Arrest Warrent Issued ET III

[toffee]

Earl has always been slightly OFF, sadly I think there are serious demons in his head

Good point! Just that in the past few years, starting from running into Voeboys locker room, Earl has been weird. His weirdness has been hurting his professional and personal life.

 

[RiverDog]

Good point! Just that in the past few years, starting from running into Voeboys locker room, Earl has been weird. His weirdness has been hurting his professional and personal life.

Yeah, and you can include his flipping off his head coach as he was being carted off the field. There's no doubt that Earl has some serious emotional problems, making the charges against him very believable.

Nevertheless, I'm still curious as to what the other side of those text exchanges were like. She shouldn't have even been receiving them. That was the whole point in going through a third party.

 

[Hyak]

Earl at one time was a great player but he's an entitled jackass who's downfall is completely his fault. He's far more likely to be wearing an orange jumpsuit instead of a yellow jacket at this point. I bet he'll be broke soon too.

 

[Hyak]

Yeah, and you can include his flipping off his head coach as he was being carted off the field. There's no doubt that Earl has some serious emotional problems, making the charges against him very believable.

Nevertheless, I'm still curious as to what the other side of those text exchanges were like. She shouldn't have even been receiving them. That was the whole point in going through a third party.

He sends violent threatening texts to his ex-wife and it's her fault for receiving them? LOL.

 

[RiverDog]

He sends violent threatening texts to his ex-wife and it's her fault for receiving them? LOL.

I didn't say that. What I said was that she could have easily blocked his number, so she wouldn't have received them at all. They were going through a 3rd party so they didn't have to communicate directly. It's a question that I'd ask her if I'm Earl's attorney.

 

[Boohman14]

Usually, protection orders prohibit communications via electronic devices, (e-mail and text) to include 3rd part contact as well as mail. All contact must go through the court of origin for approval.

I think ET is displaying some mental health issues. He definately had some impulse control issues. I doubt he'll do any time for violating the terms of the protection order unless he has physical contact with his ex. He has money. A regular Joe would be hauled downtown and at least cited for menacing.

 

[Nunya]

I didn't say that. What I said was that she could have easily blocked his number, so she wouldn't have received them at all. They were going through a 3rd party so they didn't have to communicate directly. It's a question that I'd ask her if I'm Earl's attorney.

With a Court Protection Order in place, ET had no business contacting her....PERIOD. Through a 3rd party or not. Only court approved contact through attorneys is allowed. It does not matter what actions she had taken to avoid contact. It does not mater the level to "threatening" the text messages were. There is absolutely nothing ET's attorney could ask her that would excuse ET's violation of the Court order....and she was certainly under no obligation to "block" him.

 

[RiverDog]

With a Court Protection Order in place, ET had no business contacting her....PERIOD. Through a 3rd party or not. Only court approved contact through attorneys is allowed. It does not matter what actions she had taken to avoid contact. It does not mater the level to "threatening" the text messages were. There is absolutely nothing ET's attorney could ask her that would excuse ET's violation of the Court order....and she was certainly under no obligation to "block" him.

I completely agree, and not once have I excused Earl for what he did. All I am saying is that his wife didn't have to receive multiple texts from him. If she hadn't the foresight to block his number from the get go as most people in her situation would have, immediately following the first text she received from him that was threatening, she should have blocked it then contacted LE rather than let it go on.

Of course, she was under no obligation to block his number, but it's an action that a reasonably intelligent person would take.

There's also a question as to what, if anything, she sent in response. Was it a tit-for-tat exchange?

 

[James in PA]

As the late, great Norm Macdonald would have said: With Earl Thomas, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him.

 

[Nunya]

I completely agree, and not once have I excused Earl for what he did. All I am saying is that his wife didn't have to receive multiple texts from him. If she hadn't the foresight to block his number from the get go as most people in her situation would have, immediately following the first text she received from him that was threatening, she should have blocked it then contacted LE rather than let it go on.

I don't know, but that last sentence seems to be excusing his actions and blaming her for not blocking him.

Of course, she was under no obligation to block his number, but it's an action that a reasonably intelligent person would take.

Irrelevant.

There's also a question as to what, if anything, she sent in response. Was it a tit-for-tat exchange?

Also irrelevant. I could be wrong, but I believe the CPO was against ET having contact with her, not the other way around. Unless she initiated the contact, ET was 110% in violation, even if he texted her "Good Morning". And even if she did initiate it, he would still be in violation by responding and no amount of "tit-for-tat" would change that.

 

[JPatera76]

I completely agree, and not once have I excused Earl for what he did. All I am saying is that his wife didn't have to receive multiple texts from him. If she hadn't the foresight to block his number from the get go as most people in her situation would have, immediately following the first text she received from him that was threatening, she should have blocked it then contacted LE rather than let it go on.

Of course, she was under no obligation to block his number, but it's an action that a reasonably intelligent person would take.

There's also a question as to what, if anything, she sent in response. Was it a tit-for-tat exchange?

