The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I have to think the prosecution has a weak case. Because, they're offering to keep someone that they think pointed a gun at someone else and then beat the crap out of him.....They're offering him a deal with no prison time for that. It just seems like they know they would lose if it went to trial.

I hope the prosecution looses! Because 25 years is a long time. Heck, its longer then Taylor has been alive and he better be absolutely certain he will walk since he's not taking the deal! In all honesty. I think I would take it!

Justice Hog wrote:

COZ wrote:Looks like we have a trial...

Of course I wouldn't plead guilty either if I were not guilty.

So, if you're looking at a trial with 25 years of mandatory prison time, and you're not guilty, and the prosecutor offers you a deal to one felony with probation.....avoiding the possibility of ANY prison time, you wouldn't consider it?

I find that hard to believe. Most people, though innocent, would give it serious thought. Then again, we've had that discussion earlier in this thread.

I would like to think that the lawyers are extremely confident. I am not sure why he would turn down the plea, especially since if he is convicted on any of the firearms charges, he will get a minimum of 3 years.

I could see maybe if he were in a different profession, and having a felony would severely cripple his earning ability. But a football player of his caliber is not going to be hurt by taking the plea. I hope this is Sean saying no and not his lawyers making what could be a real blunder.

Justice Hog wrote:Y'all have to understand that it may not be Grieco pushing this case through the Courts (though he is talking a good game). It very well may be his bosses telling him he must not plead this case out, and must go to trial. It happens, trust me.

But they can't force Taylor to not take the plea. They can try and talk him out of the deal, but it's against the Canons of Legal Ethics to disobey the wishes of the client and force him to go to trial, correct?

I am sure that Rosenhaus with his law degree would advise Sean to take the deal so as to avoid jail time and keep playing football, but isn't it unlikely that Taylor wants the deal and the lawyers don't? Can't he always just fire them and take the deal or hire a lawyer who will?

The practice you speak of sounds more like a corrupt prosecutor's office that wants a conviction for political reasons, rather than private defense counsel.

Seems like the private defense firm would win if the objective is to keep their client out of jail.


Chris Rock on how hiring Johnnie Cochran gives the appearance that you're guilty:

"I wouldn't wanna look innocent in jail. I'd rather look guilty at the mall!"

The Hogster wrote:

Justice Hog wrote:Y'all have to understand that it may not be Grieco pushing this case through the Courts (though he is talking a good game). It very well may be his bosses telling him he must not plead this case out, and must go to trial. It happens, trust me.

But they can't force Taylor to not take the plea. They can try and talk him out of the deal, but it's against the Canons of Legal Ethics to disobey the wishes of the client and force him to go to trial, correct?

I am sure that Rosenhaus with his law degree would advise Sean to take the deal so as to avoid jail time and keep playing football, but isn't it unlikely that Taylor wants the deal and the lawyers don't? Can't he always just fire them and take the deal or hire a lawyer who will?

The practice you speak of sounds more like a corrupt prosecutor's office that wants a conviction for political reasons, rather than private defense counsel.

Seems like the private defense firm would win if the objective is to keep their client out of jail.


Chris Rock on how hiring Johnnie Cochran gives the appearance that you're guilty:

"I wouldn't wanna look innocent in jail. I'd rather look guilty at the mall!"

I think you guys have your wires croosed....

Grieco is offering a deal that ST would plead to a felony w/no jail time.

Taylor isn't willing to say he committed a felony.

I still don't think it'll see the inside of a courtroom.

The Hogster wrote:Seems like the private defense firm would win if the objective is to keep their client out of jail.

Right. So it seems like staying out of jail isn't the only goal in Sean Taylor's situation--even though that's probably his #1 priority.

What other things could he be interested in? For one, like 1nik said, it seems as though Taylor is not willing to say that he's committed a felony. Also, they may not put Taylor in jail but they might end up setencing him to quite a bit of community service, to strict rules for his probation, or to other unpleasant circumstances.


