Joe Mixon video might be made public

[starbigd]

Years ago when my Dad was still alive he hired a guy who had just been down for 7 years for Armed Robbery. Dad asked him "well, did you get it out of your system?". The guy said "yes" and said he just wanted a second chance. So Dad hired him on the spot and he worked for years and did great. We have hired a slew of people over the past 30 years who have just gotten out and need a good job where they can prove themselves. And our experience is these people are appreciative of their opportunity to turn things around. My only two rules are (a) they never talk about their past with people and (b) they keep their nose clean.....which includes drug testing in some companies. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Men Women, Pretty, Ugly...I don't care what they look like. I just think everyone deserves a sincere second chance.

This is all kinds of ways AWESOME.

The reason most turn to crime is because they don't get any chances at all......and for those getting out, they rarely get that second chance and have no choice but to turn to crime.

Outside of people with true mental disorders, nobody is born a criminal......but life circumstances sometimes force you to do what you feel you need to in order to provide for your family.

Good for you and your father, the world needs more people who sincerely want to improve the lives of others.

 

[Smart]

You're a state prosecutor, right? I doubt you are as pure as you want to believe but if you're Federal I know that's a bull shit system. I've had two friends who were convicted under federal conspiracy charges and I know they can stand before God someday and swear they never knew what was going on. But a chicken shit federal judge and a federal prosecutor convinced 12 morons they were somehow involved in a plot with people the prosecution even admitted they had never met. If you can admit there are too many innocent people in federal prisons. maybe people will give you the benefit of the doubt that you're doing the best you can.

Just out of curiosity, did you actually see the trial? Everybody thinks their friends were railroaded. Yet time after time when those people sit on a jury and listen to the evidence in an unbiased fashion, those same people find the Defendant guilty.

That's not to say there aren't innocent people found guilty. Most studies put it at 2-4% depending on seriousness of charges. But I strongly disagree it is slanted to favor the prosecution. The Rules of Evidence create a huge burden on us that most people don't understand, and we have the heavy burden of proof. Most studies suggest 8-12% of guilty people who go to trial get acquitted. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that...we should have a heavy burden. But I do think it reality contradicts the idea the system is rigged towards us.

 

[4down20]

Just out of curiosity, did you actually see the trial? Everybody thinks their friends were railroaded. Yet time after time when those people sit on a jury and listen to the evidence in an unbiased fashion, those same people find the Defendant guilty.

That's not to say there aren't innocent people found guilty. Most studies put it at 2-4% depending on seriousness of charges. But I strongly disagree it is slanted to favor the prosecution. The Rules of Evidence create a huge burden on us that most people don't understand, and we have the heavy burden of proof. Most studies suggest 8-12% of guilty people who go to trial get acquitted. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that...we should have a heavy burden. But I do think it reality contradicts the idea the system is rigged towards us.

If you have a good attorney you can get out of most everything. Most people, especially younger people don't have that luxury.

Btw, what sentence do you think he would have gotten without the delayed sentence since you think this is such a huge deal. You seem to act like a diversion somehow means they get off completely. In truth, the punishment is actually pretty much the same, it just doesn't go on your record if you successfully meet the requirements.

 

[Goldbug]

Just out of curiosity, did you actually see the trial? Everybody thinks their friends were railroaded. Yet time after time when those people sit on a jury and listen to the evidence in an unbiased fashion, those same people find the Defendant guilty.

That's not to say there aren't innocent people found guilty. Most studies put it at 2-4% depending on seriousness of charges. But I strongly disagree it is slanted to favor the prosecution. The Rules of Evidence create a huge burden on us that most people don't understand, and we have the heavy burden of proof. Most studies suggest 8-12% of guilty people who go to trial get acquitted. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that...we should have a heavy burden. But I do think it reality contradicts the idea the system is rigged towards us.

The federal government can't do a damn thing right. It's a joke and the American people are sick of it. The Feds are ruining healthcare, they are botching the economy, they can't get out of their own way in foreign affairs but yet they have a 99% conviction rate in federal trials. Does anyone with a half dozen working brain cells think the government is somehow 99% efficient in just this one singular area while they can't wipe their ass with both hands in everything else? One of our neighbors is a judge and he's typical: he's petty, he's vindictive and his daughter died from a drug overdose. I've known 4 judges over the years whose kids died of drugs. And these a-holes are going to be fit to judge other people? LMAO!

 

[Smart]

If you have a good attorney you can get out of most everything. Most people, especially younger people don't have that luxury.

