Thread: Jerry Jeudy arrested

Originally Posted by King87

The law is written that way due to actual and concrete fatalities and injuries. The officers followed the law, which is written in an applicable way to both men and women, if there's an issue with that it would be more akin to societal attitudes than the verbiage of the law. If Jeudy doesn't want to get arrested under those sets of facts, he's free to not take children's food, medical information, and a wallet, and use that as leverage to stop his girlfriend from leaving.

And she’s also free to not take his personal belongings and refuse to return them. Items are items, where in the law does is specify baby food gets you arrested but $1,000 phone doesn’t?

Can you point out the specific statute or verbiage that was used to justify NOT treating both equally?

Originally Posted by Davii

And she’s also free to not take his personal belongings and refuse to return them. Items are items, where in the law does is specify baby food gets you arrested but $1,000 phone doesn’t?

Can you point out the specific statute or verbiage that was used to justify NOT treating both equally?

I'm not operating under some phantom notion that she wasn't in the wrong. Guess what, it's not germane to what he did, and what he did is clearly worse. If you pull up the verbiage of the enhancer, you could interpret it either way in regards to not arresting her with the DV enhancer. I would have charged her with criminal tampering in regards to her phone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...33f_story.html
Authorities have said there were no allegations of any physical violence. However, under Colorado law, domestic violence can include any crime committed against an intimate partner or their property that is used to intimidate, coerce or seek revenge against them. The law also requires police to arrest anyone they suspect committed such a crime.

If she took the phone--there's speculation that she thought he was cheating--would that constitute intimidation, coercion, or revenge? You could probably argue it, but it seems like a stretch. Given the facts that the officers had, it was less of stretch for the arrest for criminal tampering and D.V. enhancer.

Originally Posted by King87

The law is written that way due to actual and concrete fatalities and injuries. The officers followed the law, which is written in an applicable way to both men and women, if there's an issue with that it would be more akin to societal attitudes than the verbiage of the law. If Jeudy doesn't want to get arrested under those sets of facts, he's free to not take children's food, medical information, and a wallet, and use that as leverage to stop his girlfriend from leaving.

Likewise, the girl could have not taken the phone or simply given it back so that she could get the food back, etc.

Originally Posted by Northman

Likewise, the girl could have not taken the phone or simply given it back so that she could get the food back, etc.

She did do that, and that doesn't excuse what he did. Two parties can both be wrong, and then wrongness can not be commensurate with one another.

Originally Posted by King87

She did do that, and that doesn't excuse what he did. Two parties can both be wrong, and then wrongness can not be commensurate with one another.

When did she do it? After he was arrested?

Originally Posted by Northman

When did she do it? After he was arrested?

No, what I'm saying is she did steal the phone. Charge her too, doesn't change what Jeudy did, which is clearly worse. It's why the police had to arrest with with the DV suspicion from a legal standpoint, and from a moral standpoint it's scummy to use the items your child needs to stop someone from leaving.

Originally Posted by King87

No, what I'm saying is she did steal the phone. Charge her too, doesn't change what Jeudy did, which is clearly worse. It's why the police had to arrest with with the DV suspicion from a legal standpoint, and from a moral standpoint it's scummy to use the items your child needs to stop someone from leaving.

I dont agree that it was worse but agree that they both needed to be arrested.

Originally Posted by Northman

I dont agree that it was worse but agree that they both needed to be arrested.

It's not worse to use the food, medical, and personal information of someone to keep them in place, in comparison to taking someone's phone?

We can agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Northman

I dont agree that it was worse but agree that they both needed to be arrested.

Depriving your kid of formula to make a point is horrid.

which is worse-- taking a baby's food, or taking a baby's phone?

Originally Posted by dogfish

which is worse-- taking a baby's food, or taking a baby's phone?

I'd say it depends on the baby.

A missing ingredient to this debate is whether locking up the baby food was a temporary measure or meant to go longer? I suspect his action was prompted by her action and his action was to meant to raise the stakes of getting back his phone. I don't think it was intended to starve the baby. I think it was intended to add pressure to her decision to steal his phone. As soon as she gives that back, the food becomes available. This is a negotiation tactic, not an attempt to harm anyone.

Fellas......I mean....not to be the ******* here, and I fully agree Juedy went total dumbass......but are we gonna stick on withholding formula (aka baby food)? Again, don't get me ****** up here, it's a douche move, but.....ummmm....this is America (said the montana hick raised 68 miles from the nearest Wal-Mart)....im pretty sure baby wasn't in any danger of starving...

Originally Posted by Jsteve01

Depriving your kid of formula to make a point is horrid.

Except i doubt that was the last formula on the planet. And AGAIN, she could have given the phone back to the guy and he would have returned the formula. Dont be dim.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

A missing ingredient to this debate is whether locking up the baby food was a temporary measure or meant to go longer? I suspect his action was prompted by her action and his action was to meant to raise the stakes of getting back his phone. I don't think it was intended to starve the baby. I think it was intended to add pressure to her decision to steal his phone. As soon as she gives that back, the food becomes available. This is a negotiation tactic, not an attempt to harm anyone.

It wasnt, people on this board are ******* morons.