Why take the first offer that comes along simply because it means no jail time? Obviously Sean (or his lawyers, or both) believe that they can easily get a much better deal out of the situation.


If it was me, I'd sure as heck want to make sure that I wasn't going to prison (can't say that I have 100% faith in even our justice system). . .but if I knew that the prosecution had nothing against me I probably wouldn't want to take a crappy deal--even if it did guarentee no prison time.


(Also, I'm not trained in this whatsoever, so I'm willing to believe that everything I said is utter nonsense and completely missing the point.)

1niksder wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

Justice Hog wrote:Y'all have to understand that it may not be Grieco pushing this case through the Courts (though he is talking a good game). It very well may be his bosses telling him he must not plead this case out, and must go to trial. It happens, trust me.

But they can't force Taylor to not take the plea. They can try and talk him out of the deal, but it's against the Canons of Legal Ethics to disobey the wishes of the client and force him to go to trial, correct?

I am sure that Rosenhaus with his law degree would advise Sean to take the deal so as to avoid jail time and keep playing football, but isn't it unlikely that Taylor wants the deal and the lawyers don't? Can't he always just fire them and take the deal or hire a lawyer who will?

The practice you speak of sounds more like a corrupt prosecutor's office that wants a conviction for political reasons, rather than private defense counsel.

Seems like the private defense firm would win if the objective is to keep their client out of jail.


Chris Rock on how hiring Johnnie Cochran gives the appearance that you're guilty:

"I wouldn't wanna look innocent in jail. I'd rather look guilty at the mall!"

I think you guys have your wires croosed....

Grieco is offering a deal that ST would plead to a felony w/no jail time.

Taylor isn't willing to say he committed a felony.

I still don't think it'll see the inside of a courtroom.

Okay, I thought Greico was the name of the defense attorney. I completely agree with JH then. Prosecutors prosecute some case simply because they are high profile. It's sad that even our prosecutors get fame hungry. Just look at the DA in the Kobe Case, and the DA in Minneapolis.

One could even argue that the prosecutor, Sneddon in the Jacko case was a bit overzealous. I am not making a guilt or innocence determination in those cases, but I definitely see how prosecuting a case against a high profile defendent increases the visibility of the DA's office, and that is problematic when you have elected DA's who use these opportunities as face time for their re-election.

I'm confident that Taylor will be acquitted.

I think I just heard on ESPN Radio that Seans case was dropped... anyone have any more information???

Are you sure they were not talking about Culpepper?

The Hogster wrote:I am sure that Rosenhaus with his law degree would advise Sean to take the deal so as to avoid jail time and keep playing football, but isn't it unlikely that Taylor wants the deal and the lawyers don't? Can't he always just fire them and take the deal or hire a lawyer who will?

If you think Sean Taylor's defense team gives a rat's ____ about anything Rosenhaus has to say, then you're misguided. No defense team member will consider anything an agent has to say......trust me.

Justice Hog wrote:

The Hogster wrote:I am sure that Rosenhaus with his law degree would advise Sean to take the deal so as to avoid jail time and keep playing football, but isn't it unlikely that Taylor wants the deal and the lawyers don't? Can't he always just fire them and take the deal or hire a lawyer who will?

If you think Sean Taylor's defense team gives a rat's ____ about anything Rosenhaus has to say, then you're misguided. No defense team member will consider anything an agent has to say......trust me.

Exactly. Let me know when Rosenhaus is on the hook for more than financial interest. Until then, Taylor's real attorneys could give half a care.

Hey JusticeHog, your status of the Brady violations in the 3rd circuit post had me thinking. So I spent a few hours on LexisNexis searching the 11th Circuit and Florida. They're sparse (real sparse) on the Brady stuff. But then again, I'm not a criminal guy. Actual law scares me, I'll stick with nerd law.

