The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Hopefully they'll put this piece of shit away for good

But his lawyer said he just witnessed the shooting, he didn't do it, the other guys did.

Yes, he described him as a young kid who didn't know what to do. C'mon...

I did not follow this as closely as I did some other high profile court cases. What I did read didn't seem to be enough to sway me from voting guilty.

I heard on the radio that the defense didn't call a lot of witnesses, which often means that you under-defend because you don't think the prosecution has adequately proved the case.  ...and defending just adds credence to it.

That whole reasonable doubt thing can easily get stretched so you never know.

Here's the interesting question... If Hernandez is found innocent of all charges, is there any chance he gets back in the NFL?

No. Ray Rice can't find work no way in hell Hernandez would

Ray Rice did something bad that he was caught for/confessed to.  And it was on video-tape.  If Hernandez is cleared of all charges, I bet you that he'll eventually show up in the NFL again.  Even though it seems everyone pretty much knows he did it, if he is found not guilty in the eyes of the law, it'd be pretty screwed up to deny him employment.

No chance in hell any team would sign him. The backlash they would get and the media circus it would create would be unbearable. Just because Herandez were to "get off" and not go to jail, in the minds of many he still did it and is guilty. Plus his off the field antics alone, even if he is found not guilty of murder, is not one of someone you want on your team or in your locker-room.

And he wouldn't be denied employment, he just wouldn't be able to work in the NFL. I'm sure there is a job out there for him. It's not a "right" to play in the NFL

I bet you could've said the same thing about Mike Vick, and he was actually convicted.

I was just about to bring up the Vick situation, when I saw that you beat me to it. I would have bet cash money that Vick would never again play in the NFL, but he somehow gained forgiveness from most of the football fans out there. Not sure it parallels Hernandez' case, but it would be interesting to see how it all plays out, should he be exonerated.

Rice is a RB on the wrong end of his career arc.  Hernandez can still contribute.

If, say, Matt Stafford were facing Hernandez' changes, a Not Guilty verdict would definitely mean he would be back in the league; QBs are too valuable to stand on principle.  But a TE is a different story.  Hernandez was not equal to Gronk or Graham, so I'm not sure if his talent would outweigh the negative PR.

Mike Vick hurt dogs. Hernandez shot and killed another human being and more than just once and has ties to violent Gangs.  It's a bad comparison

Ray Lewis?

But if he's found not guilty...

Ray Lewis didn't kill anyone. He gave misleading information to the police and denied (lied) being at the scene of a murder.

Being found not guilty and being innocent are 2 different things.

OJ was found "not guilty" but then lost a civil suit because the evidence was so overwhelming that he did kill 2 people

Do you mean all three murder charges?   Because if he walks on this one, he's going to be immediately re-arrested and charged with those other two murders from 2012.  The time to investigate those would take at least two more years.   That would wipe out four seasons for him.  Who knows what skills he will have left after that?

And if Hernandez is found not guilty, how is the result different from Ray Lewis?

Totally different. Just because the prosecution does a poor job and Hernandez walks doesn't mean he didn't do it. Lewis was never on trial for murder, he was a witness for the prosecution

You misremember (Thank you Roger Clemens, I love that word). Lewis was indeed on trial for the murder charge but took a plea deal after it started and became a witness.

It is a bad comparison, in that the general public is far more outraged about killing dogs than killing adult humans.

And yes, Lewis was originally a murder suspect but pled down in exchange for his testimony.

You can be a suspect but if the prosecution thought he was THE murderer, I doubt they'd offer him a plea deal.  They don't really do that to prime suspects.

^^^ He was more than a suspect. That is the complete wrong term. He was a co-defendant. The trial had started before he took a plea deal.

If Hernandez if found innocent of all charges, he has a second pending murder case against him.

That was understood when I posted the question. I used the phrase "found innocent of all charges" to encompass any new charges beyond the current trial.

It was obvious that Lewis didn't commit the murder, but he was a member of the group that took part in the altercation that left those two men dead.   He was there and he knew who did.  There's a reason why the prosecution cut a plea deal with him.  They knew their case against him was shaky at best.

