Rocket
Active member
Popeyejones":2aj6bxj1 said:I think it's pretty obvious why he took the deal.
Definitely... fear of a media stoning cuz he was a college athlete.
Popeyejones":2aj6bxj1 said:I think it's pretty obvious why he took the deal.
Nope...Popeyejones":8l6up4yk said: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.
Rocket":1s8azdbu said:Nope...Popeyejones":1s8azdbu said: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.
"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":1nqfv3o1 said:themunn":1nqfv3o1 said: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.
bigtrain21":1f3r124b said:You weren't there!
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.Popeyejones":3j9ezryv said: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.
Popeyejones":3lua3wvn said:themunn":3lua3wvn said: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.
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.
Popeyejones":1bzj357m said:bigtrain21":1bzj357m said: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":1qjct11n said:JAGHAWK":1qjct11n said: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.
Popeyejones":2zb85x56 said:Rocket":2zb85x56 said:Nope...Popeyejones":2zb85x56 said: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.
"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":fimvpd5r said: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.
bigtrain21":2f1cv4v1 said:Popeyejones":2f1cv4v1 said:bigtrain21":2f1cv4v1 said: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?
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.Popeyejones":9wdgkxs9 said:Rocket":9wdgkxs9 said:Nope...Popeyejones":9wdgkxs9 said: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.
"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.
To which eye witness testimony, specifically, are you referring?Popeyejones":2sckxk5l said:--bunch of stuff about testimony--
Popeyejones":3uglh0qv said:hawknation2015":3uglh0qv said: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).