Justice Hog wrote:

The Hogster wrote:I am sure that Rosenhaus with his law degree would advise Sean to take the deal so as to avoid jail time and keep playing football, but isn't it unlikely that Taylor wants the deal and the lawyers don't? Can't he always just fire them and take the deal or hire a lawyer who will?

If you think Sean Taylor's defense team gives a rat's ____ about anything Rosenhaus has to say, then you're misguided. No defense team member will consider anything an agent has to say......trust me.

I didn't say that they give a rat's a** about Rosenhaus...but trust me...having an agent in my family...I'll tell you if you are representing an NFL athlete, you will likely be advising your client on all facets of life. I wouldn't be surprised if Rosenhaus was the person who found Taylor's defense counsel. Everytime an athlete gets in trouble, they call their agent. Not that the agent has anything to do with what the defense counsel ultimately does, I never said that anywhere in my post...don't know where you got that...I am saying that I am sure the conversation didn't go like this

Carhart: Here's the deal..plead to X and no jail time.
Taylor: Heck no..Im innocent.


It probably went more like this:

Carhart: Here's the deal...plead to X and no jail time.
Taylor: What do you think I should do? ( to his lawyers and the people he trusts)

I am sure that Taylor is getting advice from all over the place.

Not that They would listen to him, but I am saying that I am sure that Rosenhaus has an opinion that he may express to Sean about whether or not to accept a deal.

Put simply, If Sean was convinced that he should take the deal, then he would have. So it's reasonable to assume that he has been advised that taking the plea is not the smart thing to do.

I think just the fact that the DA put forward a plea deal with no jail time means his case is very shaky.

From all I have heard this case is based almost entirely on the words of a few witnesses and the alleged victims and they seem to hardly be upstanding citizens.

Sean doesn't have the best track record since he entered the NFL but I think that his word is still worth much more than the other people involved as he hasn't been arrested multiple times since the incident and they have. The fact he has outstanding lawyers makes it even more likely that the credibility of his accusers will be shattered almost immediately.

hkHog wrote:I think just the fact that the DA put forward a plea deal with no jail time means his case is very shaky.

From all I have heard this case is based almost entirely on the words of a few witnesses and the alleged victims and they seem to hardly be upstanding citizens.

Sean doesn't have the best track record since he entered the NFL but I think that his word is still worth much more than the other people involved as he hasn't been arrested multiple times since the incident and they have. The fact he has outstanding lawyers makes it even more likely that the credibility of his accusers will be shattered almost immediately.

I agree with this. The DA was trying to save face by offering that deal, but it speaks volumes to the weakness of their case. They add extra charges that could theoretically carry 46 years, but then offer a deal that involves no jail time?

It just seems terribly weak and desperate. The people close to the situation must know even more about the weakness of the case because the people close to Taylor advised him not to take the deal.

Here's what's gonna happen.

Trial will begin on Monday.

The "star" witnesses, all a bunch of criminals themselves, won't show up for trial and that will leave the Court with two options:

(1) Get material witness warrants for the witnesses and continue the case;

or

(2) Dismiss all charges.

Hopefully, the Court will take option #2.

Justice Hog wrote:

COZ wrote:Looks like we have a trial...

Of course I wouldn't plead guilty either if I were not guilty.

So, if you're looking at a trial with 25 years of mandatory prison time, and you're not guilty, and the prosecutor offers you a deal to one felony with probation.....avoiding the possibility of ANY prison time, you wouldn't consider it?

I find that hard to believe. Most people, though innocent, would give it serious thought. Then again, we've had that discussion earlier in this thread.

Nope - there's a thing call morals and I'm not going to admit to something I didn't do. Simple idea but not many people get it anymore - especially those in our justice system. Seems guilt and innocence take a back seat to deals and public opinion these days - sad really.

Why are they trying to bring justice to a bunch of thugs,even if he did pull a gun on them,1 they stole his property,thats take money from you.2 Sean knows what type of people he was dealing with.Now what if he didnt have a gun and then got shot. It was a protection issue,he was protecting himself.What happen to the the thief part of this case,they still stole from him. The justice system SUCKS.

