jgb Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 is child endangerment the same as risk of injury to a child? maybe child endangerment requires intent and risk of injury doesn't? I don't know never heard of "risk of injury to a child" as a separate offense. sounds more like an element of child endangerment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 never heard of "risk of injury to a child" as a separate offense. sounds more like an element of child endangerment. its actually called risk of injury to a minor. I knew this girl. got caught drinking and driving with her kid in the car. that's what they charged her with here in ct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Realistically, when we will see Sheldon in a Jets uni again? If ever? let's hope williams blows up that sheldon becomes completely expendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 has anyone seen Richardson's presser after practice today? I heard the jets were making him available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 its actually called risk of injury to a minor. I knew this girl. got caught drinking and driving with her kid in the car. that's what they charged her with here in ct. could be connecticut calls their child endangerment law that. every state is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 its actually called risk of injury to a minor. I knew this girl. got caught drinking and driving with her kid in the car. that's what they charged her with here in ct. could be that's what they call it when the offender is also a minor. i don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thshadow Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 they are wrong. the intent relates to the act, not whether the intent is to harm the child. here is the actual missouri statute: Well, it seems to be a fact that the prosecutor has chosen not to bring those charges against him (unless the article is wrong about that too). I'm not sure if they need testimony from the kid (not sure why based on what you wrote), or if Sheldon paid him off, or whatever. But it looks like he's not being charged with that, hence he will certainly not be found guilty of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Well, it seems to be a fact that the prosecutor has chosen not to bring those charges against him (unless the article is wrong about that too). I'm not sure if they need testimony from the kid (not sure why based on what you wrote), or if Sheldon paid him off, or whatever. But it looks like he's not being charged with that, hence he will certainly not be found guilty of it. don't know the facts. just that you don't need intent to hurt the kid to charge with child endangerment. prosecutorial discretion varies from state to state, county to county, prosecutor to prosecutor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 child endangerment doesn't require intent. nor does manslaughter. nor does vehicular manslaughter. there are others. hope i have you on my jury if i ever get charged with an attempted crime. since it happens like 10,000 times a day across our country. this i swhat you said to which i responded that i'd assume that to be charged with an "attempted crime" that you'd have to prove intent to commit the actual crime which you didnt succeed in committing. obviously if you actually succeed in committing the crime then there is not always burden to prove intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 this i swhat you said to which i responded that i'd assume that to be charged with an "attempted crime" that you'd have to prove intent to commit the actual crime which you didnt succeed in committing. obviously if you actually succeed in committing the crime then there is no burden to prove intent. you made it sound like a defense was "the kid didn't get hurt" my point was attempting to commit a crime is oftentimes a crime. lack of succeeding isn't really a defense. sorry if i misunderstood your point. irrelevent anyway since under missouri law you don't need intent to harm to charge child endangerment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 you made it sound like a defense was "the kid didn't get hurt" my point was attempting to commit a crime is oftentimes a crime. lack of succeeding isn't really a defense. sorry if i misunderstood your point. irrelevent anyway since under missouri law you don't need intent to harm to charge child endangerment. no, my point in saying that no one was hurt and that there was no intention on his part to hurt anyone was that people were making sheldon out to be some evil person because of this. i certainly think he's an idiot and needs to be punished for this.....but its more of a monumentally stupid act rather than an intentionally terrible thing he did. but lets say he were to be charged with attempted child endangerment (if this is a thing)...then i'd assume they would have to prove he intended to endanger the child. however, if he were to be charged with actual endangering, they shouldnt have to prove intent, just that he actually endangered the child by his actions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thshadow Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 don't know the facts. just that you don't need intent to hurt the kid to charge with child endangerment. prosecutorial discretion varies from state to state, county to county, prosecutor to prosecutor. I guess Sheldon can always say "I didn't even know the kid was in the car! (Because I was like totally stoned...)" And without any testimony / evidence that he knew the kid was there, maybe the prosecutor thinks there's no chance of a conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 no, my point in saying that no one was hurt and that there was no intention on his part to hurt anyone was that people