Why are you soo seemingly almost defending Earl be saying "she should have his number blocked" You say you haven't excused him but then in a way gaslight or blame his ex. By using blocking his number as a simply solution..
Are you aware or unaware of how Protection orders work involving custody of children or when children exhanges are involved?


5 years ago I had a completely messy divorce. She went all Amber Heard over the years and I had enough of her shit, but thankfully I had plenty of witnesses who werent even family or friends to come to court. The court had put a protection order for me against her due to what she was saying and found guilty of doing and In the end I was granted Custody. The Judge allowed a modification of the Protection order to allow her to have ONLY text communication through either our phone numbers OR court approved parenting app. Any and all communication back and forth was ONLY to be about Pick up and drop off times/locations involving ONLY the children. Any other communication outside of exchanging the children was prohibited and considered in violation of the protection order. I.e She messaged me calling me a piece of shit for finding another woman, and that she hopes that I die. Violation#1 my lawyer took screenshots and documented it. Another time she was running late and then messaged me that I could go **** myself and she rather die before handing our children back to me. Called the cops and got our children. As they live with me full-time. Violation#2 once again my lawyer documented it except then he asked if I wanted to act yet, I didn't. Lastly she then messaged me drunk saying she regrets she was ever with me, I need to die so she can have her babies to herself. Violation # 3 my lawyer took screenshots and documented it and this time reported it to the courts.

All three of those were clear violations as they didn't follow what the modification was. She was TECHNICALLY in violation of more but, It would be pretty petty of me to report her to my lawyer or the courts with things like "Tell the kids I love them" or "Tell (sons name) Happy Birthday please " She loves them but hates me.
If I simply would have blocked her, It would have been considered as custodial interference and I would get in trouble.

So no just simply blocking an ex isn't as simple of a solution that you'd like it to be especially when there's a court order in place to allow a form of communication involving their children. Which he's gone well beyond that, just as my ex did.

And as for all the points Nunya said they're all solid and correct. Other than the last Part, unless the CPO specifically states otherwise (like a modification). It doesn't matter who its against it applies to both parties. So for example in this case the CPO is against Earl.. Say there's no children and just Earl and his Ex.. If she messages him shes also in violation of it. But there's a modification that allows for communication involving exchanges etc etc. So in this case if she randomly messaged him one of those threats than yeah shes in violation. Being that the texts were only from Earl and there's no responses from her than Earls in violation otherwise we'd be hearing about her being in violation as well.

 

[toffee]

Why are you soo seemingly almost defending Earl be saying "she should have his number blocked" You say you haven't excused him but then in a way gaslight or blame his ex. By using blocking his number as a simply solution..
Are you aware or unaware of how Protection orders work involving custody of children or when children exhanges are involved?


5 years ago I had a completely messy divorce. She went all Amber Heard over the years and I had enough of her shit, but thankfully I had plenty of witnesses who werent even family or friends to come to court. The court had put a protection order for me against her due to what she was saying and found guilty of doing and In the end I was granted Custody. The Judge allowed a modification of the Protection order to allow her to have ONLY text communication through either our phone numbers OR court approved parenting app. Any and all communication back and forth was ONLY to be about Pick up and drop off times/locations involving ONLY the children. Any other communication outside of exchanging the children was prohibited and considered in violation of the protection order. I.e She messaged me calling me a piece of shit for finding another woman, and that she hopes that I die. Violation#1 my lawyer took screenshots and documented it. Another time she was running late and then messaged me that I could go **** myself and she rather die before handing our children back to me. Called the cops and got our children. As they live with me full-time. Violation#2 once again my lawyer documented it except then he asked if I wanted to act yet, I didn't. Lastly she then messaged me drunk saying she regrets she was ever with me, I need to die so she can have her babies to herself. Violation # 3 my lawyer took screenshots and documented it and this time reported it to the courts.

All three of those were clear violations as they didn't follow what the modification was. She was TECHNICALLY in violation of more but, It would be pretty petty of me to report her to my lawyer or the courts with things like "Tell the kids I love them" or "Tell (sons name) Happy Birthday please " She loves them but hates me.
If I simply would have blocked her, It would have been considered as custodial interference and I would get in trouble.

So no just simply blocking an ex isn't as simple of a solution that you'd like it to be especially when there's a court order in place to allow a form of communication involving their children. Which he's gone well beyond that, just as my ex did.

And as for all the points Nunya said they're all solid and correct. Other than the last Part, unless the CPO specifically states otherwise (like a modification). It doesn't matter who its against it applies to both parties. So for example in this case the CPO is against Earl.. Say there's no children and just Earl and his Ex.. If she messages him shes also in violation of it. But there's a modification that allows for communication involving exchanges etc etc. So in this case if she randomly messaged him one of those threats than yeah shes in violation. Being that the texts were only from Earl and there's no responses from her than Earls in violation otherwise we'd be hearing about her being in violation as well.

Sorry you have to go though all that, life could be tough.

 

[Hyak]

ET at this point doesn't get the benefit of doubt. He clearly has major issues being an adult and I suspect that he knows the days of making tons of money are gone and the ex-wife is going to get half of that plus alimony/child support.