DaRealistJoka wrote:Why are they trying to bring justice to a bunch of thugs,even if he did pull a gun on them,1 they stole his property,thats take money from you.2 Sean knows what type of people he was dealing with.Now what if he didnt have a gun and then got shot. It was a protection issue,he was protecting himself.What happen to the the thief part of this case,they still stole from him. The justice system SUCKS.

The reason they are trying to bring justice to a bunch of thugs, my friend, is that you don't want to encourage people taking the law into their own hands. What if Sean Taylor, in trying to shoot the two thugs, missed and hit/killed and innocent bystander? That is exactly why Sean Taylor is facing trial....not because of "who" the alleged victims are.

To my knowledge, there are no "self-defense" issues in this case.

Justice Hog wrote:

DaRealistJoka wrote:Why are they trying to bring justice to a bunch of thugs,even if he did pull a gun on them,1 they stole his property,thats take money from you.2 Sean knows what type of people he was dealing with.Now what if he didnt have a gun and then got shot. It was a protection issue,he was protecting himself.What happen to the the thief part of this case,they still stole from him. The justice system SUCKS.

The reason they are trying to bring justice to a bunch of thugs, my friend, is that you don't want to encourage people taking the law into their own hands. What if Sean Taylor, in trying to shoot the two thugs, missed and hit/killed and innocent bystander? That is exactly why Sean Taylor is facing trial....not because of "who" the alleged victims are.

To my knowledge, there are no "self-defense" issues in this case.

I agree here, but... what about the idea of making a citizen's arrest?

Now things are probably much different in Florida (and Delaware for that matter) but I heard this story from a policeman here in Durango.

A guy is high on coke or something and he rolls his car on the highway. He runs away and finds a pickup on this guys farm. The farmer sees the guy steal his truck so he jumps in another truck after him. The farmer catches up, and pulls our right in front of the car (like a T) and pulls out a pistol and holds the guy at bay until the police arrive.

Now, it was technically felony menacing, but the DA decided that it was permissable because he was making a citizen's arrest.

And all this time I thought "citizen's arrests" were myths. Apperantly you are allowed to stop someone from leaving the scene of a crime if you know one has been committed.

Skinsfan55 wrote:And all this time I thought "citizen's arrests" were myths. Apperantly you are allowed to stop someone from leaving the scene of a crime if you know one has been committed.

Actually, I believe citizens arrests are legal in most Statesl; however:

(1) It is usually idiotic to perform a citizens arrest because, more times than not, it may place the life of the "citizen" and/or the "citizen's family/friends" in danger.

and

(2) You just can't encourage people to go out and shoot up the town, even for the purpose of making what they may call a "citizen's arrest".

Did Taylor actually discharge his weapon?

Maybe I'm just confused about the facts. I thought he pointed the gun at some people.

Anyway, I would think that citizen's arrests are safe under certain circumstances. Like if you catch a shoplifter you don't want them to leave. (Do security guards have "arrest powers? Do they operate with citizen's arrests?) Or if you're armed (like the farmer) and you can shoot the guy if he tries anything funny. (That would be self defense right?)

Justice Hog wrote:

DaRealistJoka wrote:Why are they trying to bring justice to a bunch of thugs,even if he did pull a gun on them,1 they stole his property,thats take money from you.2 Sean knows what type of people he was dealing with.Now what if he didnt have a gun and then got shot. It was a protection issue,he was protecting himself.What happen to the the thief part of this case,they still stole from him. The justice system SUCKS.

The reason they are trying to bring justice to a bunch of thugs, my friend, is that you don't want to encourage people taking the law into their own hands. What if Sean Taylor, in trying to shoot the two thugs, missed and hit/killed and innocent bystander? That is exactly why Sean Taylor is facing trial....not because of "who" the alleged victims are.

To my knowledge, there are no "self-defense" issues in this case.