were making sheldon out to be some evil person because of this. i certainly think he's an idiot and needs to be punished for this.....but its more of a monumentally stupid act rather than an intentionally terrible thing he did oh ok. i don't have a moral judgment. agree he's a dumbass that probably shouldn't be babysitting for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I guess Sheldon can always say "I didn't even know the kid was in the car! (Because I was like totally stoned...)" And without any testimony / evidence that he knew the kid was there, maybe the prosecutor thinks there's no chance of a conviction. any lawyer that could pull that defense off deserves every cent she gets paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Well, it seems to be a fact that the prosecutor has chosen not to bring those charges against him (unless the article is wrong about that too). I'm not sure if they need testimony from the kid (not sure why based on what you wrote), or if Sheldon paid him off, or whatever. But it looks like he's not being charged with that, hence he will certainly not be found guilty of it. sounds to me like the kid is a relative of richardsons or possibly one of the passengers kids. in order for a DA to bring this kinda charge and make it stick, I would think they would need some cooperation from the victim(the kid and his guardian) without the cooperation, the case is most likely a loser for the prosecution. Richardson has a right to cross examination. kids don't make good states witnesses. what if the kid takes the stand and says that it wasn't him in car. whats the state going to do then? they would have to dismiss the case. or the kid takes the stand and says that in no way at all he felt like he was in danger and uncle Sheldon is a great guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 oh ok. i don't have a moral judgment. agree he's a dumbass that probably shouldn't be babysitting for awhile. i'm actually relatively surprised they dont think they can prove endangering. there must be something in the staute that they' arent sure they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 i'm actually relatively surprised they dont think they can prove endangering. there must be something in the staute that they' arent sure they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt could just be that prosecutors office doesn't charge endangerment for speeding with kids in car. where would they draw line? 5 mph over the limit? 20? 50? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 sounds to me like the kid is a relative of richardsons or possibly one of the passengers kids. in order for a DA to bring this kinda charge and make it stick, I would think they would need some cooperation from the victim(the kid and his guardian) without the cooperation, the case is most likely a loser for the prosecution. Richardson has a right to cross examination. kids don't make good states witnesses. what if the kid takes the stand and says that it wasn't him in car. whats the state going to do then? they would have to dismiss the case. alot of people dont make great witnesses when they've been offered large sums of money to shut up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 alot of people dont make great witnesses when they've been offered large sums of money to shut up maybe, but I doubt it. the kid is either family or a close friends kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 could just be that prosecutors office doesn't charge endangerment for speeding with kids in car. where would they draw line? 5 mph over the limit? 20? 50? thats a good point. how unsafe is driving that fast really? if the car was built go that fast then it must have been tested to be safe at that speed. i guess a good lawyer can create enough reasonable doubt that the child was actually in any danger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSfaninNE Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Where can I find this? Bowles presser is now up on http://www.newyorkjets.com/videos/videos/Press-Conference-Coach-Bowles/9baa9de9-a65a-493a-a9eb-cd55af85ed4a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Bowles presser is now up on http://www.newyorkjets.com/videos/videos/Press-Conference-Coach-Bowles/9baa9de9-a65a-493a-a9eb-cd55af85ed4a i like listening to this guy talk. i think he's gonna be a good head coach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETSfaninNE Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 i like listening to this guy talk. i think he's gonna be a good head coach Agreed. He handled that really well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lupz27 Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Bowles presser is now up on http://www.newyorkjets.com/videos/videos/Press-Conference-Coach-Bowles/9baa9de9-a65a-493a-a9eb-cd55af85ed4a Thank You! Bowles handled that like a Boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 we can't go around punishing people for what might have been. Yes. Yes we can actually. There's a plethora of laws for punishing people about the things that could have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewilly12 Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 I wish a very bad case of jock itch to Sheldon Richardson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Thank You! Bowles handled that like a Boss. I was really disappointed actually some touchy feely mumbo jumbo about "sheldon the man" give me a break..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Yes. Yes we can actually. There's a plethora of laws for punishing people about the things that could have happened. There's got to be a law against using the word "plethora". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 The Jets were blindsided by the arrest, which didn't become public until late Thursday. Richardson confirmed that he didn't tell the team. He said "nobody knew," not even his parents. Richardson, a Pro Bowler last season, was driving his 2014 Bentley Silver Spur at speeds clocked as high as 143 mph with three family members in his car, including a 12-year-old, according to the St. Charles County (Missouri) prosecutor's office. He was street racing another vehicle and led police on a high-speed chase before he was apprehended, authorities said. He was charged with resisting arrest, a misdemeanor. "After my suspension, that was just one bad night," Richardson said. "I thought it would be fun to show my family members something. They never rode in a car like that before." Police also detected a strong odor of marijuana in the car, but no drugs charges were filed. This happened 12 days after his suspension for marijuana. "I let (the organization) down, simple as that," said Richardson, acknowledging he must improve his decision making. "I'm not afraid to say that. ... This is a wake-up call he is the dumbest athlete of all time. straight up dumb as a rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThisYearsModel Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 no, my point in saying that no one was hurt and that there was no intention on his part to hurt anyone was that people were making sheldon out to be some evil person because of this. i certainly think he's an idiot and needs to be punished for this.....but its more of a monumentally stupid act rather than an intentionally terrible thing he did. but lets say he were to be charged with attempted child endangerment (if this is a thing)...then i'd assume they would have to prove he intended to endanger the child. however, if he were to be charged with actual endangering, they shouldnt have to prove intent, just that he actually endangered the child by his actions So stupidity is only a misdemeanor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThisYearsModel Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 sounds to me like the kid is a relative of richardsons or possibly one of the passengers kids. in order for a DA to bring this kinda charge and make it stick, I would think they would need some cooperation from the victim(the kid and his guardian) without the cooperation, the case is most likely a loser for the prosecution. Richardson has a right to cross examination. kids don't make good states witnesses. what if the kid takes the stand and says that it wasn't him in car. whats the state going to do then? they would have to dismiss the case. or the kid takes the stand and says that in no way at all he felt like he was in danger and uncle Sheldon is a great guy. "Mom told me that I was not supposed to tell you that Uncle Sheldon would give her $10,000 if I tell you I wan't in the car, your honor." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylekram Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 "Mom told me that I was not supposed to tell you that Uncle Sheldon would give her $10,000 if I tell you I wan't in the car, your honor." geeze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljr Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 I seem to be able to justify many of the transgressions as either careless, stupid, or blown out of proportion. However, here there are just too many reckless and unlawful offenses piled on top of one another, it seems impossible to imagine an otherwise sound-minded person allowing something like this to happen "just this once". He basically did all of the most dangerous things you can do in a vehicle, all in one fell swoop. On the heels of suspension. That's a person who isn't just stupid, but has blatant disregard for authority, and believes he is above the law. Not sure if I agree with none, some, or all of that ... But thx for the reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embrace the Suck Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 no, my point in saying that no one was hurt and that there was no intention on his part to hurt anyone was that people were making sheldon out to be some evil person because of this. i certainly think he's an idiot and needs to be punished for this.....but its more of a monumentally stupid act rather than an intentionally terrible thing he did. but lets say he were to be charged with attempted child endangerment (if this is a thing)...then i'd assume they would have to prove he intended to endanger the child. however, if he were to be charged with actual endangering, they shouldnt have to prove intent, just that he actually endangered the child by his actions Wow... Attempted? He didn't attempt to endanger a child, he did endanger a child. 140 stoned turned off lights to evade arrest with a kid in the car, he didn't attempt sh*t. You don't have to prove intent. Just because no one was killed doesn't mean his actions weren't terrible, as you put it, he's just very fortunate as numerous people could have been killed not just those in the car. Sheldon isn't evil so far as I know, but he has proven to be dumb as sh*t and has become a liability. Time to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike135 Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 This should be a wake up call. He's really lucky to get out of this with the minimal charges. But the Jets HAVE TO let him know this is it. Anymore F-ups and you're no longer a Jet. How do you get that point across? (I'd suggest further benching if the nfl doesn't respond.) Don't get into a whole debate of where he came from, his current situation, or what others have done. Very simple... ya fu@k up again, you're no longer a Jet. Don't Tweet... change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.05f3dc52804d5fd84cf09ccfcd7bd10b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.