Frank Clark's Police Report (For Off Field Discussion)

[Rocket]

I think it's pretty obvious why he took the deal.

Definitely... fear of a media stoning cuz he was a college athlete.

 

[Rocket]

She threw a remote control at him. That's not going to get you charged with DV. She bit his nose while he was choking her against a wall. C'mon, man.

Nope...

"She stated she has been short tempered, she got mad. and she threw the T, v. remote al him, She
advised Frank tried restraining her on the bed and that is when she bit his nose. "

 

[Popeyejones]

She threw a remote control at him. That's not going to get you charged with DV. She bit his nose while he was choking her against a wall. C'mon, man.

Nope...

"She stated she has been short tempered, she got mad. and she threw the T, v. remote al him, She
advised Frank tried restraining her on the bed and that is when she bit his nose. "

My mistake. She bit his nose while he was pinning her down. You're correct.

 

[hawknation2015]

The interesting thing I find about the whole thing is why she wasn't charged with domestic violence? From what I gather she threw at least 2 things at him and bit his nose. Does that not count as physical violence?

She threw a remote control at him. That's not going to get you charged with DV. She bit his nose while he was choking her against a wall. C'mon, man.


EDIT: I should also say that I had completely reserved judgement in this case until I read the police report. I simply didn't know enough about it, and have seen enough recent examples of media reports not matching police reports/what actually happened.

I don't know how anyone could read that police report and not interpret it as incredibly clear case of domestic violence, TBH. You have physical evidence, you have pictures, you have witness testimony. I don't know what else anybody would be looking for.

Did you even read the report? She specifically says he never choked her; she says the mark on her neck came from him restraining her by the shirt. I do think she is telling the truth when she says he smacked her and she fell into the lamp after she bit his nose.

 

[Popeyejones]

You weren't there!

?

I never claimed I was.

It's why in police reports they take photographic evidence, witness statements and narratively describe what happened, because, like, if the case isn't pled out and goes to trial, the jury wouldn't have been there either.

 

[Rocket]

I don't know how anyone could read that police report and not interpret it as incredibly clear case of domestic violence, TBH. You have physical evidence, you have pictures, you have witness testimony. I don't know what else anybody would be looking for.

I read it as domestic violence as well, but reciprocal. I believe that if the violence is reciprocal and neither wants to file a complaint then we should all just walk away.
But my thoughts are often challenged on the whole crime thing lately. :177692:

 

[Tech Worlds]

Sounds to me like there was a fight. It's that simple.

 

[DJrmb]

The interesting thing I find about the whole thing is why she wasn't charged with domestic violence? From what I gather she threw at least 2 things at him and bit his nose. Does that not count as physical violence?

She threw a remote control at him. That's not going to get you charged with DV. She bit his nose while he was choking her against a wall. C'mon, man.


EDIT: I should also say that I had completely reserved judgement in this case until I read the police report. I simply didn't know enough about it, and have seen enough recent examples of media reports not matching police reports/what actually happened.

I don't know how anyone could read that police report and not interpret it as incredibly clear case of domestic violence, TBH. You have physical evidence, you have pictures, you have witness testimony. I don't know what else anybody would be looking for.

Please at least have correct facts if you're going to form an opinion. I mean a direct link to the police report is in the OP's post, can you not go and read it before condemning someone?

From the Girlfriends own testimony in the above posted report:

Diamond was asked about the marks
on her neck and she said they must be from when Frank grabbed her by the shirt. It was pointed that her
brother said Frank grabbed her by the neck and slammed her lo the ground. Diamond said he didn't grab her
by the throat and that he grabbed her by the shirt.

 

[bigtrain21]

You weren't there!

?

I never claimed I was.

It's why in police reports they take photographic evidence, witness statements and narratively describe what happened, because, like, if the case isn't pled out and goes to trial, the jury wouldn't have been there either.

You aren't sticking to facts in the case. You spout out comments as if you know them as fact and you don't know the facts. You said he choked her up against a wall, did that happen?

 

[JAGHAWK]

Sorry, I must be late to the public stoning of Frank Clark. Did something else happen since we drafted him? What's all this uproar about.

The PI raped frank in print
( IMHO )

Yes, I chose that word intentionally.

Well.... That's certainly not uplifting. What a shitty situation all around. I think you obviously take a risk of being scrutinized as a franchise for picking up a player with something like this on their record. I also feel like this incident was in the past and he paid the price for it. I don't know what's true or not but I don't think he should continued to be punished for his past. I also trust that if there is any hope for this guy, he's in the right hands with Pete and John.

As a side note... the physical description of her injuries seem vastly over dramatized when you actually look at the pictures. I'm not downplaying her pain... I just know I've seen worse from cat scratches.

 

[dontbelikethat]

She threw a remote control at him. That's not going to get you charged with DV. She bit his nose while he was choking her against a wall. C'mon, man.

Nope...

"She stated she has been short tempered, she got mad. and she threw the T, v. remote al him, She
advised Frank tried restraining her on the bed and that is when she bit his nose. "

My mistake. She bit his nose while he was pinning her down. You're correct.

She herself stated that she was mad and short tempered, and already threw the control at him, then he restrained her, cause maybe she was mad, short tempered and already "attacked" him and I use that word loosely obviously. If she was coming at him, then that's perfectly understandable on why he would restrain her.