The answer is still no. It would take a couple more years still. Too much time.

Is anyone else concerned about the length of the deliberations? This is the fifth day and I think they called it fairly early on some of the other days they went home. I'm expecting this might not go as I imagined.

If he is found not guilty on all charges both this trial and the other murder, his future in the NFL will depend on if he remained in football shape while in prison,.

moral character is pretty much irrelevant,  if he can still block, catch the ball and shed tackles he will find a team willing to let him play

I also think that people are generally less disgusted with him because he didn't target a specific group that people can rally around.  He is accused of killing other thugs...it's not defenseless women, kids, old people, animals, etc.  I just don't think people care as much.

Take Vick for example -- I wouldn't watch the Dolphins if he was on the team.  ...just wouldn't.  I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed or anything, but I just couldn't be a fan.  But Hernandez, I would find a way around it and still watch.  I'm not saying that it's consistent or right, but I can't imagine I'm alone.

^^^^ either vick or hernadez or ap or ray rice u would still watch. U might grumble for a few days,  but u would still root 4 your team.

Just the way it is

No, I wouldn't.  Honestly.  I wouldn't watch the Dolphins if Vick were on the roster.  ...no question about it.

I don't care that much about sports.  I have stopped watching things for less.  I'm a grown man with 2 kids and other things going on.  I'm looking for reasons to free up time.

So what would happen to the website?  Would you stop posting about the Dolphins here, too?

I mean, I don't remember a lot of people leaving when Lawrence Phillips was signed.

Speaking of Lawrence Philips, he made some news today
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/13/lawrence-phillips-accused-of-murdering-his-prison-cellmate/

I'd still post.  I'd still probably follow the outcome of the games and stuff that I read.  I just wouldn't stay home and watch them.

It's specifically the nature of Vick's crimes.  It's sadistic.  I think that he's beyond saving, in terms of me cheering for him.  That's just me.  I wouldn't expect anyone else to act similarly, but I can't root for my quarterback who has done things like that.  It's just too much for me.  If he was a backup corner or something, maybe I wouldn't care -- but the face of the franchise -- nope.

I really have no idea where you got this from. The worst information I have seen about any of them, Lloyd smoked some pot and Abreu & Furtado went to a night club. That doesn't even hint at them being thugs.

I'm a bit surprised on your position. It sounds like my old grumpy neighbor rather than you saying that.

I completely agree with Dave on this one.

Hell, my wife is a Bucs fan and if they draft Winston (which is looking likely) she is defecting to the Dolphins.  There were rumors at one point of Vick coming to Tampa a few years back and she said the same thing.  Now, I don't think Winston's "crimes" are nearly as arduous as Vick's, and it might stem from her love of dogs (we foster rescues) and her hate for FSU, plus Winston being an accused rapist.

Eh, I'm all over the place.  Point is, I couldn't root for the Dolphins either if Vick were our QB.  I wouldn't like Hernandez on our team, but wouldn't stop rooting for Miami either if he hypothetically ended here.

I'm with Dave as well. I couldn't root for the Fins if they added a Vick or Hernandez.

Hell it was tough for me to root for the Fins when they had Ricky a druggie loser who quit to go smoke dope only to come back when he needed a few bucks. No way I could root for Hernandez (don't care what the jury says he's guilty) or Vick or anyone on that level.

I'm not making a judgment call on any of this.  I don't mean to discount a man's life.  But I'm told that this is gang activity and this guy was Hernandez's drug dealer....the term "bluntmaster" is what I heard.

The drug dealer was the guy he shot in the face but lived. There are no charges at all in that instance. He testified in the current case.

Lloyd was the boyrfriend to the sister of Hernandez's now fiancee. He played what I would call semi-pro football and appears to have been star struck hanging with Hernandez.

There was some early and completely untrue rumors of gang activity in the Abreu and Furtado killings. The DA has come out and said the media was wrong. All reports are these were upstanding guys trying to make better lives for themselves in the US.

You have the people and facts confused. I'll give you the bluntmaster if you want to consider weed dealers as thugs. You typically like to get your facts straight so maybe this will help.

Fair point that I don't know the facts -- I don't.  But I think you're missing my point in all of this. 

I'm not talking about my specific feelings towards Hernandez; I'm just talking about what I feel is the general narrative followed by the average person.

Hernandez is seen as a thugs who is hanging out with other thugs, doing thuggy shit.  In the eyes of the general public, weed dealing is not the work of upstanding citizens, and in the eyes of most people, someone who gets killed by someone they were dealing drugs with is at least somewhat complicit in hanging around with seedy characters.

I use that to juxtapose against Vick, who did horrific, sadistic acts against defenseless animals. I just think that an altercation with a person has a lot of gray area...you don't really know what went down.  But with a child or a pet or an elderly person, you judge it differently.  That's the camp I'm in.

All I can say is: for all the bluster about Vick, I don't know of any converted Eagles or Jets fans.  So either Dolphins fans have more moral fiber than fans of those teams, or it's easy to talk about how you would quit being a fan when it's all hypothetical morality.

I don't see anyone raising the slightest stink about Suh intentionally trying to injure people after plays, and I think if MIA engineered a trade for convicted child abuser Adrian Peterson tomorrow, activity on this board next season would not be likely to decrease.

BIG difference between being a dirty player on the field in between the lines of play like Suh and taking a humans (or animals) life off the field and being a cold blooded killer.

Peterson would bother me if he was on the Fins. I think he got off real easy for what he did

Yes.

I'd still watch. Vick committed a terrible crime - though not the worst, by a longshot - and then he paid his debt to society in terms of a prison sentence, etc. It's done and it's over. There's no point in hashing it out further than what the courts did unless you want to grind an axe, IMO.

Likewise, with Peterson, I just... meh. Look, ppl have beaten their girlfriends/wives/SO's pretty badly and come back to play for the Dolphins. I seem to recall Randy McMichael beating the crap out of his wife and then coming back for the 'phins. Personally though, I'm probably numb to it bc I represent these types of ppl sometimes, tho SC's law regarding DV is just ridiculous beyond all bounds. None of this is to say that the hitting of a child with an implement is good. I'm just saying I think this is more common than one might admit, and whatever our squeamishness with the whole deal, the law can be overzealous regarding prosecution of these types of people.

Your argument is still off base then. The drug dealer was not killed. That guy has nothing to do with this except he was a witness...for the prosecution.

Hernandez allegedly killed two people he stood behind in line for a night club and an extended family member (use of the word family loosely used for today's standards of the modern family).

 Also, in general public the use and sale of weed is now considered acceptable and has been approved as a legitimate business offering in many places (and is on the way in many more).

You are confusing the victims with a witness and calling the victims thugs. You are indeed being judgmental and doing it without the correct information.

We have a winner here folks.

And being defended in our recent second most famous Dolphin competition.

I really feel like I'm being misrepresented here.  I'm speaking on behalf of the general public, from what I hear on the radio and TV about this case.  I am not knowledgeable about anything in regards to the people involved.  The media is throwing around terms like "gang activity" and "bluntmaster". 

I just feel that people are much more willing to feel sorry for dogs than the victims of Aaron Hernandez, because it's a more complicated story.

Maybe that's my fault, but if you are hearing that stuff somewhere then the case is being completely misrepresented and nothing bothers more than hearing people throw aspersions without facts. None of these victims were the "bluntmaster" or gang related at all. If people can't take the time to investigate facts enough to determine who the victims are they really don't need to be commenting. This is especially true for the media.

*Disclaimer: The "bluntmaster" was a victim of a crime by Hernandez but he did not pursue a case against him and there are no charges pending.

What was the defense I was hearing "Hernandez would never kill his bluntmaster"?  Did I hear that incorrectly?

This is a complicated story. Hernandez shot "the bluntmaster" in the past. He was shot in the face and lost an eye but never pressed charges. He never identified his shooter. We can only assume why, he was indeed a weed dealer so there is one thing. Maybe he was scared Hernandez would come back and finish him could be another. Whatever reason, he didn't until Hernandez was linked to these murders.

In the current trial, the loosely used term extended family victim, the prosecution wanted to have the bluntmaster testify about being shot. The judge ruled that they could not use this past event as evidence in his trial. The defense then went and opened the door that there is no motive in this current case because they cannot fathom why Hernandez would shoot a friend. The prosecution then went back to the judge and said the defense opened the door. We have an "eye"  ;) witness or victim if you will that survived Hernandez shooting a friend. If the defense opens the door the prosecution felt they should be able to slam it closed behind them. The judge ruled that testimony of a prior shooting still could not be heard.

So, there is really not even a defense about shooting the bluntmaster because the jury was not able to hear Hernandez had shot the bluntmaster.

What you might have heard had less to do with his current charges and was someone discussing the prosecution's motion to be able to introduce an earlier shooting. Really tough to say for sure what you may have heard or may have thought you heard.

I see.  Thanks. 

I hope the bluntmaster can still roll proper blunts with the loss of his eye.

Well it turns out after all my high grandstanding I confused the nicknames. I had not heard bluntmaster and though it referred to Bradley who was the dealer. It actually refers to Lloyd who smoked with Hernandez.

So, he did kill the bluntmaster?  That sucks.  Now his blunts are probably loose and full of seeds.

Not second most famous Dolphin, but second "favorite" Dolphin...which makes it even more applicable to this conversation.

Hernandez found GUILTY!!!

See ya Hernandez!

Now this scumbag will stay where he belongs.  I heard his ID was stolen from him and sold on eBay

Guilty... ouch.

Guy may not be standup, but man... probable life sentence at 25. I don't know that I could take it. Ugh. Makes me sick to even think about it.

The 1st degree murder statute reads as follows in Massachusetts, as best as I could find:

Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree. Murder which does not appear to be in the first degree is murder in the second degree. Petit treason shall be prosecuted and punished as murder. The degree of murder shall be found by the jury.

I don't know that that was proven... no one knows who pulled the trigger. My understanding is that you don't have to know for sure, but... we don't know who did it, and we never will, and man... just not very satisfied by this verdict.

The worst feeling in the world is the go all out on a trial (as this attorney did) and come up with nothing.

^^^The attorney's defense for Hernandez was that he was at the scene of the crime, he just didn't commit the crime. Not exactly the best  defense in my book. Combine that with his Fiancee's testimony and and you don't need to be Scooby Doo to solve this mystery. Hernandez is guilty.

I just saw the jury on ESPN and this is where they came up with guilty of first degree. They said there were varying reasons why they thought this but all agreed it was extreme or cruel.

Sometimes the only defense is not the best defense. The prosecution had proven he was there beyond a reasonable doubt, but not that his hand was on the trigger. Wrong place, wrong time. And no motive. Hey man, makes sense to me.

The fiancee's testimony was damaging, but I don't know too much about her credibility.


I guess shooting someone is extremely ferocious or cruel. But who shot the guy? It just kills me. No one knows. That's reasonable doubt.

And sometimes you are just guilty!

I may be wrong and it may vary by state, you would know best. You really don't need to prove who pulled the trigger to fight reasonable doubt. You don't even have to prove he was there. Charles Manson is a perfect example if you ask me. The guy wasn't even present.

They had video of Hernandez walking into his house with a Glock 45 in his hand right after the murder took place. The victim was shot with a Glock 45.

No sir, absolutely not. You are proven[/i] guilty. The testimony in this case puts him there that night, but again, THAT'S IT.



You're right, it depends.

Murder generally breaks down like this.

Murder 1: with intent to kill, premeditation or other aggravating factors
Murder 2: murder with intent to kill or severely harm, but with no premeditation/aggravating factors
Murder 3: "homicide by child abuse" in certain situations and "reckless/depraved heart" murder, which means you were so utterly careless with someone else's life, but had no intent to kill them.
Murder 4: aka "felony murder" you did not murder anyone, but a murder occurred and you participated in it in some non-homicidal way (very controversial - you could loan someone a car knowing they may use it to get away from a murder and you could still be charged with this)
Voluntary Manslaughter: Murder provoked by the eventual victim, but provocation doesn't rise to the level of triggering self defense
Involuntary Manslaughter: accidentally killing someone in a negligent way, but not a reckless way (reckless would be like pointing your loaded gun at someone while you clean the trigger of said gun, negligent would be something more like failing to assure that they were buckled in during a traffic incident or something similar thereto).

I've read that there may be Massachusetts law (cases) that say you don't have to prove he pulled the trigger, that's fine. They didn't. But the problem would be this: what if someone else pulled that trigger?

I can certainly see a charge of felony murder in this circumstance, and he would almost certainly be guilty of that: the defense admitted as much, as far as i can see. But murder first? Again, what if someone else pulled that trigger? it just... it doesn't seem to fit.

Charles Manson was convicted of murder under a california law similar to one we have here. "Hand of one is the hand of all" meaning, in the event that there was a conspiracy to murder someone, and one of the conspirators does it, then, all of the individuals can be found guilty of the murder. I don't think that exists in Mass, but I have no idea.

Unknown if he fired it. Did the video show him holding a glock? Was it identified in trial? I thought the video was fairly blurry.

Again, that's the problem - who shot that gun?

The manufacturer identified the gun in the video as a Glock .45. He was admittedly at the scene of the crime. When he got home, he had his fiancee dispose of the gun. I think that's pretty darn incriminating.

Didn't know the manufacturer identified it. My understanding was that the fiancee disposed of a box which she didn't know the contents of. Seems incriminating, but, he could've just been cleaning up for his friends' murders.

Again, that's the central nerve for me. We don't know who pulled the trigger and we also know that there's really not a motive for hernandez to do so.

Remember, reasonable doubt is this:

"that which would cause a reasonable man to pause before acting."

It's not that you wouldn't act, but that you would pause before acting.

Anyway, so what does that boil down to? Well, imagine I appear in front of you with a cup full of M&Ms. There's at least 100 M&Ms in the cup. I say I'll give you 5000$ to chew and swallow an M&M, but that one of them is poisoned with cyanide, and if you eat it, you will surely die.

Do you pause before taking one and eating it?

If you do, you have reasonable doubt regarding the M&Ms, and you would have it here too. I just think you definitely have reasonable doubt here.

I understand reasonable doubt and our legal system just fine. I've been on juries before and understand the instructions given to the jury by a judge.

The fact is the prosecution called 132 witnesses, the defense called 3. The defense admitted that Hernandez was at the scene of the crime and tried to portray him as a young man who was just going along for the ride. If that is the best they could do, then there must be a reason why.

And why was he the one holding the gun when they got back to the house if someone else pulled the trigger? If you own a gun, do you let someone borrow to shoot someone else? That's pretty stupid.

And then the gun magically disappears?

Given all of the information I have received about this case, I wouldn't have paused. And I actually liked Hernandez as a player before all this happened.

These jurors spent 8 weeks listening to testimony and 1 week deliberating on a verdict. They were provided with all of the information and counter information to connect the dots and make a decision. More information and context than either you or I have. If they took one week to consider this, it doesn't seem to me like they took it lightly.

He did it, he's guilty. He had a fair trial.The evidence was overwhelming that he did it. The jury took their time and looked at all of the evidence.  He got convicted and was found guilty.

You are trying to spin this. Bottom line, he did the crime. He got caught. And now he will spend the rest of his life in jail. Nuff said. Not gonna feel sorry for a guy who killed multiple human beings.

While it isn't evidence that could be used in court, I've heard two possible motives for him to kill Oden so we really don't know there isn't a motive.

^ What were the motives you heard?

One of them is that Lloyd knew about the 2012 murders that Hernandez committed and was going to spill his guts to the police

One was the double murder. I don't buy that one as much. If Lloyd was going to the police on Hernandez, why would he have allowed himself to get  into a car late night like that?

The other was that Hernandez had been disrespected by Lloyd during a nightclub argument. I personally buy that one a bit more.

All the shootings Hernandez were accused of had that aspect to them. Bradley, the dealer, was shot after an argument about the tab at a strip club and his insistence on going back to get his cell. Abreu and Furtado were shot apparently from an argument stemming from a spilled drink. Hernandez just seems like a guy who flies off the handle and pulls out a gun. It doesn't seem like an execution shooting to me because they left too much evidence. There was no plan of cleanup. It feels like an in the moment shooting to me.

Not if you drove the guy there knowing full well that he was going to be shot even if you weren't going to be doing the shooting.

Lloyd wasn't just shot once. He was shot 6 times. That's where the "cruel" part played into this it was reported

You're a defense attorney's wet dream. If Hernandez drove to the site knowing that the guy was gonna die there, then it doesn't matter one bit whether he pulled the trigger or not.

Not sure why she would defect, considering their getting one of the two best QB prospects to come out of college in a long long time.  Considering all Jameis did was steal crab legs and shout vulgarities in public (the latter of which isn't even a crime), I'd take him in a heartbeat if I was Jason Licht.   Don't even think about labelling him a rapist because I don't believe he raped that girl.  He was investigated, and cleared by three different entities and the girl kept changing her story.  Now she's filed suit against him.  It all looks like a money grab to me. 

The Bucs have the skill players in position for Jameis to put up big numbers.  But unless they want to end up like the 2013 Dolphins, they need to rebuild that O-Line.

Unfortunately, you don't realize the irony of your statement.

SCFinfan is a defense attorney, and there's an awful lot of laymen in this thread trying to explain to him how the law works.

Have to admit that I was getting a bit of a chuckle out of that as well. I'm up for arguing (read: debating, having a heated discussion with) SCFinfan on a lot of things, but the letter of the law is definitely not one of them. ;)

Well that explains a lot. Guess if I were an attorney I'd be a prosecutor. I'm all for innocent until proven guilty but I don't have to see you fire the weapon to have no doubt you participated in his murder.

That's the point. Just because there isn't video of the actual defendant committing the crime doesn't mean he didn't do it! The evidence here was overwhelming that he was guilty and the jury got it right.

Nov. 25, 2012: A woman calls 911 to report that there are two men on a bike path on the Florida State University campus with what appears to be a black, long-barreled pistol. Police respond and draw their guns as they approach Jameis Winston and his roommate and teammate, Chris Casher, and ultimately handcuff them. The two tell the officer they were shooting at squirrels with a pellet gun, and they are released without charges being filed.

Nov. 25, 2012: A few hours after the incident on the bike path, Winston, Casher and two other Florida State players, Mario Edwards and Kenneth “P.J.” Williams, allegedly engage in a BB- and pellet-gun battle at their apartment house, inflicting an estimated $4,000 in damage. Management at the apartment house declines to press criminal charges after an FSU athletic official vows that the players will pay for the damage.

Dec. 7, 2012: Winston is accused of raping a woman at his off-campus apartment. The woman reports the assault to police that day and five weeks later calls a detective and identifies Winston as her attacker after seeing him in a class. Tallahassee police drop the investigation, contending the woman has refused to cooperate, then revive it nine months later and sent it to State Attorney Willie Meggs. Meggs conducts a new investigation but concludes that there is not enough evidence to file criminal charges. Winston’s lawyer contends the sexual encounter was consensual.  The U.S. Department of Education later launches a federal investigation of the school’s handling of the incident after questions arise about whether Florida State followed the provisions of Title IX, and in August 2014 the school launches an investigation of Winston under the student code of conduct.

July 21, 2013: Winston is accused of entering a Burger King in Tallahassee and helping himself to soda from the fountain machine without paying for it. A restaurant employee later tells police she gave Winston a cup of water but that he poured the water out and helped himself to several cups of soda despite her objections. No charges are filed.

April 29, 2014: Winston is accused of stealing $32.72 worth of crab legs from a Tallahassee supermarket. He is given a civil citation that allows him to perform community service and is suspended from the FSU baseball team until he completes that work. Winston tells police he “forgot” to pay for the crab legs and publicly apologizes.

May 20, 2014: Winston is expected at a code-of-conduct hearing for Chris Casher and Ronald Darby, two FSU teammates who alleged the witnessed a portion of the sexual encounter involving the quarterback and the woman who accused him of rape. They are both accused of violating school rules. Winston does not show up for the hearing, and his lawyer contends that no one from the school ever asked him to be there – something that is disputed by attorneys involved in the process. However, FSU officials later acknowledge that they have no way to force a witness to attend a code-of-conduct hearing.

Sept. 16, 2014: Winston is seen by several students jumping up on a table on campus and screaming a sexually charged expletive-laced phrase that was made popular on the internet. FSU head football coach Jimbo Fisher suspends Winston for the first half of the team’s upcoming game with Clemson, and school officials vow that he will be subject to “internal discipline” – most likely under the school’s code of conduct. Winston apologizes.

Oct. 13, 2014: ESPN reports that FSU's compliance department is investigating whether Winston accepted money in exchange for autographs. The university's athletic director issues a statement on Oct. 17, explaining that the compliance staff looking into whether Jameis Winston accepted unauthorized benefits for his autograph has "no information indicating that he accepted payment for items reported to bear his signature, thereby compromising his athletics eligibility."

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/jameis-winston-incidents-timeline-091714 (http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/jameis-winston-incidents-timeline-091714)

Where there's smoke, there's fire.  That's a long list of stupid shit for any one person to do.  At the very worst, he's a rapist.  At the very best, he's a giant douche bag.  Easy to abandon ship when the face of your franchise has a rap sheet like this.

But he wasn't charged with participating in the murder.  He was charged with actually committing the murder (murder 1).  Since he was clearly acting as part of a group, either everyone in that group should also be getting murder 1 charges, or the prosecution believed that Hernandez was the trigger man.  That's what's unproven.

It's just like with the Laci Peterson or Caylee Anthony cases... you can think there's been a murder all you want, but unless you find a body, you haven't actually proven that a murder has occurred.

The entire group was charged with murder, eventually. The prosecution has never set out to prove there was a single "trigger" man I don't believe. They are all going to go down on this one.

And all of it was petty shit.  What a lot of the major media outlets aren't saying is that the girl changed her story several times.  And that's why the police dropped the investigation at some point.  As for the autographs, it turns out a lot of those signatures that were sold for money were forgeries.    Where were the media outlets to stand up for this kid when that came out?

The BB gun incident, soda incident, and crab leg theft were all petty stuff compared to what some guys who still play in the NFL have done.  And the shouting vulgarities isn't even a crime last I checked.  This kid has amazing field vision and an uncanny ability to make precision throws into extrmely tight windows.  He blew everyone away at the Scouting Combine and at the Pro Day.  There's a reason why Lovie Smith brought in Dirk Koetter as his offensive coordinator and not Marc Trestman.  He wants a traditional pro style QB to run his offense, not a running spread option QB.  Not very many of those have had success in the NFL.

He's still a douchebag. That's my point. When the face of your franchise does this kind of stuff it's differemt then say a TE. QBs are leaders. His actions make him anything but one.

I'd say he's far from a douchebag.  From what I can see, he's a goofy immature kid who was just having fun.  That doesn't justify what he did wrong, but if that's the extent of what he did, I can live with him being the face of the franchise.  Especially when he starts hitting Vincent Jackson on those fades to the end zone. 

Here's a really good article on him that gives you some insight into who he really is.

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12662957/officials-scouts-watching-jameis-winston-every-move-2015-nfl-draft

It's more like when you go to bed and there's no snow on the ground and when you wake up there is snow on the ground. You don't have to see it snow to know that while you were sleeping it snowed. Hernandez would have you believe that it's possible that someone came in and covered the ground with snow. It's certainly possible, but unless you got some reason to believe that happened, it's not reasonable.

that is a classic DA closing argument (used in New England,  more than Miami)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/aaron-hernandez-allegedly-involved-prison-fight-law-enforcement/story?id=31144864

Aaron is keeping it real in prison. Involved in a 2-on-1 fight and got a tattoo of the "Bloods" gang sign

When keeping it real goes wrong.

I had always heard he was a Latin King.

Given his life choices and throwing away a lifetime of riches, I believe he is actually a member of the Incredible Dumbasses.

A very dangerous gang...