|
|
Post by OVO 40 hunched over like he 80 on Dec 11, 2017 15:24:35 GMT -5
Su yung? Is that the one Jerry Lawler was rumored to be dating a few years ago? I remember because there were jokes about So-young I think she's now too old for the King's tastes... |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Dec 11, 2017 16:19:52 GMT -5
Su yung? Is that the one Jerry Lawler was rumored to be dating a few years ago? I remember because there were jokes about So-young Yeah they dated for a bit. She is not the Fiance on the issue last year though. Su yung? Is that the one Jerry Lawler was rumored to be dating a few years ago? I remember because there were jokes about So-young I think she's now too old for the King's tastes... she's the same age as Lawler's Fiance. |
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Dec 11, 2017 16:57:58 GMT -5
A lot of emotions bubbling up here. There are people saying he should be banned from wrestling forever because of this and serve 10 years in prison.
There are others saying it's just a bad mistake no biggie despite her saying he has a history.
Both sides are a little extreme. This contrast pops up in every thread, Hogan, Benoit, etc.
I think the majority here though agree he should serve some time and he will lose his job, but blackballing him from the industry...i suppose if that's a natural outcome of his consequences. However, if he isn't allowed to wrestle, then why should he be allowed to pursue a career making music or even basic retail serve groceries?
Now I'm not for domestic abuse at all. My dad kicked my mum in the stomach and i pulled a knife on him and went to stab him.
So i think he definitely needs to be held accountable. There is no doubt about that.
But one day my dad had to get his act back together and move forward. He had to unreservedly apologise for his actions and work hard to earn our respect again. They never got back together, but he found someone else new.
Is he a better man now? I believe so.
What's my crappy point in me treating this like Blogfan you ask? I guess just to state that people can learn from their mistakes and grow into better people, but generally it takes consequences for things to hit home.
|
|
dbostick
Trap-Jaw
Damn these contacts!
Posts: 333
|
Post by dbostick on Dec 11, 2017 21:29:25 GMT -5
Maybe he ought to put a headlock on hunger instead...
|
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Dec 11, 2017 21:42:22 GMT -5
on the legal side it'll be an interesting time. If she does not press charges there might not be a case here. Most times things like abuse need "damages" and kidnapping needs a person to say it was against her "will." Swan's wife has a legal right not to testify against her husband. While the evidence is pretty cut and dry, the major key is the victim to confirm they were the target of the abuse. If the victim is not willing to say they were the victim it essentially (in legal terms) means there is no victim. Any lawyer worth their salt could defend this with ease. Like the others have mentioned, none of this is right. It was a public incident involving property damage and multiple witnesses. Nothing she can do or say now will change this now. Even with witnesses you need a victim. If she does not say that what happened was both not abuse/not false imprisonment legally speaking there's no case. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying in a court of law with out her corporation there's reasonable doubt. For an example. if she doesn't say he grabbed her with out her consent the defense will probably just say what happened was consensual even if the witnesses thought otherwise. They could even bring their profession of wrestling in the mix of how something might look like abuse but is totally consensual. Once again it depends on how much she cooperates. But if she does/has not there really isnt a case. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Dec 11, 2017 22:14:04 GMT -5
Like the others have mentioned, none of this is right. It was a public incident involving property damage and multiple witnesses. Nothing she can do or say now will change this now. Even with witnesses you need a victim. If she does not say that what happened was both not abuse/not false imprisonment legally speaking there's no case. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying in a court of law with out her corporation there's reasonable doubt. For an example. if she doesn't say he grabbed her with out her consent the defense will probably just say what happened was consensual even if the witnesses thought otherwise. They could even bring their profession of wrestling in the mix of how something might look like abuse but is totally consensual. Once again it depends on how much she cooperates. But if she does/has not there really isnt a case. Not how it works, bro, sorry. With it being a public incident, she doesn't even have to ever show up in court for this to get real ugly for Swann. As far as bringing their profession into it to muddy the waters, the problem there is that it isn't 1974 anymore and no court of law would even let that make it into the arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 11, 2017 22:19:40 GMT -5
Even with witnesses you need a victim. If she does not say that what happened was both not abuse/not false imprisonment legally speaking there's no case. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying in a court of law with out her corporation there's reasonable doubt. For an example. if she doesn't say he grabbed her with out her consent the defense will probably just say what happened was consensual even if the witnesses thought otherwise. They could even bring their profession of wrestling in the mix of how something might look like abuse but is totally consensual. Once again it depends on how much she cooperates. But if she does/has not there really isnt a case. Not how it works, bro, sorry. With it being a public incident, she doesn't even have to ever show up in court for this to get real ugly for Swann. As far as bringing their profession into it to muddy the waters, the problem there is that it isn't 1974 anymore and no court of law would even let that make it into the arguments. And just try to convince a court that grabbing someone in a headlock and dragging them into a car while in the middle of traffic is in any way consensual. |
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Dec 11, 2017 22:25:45 GMT -5
Also, the fact he just left his vehicle in drive is going to hurt him, that could have killed someone theoretically.