I'm not defending him for the other stuff he might or might have not done, but I could at least understand possibly why he did what he did to restrain her. Then she bit him and everything else happened.

 

[Popeyejones]

Did you even read the report? She specifically says he never choked her; she says the mark on her neck came from him restraining her by the shirt. I do think she is telling the truth when she says he smacked her and she fell into the lamp after she bit his nose.

Yeah, of course I read the report.

In my read, TBH, she seemed to be trying to keep him out of trouble (e.g. saying she has a temper, her whole narrative of what happened, while still bad, is much less heinous than all of the other eyewitness testimony), which is actually really normal in instances of DV.

While it's possible that the bruising on her neck could have come from her necklace, from her shirt just seems incredibly unlikely to me. As victims -- particuarly those that don't want to press charges -- have a habit of minimizing, I was going off the eyewitness testimony. Cops know that victims who don't want to press charges typically minimize, which is almost definitely why the cop presented her with the conflicting eyewitness account and put that part of the narrative in his report (in police reports you're not allowed to state opinions, that type of narrative is usually used to suggest to the DA that the reporting officer doesn't believe the account).

 

[Rocket]

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... raft-pick/

 

[lucky49]

all you hawk fans know for a fact that if the niners drafted this guy you would be ranting about how he was a terrible person and baalke loves criminals. You don't have to defend him just because he's a seahawk... Domestic violence is still domestic violence.

 

[Popeyejones]

You weren't there!

?

I never claimed I was.

It's why in police reports they take photographic evidence, witness statements and narratively describe what happened, because, like, if the case isn't pled out and goes to trial, the jury wouldn't have been there either.

You aren't sticking to facts in the case. You spout out comments as if you know them as fact and you don't know the facts. You said he choked her up against a wall, did that happen?

While we obviously can't be sure that it definitively happened, there's physical evidence that would point to it and it's also what was described in the eyewitness testimony.

In any case, I'll bow out of the thread. The issues of fandom get too much in the way for a constructive conversation, IMO, and in my experience, men can sometimes also have a habit of excusing away what I interpret as very clear cut cases of DV.

Later all. Happy threading.

 

[MysterMatt]

She threw a remote control at him. That's not going to get you charged with DV. She bit his nose while he was choking her against a wall. C'mon, man.

Nope...

"She stated she has been short tempered, she got mad. and she threw the T, v. remote al him, She
advised Frank tried restraining her on the bed and that is when she bit his nose. "

My mistake. She bit his nose while he was pinning her down. You're correct.

Holding her down and not choking her out, you mean. You keep jumping to conclusions when you don't have to. It's pretty obvious the incident is brutal and ugly...it just doesn't fit the narrative that Clark is a monstrous bully. Alcohol was involved, shit got really ugly, she attacked him, he fought back (to some degree), and she continued to attack him even as he tried to leave.

All due respect, but you're listening to the media account and not the actual story.

 

[lobohawk]

Pretty sure JS checked into a bit more deeply than what can be perceived in a police report. Small children are horrible witnesses and the people from next door arrived afterwards. So their assumption of what happened is also suspect.

An example of what could have happened.
- She gets mad and assaults him with remote, etc.
- He attempts to restrain her (without hitting her)by hugging her on the bed and she bites his nose.
- In pain he tosses her away from himself and she lands in the lamp.

Not saying this is what happened, but it would explain the injuries.

In the end, you either trust John Schneider or you don't. You either think he has few morals and winning is everything or he truly believes Clark didn't attack the woman.

Media blowhards and other teams' fans will assume it's all the usual crap (big scary football player beats woman). NFL team takes low road for wins. etc, etc
The Hawks didn't "need" to take him to win. There were plenty of other options.

 

[Rocket]

--bunch of stuff about testimony--

To which eye witness testimony, specifically, are you referring?

A 3 and 5 year old? Two ladies in the adjacent room? The dudes brother who was in the shower for the most part?

 

[bigtrain21]

Did you even read the report? She specifically says he never choked her; she says the mark on her neck came from him restraining her by the shirt. I do think she is telling the truth when she says he smacked her and she fell into the lamp after she bit his nose.

Yeah, of course I read the report.

In my read, TBH, she seemed to be trying to keep him out of trouble (e.g. saying she has a temper, her whole narrative of what happened, while still bad, is much less heinous than all of the other eyewitness testimony), which is actually really normal in instances of DV.

While it's possible that the bruising on her neck could have come from her necklace, from her shirt just seems incredibly unlikely to me. As victims -- particuarly those that don't want to press charges -- have a habit of minimizing, I was going off the eyewitness testimony. Cops know that victims who don't want to press charges typically minimize, which is almost definitely why the cop presented her with the conflicting eyewitness account and put that part of the narrative in his report (in police reports you're not allowed to state opinions, that type of narrative is usually used to suggest to the DA that the reporting officer doesn't believe the account).

You falsely stated facts after reading the police report. You are just here to start trouble. You are making lots of inferences and educated guesses when of course your educated guesses are going to be biased. She said she started it by throwing a remote at him. Depending on where the remote hit him it could hurt pretty bad and doesn't that go to show that she was the instigator.

f you put him on either side of the scenario, he goes to jail. If he had thrown the remote control at her and then bit her nose while she tried to restrain him he would have been the one going to jail?

 

[MysterMatt]

nm