Lord_Saint83

Seems to be the case nowadays in this world. Though he should keep with better company

SmashMouth

The better company part is something lost in the Will Smith situation.

Will this affect his contract negotiations ?

Lord_Saint83

Prolly to a certain extent. Especially if he can’t help himself and still wants to hang around with the wrong crowd

gosaints1

Fully understand the philosophical debate re: presumed innocence before being labeled guilty as charged, and how damning that mindset could be. I completely understand that, and agree with you.

But what we’re missing is the NFL’s completely arbitrary “personal conduct policy”. And an innocent criminal verdict, heck, even if he isn’t prosecuted, doesn’t necessarily weigh into that calculus. Goodell can punish regardless of criminality. Through the CBA, players have given the commish carte blanche to do as he wills, outside of appeals, re: “personal conduct”.

I doubt that dynamic is foreign to those who fall under the shield.

Lord_Saint83

I get what your saying about Godhell and with his favorites, like ray rice and rapistberger to name a couple but I thought that what the players association was for, as a sorta checks and balance

Rugby Saint II

Smith gives in too easily to the NFL's demands. They need stronger Leadership.

AsylumGuido

Here's a good article on the Lattimore situation from Canal St. Chronicles writer, Chris Dunnells, who also happens to be an attorney.

A lawyer’s take on the charges against Marshon Lattimore

Here are my thoughts on the Lattimore incident.

By Chris Dunnells@ChrisDunnells Mar 29, 2021, 8:00am CDT 4 Comments

Just like the coronavirus pandemic made everyone on social media suddenly an expert in infectious diseases, there are a lot of “Twitter attorneys” out there any time anything in the legal world becomes news.

With the news Friday that New Orleans Saints cornerback Marshon Lattimore was arrested in Cleveland, it’s a unique moment where my two worlds - my job as an attorney and my role writing about the Saints - intersect. So here are my thoughts, as both a lawyer and a Saints fan, on the Lattimore news after taking the weekend to digest all of the information out there.

When the news first hit that Lattimore was arrested for possession of stolen property, my very first thought was “gun.” This isn’t necessarily because the arrest was done by the Cleveland gang unit, but rather because of the nature of the crime involved. That’s one of the reasons I put the thought of a gun out there as the “stolen property” at issue before the news actually broke on this point.

So let’s look at all of the facts, make predictions about what happens next, and talk about both the big picture for the Saints and the specific ramifications for Marshon Lattimore.

What are the crimes Lattimore has been charged with?

The first crime that Lattimore was reported as having been charged with was receiving stolen property under Ohio Revised Code (“ORC”) 2913.51.

This law makes it illegal for a person to “receive, retain, or dispose” of property that the individual knew - or had “reasonable cause to believe” - that the property was stolen. This is collectively called “receiving stolen property,” even if the person charged with the crime wasn’t in the act of actually “receiving” it, but was rather simply “retaining” it (meaning it was just in their possession).

But let’s look at the ‘knew or had reasonable cause to believe the property was stolen’ language. Rarely will you have definitive proof a person knows something is stolen. They will basically never admit to knowing something was stolen, and finding text messages or something of the sort that says, “I know this is stolen” is only true in crime TV shows. Instead, a prosecutor is able to prove that a person is guilty of “receiving stolen property” not because the person had actual knowledge of it being stolen, but rather that they had “reasonable cause to believe” it was.

What does this mean? It means that there are some set of facts which exist that, a prosecutor could argue, should make a person believe property was stolen. Let’s think through an example.

In one scenario, you’re going to buy a used car, so you go to the used car lot and the salesperson has the title in-hand ready to sign over to you, two sets of car keys, and a Carfax history report of the car if you’re willing to pay the $10,000 listing price. Nothing fishy there, right? Now in scenario two let’s instead say you find a similar $10,000 car on Facebook marketplace, but the buyer is asking for $3,000. He’s insistent the payment be made in cash, he’s said he lost the title, and he doesn’t have keys, but instead there’s a screwdriver jammed into the ignition that’s used to turn the car on and off.

You can see now there are potential red flags surrounding this second example that should give a reasonable person pause.

Basically, the reason the law says “reasonable cause to believe” is because the law doesn’t want someone to purposefully turn a blind eye to a whole bunch of potential red flags and let them escape criminal liability by simply saying, “Well, no one ever told me it was stolen...” Maybe not, but you should have known it was.

The reason I thought the property involved could be a gun is because, like with a car, there are a lot of potential red flags that could come up during the purchase or acquisition of a handgun. I’m making up facts here and not saying these applied to Lattimore’s case, but maybe the handgun was purchased for a price far below market value. Maybe the seller didn’t run a background check and fill out all of the transfer paperwork required by law. Maybe the serial number was filed off. Those are all just examples, but there is potentially some set of facts out there that make the prosecutor think Lattimore should have had reason to question whether the gun in his possession was stolen.

The second charge against Lattimore is far simpler to explain. He was charged with “failure to notify” under ORC 2923.12(B)(1), which requires a person to promptly notify a law enforcement officer that he or she is carrying a concealed fireman if stopped by police for “a law enforcement purpose.” Basically, in Ohio, if you’re carrying a gun and get stopped by police, you have to promptly notify the officer of the fact that you’re lawfully exercising your right to conceal-carry. Lattimore allegedly did not. You might be asking yourself what exactly “promptly” means under this statute, and if you are, bonus points to you! You’re thinking like a lawyer! Under Ohio law, “[w]hile “promptly” does not mean immediately, it is pretty close.” State v. Lyle, 161 N.E.3d 718 (Ohio 2020).

What are the potential criminal punishments?

Read the rest here ...

“The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” — Winston Churchill