Saints Short Update on Kamara’s legal situation (from WWL) (2 Viewers)

I agree with Boutte that a video was available back when this kicked off. I remember seeing the guy getting kicked in the head and I agreed with SuperChuck that the prosecution would have to prove that is was Kamara's blows that did the damage.

I’d like to know just how true that is. If my family member is jumped by a gang of five people, and it resulted in my loved one having chronic TBI or death, is there any hope for justice.


I don't remember that specific exchange so I can't say that I endorse it now. I would expect that if the element of a charge is that the specific defendant caused the victim to sustain a specific injury, the prosecution would have to prove that.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that the prosecution has to connect with 100% accuracy a punch thrown by Kamara causing a serious injury (e.g. orbital fracture) to Greene. The prosecution could, for example, show video of specific punches thrown by Kamara and then offer expert medical testimony that the force and location of the punch(es) appear to be of the nature that would cause the injury. And then the jury decides if they agree.

So in the hypo about a family member being jumped by a gang of five people, there are different ways that the prosecution could make the case to a jury about the conduct of the defendants as charged. Often how they do that is find one of the group that most likely didn't commit the crime and attempt to use leverage against them to offer testimony about what they saw actually happen. But there are other ways, and there are also some charges that don't require that same degree of specific culpability.
 
Memory is a funny thing. It can fill in things that never happened. Back in the day, LOTS of people claimed to have watched the President of Procter & Gamble as he appeared on the Phil Donahue Show on March 1, 1994. And supposedly announced that their logo was Satanic. And I knew many people that swore they watched it. Problem was, the guy was never on Donahue and it just never happened. But people swore they saw it.

What's strange is that there doesn't seem to be any indication that people saw a video until this discussion. It's possible that I've just completely missed that, but scanning through the original thread, it ended with people wondering if or when the video might be released. If those claims were made in previous discussions, I would welcome the opportunity to be corrected, and even better, if somebody can turn up a source to view the video.
 
What's strange is that there doesn't seem to be any indication that people saw a video until this discussion. It's possible that I've just completely missed that, but scanning through the original thread, it ended with people wondering if or when the video might be released. If those claims were made in previous discussions, I would welcome the opportunity to be corrected, and even better, if somebody can turn up a source to view the video.
True enough, but seeing the video might be one of those "Be careful what you wish for" situations. :covri:
 
Memory is a funny thing. It can fill in things that never happened. Back in the day, LOTS of people claimed to have watched the President of Procter & Gamble as he appeared on the Phil Donahue Show on March 1, 1994. And supposedly announced that their logo was Satanic. And I knew many people that swore they watched it. Problem was, the guy was never on Donahue and it just never happened. But people swore they saw it.
Man do I remember people talking about that.
 
What's strange is that there doesn't seem to be any indication that people saw a video until this discussion. It's possible that I've just completely missed that, but scanning through the original thread, it ended with people wondering if or when the video might be released. If those claims were made in previous discussions, I would welcome the opportunity to be corrected, and even better, if somebody can turn up a source to view the video.

My personal take on it is that the police report is very detailed as to what the video depicts. There also appears to be a screenshot or two out there. These things, along with a general memory in the mind of what such video looks like having seen others over the years, come together for some people in the form of a vague memory that they actually saw the video . . . but they didn't. I don't fault anyone for this, it's natural and feels like a real memory.

Also I could be totally wrong because I can't say for sure that the video was never published in some location or another early on.

But I know I never saw it, following this case from day 1, and it simply cannot be found now. In the current digital, streaming era, it seems exceedingly unlikely that a video would have been published somewhere but then successfully removed from the digital world after being released.
 
My personal take on it is that the police report is very detailed as to what the video depicts. There also appears to be a screenshot or two out there. These things, along with a general memory in the mind of what such video looks like having seen others over the years, come together for some people in the form of a vague memory that they actually saw the video . . . but they didn't. I don't fault anyone for this, it's natural and feels like a real memory.

Also I could be totally wrong because I can't say for sure that the video was never published in some location or another early on.

But I know I never saw it, following this case from day 1, and it simply cannot be found now. In the current digital, streaming era, it seems exceedingly unlikely that a video would have been published somewhere but then successfully removed from the digital world after being released.

Agree with all of that.

There are a number of people who remember seeing the video so at the least, it would seem like that was documented here in previous discussions. And that might even be the case, I just know that this is the first time I'm aware of anybody saying they saw the video.
 
