Wake Forest BBall coach arrested

[king ward]

...The fleeing the scene is not helpful to the Coach’s state of mind however, it certainly goes to show the heightened state of his emotions.

It goes to show that he understood the distinct possibility of being found culpable.

 

[rogue cock]

There is a huge problem with the terminolgy with the ones that want the coach hung from a tree! Guess what, the coach never "Killed the guy!". The coach did not stab him, did not shoot him, did not break his neck with a kungfu move, did not run over him with his car, did not stomp his head while on ground and he didnt drown him in his own vomit.

I guarantee the drunk guy was still alive when he hit the ground. The guy probably would not have fallen if he was sober even if he was punched but would have caught his fall if sober. But before that the guy would not have been punching people or vandalizing vehicles if he was sober. Almost sounds like the guy was trying to commit suicide in a drunken state where he could be ran over by moving vehicles or shot by an angry pedestrian for damaging personal property. Or knowingly attacking a person hoping he would be attacked to end his life.

Turn the story around and see how dumb it sounds. The coach did not kill the guy. The guy was over-served and not using his normal faculties, or at least i hope that is accurate. The drunk guy probably fell down multiple times before the incident happened and if so he may have had a blood clot in his head.

I hope you see all the variables but it really spins me when people type "he killed the guy". You were not there, the coach may have had kids in car and guy would not move out of way saying he would kill everyone. If so, im defending my family.

This society of guilty until proven innocent is one if the worst new trends! If the coach stomped his head into ground then he deserves the penalty but no one on the forum knows what happened and to say he killed the guy is ludicrous! Circumstances caused the guy to die but the coach isn't a killer unless proven otherwise!

You take your victims as you find them. For example, if you are in a fight and stab someone who has hemophilia with what otherwise would be a nonlethal wound and he dies as a result, you are still responsible for his death...you killed him. Same is true here. The victim may have been more predisposed to falling and hitting his head due to a punch, but that is no defense. He still killed him.

 

[rogue cock]

However, if the WF coach says he was fearful of being battered before he threw the punch; then the immediately previous aggressive, tortuous, and assault/battery actions certainly can be presented as evidence to the jury/Judge in determining the Coach’s mental and emotional state. Sounds like the coach made the right determination, the guy was a clear and present danger.

The fleeing the scene is not helpful to the Coach’s state of mind however, it certainly goes to show the heightened state of his emotions.

The coach would have to have seen or heard about the prior incident to affect his state of mind. If he didn't, it can't come in. Basic evidentiary rule.

 

[bosoxcock]

You take your victims as you find them. For example, if you are in a fight and stab someone who has hemophilia with what otherwise would be a nonlethal wound and he dies as a result, you are still responsible for his death...you killed him. Same is true here. The victim may have been more predisposed to falling and hitting his head due to a punch, but that is no defense. He still killed him.

The law sees "degrees" when someone dies as a result of what you did to contribute to the death.
He is charged with 3rd degree assault, a misdemenanor, even if the charges are upgraded, and they may, very unlikely he spends anytime in jail or prison... I see no jail if he is convicted and if it went to a jury, there is no way 12 people agree to a guilty verdict that requires jail time

 

[rogue cock]

The law sees "degrees" when someone dies as a result of what you did to contribute to the death.
He is charged with 3rd degree assault, a misdemenanor, even if the charges are upgraded, and they may, very unlikely he spends anytime in jail or prison... I see no jail if he is convicted and if it went to a jury, there is no way 12 people agree to a guilty verdict that requires jail time

As I said earlier, I think he pleas to involuntary manslaughter (no intent) which generally carries up to 2 years, but with a sentence recommendation of no jail or no more than a few months. He'll probably be charged with either or both 2nd degree murder (no premeditation) or voluntary manslaughter (no malice). All this subject to something arising in the investigation that has yet to be reported.

They will also upgrade the assault charges to second or first degree because the assault resulted in a serious injury. Those charges carry a potential sentence of 7+ years.

 

[rogue cock]

The law sees "degrees" when someone dies as a result of what you did to contribute to the death.
He is charged with 3rd degree assault, a misdemenanor, even if the charges are upgraded, and they may, very unlikely he spends anytime in jail or prison... I see no jail if he is convicted and if it went to a jury, there is no way 12 people agree to a guilty verdict that requires jail time

As far as a jury....I agree that no way you get a conviction on murder. But I do believe the circumstances fit the definition of either manslaughter charge and could pretty easily get a conviction on at least the lesser of the two.

 

[jackrabbit slim]

There is a huge problem with the terminolgy with the ones that want the coach hung from a tree! Guess what, the coach never "Killed the guy!". The coach did not stab him, did not shoot him, did not break his neck with a kungfu move, did not run over him with his car, did not stomp his head while on ground and he didnt drown him in his own vomit.

I guarantee the drunk guy was still alive when he hit the ground. The guy probably would not have fallen if he was sober even if he was punched but would have caught his fall if sober. But before that the guy would not have been punching people or vandalizing vehicles if he was sober. Almost sounds like the guy was trying to commit suicide in a drunken state where he could be ran over by moving vehicles or shot by an angry pedestrian for damaging personal property. Or knowingly attacking a person hoping he would be attacked to end his life.

Turn the story around and see how dumb it sounds. The coach did not kill the guy. The guy was over-served and not using his normal faculties, or at least i hope that is accurate. The drunk guy probably fell down multiple times before the incident happened and if so he may have had a blood clot in his head.

I hope you see all the variables but it really spins me when people type "he killed the guy". You were not there, the coach may have had kids in car and guy would not move out of way saying he would kill everyone. If so, im defending my family.

This society of guilty until proven innocent is one if the worst new trends! If the coach stomped his head into ground then he deserves the penalty but no one on the forum knows what happened and to say he killed the guy is ludicrous! Circumstances caused the guy to die but the coach isn't a killer unless proven otherwise!

Exactly. The drunk dude sympathizers and the shady ex prosecutor ITT are hypocrites. They will not accept that the drunk guy was the root cause of his demisedemi will have you believe the root cause of his death is a punch from the BB coach. The concrete killed the drunk and he would still be here if he hadn't have been drunk in public. Which is against the law to begin with, of course the sympathizers would have you overlook that.

 

[bosoxcock]

4 things had to happen BEFORE the guy died..... 1st he was drunk in public .... 2nd he hit/damaged someone's property... 3rd the drunk got hit in the face.... and 4th his head hit the payment.
If not for the 1st thing, the other 3 things wouldn't happened



.

 

[cockhornleghorn]

No elaboration necessary.

Yeah, it WAS pretty blatant.

 

[king ward]

Yeah, it WAS pretty blatant.

I think your probable interpretation is a matter of personal bias. The remark in question takes in quite a bit of territory not covered by your probable interpretation.