Poor Jim Leyritz

Better get my two cents in before this one gets locked. Sportsguydave, sorry what you went through. It's a shame you had to spend all that dough to clear your name. Sounds like you were guilty until proven innocent. Not fair at all.

 

Exactly. Not the way the system is supposed to work. But apparently some people are okay with that.

 

Nice straw dog, Dave, but nobody - let alone me - ever said every woman who accuses a man of domestic violence is telling the truth. And nobody ever said you shouldn't be innocent until proved guilty.

What I said - and stand by - is that your original post was a bullshit piece of excuse-making that undercut both the victim (by focusing on her "shifting story") and the cops (by saying they preferred to "take a man to jail and sort it out later").

It's clearly you who didn't take enough away from your experience covering courts, because the cops aren't supposed to "sort it out", the courts are. And, no a directed verdict does not mean that the case should have never been brought in the first place, that would be a summary judgment before a trial ever begins. Your attorney undoubtedly moved for a summary judgment - they all do - and didn't get it, which means there was a question of guilt. A directed verdict means that the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof, which is something completely different. The other odd thing about your post is that directed verdicts are almost always only used in jury trials - which you say you didn't have. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ... in any event, it doesn't mean what you said it does.

As for the original post, if you had just said, "Let's not judge Jim Leyritz until a court does," that would have been fine.

You didn't. You took shots at the woman and the cops and came off like the bitter dude you continue to come off as.

As for the benefit of the doubt, yeah, I'll give it to the woman who says she was beaten and the cops before I give it to a dude accused of beating his wife. I'm funny that way.

 

Whatever, man. Thankfully, you don't run the criminal justice system. Keep making asinine assumptions without having any of the facts.

Fortunately, the system we have, while often imperfect, is based on garnering those facts and making a decision, not operating on assumption of guilt. Hopefully, you'll figure this out before you have to experience it yourself.

Have a nice day.

 

Well, it isn't exactly, "Yeah, you're right, I shouldn't have dogged on the cops and the woman for no reason ..." but I'll take it. Enjoy the fourth.

 

LMAO .. .you're a real piece of work.

Since when are the police above criticism? Nobody's perfect.

Here'a an idea: At least consider the possibility that you might be wrong. The world isn't as black and white as you think it is. People are falsely accused and even falsely convicted every day. Not everyone has to resources to clear their name.

 

Moddy have you been living under a rock? It's been that way for quite some time now. It's not fair. I've head of instances where both parties were hauled in and no fists were thrown. Depends on where you live I guess.

 

Thanks for the update, Moddy...This is all I was trying to point out last week...I lived it. It sucks.

Jersey_Guy?? Paging Jersey_Guy??

 

His driving preferences and stylings should have put him there, long ago.

If he's not the "Menace To Society" poster boy, he's frequently done a great impersonation.

 

That's NOT all you were trying to point out last week, but the longer the conversation goes on, the more I understand how your own experience makes you essentially unable to even examine your own words objectively.

The law gives the benefit of the doubt to victim who says they were assaulted.

Why is this? It's essentially because - for years - women had essentially no standing in the criminal justice system and the police gave men the benefit of the doubt. Time and time again, this resulted in men who committed domestic violence NOT getting arrested. In no small amount of those cases, the men then committed greater violence, in some cases killing women.

So, now we have a system where the victim gets the benefit of the doubt.

You said you want the man to get the benefit of the doubt, and then took shots at the woman and the cops. As someone who has actually been on the scene of these situations MULTIPLE times and seen how difficult it is for the cops to sort them out, I understand why the system works the way it does, i.e. because you don't want the cop in position to pick the wrong side and then be responsible when someone gets killed.

Incidentally, in most states it works the same exact way if a woman is accused of assaulting a man - i.e. it's the VICTIM that gets the benefit of the doubt, not the woman.

The system is working exactly the way it's supposed to, i.e. a judge is sorting it out.

 

Jersey_Guy:

You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of the criminal justice system. Our system isn't supposed to give any victim the "benefit of the doubt." A defendant is supposed to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Now, doesn't that sound like the "benefit of the doubt" goes to the defendant? If you'd take off your blinders and be reasonable for a minute or two, maybe you'd see. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

As for "the courts are supposed to sort it out" ... maybe. But the police do their own sorting all the time. When the officer gives you a warning instead of writing you a speeding ticket ... he's "sorting it out."

When I covered the police beat, I saw all kinds of instances of officers exercising discretion in who got tickets, who got let off with a warning, even who went to jail for the night and who didn't.

Feel free to keep belittling my experience, calling me bitter and erecting straw men, if you feel like it helps your position. ... that's fine. It just makes your argument seem weak. I've explained over and over again over several posts what I've done to turn that experience into a positive. You obviously don't get it, or don't want to consider anything that makes you think a little bit. Not my concern.

I know what I went through, and I certainly don't need validation from some guy on a message board. I respect your experiences and what's led you to your opinions. I'd ask the same courtesy from you.

You're free to operate under whatever assumptions you want to use. And I'm free to disagree. Luckily, there are procedures in place to keep people like you off juries ... people who obviously can't look at a case objectively and on its own merits. The voir dire process is usually pretty good that way.

And by the way, I went back and reviewed my records... my case WAS dismissed via summary judgment, not by directed verdict. That means it was one weak case. My bad. It was 10 years ago.

I certainly hope things have changed, but years ago when I was a victim of domestic violence, men just didn't report it, because if the police were called, the guy was the one going to jail. I was told this by a friend who was a police officer. If that's changing, it's a good thing, because it happens on the other side too. Much more than anyone realizes.

Time will tell what will happen in the Leyritz case. If one reads the story Moddy posted, though, it's not sounding very good for Mrs. Leyritz. Thankfully, our system, while very imperfect, usually gets it right in the end, with a few glaring exceptions.