> That guy is an Elite NFL athlete. If he was going
> to attack her nothing short of a gun would stop
> him. She have more then a mark. The Physical
> evidence is CONSISTANT with him being the Victim.
> You can what if all you want , nothing will change
RESPONSE: Now who's speculating on what happened? You guys want to resolve it based on the newspaper facts and what you've heard. You could be right but I'm trying to get you guys to see that you also could have it wrong. You just don't know.
> Again. You are making this claim on a elite NFL
> athlete. Knife is not going to stop him.
> especially when the wound was not even
> significant. She would have a broken wrist from
> him grabbing the knife, or he could have punched
> her and then claimed self defense. But he did not
> touch her. because he was attacked. its
> consistant. is it sinking in yet?
RESPONSE: What if she was sitting on the knife and pulled it out at the last second? What if she had the knife behind her back with one arm and he was so worked up, he wasn't on guard.
You say I'm speculating? I'm just throwing out possibilities. You are the one speculating by saying that because he's a football player, he must have been able to complete any attack that he started. That's just speculation.
> Unfortunately yes. In many cases the victim goes
> on trial and the defedant gets protected. And this
> will never make trial because Brandon will not
> press charges. However the state can still do it
> on his behalf. but most of the time its a plea to
> a much lesser charge like simple battery.
RESPONSE: Yes, the most likely result will be that Brandon will refuse to cooperate. You as a policeman must know to be specific in your language. Although people often refer to is as "press charges" that gives the impression that it is the victim's choice as to whether the matter will be prosecuted. It is not. It is the prosecutor's decision. Now the truth of the matter is that the prosecutor is unlikely to decide to prosecute if the victim announces that he or she will not be a witness for the prosecution. Such an action by the victim makes it virtually impossible for a prosecution to be successful because the chief person involved besides the defendant, the victim, will not be there to support the charge.
> (IF THIS IS TRUE) and the
> > fact that there was no actual physical evidence
> > that he made contact that night before she got
> > first with a knife, does not legally resolve
> > issue.
> Sure it does. Because he got stabbed. Thats proof.
> She has none except He said/she said.
> First she needs to prove that it even happened.
> She can not do that. HE CAN.
RESPONSE: But a defendant does not have to "PROVE" his or her case. He or she is not obligated under the law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that he or she is innocent. This is a fallacy most people believe. A defendant only has to 'RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT' as to his or her guilt. And by the way, I'm glad you brought that up because that explains precisely why the defendant, Nogami, will be able to bring in past instances of domestic violence against her AND AGAINST HIS PRIOR GIRLFRIENDS.
I previously wrote: No, not speculation but just the
> > presentation of a hypothetical. When someone
> > presents a hypothetical they are not saying
> > this is what DID happen, they are saying this
> > what COULD HAVE happened.
> Dude you are all over the place. Where is this
> neighbor? And plenty of people have seen her hit
> and kick him as well.
> But none of that will be addmissable in court .
> Only the facts on what happened that night. And
RESPONSE: I hope the rest of the board is getting the point that you're wrong that the defendant cannot bring up instances of past violence. This is why you're a cop and not a lawyer. A defendant can bring up instances of past violence to show the reasonableness of his reaction.
A guy goes to mass in a Catholic church (I'm not Catholic so I may screw this up), he approaches the altar as to make confession, the priest approaches him with the cup, the guy pulls out a knife and stabs the priest. If the defendant cannot claim any more facts, this guy's claim that he was "in fear" of his safety will not be decided as being reasonable. I'm trying to make an exaggerated example.
But everything on the other side of that is up for proof. No, the victim's past history is not going to be shielded from being introduced if it is RELEVANT (meaning tends to prove, not meaning as you are saying related to the facts of this incident) to show the reasonableness of his actions in light of that past history.
>Its difficuly with domestic violence cases
> becuase 95% of the time , the victim is all pissed
> off the night of the incident , then changes their
> mind the next day. But this is National headline
> news. the SA walks away from this they will get
> hammered. Can't. It will be a Plea for simple
> battery , win /win.
RESPONSE: As far as the plea is concerned, you might be right.
Now, you are talking like you recognize that neither of us KNOW FOR A FACT either what DID HAPPEN or what WILL HAPPEN with the upcoming legal process.
You can say what "will probably happen" or you can say "my money is on this" but you can't say "this is what will definitely happen based on what I've heard the very few facts to be from the media when the story broke."
> > The law does not require that you suffer a
> > physical injury for you to be entitled to use
> > self-defense.
> But it helps if you can prove it.
RESPONSE: Oh, without a doubt that actual proof helps but it is not REQUIRED. It would be great if she had one of those burglar cams that happened to be operating at the time and it showed him charging at her but people have been succeeding in claiming self-defense for centuries before the invention of those cams.
< You can
> hypothetical it all night , its not going to give
> her any proof.
RESPONSE: She doesn't need "proof." All she has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to whether she was defending herself. You as a cop know that a defendant is not REQUIRED TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE.
Now that we are on friendly terms and I'd actually
> like to get to know you better I'll just admit it.
> I'm a cop. I guess the difference between you
> and me is I deal in facts , and you guys kinda
> inturpet the law your own way depending on what
> kind of case your trying to make.
RESPONSE: We work the same side of the street but we deal in winning cases before the jury. We not only interpret the law but we have to be aware of all possible interpretations of those "facts" you cops say you deal in.
The facts may look one way out on the street and may look a completely different way once things get in a courtroom where there is a defense attorney trying to spin those facts in his favor. And the best thing defense counsel have going for them is that the defendant's past history is largely shielded (there are some technical exceptions) but the victim's history is "open seaon." And Boy, does Brandon have a lot of open season.
>Your style of
> debate, breaking down each sentence by sentence
> shows the way a lawyer likes to bend things their
> way. (not meant as a knock) I hope my addmission
> as to what I do for a living brings us mutual
> respect and not where we used to be.
RESPONSE: Like I said, we work the same side of the street. The difference is that you think that (assuming Brandon cooperates) this case is winnable and I think, absent the emergence of an eyewitness that is not now being reported), such a prosecution is not even worth the expense of trial given his past history.
> But you have to PROVE they you were in fear. at
> this point she can not.
RESPONSE: Maybe by "proof" you mean convince a jury? If you mean, instead, that she has to bring a witness to say that he was in the process of attacking her, or she has to have that webcam, etc., then that is not the law. She only has to convince the jury that when she says he was in the process of attacking her, she is telling the truth. She doesn't have to bring in hard physical evidence.
So expect to hear Exhibit A: The tape recording PhinsFans2 has clipped below.
Exhibit B: Police reports of prior incidents between the two of them. BTW even reports showing that she attacked him in the past will go to establish the violence relationship between the two and (If I were a defense attorney I would even want that evidence before the jury) certainly is just further proof that there relationship was by nature a violent one thus there is a reasonable likelihood that she is telling the truth when she says he was commencing an attack on her that night.
Exhibit C: His past history of beating prior girlfriends and even cutting them with knives.
Of course, this is all assuming that he cooperates in the prosecution which he probably won't for all kinds of reasons, including wanting it all to "go away" for the sake of the shaky ground he is on with respect to the Commissioner.
> Dude are you serious!? LOL. What if rex ryan set
> this whole thing up to screw with the Dolphins?
> LOL. You gotta give me a break here.
RESPONSE: When I gave the hypothetical about the chained man, it was to make a point that all a defendant has to do in order to claim self-defense is to show that the victim was close enough to assault the defendant that the victim was in "reasonable fear" of his or her safety. I put that in because of your "she had no bruises" song which you sung over and over again to prove she had no right of self-defense.
> Your forgetting again, people have seen her hit
> and kick him as well. This is not Ms bake an apple
> pie Mom. She has a past as well. And ANYTHING she
> brings up will open that door up on her. I've been
> around the block a few times and to many a
> criminal trial. Its a two way street.
RESPONSE: Now, here, we are in full agreement both prediction-wise and on the law. You are right. Her bringing up past instances of domestic violence against him does "open the door" (and that is the legal name for the legal concept involved) to evidence against the defendant that is reasonably designed to rebut the fact she is trying to prove (that he attacked her) that he was about to attack her.
But still, if I were a prosecutor, I would want to minimize the introduction of evidence of prior violence between the two, even if it shows that this violence was something that she often instigated.
Like I said, the more instances of violence paraded before the jury, the more likely the jury is to throw up its hands and say, "screw them both."
And when a jury says that, it means an acquittal.