Welcome to goTitans.com! Log in or sign up to be a part of the best Tennessee Titans fan site available.

Attorney for Pacman Upset at Treatment

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by goTitans.com, Jun 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Watchers:
This thread is being watched by 7 users.
  1. TNThunder Guest

    Messages:
    0

    With all the headlines Pac has received in the last two years, I don't believe the word credibility and Jones will be used in the same sentence. Damage control might be though. While a bouncer may not be the highest rated of professions, the fact is they are an accepted commodity at strip clubs. I believe the owner of the club stated this is the first shooting they have ever had there. Pac is certainly breaking new ground where ever he goes. Since this is being held in Vegas, what do you think the oddsmakers have Pac's chances are.....let's see....a thug football player making millions with a long history of trouble, or a guy that was working being brought into court in a wheelchair. I would say 100-1 at least on Pac losing. Jurys can be very sympathetic.
    #91
  2. RollTide All-Pro

    Bishop
    Messages:
    20,102
    Moolah:
    $3,833
    Gotitans..

    Again you are coming at this as if both sides are even some how. Victims of a crime are not the same as the accused criminal. A person who is permanently injured would automatically have credibility over an indicted suspect. Nobody has accused the victims of commiting a crime. If one oif them had died from their injuries would we be saying we are not sure about their credibility. They are VICTIMS.



    Reasonable doubt is not the same as any doubt. We know for a fact three people were shot. That's not a matter for dispute. We know that pacman was at the scene fighting with those who were shot. That is not a matter of dispute.
  3. RollTide All-Pro

    Bishop
    Messages:
    20,102
    Moolah:
    $3,833
    Riverman..

    What is your idea of "hard evidence"?

    Speaking of someone who doesn't have a clue i find it interesting that if the 2 bouncers who were shot are almost automatically considered liars by yourself and others. In most cases an obvious victim of a crime is believed by a jury.

    What is the motivation for lying? Why would the 2 bouncers lie? We know why pacman would lie to save his arse. But they have not been accused of a thing.
  4. Riverman Dread the red

    Casey
    Messages:
    8,034
    Moolah:
    $3,421
    RT-we just not communicating here.

    Let's agree to disagree and see how things shake out.
  5. GoTitans3801 Forward Progress!

    Messages:
    7,640
    Moolah:
    $0
    What the heck do you even mean by "even"! I know that's a strange sentence, but what point are you making? Victims aren't the same as accused criminals? Where are you going with this??? Here's how this story would go down in court... the bouncer's side of the story is presented, and yes, it's uncontested (except for cross-examination) until the plaintiffs rest. However, when the defense presents there side, the jury is presented with Pacman's side of the story, which is contradictory to the bouncer's side. Maybe if it was just left with each side being told once, the victim would always seem more credible... but that's not how it works. As I said in my last post, we don't know the facts, so we can't really argue the merits, but we do know a few things. The charges are coercion. That means that he isn't bringing assault or battery, much larger charges. He's not bringing any conspiracy charges. All of those could result directly from him being able to prove what he's saying pacman said. However, he's bringing a much more ambiguous charge. We also know that one of the charges is the biting thing. We do have a report that the DNA test came back negative. Juries like test results. Pacman has multiple people who can testify to his side of the story. All of those things work against your whole vague "victims are always more believable" theory. Yes, it's a fact that the bouncer was shot. But what's in dispute is who shot him, and what caused it.

    If you're right for some reason, I'm glad. If I ever get injured, I'm going to court and telling them some guy who uses the name RollTide on the Gotitans.com message board was the one who did it to me, and I'll win because I'm a victim, and victims are always more credible. They won't even listen to your side of the story, no matter what it is.
  6. RollTide All-Pro

    Bishop
    Messages:
    20,102
    Moolah:
    $3,833
    Gotitans..

    Over your head as well?

    We are casual observers not criminologists, we don't run the court. We as casual observers should be more apt to take the word of a victim of a crime than the criminal.

    You yourself said the same damn thing. "the bouncer's side of the story is presented, and yes, it's uncontested ".

    That's all i have been saying is that if a guy with bullet holes is saying that pacman jones was in large part the reason he got shot. Until i have reason to think otherwise i am going to believe him. Yes the defense has a right to cross him and try and contradict him. When did i say different?
  7. RollTide All-Pro

    Bishop
    Messages:
    20,102
    Moolah:
    $3,833
    Proof..

    Notice how gotitans said the burden of proof is on the victims of the crime. That might be a problem for murder victims eh?

    -------------------------------
    The dispute is whether the bouncer can PROVE that Pacman or one of Pacman's posse shot him. And whether he can PROVE that Pacman bit him.
    -----------------------------

    Must be a new concept i have never heard of that before. Burden of proof is on the victim.

    Again let's refer to the scott peterson trial, a much more serious charge of murder. Where was this "proof" in that case? Mainly it was a window of opportunity he was fishing where the bodies came up. No blood evidence, no eye witnesses that saw him comitting the act. The jurers applied a little common sense and assumed that he must have dumped the body there.

    This case is no different. If pacman is fighting with a bouncer then it makes logical sense that when that bouncer gets shot it must be someone associated with him. Who else was motivated to shoot at that time? The shooting victims are pretty darned convinced that pacman was responsible and until i know otherwise why should i assume they are lying? as another poster said pacman and credibility don't seem to go together.
  8. SEC 330 BIPOLAR jive turkey

    Verner
    Messages:
    16,087
    Moolah:
    $327
  9. RollTide All-Pro

    Bishop
    Messages:
    20,102
    Moolah:
    $3,833
    Oh yeah!

    :pop: :pop:
  10. cld12pk2go Camp Fodder

    Messages:
    1,245
    Moolah:
    $0
    "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."


    I have often enjoyed your commentary on this site; however, your contribution on this topic only brings to mind the above quote from Macbeth.



    You just seem incapable of objectivity on this topic. :nono:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page