ummm, was AH working out during the time in question?
no, he was busy killing people and getting indicted.
should he receive his workout bonus for workouts he didn't do? no.
boy, that was hard...
when you kill the goose it's hard to feel sorry for you when the golden eggs stop showing up.
quote:I can't believe you're defending a POS like Meyer.
We need more moral compasses like you.
enjoyed that, didja?
I read an article about his signing bonus, and the upcoming legal battles between AH/NFLPA and the Patriots. The article implied/stated that AH would have very little legal standing had the Patriots cut him AFTER he was charged. The fact is that the Patriots cut him, BEFORE he was charged, and the contractual language states that a player is guaranteed his $$$ in cases when the player conduct clause comes into play, if charges haven't been filed. The article concluded that had the Pats cut him after he was charged, AH/NFLPA wouldn't have a leg to stand on, since they cut him before the charges, contractually he is owed the $$$.
Either way, it should be an interesting watch. The NFLPA representing a potential cold blooded thug killer, that'll make for a good headline.
There is a thing called extenuating circumstances. I can't believe....
However, nothing surprises me anymore on this planet
I agree Boss,
But the fact is that these contracts are written so tight, and the legalese is ridiculous, from what I have read, I wouldn't be surprised one bit, if he gets the $$$.
From the NFLPA's perspective, I am sure they will spin it as "were not fighting for AH, were fighting for the other NFL players in the future..." Blah blah blah
I'll see if I can hunt down and post that article.
There is a thing called extenuating circumstances. I can't believe....
However, nothing surprises me anymore on this planet
Classic difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.
If a woman's husband is speeding (but not horribly as in going 120) as he is rushing to the hospital because his wife is very close to having her baby, I suppose the letter of the law is that he gets ticketed.
To me it's kind of the same. Legalese doesn't cover every scenario and level-headed people are well able to accommodate those occurrences.
Which in this case? The bastard is a cold blooded killer who will never play another down in his life.
NFLPA seems to want to take the "letter of the law" route even though the discrepancy between that and the spirit of the law is vast.
quote:Originally written by Robert Bolt:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
The article implied/stated that AH would have very little legal standing had the Patriots cut him AFTER he was charged. The fact is that the Patriots cut him, BEFORE he was charged, and the contractual language states that a player is guaranteed his $$$ in cases when the player conduct clause comes into play, if charges haven't been filed.
The legal charges were not made until after he was cut, but the actions occurred WHILE he was under contract. I wonder if that will make a difference in court or not.
That's an excellent point, and probably the only argument that the Patriots and NFL will be able to fall back on.
Oh what a tangled web he weaves:
Fiance indicted for purgury, Cousin indicted for conspiracy and Ortiz for accessory. from PFT:
Grand Jury Indicts Fiance and Cousin
,
http://profootballtalk.nbcspor...more-than-a-witness/
Both the Pouncey brothers have been connected to this case.
Just what the Pittsburg needs as the team falls apart.
The "hat" comments are priceless under the article
The prosecution had evidence upon evidence,plus Massachusetts "joint venture" law, which requires no proof that Hernandez pulled the trigger, just that he was a willing participant in the crime.
Anyone following this case? It's going to be interesting how the jury rules
I have been following. I agree, interesting how this turns out. The circumstantial evidence though, IMO, is overwhelming. The prosecution made his fiancee testify against him. The defense put up virtually no defense, arguing that the state hasn't shown that he committed the murder, and the defense rested after 1-2 days. If they don't find him guilty it just goes to show, there are two or more different types of judicial systems in this country.
Boris: I think Trial watchers cannot be aware of the information that has passed between jurors and judge but the lawyers are; this makes me suspect that either the mountain of evidence the prosecution put on so unnerved the defense or those side bar conferences last week intimated- that much of the jury pool believed that AH was at the scene of the crime. No other explanations account for that BS defense of my two PCP addled buddies did it and I was too stunned and scared to tell the police! For 3 million dollars AH should have saved his dough and went witha public defender!
Pack88
Couldn't agree more Pack88. AH's defense is pretty much slinging $hit against the wall & hope it sticks. The underlined part of my quote says it all. Massachusettes joint venture law. That's what the jury needs to focus on & convict this ass hole. Then he can get convicted on his double murder case too.