|
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Dec 11, 2017 22:30:18 GMT -5
on the legal side it'll be an interesting time. If she does not press charges there might not be a case here. Most times things like abuse need "damages" and kidnapping needs a person to say it was against her "will." Swan's wife has a legal right not to testify against her husband. While the evidence is pretty cut and dry, the major key is the victim to confirm they were the target of the abuse. If the victim is not willing to say they were the victim it essentially (in legal terms) means there is no victim. Any lawyer worth their salt could defend this with ease. ...except False Imprisonment is a third degree felony, not a simple misdemeanor if it were only Simple Battery (Domestic), and a victim's statement isn't the only thing that decides if a felony is convicted or not. It's the responsibility of the State to use all available information to determine if there should be a conviction; with two eyewitness accounts corroborating what she said (especially the one about Swann getting out of a moving car to chase her down), it's not as simple as what you're trying to play off here. Even if his attorney recommends pleading to lesser charges (ie one that doesn't include jail time), it's still an admission of guilt and an immediate termination from the WWE. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than "any lawyer worth their salt" to not only win this one, but also somehow retain his employment if any of it is true. I don't see how you can prove false imprisonment with out the victim's cooperation. Now she might have given enough details in questioning, but if she did not, and she does not from here on there is reasonable doubt |
|
|
|
Post by BD Punk AKA SUSPENDED! on Dec 11, 2017 22:35:45 GMT -5
A lot of emotions bubbling up here. There are people saying he should be banned from wrestling forever because of this and serve 10 years in prison. There are others saying it's just a bad mistake no biggie despite her saying he has a history. Both sides are a little extreme. This contrast pops up in every thread, Hogan, Benoit, etc. I think the majority here though agree he should serve some time and he will lose his job, but blackballing him from the industry...i suppose if that's a natural outcome of his consequences. However, if he isn't allowed to wrestle, then why should he be allowed to pursue a career making music or even basic retail serve groceries? Now I'm not for domestic abuse at all. My dad kicked my mum in the stomach and i pulled a knife on him and went to stab him. So i think he definitely needs to be held accountable. There is no doubt about that. But one day my dad had to get his act back together and move forward. He had to unreservedly apologise for his actions and work hard to earn our respect again. They never got back together, but he found someone else new. Is he a better man now? I believe so. What's my crappy point in me treating this like Blogfan you ask? I guess just to state that people can learn from their mistakes and grow into better people, but generally it takes consequences for things to hit home. Swann deserves whatever the court decides, from probation to time behind bars. I'm 99% sure he'll be fired by WWE sooner than later, but once Swann pays his legal due he should be allowed to pursue whatever profession he chooses. |
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Dec 11, 2017 22:38:24 GMT -5
Even with witnesses you need a victim. If she does not say that what happened was both not abuse/not false imprisonment legally speaking there's no case. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying in a court of law with out her corporation there's reasonable doubt. For an example. if she doesn't say he grabbed her with out her consent the defense will probably just say what happened was consensual even if the witnesses thought otherwise. They could even bring their profession of wrestling in the mix of how something might look like abuse but is totally consensual. Once again it depends on how much she cooperates. But if she does/has not there really isnt a case. Not how it works, bro, sorry. With it being a public incident, she doesn't even have to ever show up in court for this to get real ugly for Swann. As far as bringing their profession into it to muddy the waters, the problem there is that it isn't 1974 anymore and no court of law would even let that make it into the arguments. You're missing the point. lets take this to the extreme. If you witness me murder someone, but there is no body found, in a court of law I'd be found innocent no matter how much evidence shows I committed a crime. It's not until the body is found that I could ever even be considered a murderer. With out her confirming that what happened was a crime it's the same idea... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2017 22:40:28 GMT -5
Not how it works, bro, sorry. With it being a public incident, she doesn't even have to ever show up in court for this to get real ugly for Swann. As far as bringing their profession into it to muddy the waters, the problem there is that it isn't 1974 anymore and no court of law would even let that make it into the arguments. You're missing the point. lets take this to the extreme. If you witness me murder someone, but there is no body found, in a court of law I'd be found innocent no matter how much evidence shows I committed a crime. It's not until the body is found that I could ever even be considered a murderer. With out her confirming that what happened was a crime it's the same idea... Um... There have been plenty of people convicted of murder over the years without the body ever being found. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 11, 2017 22:43:53 GMT -5
Not how it works, bro, sorry. With it being a public incident, she doesn't even have to ever show up in court for this to get real ugly for Swann. As far as bringing their profession into it to muddy the waters, the problem there is that it isn't 1974 anymore and no court of law would even let that make it into the arguments. You're missing the point. lets take this to the extreme. If you witness me murder someone, but there is no body found, in a court of law I'd be found innocent no matter how much evidence shows I committed a crime. It's not until the body is found that I could ever even be considered a murderer. With out her confirming that what happened was a crime it's the same idea... |
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Dec 11, 2017 22:44:12 GMT -5
You're missing the point. lets take this to the extreme. If you witness me murder someone, but there is no body found, in a court of law I'd be found innocent no matter how much evidence shows I committed a crime. It's not until the body is found that I could ever even be considered a murderer. With out her confirming that what happened was a crime it's the same idea... Um... There have been plenty of people convicted of murder over the years without the body ever being found. not plenty... There are some around 10 in the history of the world.. |
|
|
|
Post by OVO 40 hunched over like he 80 on Dec 11, 2017 22:45:19 GMT -5
Not how it works, bro, sorry. With it being a public incident, she doesn't even have to ever show up in court for this to get real ugly for Swann. As far as bringing their profession into it to muddy the waters, the problem there is that it isn't 1974 anymore and no court of law would even let that make it into the arguments. And just try to convince a court that grabbing someone in a headlock and dragging them into a car while in the middle of traffic is in any way consensual. Swann: Your honor, it was part of the spot, I was then gonna follow with a headlock takeover and she was supposed to counter with leg scissors, then I would do a kip-up, after that the fans would've screamed this is awesome! |
|
|
|
Post by thetower52 on Dec 11, 2017 22:53:03 GMT -5
Not how it works, bro, sorry. With it being a public incident, she doesn't even have to ever show up in court for this to get real ugly for Swann. As far as bringing their profession into it to muddy the waters, the problem there is that it isn't 1974 anymore and no court of law would even let that make it into the arguments. You're missing the point. lets take this to the extreme. If you witness me murder someone, but there is no body found, in a court of law I'd be found innocent no matter how much evidence shows I committed a crime. It's not until the body is found that I could ever even be considered a murderer. With out her confirming that what happened was a crime it's the same idea... That’s not true at all |
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Dec 11, 2017 22:58:31 GMT -5
I took it to a too extreme. Yes there are very rare cases where people have been convicted of murder but there was no body found.
But generally speaking no body in a murder case makes the case almost impossible to prosecute.
|
|
67 more
King Koopa
He's just a Sexy Kurt
Posts: 11,606
|
Post by 67 more on Dec 12, 2017 1:31:28 GMT -5
Not how it works, bro, sorry. With it being a public incident, she doesn't even have to ever show up in court for this to get real ugly for Swann. As far as bringing their profession into it to muddy the waters, the problem there is that it isn't 1974 anymore and no court of law would even let that make it into the arguments. You're missing the point. lets take this to the extreme. If you witness me murder someone, but there is no body found, in a court of law I'd be found innocent no matter how much evidence shows I committed a crime. It's not until the body is found that I could ever even be considered a murderer. With out her confirming that what happened was a crime it's the same idea... As someone with a forensic science degree, this is absolutely not the case. In the absence of the body, evidence such as DNA samples on the suspect, samples in the suspect's house, defence wounds on the suspect, fingerprints if they're currently on file, clothing fibres, footprint matches, CCTV footage, witness statements, person she was last seen with, hell, even the suspect's online sale history. All can be used as evidence without the body being there and still secure a conviction. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 2:10:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Dec 12, 2017 2:10:56 GMT -5
Not how it works, bro, sorry. With it being a public incident, she doesn't even have to ever show up in court for this to get real ugly for Swann. As far as bringing their profession into it to muddy the waters, the problem there is that it isn't 1974 anymore and no court of law would even let that make it into the arguments. You're missing the point. lets take this to the extreme. If you witness me murder someone, but there is no body found, in a court of law I'd be found innocent no matter how much evidence shows I committed a crime. It's not until the body is found that I could ever even be considered a murderer. With out her confirming that what happened was a crime it's the same idea... No you wouldn't. There have been large amounts of murder convictions in which the bodies were never found. It literally happens all the time. And do note that those listed are just the prominent ones. The article even starts off with |
|
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61946227/Dqpaz_iVsAA04LW.0.jpg)
