Mattes suffered cracked ribs, bite wounds and cuts to his face.[...]Suleiman was charged with battery causing great bodily injury[...]

Nah, that's high-moderate bodily injury at most.

When rednecks go mad, the new Fox reality series..

Claiming "not guilty" in the face of video evidence takes a pair of big ones.

jfreshbloomer

For the love of God, dont give them any idea's!

Guilty: sometimes I would like to beat the media.

This thread is slightly less useful without the video.

VIDEO LINK (pops)

/you're welcome.

erm, you have to click on the video link on that page, but it's the original story too from AP.

//kinda drunk

lindseyp - that code section covers assault with a deadly weapon AND assault with intent to cause gbi.

What is the law
(No spill blood)
(Who makes the rules)
Someone else
Who makes the rules
(Someone else)
The rules are written in the stone
Break the rules and you get no bones
All you get is ridicule, laughter
And a trip to the house of pain!


-------------

Okay, time to send these nuts to the house of pain!

I hope they die in prison. I can't stand people that randomly beat up others. At least give him the 10 year maximum.

Claiming "not guilty" in the face of video evidence takes a pair of big ones.

The attorney will find a way to have the video considered non-admissable.

"Not Guilty", by reason of "In some parts of the world they would have kidnapped and videotaped beheading him so I don't see the big deal here", Your Honor.

don't you think that perhaps, its not fair of the media to hound people who have yet to go to court over charges? i personally think if i had some "do goody reporter" telling the world what kinda "person" he thought I was,based on others facts, I might, loose my temper.

/but Tyson style ear biting isn't acceptable/

I seen the video a couple days ago on shooshtime. I remember the reporter was harassing the chick for a while. She kept telling him to farking leave. Finally the boyfriend shows up and whoops his ass. I would have done the same(I would have taken the camera too).

I dont know what the couple did to be investigated though.

No one pleads guilty until all the legal mumbo-jumbo has run its course.

I thought most Farkers owned TVs?

It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it.

humaniacal - In that situation, you tell them to fark off, and go about your business.

I dont attack the Mormons when they invade my space to convert me into their little cult. Sometimes I kinda want to, though.

lindseyp

Evidence? I see no evidence of "assault with a deadly weapon", for starters.

There could be a number of reasons why he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

First, the penal code in many states (e.g. Texas) do not contain a separate offense for assault with a deadly weapon. The code will usually only refer to some type of aggravated assault. One of the aggravating circumstances can be assaulting the victim with a deadly weapon, another is causing serious bodily injury to a victim during an assault. So it's possible that the journalist was mistaken in reporting that the defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, when he was actually charged with aggravated assault.

Second, it is prosecutorial practice to charge the defendant with the highest possible offense. The judge or the defense (through motions) can get the charge lowered to what is referred to as lesser included offense (e.g. simmple assault) if the prosecution does not adduce sufficient evidence. The reason for this practice is that once indicted, the defendant can only be convicted of the highest level offense charged. The constitution has been interpreted to such that you cannot be convicted of an offense that is higher than the one for which you were indicted (and rightly so).

I imagine it will be a short trial, and I hope they both receive a maximum sentence for wasting taxpayer money with an unnecessary trial.

What?

FTFA: A husband and wife who were apparently caught on tape...


Apparently????? WTF??

It seems that here in the Metro Detroit area, the local news outlets are more involved in their "working for you"/"problem solvers"/"on your side" stories wherein they try to manufacture a newsworthy event by hounding some dirtball who preys on the retarded (read: people who buy into the Nigerian-type scams or those who buy into some other retarded-assed too-good-to-be-true scams). The news stations here are less interested in telling you about the actual news going on and would rather suck their own shafts for a week by telling you how they shut down some scam artist preying on the cheap minded by putting them in their hall of fame. Their favorite footage to show is them following the evil-doer on their property or refusing to leave the person's door after repeated requests to leave (trespassing, under state laws). I know the subjects of these stories are dirtballs, but for some reason I always root for them to beat up the moron reporters....

Ben Bernanke's Whiskers - Its pretty apparent that they were caught on tape, is it not?

\Sign On San Diego inpired me.

In this case, Suleiman IS a dirtball. Definitely FPMITA prison material.

The only reason I used to watch Sixty Minutes was the hope that someone would go medieval on Mike Wallace's ass.

Ambush journalism is a cheap shot and invariably uninformative.

Who wouldn't appreciate a stay the fark out of my life at your own risk clause occasionally?

The media, and a lot of people, need to exercise better judgement. There is a time and a place when it is justified, and times when it is just not necessary.

humaniacal

don't you think that perhaps, its not fair of the media to hound people who have yet to go to court over charges? i personally think if i had some "do goody reporter" telling the world what kinda "person" he thought I was,based on others facts, I might, loose my temper.

Well, don't lose your temper just yet. The reporter had aired exposés on Suleiman's deeds, but that doesn't exactly constitute "hounding" a person. Hounding the person would be sticking a video camera in his face at every opportunity. Perhaps you didn't notice it, but in the video in question, the reporter was interviewing another person who had been harassed and threatened by Suleiman. It was Suleiman and his crazy-ass biatch of a wife who proceeded to "hound" the reporter by running up like a bat out of hell and beating said reporter in a completely unprovoked attack. Some people may call the reporter running exposés on the guy's scams to be provocation, but frankly, I have precious little sympathy for a person who claims the publication of his misdeeds is somehow a misdeed against him.

lindseyp:Evidence? I see no evidence of "assault with a deadly weapon", for starters.

From California Law:

245. (a) (1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

It could be construed that he is a deadly weapon. I knew a kid in HS that was classified "as a deadly weapon". Some moron picked a fight with him, took a swing, and this guy didn't take it. When he was done, the moron's jaw was dislocated on both sides and broken in three parts. He was missing eight front teeth and one of his ears was bleeding. His nose was broken and he had a concussion and skull fracture.

The cops hauled him off, and although the cops were somewhat sypathetic (the "victim" was a complete fool, asshat, and deserved it), it was deemed that he used excessive force on him, albeit in self defense. His fists were determined to be a "deadly weapon", and he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Even though it was in self-defense, he so efficiently beat the guy (it was at most 15 seconds) that it "was evident that he knew what he was doing" and "should have used restraint".

You don't need a weapon, only "force likely to produce great bodily injury". I don't think that this recent case was quite so bad, but from the look of the victim, I'm pretty sure that at least "force likely to produce great bodily injury" was used.

All Apologies

The media, and a lot of people, need to exercise better judgement. There is a time and a place when it is justified, and times when it is just not necessary.

yotta

Ambush journalism is a cheap shot and invariably uninformative.

panoplos

I seen the video a couple days ago on shooshtime. I remember the reporter was harassing the chick for a while. She kept telling him to farking leave. Finally the boyfriend shows up and whoops his ass. I would have done the same(I would have taken the camera too).

Wow! More people who obviously didn't see the same video I did, or have selective memories, I suppose. What I saw was the reporter interviewing some guy who was harassed and threatened by Suleiman, with the reporter playing the guy's voicemail that contained the threat in front of the camera. At this point, Mrs. Crazy Biatch proceeds to run up with a full head of steam, screeching at the reporter like a ravenous swamp sow. Somehow I feel that that's different from the notion that people seem to have that the reporter in question was wandering around and demanding comment from Mrs. Crazy Biatch.

what the fark, did that headline come from a dell call center or something?

I dislike that style of I-Team, ethical reporting as much as the next guy. But these people are scum.

ID Theft, fraud, assault. Keep 'em comin'.

On an unrelated note...
Am I missing some type of joke or is the headline unintelligable, at best?

a2pfunk - Good morning: and bauxite: what shoot; the fanatic hordes well, you in Gorov, I don't look man, himself; King shrugged and twenty two credit

"Your honor, I thought him was Bobby-John from when I was in the Nazy, and I was just given him a Huckle Buck"

I saw a sign yesterday that read: "Why do physics not win more lottery." This headline made about as much sense.

Wow! More people who obviously didn't see the same video I did, or have selective memories, I suppose. What I saw was the reporter interviewing some guy who was harassed and threatened by Suleiman, with the reporter playing the guy's voicemail that contained the threat in front of the camera. At this point, Mrs. Crazy Biatch proceeds to run up with a full head of steam, screeching at the reporter like a ravenous swamp sow. Somehow I feel that that's different from the notion that people seem to have that the reporter in question was wandering around and demanding comment from Mrs. Crazy Biatch.

For every one time a news piece has some level of justification, there are too many examples of more meaningful news being overlooked or ignored because it is not as rewarding as sensationalizing one particular piece that is relatively worthless in the overall scheme of things. Quite often these days, the target of the media are stories that are overblown in the grand scheme of things. Add to that, the stories are untimely as there is no real value in reporting old news to people. Investigative reporting, which may actually lead to people not being suckered is a thing of the past. The media is lazy and self serving.

Carl Monday would not take that shiate.

I also liked how the victim reporter could not be bothered to wipe the dried blood off of his face from a couple days ago. I guess that would ruin some of his sensationalism...

I will give you that the two suspects are morons and need to rot in jail. But the reporter and news station are loving this and taking it for everything they can.

Or maybe I am drining again.

Everybody complains about the news.. but why don't people just stop watching it?

I havn't watched the news in many, many years. Because, well, it sucks.

Don'cha wish you got something out of the time you spend watching the news? Other than what is going to help someone else?

I think watching Tucker try to dance was probably far more painful than a couple right hooks.