You're right Russ, there really are 2 justice systems if they don't convict him. The people that have money & the people that don't.
Of course I a not in that jury deliberation room but unless they are holding out for that scrumptious snack they serve at 2:30 what could be taking so long?? 12 crips would have a hard time voting for aquittal
Pack88
Of couse as I type on PFT they just noted the jurors asked for an evidence list; probably looking for that payoff AH's lawyers promised
Pack88
Q: What are the jury’s obligations and what are its options?
A: Jurors must reach a unanimous verdict on each of three separate charges – murder, gun possession and ammunition possession. If jurors do not believe Hernandez is guilty of first-degree murder, they have the option of convicting him of second-degree murder.
They have to find him guilty of at least 2nd degree murder. C'mon jury! We're rooting for you. Put this sociopath away!
As long as someone in the jury room understands the actual rules and takes charge, this could become a hung jury. It is difficult to get everyone to agree. Been there and done that. I had to get the majority to agree on reasonable doubt. It was 8 to 4 guilty when we went in. Only took 4 and a half hours. Unfortunately we went to deliberations at 5 p.m. and it was my wife's birthday.
wow, you convicted her on her birthday
Still deliberating. Ended for today.
I think that bodes well. The longer they take the worse it is for Hernandez.....or not.
People are dumb.
People serve on juries.
We get what we pay for,
P.S. Sat on a jury in a drunk driving charge. Everybody agreed dude was guilty as schyt. One hold out. Why? Because if we deliberated into the next day, he got another paid day off from work,
And you people wonder why I like gates?
So did they give in and let you get another paid day off BK? 
I work on straight commission so.......... I did my civic duty and let "union guy" get paid.
Thank you for your servicequote:Been there and done that. I had to get the majority to agree on reasonable doubt.
Sorry for the thread jack, but I just have to share the coolest story about juries, jury duty, and the like.
Many years ago, Mrs. Timmy was in a jury pool. They were interviewing for a case that involved former business partners that split, and one 'developed amnesia' about his promises made to the other one.
One of the questions asked was if anybody in the jury pool had a stock certificate at home. Mrs. Timmy raised her hand. One of the lawyers asked if she was sure about that. She replied yes. The judge interjected at this point, asking her if she was absolutely sure she had an actual stock certificate, stating it was very unusual for someone to have an actual, physical certificate.
She said yes, my husband has stock in the Green Bay Packers, and his certificate is hanging on the wall. There was much murmuring in the pool at that point, until the judge finally said, "that's too cool!"
Didn't get her out of jury service, though.
I work on straight commission so.......... I did my civic duty and let "union guy" get paid.
The first time you've ever been associated with the word "straight".
She said yes, my husband has stock in the Green Bay Packers, and his certificate is hanging on the wall. There was much murmuring in the pool at that point, until the judge finally said, "that's too cool!"
Didn't get her out of jury service, though.
Unreal....
2 jurors alleged they were followed home by WHDH....in its NEWS VAN. Way to be subtle. You can't make this stuff up.
— Greg A. Bedard (@GregABedard) April 9, 2015And the van was being driven by Hernandez's buddies to rock the vote?
Didn't want to create another thread just for this bit of news, but it just goes to show AH can still be as bad as he wants to be in the hoosegow.
Who remembers this guy?
http://bleacherreport.com/arti...ing-cellmate-in-jail
I think the Hernandez jury is deadlocked. Still no decision?
It is pretty ridiculous, that it has taken almost a week. I know the jury wants to be through, but c'mon, but with joint venture, its a fact he was located at the crime scene at the time of the crime. CRAZY!
No murder weapon and no witness makes the entire case circumstantial. Circumstantial cases leave reasonable doubt in juries minds. It's why the Hernandez and his attorney presented almost no defense. I think it's pretty clear he was involved in the murder but it would not surprise me if he gets off on lesser charges.
His defense took a chance by saying "He witnessed a murder...." Flat out admitting he was there instead of the classic, "deny, deny, deny"
If I'm on that jury, from the evidence I've seen, I have no idea how anyone cannot vote "guilty" on Murder 2 at the minimum.