Frank Clark acting stupid (again.)
...several reasons. She can believe someone is guilty but also believe she isn't likely to win a conviction, for example.
The prosecutor came out and publicly said "he didn't hit her."
Move on.
The prosecutor also admitted that there was a "physical confrontation" and didn't dispute the police report, which portrayed the scene as one where Hurt was bloddy and nearly unconscious. So unless you have some additional evidence other than a prosecutor making an admittedly unusual statement that "he's not a batterer" based on a lot of information that won't be divulged, I'm going to say that there was physical violence involved here and Clark absolutely played a role in it.
And? "Physical violence" is a weird characterization of the events considering the prosecutor concluded whatever took place didn't merit a DV charge. On top of that, she came out and publicly said he did not hit, slap, or do anything resembling the sort to the complainant. She didn't have to state that publicly but she did. I don't know what people are trying to argue here anymore. The law is the law.
The specific charge of "domestic violence" in Ohio does not require a showing of hitting or slapping. The relevant code section talks about "physical harm," "serious physical harm," and threats of such harm to a family member or household member. It seems to me it might not have applied here b/c Clark's girlfriend was not a family member and possibly not a household member. I don't know if they lived together.
A physical altercation - especially one that creates a "nasty scene," to quote the prosecutor - is very likely to be domestic violence if it is between family members or household members. It's possible that both Clark and his girlfried were guilty of domestic violence, but it seems highly unlikely that Clark was not guitly of that offense (putting aside the issue of whether they lived together). I'll admit that I forgot exactly what the prosecutor said here, but I think she was probably just wrong in her application of the law if Clark and the girlfriend lived together.
*Nothing here is meant as legal advice.
More likely scenario is you don't know what you're talking about and the Ohio prosecutor does.
You keep acting like the prosecutor not pressing charges for domestic violence means it didn't happen. Clark pled down to a lesser charge, and even the prosecutor admitted there was a physical altercation. And based on your earlier comments, it's also clear you don't really know what the law, or how it is applied her, works.
Here's the statute in Ohio for DV. It says it only applies to family or household member. I assume Hurt wasn't either of those, unless she petitioned to be considered as a "live in" girlfriend, which seems unlikely given where both of them were living at the time.
I really do want to know what end you are trying to get to with this argument. Do you think Clark should have called out this writer, and why? Do you think that a guy who was busted for stealing a laptop, then kicked off the team for getting into a physical altercation with his girlfriend that led to injuries, and yet was STILL drafted in the NFL and signed to a pretty good contract needs to be defended against his past actions and how they are perceived?
So you are citing a very academic discussion of the rules of evidence as they pertain to hearsay evidence in court as proof that police reports should be taken seriously only when they tend to exonerate the defendant. You do understand that this rule applies to admitting the actual document into the record only, not that it can't be used as a means to "refresh" the memory of an officer or witness testifying about the matters included in said document. There are numerous links to Ohio's particular rules of evidence that discuss this distinction; here's one. So the point you are making has nothing to do with the underlying facts included in the report, and sort of highlights your misunderstanding of what hearsay means in this context.
Also, the article you linked to even points out that there was a physical altercation between the two. In the end, that left Hurt bloody and nearly unconscious on the floor. If you are going to argue semantics about "it wasn't a punch", then by all means die on that hill (you're doing a great job thus far). But it's this full-throated defense of Clark, based seemingly only on the fact he once wore Michigan colors, rings hollow to me.
"He also had his BFF Lewan engaging in witness intimidation..."
That's garbage. Coming from a comment that Lewan purportedly made to a third person. Without any contact with, or to, or at, the alleged original accuser. As you know, or ought to know, it was investigated by University police and found to be a big nothing. I've read that police report, and it is unenviably like other police reports; not a literary or a forensic work of art. And in the end, not a serious claim.
Clark didn't get charged for the greater offense because the key witness would not cooperate with the prosecutor's office. This is not unusual in domestic violence situations, where the assailant and the victim make nice after the event.
You werent on the OJ jury by any chance were you?
Why not take your hyperbole to another extreme and call Clark a new Hitler? Seriously, comparing two people who were never convicted of assualt.... and about which you vertainly KNOW almost nothing.... to one of the most evidence-filled public trials of all time is a really immature response. (Plus, OJ was judicially determined to have cause their deaths.)
Everybody publicly accussed of a crime, but who is never convicted isn't the next OJ. You imply the poster who points out their legal innocence is similar to an OJ juror who didn't convict despite a mountain of evidence?
Think first. Post second.
"you imply" is what people say when they want to argue something that the other person didn't actually say.
Not true. Implications can be both clear and real. While some people may use the term too loosely, I did not.
Good try.
I have only defended looking at things objectively and not making assumptions about the accussed. Be it some frat kids, Frank Clark, MSU players, etc.
I realize fighting against stupidly judgmental internet posters is fruitless, but somehow, the idea of justice demands someone who calls out bias.
Have an upvote.
Hitler was never convicted of assault either. He pled guilty to a lesser charge
/s
Fail for Godwin's Law violation.
really missed you buddy.
A+ trolling
my bad
Lot of people in this thread lack the depth to understand what I'm pointing out. Thanks for at least trying even it has fallen on deaf ears. The internet mob demands a head on a platter always.
I was picking up what you were putting down...
It's not like you actually defended Clark... just wondering about all the Nancy Graces out there trying someone based upon opinions.
God forbid if Frank has actually reformed himself as well. I don't know. I don't care -- he's not a role model of mine. But I'm a fan of folks who are productive in society, rather than a drain, even if it takes them a bit to get there.
Why let the facts get in the way of the story you want to believe, and the way you want to tell it?
Gibbons' accuser was given a chance to press criminal charges with the Ann Arbor police, and she refused.
And until we see a transcript of the administrative proceedings against Gibbons (on a "preponderance of the evidence" basis) -- a transcript which might not even exist -- I will never, ever presume that Gibbons was guilty of anything.
My understanding is that the Title IX-inspired proceeding against Gibbons was not even initiated by his original accuser. It may have been initiated by the moonbat football-hating gadfly and discharged UMMC employee, Douglas Smith.
I'd be delighted to see more authoritative information if anybody has it.
You're spot on about Douglas Smith. Guy had a grudge he was fired and used Gibbons accuser (who didn't even want to speak with him) as a vehicle to exact revenge. The whole thing was handled extremely poorly by the university.
I'm sorry, but sexual assault cases shouldn't be tried before a school fucking tribunal. They should be tried in a court of law. Otherwise you end up with shit shows like this:
The only thing I'm 100% sure of is that you're 100% full of shit.
I'm sure someone told him to delete the tweet and put out that apology, but both parties know he didn't believe an ounce of it. It's almost worse than no apology at all.
Frank Clark is not a good person
Oh well.
And to think young impressionable McDowell will be taken under the wings of Frank. That should work out well for him...
No politics!
He's an asshole. There's not really any rationale by which to defend him.
This is example number #893,417 why you shouldn't look to athletes for your moral example. Being good at sports and being a good person has very little to do with one another. Sucks that he's not representing the university very well as an alum, but otherwise, meh. Being an asshole isn't a crime.
Sad. Not surprising. I hope Clark eventually starts making better decisions. I'm not holding my breath. And it is hard not to be cynical about teams at every level who are more than happy to overlook and turn a blind eye to bad behavior, as long as it has to do with an athlete who gives your team a better chance at winning.
I'm more offended by his spelling...