your self. if you throw the first punch you are initiating the fight. from what i heard the guy who beat him down didnt threatened him he was jus like if you got a problem we can handle it outside. courts dont care about street rules they go by the book. ive seen guys talk hella trash to each other and not even fight. dude got all pumped up by the instigators and thought he had the juice and tried a haymaker and failed badly. Ive been in a situation just like that where I didnt get in trouble cause of self-defense and it was because I didnt throw the first punch. |
| Quote: | CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Self-defense, non-lethal force:
Criminal liability is distinguished from civil liability in that it is the state which brings charges against the defendant, as opposed to the victim or his estate. The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this position. The critical language under this standard is ‘reasonable belief’, ‘unlawful’, ‘about to’ and ‘necessary and proportionate’.
In order to establish a reasonable belief, the court will use both a subjective and an objective standard. The subjective standard determines whether this defendant did in fact believe that an attack was imminent (whether reasonably or unreasonably). In arriving at this conclusion, the defendant’s state of mind is relevant. Thus, a paranoid defendant might introduce evidence of his condition to show that his belief, however unreasonable, was at least genuine.
The reasonableness of the defendant’s actions is judged by an objective rather than a subjective standard. The reasonable person standard is one of the most difficult aspects of the law to understand. In an effort to do justice to both sides, the law requires the trier-of-fact (usually the jury) to consider whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position would believe that force was about to be used against him. The defendant’s (and the assailant’s) physical characteristics and past history will be taken into account, but mental condition is of no concern. Thus, comparative size, weight, strength, handicap or pre-existing injury may support a reasonableness finding, but unusual sensitivity or fear will not.
There is no simple formula for the legal application of force in self-defense under American law. The confusion is due, in part, to the complexity of the issue itself, and in part to the variety of state laws within the American legal system. The requirement that the force defended against be unlawful simply excludes the right of self defense when an ‘assailant’, such as a police officer, is legally authorized to use force. It must be noted however, that a majority of jurisdictions allow the use of force, including deadly force, in resisting an attack by a person not known to be a police officer, and the use of non-deadly force against a known police-officer attempting to make a wrongful arrest. Pennsylvania does not allow the use of force in resisting wrongful arrest, but it does allow the use of force if an arresting officer unlawfully threatens to use deadly force, or does not identify himself.
‘About to’ refers to the imminence requirement for the right to self-defense. It is not enough that the assailant threatens to use force in the future, or upon the happening of a certain event. Thus the statement "If you do that one more time, I’ll punch you" is insufficient to trigger the right to self-defense. The threatened use of force must be immediate.
The force used in self defense must reasonably appear to be necessary to prevent the attack, and must be proportionate to the gravity of the attack. Thus, for example, if an assailant is about to slap the victim, responding with the use of a fire-arm would be excessive and therefore beyond the scope of the right to self-defense. The proportionality standard under Pennsylvania law is articulated as a prohibition on the use of excessive force, but the fact that death results does not automatically produce a finding of excessive force. |
http://www.ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm
If you feel threaten you can throw the first punch and still use the self-defense. His lawyers will use testimony and the video to prove that a fight was avoidable. IMO just watching that choopy video I feel that he was going to have to fight. |
I just don't see it in that video. If he was backed into a corner or surrounded and threw the first punch I would completely agree with you, but you can't just run at somebody and start throwing punches and then claim self defense.
Obviously the video doesn't show everything. Did the guy even try to leave or go to his car? Any guy with half a brain would have done absolutely nothing. If he had waited and forced someone else to attack him than it's clear cut and he could have even had a large civil suit to go after McClain with. He has nothing IMO from that video. Of course it all depends on what wasn't seen and if you believe this guy over the others. |
Exactly there is almost always a way out. He figured he could catch him off gaurd and it didnt work. He didnt say lets talk about this or lets figure this out like adults or what is fighting going to solve. Or how about just apologizing for what he did. He could have ran, got in his car and threatned to call the police. He talked to the police anyways after the fact. Just wants his money imo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Django
Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 1482
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Got this from another board
 [/img] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Django
Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 1482
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