Btw, what sentence do you think he would have gotten without the delayed sentence since you think this is such a huge deal. You seem to act like a diversion somehow means they get off completely. In truth, the punishment is actually pretty much the same, it just doesn't go on your record if you successfully meet the requirements.

I said earlier...2 years of supervised probation with a 1 year backup, a class, and a bunch of community service. Maybe a few days of shock time as well.

And that's on the light side of punishment.

 

[Goldbug]

This is all kinds of ways AWESOME.

The reason most turn to crime is because they don't get any chances at all......and for those getting out, they rarely get that second chance and have no choice but to turn to crime.

Outside of people with true mental disorders, nobody is born a criminal......but life circumstances sometimes force you to do what you feel you need to in order to provide for your family.

Good for you and your father, the world needs more people who sincerely want to improve the lives of others.

Thank you, Star. I'm not the religious type but I am big on fairness, hard work, honesty and forgiveness. Hopefully that's enough to get me past St. Peter someday.

 

[Smart]

The federal government can't do a damn thing right. It's a joke and the American people are sick of it. The Feds are ruining healthcare, they are botching the economy, they can't get out of their own way in foreign affairs but yet they have a 99% conviction rate in federal trials. Does anyone with a half dozen working brain cells think the government is somehow 99% efficient in just this one singular area while they can't wipe their ass with both hands in everything else? One of our neighbors is a judge and he's typical: he's petty, he's vindictive and his daughter died from a drug overdose. I've known 4 judges over the years whose kids died of drugs. And these a-holes are going to be fit to judge other people? LMAO!

AUSA is the single most sought after legal job because of the decent pay ($140k+) and light hours. They can literally pick and choose whoever they want. I don't think that's the case for the rest of government.

Look at the resume of a typical AUSA. Most of them either left a 7 figure job or were a superstar prosecutor at a lower level.

 

[4down20]

I said earlier...2 years of supervised probation with a 1 year backup, a class, and a bunch of community service. Maybe a few days of shock time as well.

And that's on the light side of punishment.

So basically the exact same punishment as what he is getting.

 

[4down20]

Just out of curiosity, did you actually see the trial? Everybody thinks their friends were railroaded. Yet time after time when those people sit on a jury and listen to the evidence in an unbiased fashion, those same people find the Defendant guilty.

That's not to say there aren't innocent people found guilty. Most studies put it at 2-4% depending on seriousness of charges. But I strongly disagree it is slanted to favor the prosecution. The Rules of Evidence create a huge burden on us that most people don't understand, and we have the heavy burden of proof. Most studies suggest 8-12% of guilty people who go to trial get acquitted. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that...we should have a heavy burden. But I do think it reality contradicts the idea the system is rigged towards us.

Yet you are certain that the punishment is too light for this guy and you don't even know the whole case.

Weird.

 

[Goldbug]

AUSA is the single most sought after legal job because of the decent pay ($140k+) and light hours. They can literally pick and choose whoever they want. I don't think that's the case for the rest of government.

Look at the resume of a typical AUSA. Most of them either left a 7 figure job or were a superstar prosecutor at a lower level.

OK. So explain this. I went to high school and college with a friend who was the biggest druggie you've ever seen. If it could be ingested, injected or inhaled he did it. He was completely fucked up and should have gone to prison for decades but he is smart and sneaky so he was always able to slide out of trouble. And today he's an Assistant U.S. Attorney in a city that shall remain unnamed prosecuting and imprisoning people for the same things he did. I asked him about it one time and he just walked away from me at a class reunion. I hate hypocrites and the vast majority of people in law enforcement are just that: hypocrites when they try to justify that what they are doing "serves the greater good". You may be a great guy and are part of the 1%. If so, then good on you.

 

[occupant]

Here, let's clear the air a bit....
"Typically, both assault and assault and battery are charged as misdemeanors. Simple assault is punishable by a maximum of 30 days in county jail and/or a fine of up to $500. Assault and battery carries a maximum jail term of 90 days and/or a fine of up to $1,000."

That excerpt is from a legal group blog from here in the State of Oklahoma. It's fairly clear and easy to understand. There is no gender basis in assault and battery in Oklahoma. That was written out some years ago by several legislators, one of which provided his professional opinion of the matter where he professed that the District Attorney failed to serve the intent of the law...and he knew that to be a fact for he helped craft the law.

The facts as they stand are that an inebriated woman and man of unknown mental faculty had a verbal altercation that escalated into physical contact. Verbal altercations can be viewed and prosecuted as assault. Physical altercations can be viewed and prosecuted as battery.

