Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Archives > FOFC Archive
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-11-2005, 12:00 PM   #51
KevinNU7
College Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beantown
"Get in the trunk"

Holy shit! That is scary!
__________________
Boston Bashers - III.14 - (8347)

KevinNU7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 12:07 PM   #52
oliegirl
Head Cheerleader
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Caught somewhere between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace...
They currently have 36 schools in "lockdown", 4 within the city limits, all others in the metro area(s) where the suspect has been spotted or has hijacked cars...they are encouraging parents to NOT go check their children out of school because of the obvious traffic problems it could cause...but if my kid was in one of those schools - nothing could keep me from going and getting him.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mccollins View Post
haha - duck and cover! Here comes the OlieRage!
oliegirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 12:11 PM   #53
flere-imsaho
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
When I first read this, I thought to myself "Who is this guy trying to kid? How far does he think he's going to get?"
flere-imsaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 12:16 PM   #54
oliegirl
Head Cheerleader
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Caught somewhere between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksyrup
Any info about the suspect - was he on trial, a spectator, etc.?

According to the radio (750 am), this Judge was in the old courthouse, they do not have holding cells adjacent to the courtrooms like the new courthouse does. As a result, the suspect was being held in a jury room off the courtroom...this is where he gained control of the Deputy's gun, shot her, then went into the courtroom and shot the Judge.

Something tells me they will either renovate the old courthouse to include holding cells, or move all criminal cases into the new courthouse to prevent anything like this happening in the future.

Very sad story.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mccollins View Post
haha - duck and cover! Here comes the OlieRage!
oliegirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 12:19 PM   #55
Franklinnoble
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Placerville, CA
Call me a chauvinist pig, but there's no way a FEMALE officer should have been guarding a male prisoner. Especially one on trial for RAPE.

Fucking stupid.
Franklinnoble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 12:30 PM   #56
oliegirl
Head Cheerleader
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Caught somewhere between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franklinnoble
Call me a chauvinist pig, but there's no way a FEMALE officer should have been guarding a male prisoner. Especially one on trial for RAPE.

Fucking stupid.


You are a chauvinist pig.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mccollins View Post
haha - duck and cover! Here comes the OlieRage!
oliegirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 12:37 PM   #57
CraigSca
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Not Delaware - hurray!
I don't know anything about the deputy, but I would hope there is a certain level of physical fitness one must possess in order to have a job like this. I would also hope they wouldn't "dumb down" this level in order to include all sexes - sometimes people just aren't qualified to hold certain dangerous jobs - that's just the way it is.
__________________
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!
She loves you, yeah!
how do you know?
how do you know?

CraigSca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 12:43 PM   #58
Solecismic
Solecismic Software
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Canton, OH
Chalk this one up to political correctness run amock.

Nichols was in street clothes and unshackled. Just because that might prejudice a jury. Why can't the judge just say at the beginning of the trial that he's shackled because of the severity of the accusation?

I'm all for guaranteeing a fair trial. But today, it seems that to be considered "fair", it must be mistake-free and prejudiced in favor of the defendant.

I don't know about not having a woman guarding a dangerous male criminal. I wouldn't go that far. But if it turns out she's inexperienced and was the only one in the room with a gun, I'd say the courts were guilty of believing their own politically correct definitions. A man accused of what Brian Nichols was accused of must be considered dangerous.

(just to make it clear, I'm not referring to race in any way - political correctness in this case means assuming all criminals or all criminal defendants are just like the rest of us without any history of violence - even if that's just an accusation).
Solecismic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 12:47 PM   #59
albionmoonlight
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic

Nichols was in street clothes and unshackled. Just because that might prejudice a jury.

I'm probably as defendant-friendly a non-criminal as there is on this board, but even I am shocked by this if it is true.

If a guy is dangerous enough that you need an armed deputy to guard him, then he is dangerous enough to handcuff. I agree that a curative instruction to the jury ("Everyone accused of a violent crime is required to be handcuffed; do not read anything into the appearance of this defendant.") would have been enough.
albionmoonlight is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 12:56 PM   #60
CamEdwards
Stadium Announcer
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
got a link for that information, Jim? I agree, that's just PC stupidity if it's true.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half.
CamEdwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 12:59 PM   #61
Ksyrup
This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off.
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In Absentia
It's in the MSNBC article, which also contains this:


James Bailey, a juror at Nichols’ trial, said the jury was not in the courtroom at the time of the shooting.


Now, even if you give them the benefit of the doubt regarding the prejudicial effect of the defendant being in handcuffs, if the jury wasn't in the courtroom as he was being escorted, why was he not in handcuffs? I have to believe he'd have a much more difficult time pulling something like this at the defendant's table, even if unshackled at that point, then being unshackled while being escorted into the courtroom. If the jury ain't in the room, there's no prejudice!!!
__________________
M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."
Ksyrup is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:01 PM   #62
CamEdwards
Stadium Announcer
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
ummmm... I'd rather not but thank you!
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half.
CamEdwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:02 PM   #63
Huckleberry
College Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Cam -

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/4275867/detail.html

Quote:
Eric Friedly, a spokesman for the Fulton district attorney's office, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the Nichols had been released on bond and was going to be cross-examined in court. Friedly told the newspaper that the judge was wrapping up a civil proceeding before his second criminal trial resumed. Nichols was not cuffed, which Friedly said is not unusual.


"Even if the defendant is in jail at the time of the trial, he's allowed to wear street clothes in order to not prejudice the jury," Friedly told the newspaper.


Nichols was accused of going to his ex-girlfriend's apartment in North Fulton and holding her hostage for hours during which he repeatedly sexually assaulted her.

Be sure to credit "Huck the Magnificent" if you use it on the air.
__________________
The one thing all your failed relationships have in common is you.

The Barking Carnival (Longhorn-centered sports blog)
College Football Adjusted Stats and Ratings
Huckleberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:07 PM   #64
CraigSca
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Not Delaware - hurray!
How is this labeled as political correctness? This is just stupidity.

God forbid you handcuff a guy up for kidnapping and rape.
__________________
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!
She loves you, yeah!
how do you know?
how do you know?

CraigSca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:12 PM   #65
BigJohn&TheLions
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
I have always thought that a defendant should be required to wear the clothing they were wearing when arrested. I love how they try to make thugs look like choir boys during trial.

As for this guy... any chance he was innocent of the rape? Just kidding. How stupid do you have to be... Post bond and you're free to go. No thank you, I'll just kill a few people and then leave. Maybe when they catch him they'll allow him free unshackled roam of the courthouse during his trial. I'd love to hear the defense's "not guilty" arguement...
__________________
In the immortal words of a great alcoholic, "Can't we all just get along?"
BigJohn&TheLions is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:16 PM   #66
Thomkal
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Surfside Beach,SC USA
Man, not a good time for me to be reporting for jury duty for the first time ever at the end of the month. What a horrible experience this must have been for anyone in the courthouse.
Thomkal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:18 PM   #67
Ksyrup
This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off.
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In Absentia
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions
I have always thought that a defendant should be required to wear the clothing they were wearing when arrested. I love how they try to make thugs look like choir boys during trial.

As for this guy... any chance he was innocent of the rape? Just kidding. How stupid do you have to be... Post bond and you're free to go. No thank you, I'll just kill a few people and then leave. Maybe when they catch him they'll allow him free unshackled roam of the courthouse during his trial. I'd love to hear the defense's "not guilty" arguement...

This was the actual trial, not first appearance or something like that. And this was the second trial actually, the first one ended in a mistrial (anyone have the details on that?). So he was sitting in jail the whole time. He was either denied bail or couldn't make it.
__________________
M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."
Ksyrup is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:27 PM   #68
Franklinnoble
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Placerville, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliegirl
You are a chauvinist pig.

Just callin' it like I see it. Men are, by nature, stronger than women. Especially a man who has already demonstrated a likelihood that he was able to forcibly rape a woman. To leave such a person alone in a room, unrestrained, with only a female officer guarding him, is the height of irresponsible stupidity.
Franklinnoble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:31 PM   #69
bbor
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: toronto
Update?