Well sorry some of us think different,maybe because of were we grew up things are handle differently,not saying it's right.

DaRealistJoka wrote:

Justice Hog wrote:

DaRealistJoka wrote:Why are they trying to bring justice to a bunch of thugs,even if he did pull a gun on them,1 they stole his property,thats take money from you.2 Sean knows what type of people he was dealing with.Now what if he didnt have a gun and then got shot. It was a protection issue,he was protecting himself.What happen to the the thief part of this case,they still stole from him. The justice system SUCKS.

The reason they are trying to bring justice to a bunch of thugs, my friend, is that you don't want to encourage people taking the law into their own hands. What if Sean Taylor, in trying to shoot the two thugs, missed and hit/killed and innocent bystander? That is exactly why Sean Taylor is facing trial....not because of "who" the alleged victims are.

To my knowledge, there are no "self-defense" issues in this case.

Well sorry some of us think different,maybe because of were we grew up things are handle differently,not saying it's right.

You were taught to break the law?

Skinsfan55 wrote:

DaRealistJoka wrote:

Justice Hog wrote:

DaRealistJoka wrote:Why are they trying to bring justice to a bunch of thugs,even if he did pull a gun on them,1 they stole his property,thats take money from you.2 Sean knows what type of people he was dealing with.Now what if he didnt have a gun and then got shot. It was a protection issue,he was protecting himself.What happen to the the thief part of this case,they still stole from him. The justice system SUCKS.

The reason they are trying to bring justice to a bunch of thugs, my friend, is that you don't want to encourage people taking the law into their own hands. What if Sean Taylor, in trying to shoot the two thugs, missed and hit/killed and innocent bystander? That is exactly why Sean Taylor is facing trial....not because of "who" the alleged victims are.

To my knowledge, there are no "self-defense" issues in this case.

Well sorry some of us think different,maybe because of were we grew up things are handle differently,not saying it's right.

You were taught to break the law?

Do you see taught any were in that sentence? NO Sometime ignorance come to you and you have to protect yourself,I said nothing about taught. Read before you type next time.

Boy, I sure am glad that the FL taxpayers money is being put to good use! <sarcasm> FL will be a much safer place with Sean Taylor locked up and off the streets, can you imagine someone trying to defend the theft of their personal property? What a felon! <sarcasm> Not to mention that the victims in this case are habitual offenders!

FL must get this disciplined, hard working athelete off of their streets so everyone can sleep better at night. The poor thug victims in this case who stole property are in no way more of a threat than a hard working professional athelete! <sarcasm> Those boys were just stealin, nothing wrong with that but this guy Taylor pulls a gun on the thiefs and doesn't discharge but he is the real menace. <sarcasm> Never mind that later the thiefs come back and shoot up his truck with bullets, those boys were just shootin around and being boys!


Let's get this guy taylor off the streets so the bluehairs will be safe at night. Thiefs and habitual offenders are OK in FL, just not the people who try and defend themselves and their property from these guys!

PS...please note the extreme sarcasm this post was written in.

Maybe Sean should have called the police, waited for a few hours before they showed up, filed a report with them, waited for a few months before the police get back to him stating there are no leads in the case and he his SOL.

Meanwhile his ATV's have been chopped up or sold on ebay to feed some drug habits of some good solid FL citizens!

Sounds like a great way to spend some taxpayer money to me

DaRealistJoka wrote:Do you see taught any were in that sentence? NO Sometime ignorance come to you and you have to protect yourself,I said nothing about taught. Read before you type next time.

I understand the need to protect yourself, but there's a right and a wrong way to do it.

If someone is stealing your car, you're not allowed to shoot them in the back.

If someone is leaving your home with an armload of stolen property you can't smash them in the head with a bat when you run them down two blocks away.

People should be able to trust the system to work, because if you know how to use it, it does.

I really wish there were more effective police cooperation education going on in public schools, but no matter what you do there's always one or two idiot policemen than violate the trust of those they are trying to protect.