All witnesses interviewed detailed that the woman initiated verbal abuse and physical abuse on the man and was clearly inebriated.

Similar to "Stand Your Ground" laws, the man was well within his rights to defend himself after suffering abuse at the hands of the inebriated woman.

The man had just turned 18 years of age that day, was a student athlete at the University of Oklahoma, and had no prior criminal history. The woman was at least 20 years of age, was a student at the University of Oklahoma, and had prior criminal history and warrants out for her arrest at the time of the altercation.

So cast your aspersions on this young man who was charged, given a sentence in our legal system...punished by the college he attends, and crucified in local media and by legal professionals from Wisconsin. It really doesn't matter.

 

[BigRedMoe]

Punching someone and breaking bones is actually a felony, not a misdemeanor. That being said, he's answered to his crime. And he's still a piece of shit.

 

[4down20]

Punching someone and breaking bones is actually a felony, not a misdemeanor. That being said, he's answered to his crime. And he's still a piece of shit.

Isn't it more about intent to be a felony?

Since she hit him first, I don't see how you can make a solid case that he had intent to do such harm.

Felony Assault/Battery, Legal Recourse & Injury Compensation

Hard to determine, much of it seems to be up to interpretation. If you take that she is a woman out of the equation - are people going to be upset? AKA - a man hits him in a bar, he retaliates, is it then self defense?

Although you can't ignore that she is a woman completely, but not because she is a woman, but because of the damage she is capable of doing. Kind of like the person in the wheelchair in the links example(it's more talking about them not really being capable of assault, but I would think that would apply also to if you are really acting in self defense - which would explain why he was still charged).

 

[BigRedMoe]

Isn't it more about intent to be a felony?

Since she hit him first, I don't see how you can make a solid case that he had intent to do such harm.

Felony Assault/Battery, Legal Recourse & Injury Compensation

Hard to determine, much of it seems to be up to interpretation. If you take that she is a woman out of the equation - are people going to be upset? AKA - a man hits him in a bar, he retaliates, is it then self defense?

Although you can't ignore that she is a woman completely, but not because she is a woman, but because of the damage she is capable of doing. Kind of like the person in the wheelchair in the links example(it's more talking about them not really being capable of assault, but I would think that would apply also to if you are really acting in self defense - which would explain why he was still charged).

Nope. If you strike someone hard in the face with a fist a reasonable expectations is that you will break a bone even if that was not your intent. I have seen prosecutors take context into account when considering plea deals such as lowering the charge to simple battery in exchange for a guilty plea and avoiding a trial.

I've also seen cases similar where both parties are charged (i.e.- she gets charged with Simple Battery for the slap; and he with Aggravated Battery for breaking her stupid face). I think severity of injury probably had a lot of sway in this case.

 

[BigRedMoe]

I wonder how many criminal cases start with, "two assholes met in a bar..."?

 

[4down20]

Nope. If you strike someone hard in the face with a fist a reasonable expectations is that you will break a bone even if that was not your intent. I have seen prosecutors take context into account when considering plea deals such as lowering the charge to simple battery in exchange for a guilty plea and avoiding a trial.

I've also seen cases similar where both parties are charged (i.e.- she gets charged with Simple Battery for the slap; and he with Aggravated Battery for breaking her stupid face). I think severity of injury probably had a lot of sway in this case.

You don't think that she hit him first had any bearing on it?

If it was a man and not a woman, would we even be having this discussion?

 

[outofyourmind]

If it was a man and not a woman, would we even be having this discussion?

No

 

[Shanemansj13]

I think enough punishment is just suspending him for the Ohio St game.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Isn't it more about intent to be a felony?

Since she hit him first, I don't see how you can make a solid case that he had intent to do such harm.

Felony Assault/Battery, Legal Recourse & Injury Compensation

Hard to determine, much of it seems to be up to interpretation. If you take that she is a woman out of the equation - are people going to be upset? AKA - a man hits him in a bar, he retaliates, is it then self defense?

Although you can't ignore that she is a woman completely, but not because she is a woman, but because of the damage she is capable of doing. Kind of like the person in the wheelchair in the links example(it's more talking about them not really being capable of assault, but I would think that would apply also to if you are really acting in self defense - which would explain why he was still charged).

What if it was Rhonda Rousey he hit, would that be considered a man or a woman? hmm..interesting.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

lol the OU fans are ready to bring down the federal government, legal system, etc just to defend Joe Mixon. I bet in other threads they'll bash Baylor for putting football above the safety of women.