He'll be broke or dead in 10 years.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I completely agree, and not once have I excused Earl for what he did. All I am saying is that his wife didn't have to receive multiple texts from him. If she hadn't the foresight to block his number from the get go as most people in her situation would have, immediately following the first text she received from him that was threatening, she should have blocked it then contacted LE rather than let it go on.

Of course, she was under no obligation to block his number, but it's an action that a reasonably intelligent person would take.

There's also a question as to what, if anything, she sent in response. Was it a tit-for-tat exchange?

She co-parents with the father of her children. I'd think that'd be reason enough to have to communicate with Earl on a regular basis to coordinate said co-parenting and other day to day issues with their children.

Of all the takes on this, yours is the most bizarre.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

I compare ETs situation to that of Richard Sherman.

Both were fractious, and both perceived that they had been abandoned by Seattle.

But Sherman made getting along with teammates an absolute priority In sf, which arguably helped him get signed in tampa. Sherm also publicly addressed his own mental struggles that resulted in his court case.

Earl did the exact opposite after leaving Seattle. So therefore he is experiencing the opposite of Sherman.

 

[BleuEyedHawk]

He was arrested yesterday:

Former Seahawks, Ravens free safety Earl Thomas arrested in Texas

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk has the details.

www.yahoo.com

 

[ivotuk]

I agree that it looks really bad and that they don't randomly issue arrest warrants just for the hell of it, but we need to wait a bit until we have some more information before we crucify him. Earl hasn't been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.

We have to keep in mind that this is the same psycho b!tch that confronted Earl and his mistress with a gun that's making the complaint. It sounds like one of those 'he said, she said' things, with accusations and denials being thrown around. Not that I'd believe a lawyer any more than I'd believe a psycho b!tch, but Earl's attorney claims that he was just trying to work with her to see his kids. To say that it's a messy relationship is an understatement.

Here's an article with a few more details:

Felony arrest warrant issued for former Baltimore Ravens safety, NFL All-Pro

The former Super Bowl champion was named to the NFL’s All-Decade team for the 2010s.

www.pennlive.com

Why is she a Psycho Bitch? It's his wife, who was mad because he was lying, drinking, sleeping with other women. And it was his gun that he left in his house with a round in the chamber that she grabbed. Were the kids near that gun? If so, he needs a long vacation in the Graybar Hotel. That is inexcusable. You NEVER put a round in the chamber until you have your target, and you are ready to shoot.

 

[bigskydoc]

The question isn't, "why didn't Nina block Earl's number," it is "why didn't Earl block all means of communication from her, except the court approved, 3rd party, parenting app?" He is the one at jeopardy here, and he put himself at risk by allowing her to communicate with him.

I have little doubt that her texts to him were inflammatory, and possibly even purposely written to provoke the exact response that they did. Provocation is very common in these highly volatile divorce cases. That doesn't matter, in a legal sense. She isn't under a no-contact order, unless the media is leaving that part out.

He is perfectly within his rights to take any of her acts of provocation to the court, and let them determine the consequences, but he is not allowed to respond to them.

The drama was clearly foretold from their wedding. It didn't take a Nostradamous to predict how it was going to play out, after watching that carnival.

 

[JPatera76]

The question isn't, "why didn't Nina block Earl's number," it is "why didn't Earl block all means of communication from her, except the court approved, 3rd party, parenting app?" He is the one at jeopardy here, and he put himself at risk by allowing her to communicate with him.

I have little doubt that her texts to him were inflammatory, and possibly even purposely written to provoke the exact response that they did. Provocation is very common in these highly volatile divorce cases. That doesn't matter, in a legal sense. She isn't under a no-contact order, unless the media is leaving that part out.

He is perfectly within his rights to take any of her acts of provocation to the court, and let them determine the consequences, but he is not allowed to respond to them.

The drama was clearly foretold from their wedding. It didn't take a Nostradamous to predict how it was going to play out, after watching that carnival.

because once again... this isn't how it works. Especially when there are children involved and some form of custody arrangement.
And yes she is, if you read the entire thread or even did a google search (or simply ask someone who's experienced it, such as myself) then you'd ALSO know that regardless of who its against.. it applies to both parties. Her and Him. Doesn't that the court or her has an NCO order against him, same rules apply to her and visa-versa, He slaps her with NCO, rules of it also apply to him doesn't matter. Lastly if a Judge issued an arrest warrant (which clearly he did) it means the prosecution has enough to show (probable cause) he's violated the NCO more than once. Usually 2-3 times = Arrest and (depending on state and conditions of the violation) automatic felony charges. Which also means they have both sides of the Texts in which they clearly felt he was the main aggressor who was in violation where as she was not, nor was she the instigator or provocateur in this scenario.

 

[toffee]

What really happened to Earl? He has been free falling from an all pro to whatever state he is in now, burning bridges to teams that was nice to him, and people once loved him.

What's wrong with the guy? Does he has much money left to live comfortably the rest of his life?