Davii
Infidel Mod

I was probably in an OR In Austin doing an upgrade. Don’t typically have signal inside the OR. Sorry about that

Thursday, you monster! Thursday!

I called your phone and you didn't even have the decency to text your broham back! You have wounded me!

You failed me again! )=

You failed me! You let me down!

She left to call the house from the neighbor. How can she leave if she doesn't have food for the child? Don't balk at that, that's a one-month old in a formula shortage. How could she leave without her wallet? So she should drive illegally? She should have leave without food for her kid, her wallet, and the child's medical information which was also in the car. That was literally the entire point of putting those things in his car.

It is not remotely the same; one of those items is a phone and the other relate to their child, making it impossible for her to leave. By making it impossible for her to leave, with their relationship, it does invoke a domestic violence situation.

Just because he's more in the wrong than she is doesn't mean that she's not in the wrong, but it's not highly relevant to his charges that she 'started' things. Arresting her is probably a losing case; they couldn't get her for theft, she at best they'd be arresting for her tampering, which often times doesn't result in an arrest. The only real reason he was arrested for tampering was because of the DV enhancement. Again, I wouldn't hate her being arrested because from my reading of the statue and context of the situation she was tampering with the property, but her actions aren't comparable to his. He was controlling her movement and used their child to do so. That's an awfully massive red flag, and if you don't believe me (I don't expect you to just take my word for it) I'd encourage you to ask other prosecutors, DV victim advocates, etc.

This doesn't mean Jeudy is a bad person per se, and it doesn't mean it's not a one-off, but it's a really, bad look. And statistically speaking, it is quite likely that he is an abuser, or becomes one.

I would have been fine with having her arrested as well. But one of them was willing to do that to stop someone from leaving, and that's what elevates it. It was a mandatory arrest due to the law, and it's not a bad law. Because the escalation of these issues often occur quickly.

But she wouldn't have been arrested for the DV enhancement because her actions aren't tied to DV. Not because she's 'a woman' or whatever else. Her tarmpering doesn't have a nexus to DV because she wasn't trying to stop him from leaving, she wasn't concerned from a standpoint of dictating or controlling where he could go, and that's something more serious than what she did, even if they both tampered with one another's things. She took his phone. He took medical information, food, and I think other stuff related to the child so she wouldn't leave the home. They're not the same.

Intent to permanently deprive means keep away from them forever: whether you use it yourself, give it away, sell it, etc. The facts that we know don't indicate she was trying to do that. If facts do indicate that, then I'd agree with you.

He got arrested for criminal tampering, which he admitted to. The enhancement of domestic violence occurred because of his relationship with her.

He wasn't arrested because he was the man; he was arrested because of what he did. The judge threw let there be contact between the two parties because there's no probable cause that he was a threat to her. What he did was still illegal, regardless of his romantic relationship with her/having a kid with her.

His civil rights case would be interesting to monitor, but I doubt he'd prevail.

That man died....oh well he sorry - Talib and the Broncos Forums