They catch him?
__________________
Pumpy Tudors

Now that I've cracked and made that admission, I wonder if I'm only a couple of steps away from wanting to tongue-kiss Jaromir Jagr and give Bobby Clarke a blowjob.
bbor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:32 PM   #70
Ksyrup
This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off.
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In Absentia
Although I don't do criminal law AT ALL, I wanted to address the idea expressed above that unshackling a defendant for trial is either a result of political correctness or just plain stupid. Where required, it may be prudent and/or necessary. But this is hardly a new thing, and the law is pretty well-settled on the general issue (this is taken from a Washington Supreme Court opinion I found on the issue):

A criminal defendant has the constitutional right to appear at trial free
from shackles or other physical restraints, except in extraordinary
circumstances. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S. Ct. 1057, 25 L.
Ed. 2d 353 (1970); Rhoden v. Rowland, 172 F.3d 633, 636 (9th Cir. 1999);
Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 842. This right is an essential component of a fair
and impartial criminal trial, guaranteed by the sixth and fourteenth
amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, section 3, and
article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution. Finch, 137
Wn.2d at 843. The Supreme Court has clearly stated "one accused of a crime
is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis
of the evidence introduced at trial, and not on grounds of official
suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or other circumstances not
adduced as proof at trial." Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 485, 98 S.
Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1978).

Requiring a defendant to appear at trial in physical restraints poses a
substantial risk of destroying the defendant's presumption of innocence,
"`a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice.'"
Finch, 137 Wn.2d at 844 (quoting Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503, 96
S. Ct. 1691, 48 L. Ed. 2d 126 (1976)). Shackles unmistakably indicate the
court believes there is a "need to separate a defendant from the community
at large, creating an inherent danger that the jury may form the impression
that the defendant is dangerous or untrustworthy." Rhoden, 172 F.3d at 636
(citing Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568-69, 106 S. Ct. 1340, 89 L. Ed.
2d 525 (1986)).


While the specific application of these general tenets likely differs from state-to-state and circuity-to-circuit, and there are exceptions to every rule, the basic issue is one of ensuring our Constitutional right to a fair trial. Perhaps the method by which this was achieved in Atlanta was faulty, but this isn't the result of "PC gone amok" or sheer stupidity. These issues were decided at the US Supreme Court level, decades ago.
__________________
M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

Last edited by Ksyrup : 03-11-2005 at 01:34 PM.
Ksyrup is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:36 PM   #71
Ksyrup
This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off.
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In Absentia
A little more on the shackling issue:


In Allen v. Illinois, 397 U.S. 337, 344 (1970), the Court recognized two additional "inherent disadvantages" to shackling a defendant at trial: physical restraints may not only cause jury prejudice and impair the presumption of innocence, they may also detract from the dignity and decorum of the proceeding and impede the defendant's ability to communicate with his counsel. Id. "The lower courts have observed two further weaknesses in imposing physical restraints: they may confuse and embarrass the defendant, thereby impairing his mental faculties; and they may cause him pain." Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d 712, 720-21 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing cases from other circuits), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 948 (1990).

With the exception of the presumption of innocence, these "inherent limitations" of shackling continue into the penalty stage of a trial. Because "there seems to be no reason to restrict the[se] principles to the guilt-innocence stage of trial," we conclude the constitutional rules regarding shackling at trial apply equally in the sentencing context. Elledge v. Dugger, 823 F.2d at 1451.

.....


The right to appear before a jury free of shackles, however, is not absolute. Wilson v. McCarthy, 770 F.2d 1482, 1484-85 (9th Cir. 1985). Shackling is inherently prejudicial, but it is not per se unconstitutional. See Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d at 716. Under certain circumstances, "shackling . . . may be appropriate because of the public's competing interest in courtroom security and the just administration of law." Id. at 722 (citing Allen v. Illinois, 397 U.S. at 344). Because of the potential for prejudice, however, due process requires that shackles be used only as a "last resort." Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. at 344.

It is a denial of due process if a trial court orders a defendant shackled without first engaging in a two-step process. Castillo v. Stainer, 983 F.2d 145, 147-48 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended by, 997 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1993). "First, the court must be persuaded by compelling circumstances 'that some measure [is] needed to maintain security of the courtroom.' " Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883, 885 (9th Cir.) (quoting Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d at 720), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 832 (1990). "Second, the court must 'pursue less restrictive alternatives before imposing physical restraints.' " Id. (quoting Spain, 883 F.2d at 721). See also United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1401 (9th Cir. 1993).
__________________
M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."
Ksyrup is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:36 PM   #72
JeeberD
General Manager
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Town of Flower Mound
Nope, still on the run. If you have CNN up there tune in. Nothin but this story all day long...
__________________
UTEP Miners!!!

