Attorney for Pacman Upset at Treatment

Wtf..

This is supposed to be court tv now? We are all lawyers and judges now? In the meantime some guy can't walk but because the charges were not severe enough or came later than some think they should have pacman should walk.

We have three shooting victims and a poster here thinks that they are being frivolous to file any kind of action against the great pacman. Even though he was the one who caused all of this. Wow what an fing reach to think that some idiot starting a pier 6 brawl in a damn bar might be just a little responsible when people get hurt. Wow how fing radical!

 

That's right, muddle it up even more, then try to claim moral high ground on a disconnect. That's typical of you.

Look back at the 8 pages of debate before this... What is the discussion about? It's about the charges brought against Pacman, the way they were brought, and people's responses about the charges and the results they think will ensue. Your first post is about the facts that are "against" pacman, in response to people saying that there wasn't much of a case against him. My first post is before yours, where I said the DA was grandstanding, making the case more than it is. The debate became whether there was a good case against him. For the next four pages, you attack Gunny and Riverman, accusing them of having blinders because Pacman is a titan. You keep bringing up the "facts" in response to people's reasons why the case won't be strong. I went on that three post tangent on the last page, and instead of responding to my reasons why the case is unlikely to be strong, you change the focus of the thread.

If you want to admit that you're wrong, and say that even if the case isn't strong, but that Adam Jones is a bad guy and should be judged accordingly, that's fine, make that point. But don't try to shift the debate and say that that's what the argument has been about all along.

I'm not his lawyer, but his lawyers are doing a good job, and the district attorney is not, which is one of the main reason that it looks like pacman won't be convicted here. That's what the debate is about. As we've said before, we don't know what happened, who did it, or what the testimony is going to be, so we can't make conclusions about that. We can make conclusions about the charges that have been filed.

I'm not saying that no one was hurt in the strip club, that's ridiculous. As Riverman and I have said several times, if Adam is guilty I hope he gets convicted. But I have no knowledge of him being guilty, and it looks like the DA isn't going to be able to prove it.

Yes, someone did something wrong, and several people were hurt. Do we know who did it? Do you know, Rolltide? Is that your position? But factually, none of us knows what happened that night. It's up to the DA to prove what he can. I don't have any motive, and my favorite scenario would be if they had evidence showing that someone else did it. But they don't seem to have a case against anyone else, and they don't have much of one against pacman.

 

Now you're crossing over to a debate in another thread... how creative. This debate hasn't been about the suit being frivolous. That's about the civil suit.

Once again, you charge that Adam Jones caused these people to be injured. THAT IS NOT FACT!!! You can continue to say that if he wasn't there, it wouldn't have happened, but we don't even know that. I certainly think that's the most likely scenario, but that's not how the criminal justice system works. He certainly might be responsible, but you can't hold him to it if you can't prove that he is. I'm not asking you to prove that he was responsible, but if the DA can't prove that he was, then he shouldn't be found guilty of anything.

 

The bite..

Pacman jones saliva was swabbed for a DNA test to compare with what?

A. A tuna sandwich.

B. Jello pudding

C. pizza

d. A DNA swab taken from a bite wound.

It's D. They swabbed a bite wound and compared it. The negative DNA for pacman doesn't mean the guy was not bitten it just means probably not by pacman. How many of you think the man is lying about being bitten?

Does this guy have a long history of lying about bites? Did he bite himself?

 

No the negative DNA means Pacman absolutely did not bite him.

 

The point is, if he says pacman bit him, and the DNA test shows that he didn't bite him, then you wonder how accurate the rest of his story is.

 

Now there's an appropriate reference!

 

RIP.

 

Just like all lawyers, they buried Johnny Cochran 12 feet deep,
cause deep down he's a good guy...