Thread: Jerry Jeudy arrested

Originally Posted by King87

I didn't deflect anything. If the argument for Jeudy is essentially: well, I'll use the kid as leverage against you to stop you from leaving, and if you don't do what I want immediately then you're using the kid for leverage...I guess you can make that argument. But when someone goes to that length--witholding the car seat, the food, information/the wallet--to stop you from leaving, they're doing something worse than taking someone's third phone. That's obvious. If you want to assume that he would have given her that stuff back, go ahead. I'm not presuming someone who would go to that level to simply return that stuff, because normal and 'negotiating' people, to borrow a term from Hoof, don't act like that.

Except she was also using the kid for leverage which makes her just as guilty as Krugan stated.

She felt keeping the phone was more important than actually getting her items back.

Originally Posted by Northman

Except she was also using the kid for leverage which makes her just as guilty as Krugan stated.

She felt keeping the phone was more important than actually getting her items back.

Maybe. Or maybe she felt like things were getting "out of control," or "wild," I don't recall what she said to the Sheriff, and maybe she felt like she needed the cops to be there given that she left the residence and called for help at a neighbors home. What leverage is there in going 'I won't give you the phone back' in regards to the kid? Again, given how normal people don't resort to using their child like that to get a phone back, it's hard to just assume that Jeudy would go 'oh, okay, well now that I have my phone back here's your stuff'.

Originally Posted by King87

Maybe. Or maybe she felt like things were getting "out of control," or "wild," I don't recall what she said to the Sheriff, and maybe she felt like she needed the cops to be there given that she left the residence and called for help at a neighbors home. What leverage is there in going 'I won't give you the phone back' in regards to the kid? Again, given how normal people don't resort to using their child like that to get a phone back, it's hard to just assume that Jeudy would go 'oh, okay, well now that I have my phone back here's your stuff'.

Why wouldnt he?

The sole reason he took the other stuff was because she took the phone. I dont think its fair to speculate or assume that he wouldnt give the stuff back. From the information we do know there was no physical violence of any kind in this incident as it was a matter of two people taking shit from one another. But once he took the childs things she could have easily given the phone back but instead she doubled down and called the cops. At that point she is no longer innocent in terms of child welfare.

Originally Posted by Northman

Why wouldnt he?

The sole reason he took the other stuff was because she took the phone. I dont think its fair to speculate or assume that he wouldnt give the stuff back. From the information we do know there was no physical violence of any kind in this incident as it was a matter of two people taking shit from one another. But once he took the childs things she could have easily given the phone back but instead she doubled down and called the cops. At that point she is no longer innocent in terms of child welfare.

Why would you presume someone who would go to such lengths would act rationally when he literally showed you that he's not acting rationally?

Originally Posted by King87

Why would you presume someone who would go to such lengths would act rationally when he literally showed you that he's not acting rationally?

Because he doesnt have a prior history of acting irrationally. I mean, does he have a history of domestic abuse that im not aware of?

Originally Posted by Northman

Because he doesnt have a prior history of acting irrationally. I mean, does he have a history of domestic abuse that im not aware of?

The mere act of taking his kid's food, her wallet with medical information, and a child seat, so she does not leave, in and of itself tells you that he's not acting rationally. At least on that day. Because that's not something a rational human being would do.

Originally Posted by King87

The mere act of taking his kid's food, her wallet with medical information, and a child seat, so she does not leave, in and of itself tells you that he's not acting rationally. At least on that day. Because that's not something a rational human being would do.

Its also not rational to hold onto an item that you know can possibly get your stuff back.

Originally Posted by Northman

Its also not rational to hold onto an item that you know can possibly get your stuff back.

She did something bad; I understand that she probably thought the third phone itself/what it had on it showed he was cheating, she still shouldn't have taken it/kept it.

He did something much worse.

I'm hoping for a positive outcome: maybe they go to therapy and get their heads on straight; maybe they amicably separate from one another and co-parent well, etc.

But if we're weighing who was worse, I think it's pretty clear he was. The behavior is a red flag. Hope there's a great conclusion and growth occurs, and that he balls out.

At this point we'd be talking in circles, so I'm going to unsubscribe from the thread.

Originally Posted by King87

She did something bad; I understand that she probably thought the third phone itself/what it had on it showed he was cheating, she still shouldn't have taken it/kept it.

He did something much worse.

I'm hoping for a positive outcome: maybe they go to therapy and get their heads on straight; maybe they amicably separate from one another and co-parent well, etc.

But if we're weighing who was worse, I think it's pretty clear he was. The behavior is a red flag. Hope there's a great conclusion and growth occurs, and that he balls out.

At this point we'd be talking in circles, so I'm going to unsubscribe from the thread.

Red Flag? What kind of BS is this? They were both being dumbasses. It never should have risen to the level of the cops being involved or becoming a news story. This is hardly red flag behavior.

Seeing a lot of "what if's" and "Could have" and "might have".

12 pages for something that's not really anything big.

This thread has become a shining example of why the off season sucks.

Originally Posted by King87

She did something bad; I understand that she probably thought the third phone itself/what it had on it showed he was cheating, she still shouldn't have taken it/kept it.

He did something much worse.

I'm hoping for a positive outcome: maybe they go to therapy and get their heads on straight; maybe they amicably separate from one another and co-parent well, etc.

But if we're weighing who was worse, I think it's pretty clear he was. The behavior is a red flag. Hope there's a great conclusion and growth occurs, and that he balls out.

At this point we'd be talking in circles, so I'm going to unsubscribe from the thread.

Much worse??? How do you know that? He could have grabbed the nearest, most convenient thing, like a diaper bag with all the aforementioned items inside. They had an argument. Nothing more nothing less at least at the point 5-Oh showed up.

Originally Posted by Northman

Because he doesnt have a prior history of acting irrationally. I mean, does he have a history of domestic abuse that im not aware of?

Well she would have more knowledge of that situation than any of us would.

Originally Posted by King87

That doesn't excuse what he did. Especially when her response is to call the officers from a neighbor's home. Even if she gave the phone back to him and he gives her the food what he did was worse and a horrible thing.

Nor does it excuse her theft. Show me a law that ranks things stolen by how bad it is. I’m pretty sure it would be based on value which would make hers worse.

Bottom line, if either were arrested for an incident not involving violence they both should have been. She wasn’t arrested because she’s a woman and had a child to care for. There is literally no other legal reason as both were guilty of the exact same conduct.

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.

Just want to pop in and say:

1) Yes, they both are likely in a toxic relationship if it has come to this point and they are both walking red flags.

2) My gawd there is zero justification for using your child and their food as a bargaining chip to get what you want in a relationship. JFC.