I solemnly swear to never cheer for TO
JeeberD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:44 PM   #73
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
He's still on the run. At one point, it looked like they had him cornered (in the general area of the offices of VPI97, Buzzee, and SWMBO), but it appears that he wasn't in that area after all.
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:45 PM   #74
albionmoonlight
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksyrup
A little more on the shackling issue:


In Allen v. Illinois, 397 U.S. 337, 344 (1970), the Court recognized two additional "inherent disadvantages" to shackling a defendant at trial: physical restraints may not only cause jury prejudice and impair the presumption of innocence, they may also detract from the dignity and decorum of the proceeding and impede the defendant's ability to communicate with his counsel. Id. "The lower courts have observed two further weaknesses in imposing physical restraints: they may confuse and embarrass the defendant, thereby impairing his mental faculties; and they may cause him pain." Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d 712, 720-21 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing cases from other circuits), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 948 (1990).

With the exception of the presumption of innocence, these "inherent limitations" of shackling continue into the penalty stage of a trial. Because "there seems to be no reason to restrict the[se] principles to the guilt-innocence stage of trial," we conclude the constitutional rules regarding shackling at trial apply equally in the sentencing context. Elledge v. Dugger, 823 F.2d at 1451.

.....


The right to appear before a jury free of shackles, however, is not absolute. Wilson v. McCarthy, 770 F.2d 1482, 1484-85 (9th Cir. 1985). Shackling is inherently prejudicial, but it is not per se unconstitutional. See Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d at 716. Under certain circumstances, "shackling . . . may be appropriate because of the public's competing interest in courtroom security and the just administration of law." Id. at 722 (citing Allen v. Illinois, 397 U.S. at 344). Because of the potential for prejudice, however, due process requires that shackles be used only as a "last resort." Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. at 344.

It is a denial of due process if a trial court orders a defendant shackled without first engaging in a two-step process. Castillo v. Stainer, 983 F.2d 145, 147-48 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended by, 997 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1993). "First, the court must be persuaded by compelling circumstances 'that some measure [is] needed to maintain security of the courtroom.' " Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883, 885 (9th Cir.) (quoting Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d at 720), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 832 (1990). "Second, the court must 'pursue less restrictive alternatives before imposing physical restraints.' " Id. (quoting Spain, 883 F.2d at 721). See also United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1401 (9th Cir. 1993).

KSyrup--

Much thanks for the links. I had no idea the law was this developed in this area.
albionmoonlight is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:45 PM   #75
digamma
Torchbearer
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: On Lake Harriet
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards
got a link for that information, Jim? I agree, that's just PC stupidity if it's true.

The article by Huckleberry touches on the issue, but it has actually been decided by the Supreme Court, and I don't think the case is all that recent--so I don't think it is a case of PC'ism run amok.

Nevermind, I see Ksyrup has beaten me to the punch.
digamma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:45 PM   #76
Ksyrup
This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off.
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In Absentia
Quote:
Originally Posted by albionmoonlight
KSyrup--

Much thanks for the links. I had no idea the law was this developed in this area.

No problem. I may be stupid about a lot of things, but when it comes to the law, I know...google.
__________________
M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."
Ksyrup is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:50 PM   #77
rkmsuf
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksyrup
I know...google.

And shackling!
__________________
"Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales
rkmsuf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:50 PM   #78
Ksyrup
This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off.
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In Absentia
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkmsuf
And shackling!

Both are equally handy.
__________________
M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."
Ksyrup is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:52 PM   #79
rkmsuf
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksyrup
Both are equally handy.

Throw in sheep and you've got something special there.
__________________
"Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales
rkmsuf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:53 PM   #80
Solecismic
Solecismic Software
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Canton, OH
I should amend that, then.

They were lulled into a fatal slumber by the Supreme Court's politically correct definitions.
Solecismic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 01:55 PM   #81
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
A law enforcement official (wasn't really paying attention to radio in background when this interview started) is being interviewed on the radio. He was just asked if anyone else was guarding the suspect. He said he didn't know, that the female deputy was still sedated and they haven't interviewed her yet. Then he was asked if any other deputies had come forward to say they were in the holding room. He said something to the effect of: "To my knowledge, no other deputies have indicated that they were in the room."'


EDIT: It is a news conference with the Deputy Chief Of Police for the City of Atlanta.
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

Last edited by Ben E Lou : 03-11-2005 at 01:57 PM.
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 02:09 PM   #82
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
The APD Deputy Chief just said that the female deputy was not shot, but was injured in the scuffle with the suspect. I'd say the fact that she's in critical condition from the scuffle is a pretty likely indicator that she was in the room alone with him.
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 02:14 PM   #83
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
It was just called by police "an around-the-clock, nation-wide search" for Nichols.