I don't think you read my post correctly. I said, in order to avoid jail time he would have to plead out of the felony assault charge (which he may still do) to a lesser charge (one that doesn't involve jail time), or he will do jail time. That is an Irrefutable fact!!!!!!!
A sampling of your posts on the subject:

“It doesn't work that way. The charge carries a 1yr minimum for, I think it's called "doing great bodily harm" They literately have video so good, they can with accuracy, count the blows. Before and after he lost conscious.



How do you plead to a lesser charge? They have film of of him hitting the guy till he broke his eye ball socket. X-Ray exhibit #1, Hotel video exhibit #2. How do you discredit or impeach an x-ray, and a video.”

“It was the casino's and hotels who used their influence to have the law changed to a 1 yr minimum. It was them and the hotels, who are tired of this kind of violence. They are not sympathetic to Kamara nor the NFLs plight. I don't think you understand how law in Vegas works.”

“When the video of the assault is released, it will make it very hard for "law and order NV" to cut a deal like you suggest.”

“The point I'm making, is Vegas willing to let Kamara avoid any jail time after the video is shown? The video may surface before the NFL suspends Kamara. If that video leaks, Kamara would be lucky to get 6 games.”



“I am saying is if he is convicted as charged, he will be sentenced to between (1 and 5) years.



I am not saying he can't plead out to a lesser charge. I am asking why would the DA offer him a plea, when he has the whole thing on film from security cameras. If you scrool down to the bottom you will see what is needed to charge Kamara. He satisfies, not one, but 2 for the listed crime.”
 
A sampling of your posts on the subject:

“It doesn't work that way. The charge carries a 1yr minimum for, I think it's called "doing great bodily harm" They literately have video so good, they can with accuracy, count the blows. Before and after he lost conscious.



How do you plead to a lesser charge? They have film of of him hitting the guy till he broke his eye ball socket. X-Ray exhibit #1, Hotel video exhibit #2. How do you discredit or impeach an x-ray, and a video.”

“It was the casino's and hotels who used their influence to have the law changed to a 1 yr minimum. It was them and the hotels, who are tired of this kind of violence. They are not sympathetic to Kamara nor the NFLs plight. I don't think you understand how law in Vegas works.”

“When the video of the assault is released, it will make it very hard for "law and order NV" to cut a deal like you suggest.”

“The point I'm making, is Vegas willing to let Kamara avoid any jail time after the video is shown? The video may surface before the NFL suspends Kamara. If that video leaks, Kamara would be lucky to get 6 games.”



“I am saying is if he is convicted as charged, he will be sentenced to between (1 and 5) years.



I am not saying he can't plead out to a lesser charge. I am asking why would the DA offer him a plea, when he has the whole thing on film from security cameras. If you scrool down to the bottom you will see what is needed to charge Kamara. He satisfies, not one, but 2 for the listed crime.”
All true, what's the issue?
 
Last edited:
All true, what's the issue?
The issue is posting over and over like you know how the law is going to be applied to this case.

Making it seem as though the odds of Kamara *not* getting jail time are minimal at best.

So…I’ll go back to my original question: if Kamara doesn’t get jail time and gets a 6-game suspension (at most), can we finally admit that trying to apply one’s understanding of a general “law” to a specific case doesn’t really work?
 
The issue is posting over and over like you know how the law is going to be applied to this case.

Making it seem as though the odds of Kamara *not* getting jail time are minimal at best.

So…I’ll go back to my original question: if Kamara doesn’t get jail time and gets a 6-game suspension (at most), can we finally admit that trying to apply one’s understanding of a general “law” to a specific case doesn’t really work?
The issue is posting over and over like you know how the law is going to be applied to this case.
I don't think you have a firm grasp of what is being said. Kamara will either plead out to the lesser charge, or he will do a min yr. That is not me saying this, it is NV law.
Making it seem as though the odds of Kamara *not* getting jail time are minimal at best.
So, let me get this straight. Others can say he will get no jail time, little jail time, or 2 games, 3 games ,6 games. But, my speculation is somehow forbidden Get over your your self, stop telling a grown man what they can and can't do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So…I’ll go back to my original question: if Kamara doesn’t get jail time and gets a 6-game suspension (at most), can we finally admit that trying to apply one’s understanding of a general “law” to a specific case doesn’t really work?
I have never said Kamara definitively will go to jail. Not one time!!! I have repeatedly said if he doesn't plead out to a lesser (non felony charge) he will do a min of 1 yr. Because that is the statute in NV law reads. Felony assault causing great bodily harm, carries a 1 to 5 yr sentence. So, yes if Kamara doesn't plead out to a lesser charge, and receives no jail time. I will have been wrong. Stop misrepresenting what I say. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

So, you go ahead and do you......................................but, do it without me.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom