Report: Johnny Manziel's ex claims he threatened to kill her and himself

[Everlong]

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/4 ... _kill_her/

All the info is here in this reddit thread, but damn. Yet another fucked up look into Manziel's life.

[The Legend]

This is horrifying and it's absolutely appalling to me that both the Dallas and Fort Worth police departments aren't filing charges against him. Reading the report he committed domestic violence, aggravated assault, kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment.

I no longer believe Manziel to be an alcoholic. I now see a young man that is a self-medicating sociopath that doesn't believe there are consequences to his actions because he's never faced consequences for his actions before. Hopefully, nobody in the NFL gives him another chance after he gets cut, because he obviously isn't mature enough to handle or deserve the privilege.

[Messiah]

This is horrifying and it's absolutely appalling to me that both the Dallas and Fort Worth police departments aren't filing charges against him. Reading the report he committed domestic violence, aggravated assault, kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment.

The only reason it is appalling to you is because you take every claim said as gospel. Just because an ex-girlfriend claims something doesn't mean there is enough, or for that matter any, evidence to charge an individual.

Fair enough if you want to believe it, I guess. I don't doubt the possibility and I would say it is more likely than unlikely, so I am in no way saying it didn't happen. But once again, we've (so not just you) just got to stop as a nation taking everything a woman (or a man if the roles were reversed) says as gospel. It's not appalling at all that charges weren't filed against him if there isn't any evidence. Bringing charges without evidence (if it wasn't thrown out immediately) would just lead to wasted time and money.

[DBSoT]

If these accusation are true then they are appalling. It also wouldn't be the first time the police have tried to protect a star athlete (I am looking at you Jameis). However, unless there is some legit evidence then the cops can't play the "he said, she said" game. They need hard evidence to charge anyone.

[Messiah]

With that said, I do think Manziel has some SERIOUS issues and I pray to God he finds (and desires) the help he needs. This is so fucking depressing to read:

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status ... 0667819008

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter 19m19 minutes ago
Johnny Manziel's dad, Paul, told Dallas Morning News, "I truly believe if they can't get him help, he won't live to see his 24th birthday."

His agent dropped him today as well. It's also being reported that Manziel's dad tried to get him admitted to a psychiatric and chemical dependency hospital.

[The Legend]

This is horrifying and it's absolutely appalling to me that both the Dallas and Fort Worth police departments aren't filing charges against him. Reading the report he committed domestic violence, aggravated assault, kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment.

The only reason it is appalling to you is because you take every claim said as gospel. Just because an ex-girlfriend claims something doesn't mean there is enough, or for that matter any, evidence to charge an individual.

Fair enough if you want to believe it, I guess. I don't doubt the possibility and I would say it is more likely than unlikely, so I am in no way saying it didn't happen. But once again, we've (so not just you) just got to stop as a nation taking everything a woman (or a man if the roles were reversed) says as gospel. It's not appalling at all that charges weren't filed against him if there isn't any evidence. Bringing charges without evidence (if it wasn't thrown out immediately) would just lead to wasted time and money.

For the record, I don't take it as gospel. I'm not convicting him over the incident right now. I'm just saying that when reports like this come out and it looks more likely than not that it happened, these cases should at least go to trial where guilt or innocence is supposed to be determined.

[Messiah]

But that is my point. You can't take something to trial that you feel won't have enough evidence to lead to a conviction. It'd be an enormous waste of time and money. Cases already get backed up as is.

[The Legend]

But that is my point. You can't take something to trial that you feel won't have enough evidence to lead to a conviction. It'd be an enormous waste of time and money. Cases already get backed up as is.

I disagree, taking cases to trial should be far more common. It bugs the hell out of me that judges and prosecutors are elected positions and because of that they drive to protect 100% conviction rates.

On a related note, yesterday Colleen Crowley received a restraining order against Johnny Manziel that says he has to stay away from her for two years. For those that don't know it's difficult to get a restraining order and you have to show a judge a history of danger to you to get one. Also, the Dallas PD have re-opened the case against Manziel and it looks like they will be filing charges against him.

[Messiah]

But that is my point. You can't take something to trial that you feel won't have enough evidence to lead to a conviction. It'd be an enormous waste of time and money. Cases already get backed up as is.

I disagree, taking cases to trial should be far more common. It bugs the hell out of me that judges and prosecutors are elected positions and because of that they drive to protect 100% conviction rates.

If you don't think there is enough evidence to lead to a conviction (and usually when you think that, that means there ISN'T enough evidence and it will not result in a conviction), then it shouldn't be taken to trial. Point blank. Trials are too expensive to waste time on cases where there isn't enough evidence to push forward. Not to mention, potential time wasted.

I get it. You want the world to be a criminal-free environment, but it simply doesn't work that way. A case without enough evidence for conviction is not a case that should be taken to trial. If they were to investigate and find enough evidence, then sure, he should get charged. Otherwise it's a waste of time and money. As it stands now, what evidence do we have that Manziel did harm to her? You can't take someone to trial simply because a woman said he did something wrong. The guy would never get convicted, especially with the kind of lawyer Manziel can afford.

[The Legend]

^^^ I find it very interesting that you needed to go to a point made by a DIRTY COP to make your point. That says really all I need to say about it.

[Messiah]

I didn't need to go find any video to make my point. You're being completely irrational/illogical in thinking that a case without enough evidence to lead to a conviction should still go to trial. If there isn't enough evidence for a conviction, why in the world would it go to trial? For shits and giggles?

Crimes happen. Criminals get away with crimes. Criminals that focus on making sure they don't leave evidence behind tend to get away with crimes more than others. It happens. It's unfortunate, but it is the way of life. This does not mean that we should start having every case brought to trial if it is extremely unlikely to lead to a conviction due to the lack of evidence. There would be no reason to. And I can't for the life of me understand what you would be looking to accomplish. What, exactly, would bringing a case without enough evidence for a conviction to trial accomplish? Denzel being a dirty cop in that movie doesn't make what he said any less true. It isn't what you know, it is what you can prove. That is a fact when it comes to the law.

Unless, of course, you think we should get rid of juries and probable cause and just convict based off what we think may have happened (aka gut feeling, intuition).

[The Legend]

:lol

I didn't need to go find any video to make my point. You're being completely irrational/illogical in thinking that a case without enough evidence to lead to a conviction should still go to trial. If there isn't enough evidence for a conviction, why in the world would it go to trial? For shits and giggles?

Crimes happen. Criminals get away with crimes. Criminals that focus on making sure they don't leave evidence behind tend to get away with crimes more than others. It happens. It's unfortunate, but it is the way of life. This does not mean that we should start having every case brought to trial if it is extremely unlikely to lead to a conviction due to the lack of evidence. There would be no reason to. And I can't for the life of me understand what you would be looking to accomplish. What, exactly, would bringing a case without enough evidence for a conviction to trial accomplish? Denzel being a dirty cop in that movie doesn't make what he said any less true. It isn't what you know, it is what you can prove. That is a fact when it comes to the law.

Unless, of course, you think we should get rid of juries and probable cause and just convict based off what we think may have happened (aka gut feeling, intuition).

The point is, until you actually go to trial you don't know if you have enough for a conviction. You should go to trial because victims deserve their day in court and the chance to see the person responsible for wronging them punished.

[BrautFan]

Everyone: there is no need to get your knickers in a twist over any one "aggie." Please. I know some personally, some are in my family, and I truly think the sub-group is nothing more than an insane cult.

Go Frogs!

[Messiah]

The point is, until you actually go to trial you don't know if you have enough for a conviction.

You can absolutely know if there is enough evidence to take a case to trial (charges get dismissed all the time because there isn't enough evidence). That is how people get charged in the first place: there is enough reason to think they might have done what they are accused of. You don't get charged based off hearsay. A case doesn't go to trial based off hearsay.

You are advocating, at least in this case, for taking cases to trial just because a woman claims something happened. That is absurd.

[Messiah]

You should go to trial because victims deserve their day in court and the chance to see the person responsible for wronging them punished.

So countless potentially innocent people should have to waste time and money in court because of baseless claims and false accusations, just because?

If you don't have the evidence for a conviction, it shouldn't go to trial. There is NO reason to charge someone and take it to trial if there isn't enough readily apparent evidence to do so. It accomplishes absolutely nothing. I have no idea what you think it accomplishes. It takes more than someone saying something to lead to a charge. There has to be some kind of evidence. Some kind of proof. Some kind of probable cause. Witnesses. Something. Anything.

If none of that exists, why would you go to trial? So the victims can waste their time in court while that person gets off without a conviction? What does that accomplish?

[BrautFan]

I see a two path algorithm here:

1. Mr. Manziel goes to trial, is proven innocent, and sings the aggie fight song afterward with glee!

2. Mr. Manziel goes to trial, becomes convicted, and still sings the aggie fight song, but with a more dirge-like tone.

The outcome will not affect an aggie's self-perception. So, whether one aggie goes to trial or not (regardless of the potential outcome)... It won't matter all that much in the grand scheme of the aggie world.

[BrautFan]

Hullabaloo, Caneck! Caneck!
Hullabaloo, Caneck! Caneck!

First Verse
All hail to dear old Texas A&M
Rally around Maroon and White
Good luck to dear old Texas Aggies
They are the boys who show the real old fight
That good old Aggie spirit thrills us
And makes us yell and yell and yell
So let’s fight for dear old Texas A&M
We’re going to beat you all to
Chig-gar-roo-gar-rem
Chig-gar-roo-gar-rem
Rough Tough! Real Stuff! Texas A&M!

Second Verse
Good-bye to texas university
So long to the orange and the white
Good luck to dear old Texas Aggies
They are the boys that show the real old fight
“The eyes of Texas are upon you . . .”
That is the song they sing so well
So good-bye to texas university
We’re going to beat you all to
Chig-gar-roo-gar-rem
Chig-gar-roo-gar-rem
Rough Tough! Real Stuff! Texas A&M!