Nation-wide??? We need to get Tommy Lee Jones on the case to tell us how long our fugitive has been on the run...
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 02:17 PM   #84
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
Ok. This can NOT be true. PLEASE tell me this isn't true.


Reporters are saying that this guy tried to smuggle a shank into the courtroom just two days ago.
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 02:26 PM   #85
vtbub
College Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Burlington, VT USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog
Ok. This can NOT be true. PLEASE tell me this isn't true.


Reporters are saying that this guy tried to smuggle a shank into the courtroom just two days ago.


Fox is reporting this now, and I heard this earlier.
__________________


vtbub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 02:30 PM   #86
HomerJSimpson
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springfield, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog
Ok. This can NOT be true. PLEASE tell me this isn't true.


Reporters are saying that this guy tried to smuggle a shank into the courtroom just two days ago.


It is quite possible they are confusing two different defendants. I have heard others close to the case say they had no indication the guy was a threat.
HomerJSimpson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 02:33 PM   #87
VPI97
Hokie, Hokie, Hokie, Hi
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Kennesaw, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subby
How the fuck are you going to smuggle a freaking SHARK into a freaking courtroom???
large rectum
VPI97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 02:35 PM   #88
Subby
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: sans pants
How the fuck are you going to smuggle a freaking SHARK into a freaking courtroom???
__________________
Superman was flying around and saw Wonder Woman getting a tan in the nude on her balcony. Superman said I going to hit that real fast. So he flys down toward Wonder Woman to hit it and their is a loud scream. The Invincible Man scream what just hit me in the ass!!!!!

I do shit, I take pictures, I write about it: chrisshue.com
Subby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 02:40 PM   #89
cuervo72
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland
It was just a dolphin.

(shank? don't completely follow here...I hear 'shank' and I think of a cut of pork or something.)
__________________
null
cuervo72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 02:45 PM   #90
moriarty
College Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: A negative place
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuervo72
(shank? don't completely follow here...I hear 'shank' and I think of a cut of pork or something.)

Maybe like a shiv .. isnt' that what they use in all those prison shows?
moriarty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 02:46 PM   #91
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuervo72
It was just a dolphin.

(shank? don't completely follow here...I hear 'shank' and I think of a cut of pork or something.)
shank
(n) A custom made knife as used in prisons, made from whatever materials are available.
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 03:01 PM   #92
cuervo72
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland
Got it...need to bone up on my prison terminology.
__________________
null
cuervo72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 03:02 PM   #93
cuervo72
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland
Dola - I did look it up, but didn't find that definition.

http://www.answers.com/shank&r=67
__________________
null
cuervo72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 03:12 PM   #94
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuervo72
Got it...need to bone up on my prison terminology.
They're referring to it that way on the news here, actually. Of course, they use the term "crackhead," in this town, too.
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 03:18 PM   #95
bbor
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: toronto
It pains me to say this......but if they havent caught him by now....and he was right in their kitchen...........
__________________
Pumpy Tudors

Now that I've cracked and made that admission, I wonder if I'm only a couple of steps away from wanting to tongue-kiss Jaromir Jagr and give Bobby Clarke a blowjob.
bbor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 03:23 PM   #96
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbor
It pains me to say this......but if they havent caught him by now....and he was right in their kitchen...........
Well, he can't run forever, given the amount of notoriety this case has gotten. However, he's now been on the run for 7+ hours...
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 03:27 PM   #97
cuervo72
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Maryland
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog
They're referring to it that way on the news here, actually. Of course, they use the term "crackhead," in this town, too.

Damn, I need to revisit my drug lingo as well.
__________________
null
cuervo72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 03:28 PM   #98
moriarty
College Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: A negative place
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbor
It pains me to say this......but if they havent caught him by now....and he was right in their kitchen...........

Well if he was in my kitchen I'd beat him senseless with a lamb shank.

Last edited by moriarty : 03-11-2005 at 03:28 PM.
moriarty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 03:32 PM   #99
BigJohn&TheLions
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
I hate to see anything like this happen, but wouldn't this have been a much better story if it had been Michael Jackson?
__________________
In the immortal words of a great alcoholic, "Can't we all just get along?"
BigJohn&TheLions is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2005, 03:33 PM   #100
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
Police officers have surrounded an apartment in NW Atlanta, according to WSB-Radio.
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:14 AM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.