Dwyer Arrested?

[jeffgt14]

Because it shows that he loves his wife and can't imagine living without her?

Seriously, I'm not taking sides here. I haven't looked at all the evidence, and I haven't seen JD's side of the story. I just disagree with the tendency to try people in the court of public opinion before all the facts have been vetted and presented.

Some of the same people judging Dwyer as guilty probably judged Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin death differently before and after all the data came out.

I'm not rushing to any judgement on him. I'm simply reading the police report and it doesn't look good on Dwyer's side. Some of his actions that have been proven already such as punching walls, sending suicidal texts, admitting to hiding from the police... all seem to line up well with the events in her story. You aren't going to get any concrete evidence in this case unless there was a video or credible witnesses that saw the whole thing. You have to piece the evidence together to determine what happened and so far the evidence isn't good for Dwyer.

 

[John]

Gents, this discussion is starting to get a bit too heated. Keep in mind that there's nothing that we can say or do here that will alter the investigation. I'm sure the police and the prosecutor/attorneys will sort this out one way or another. It's not anyone's job here to convince someone else of their opinion.

Also... it sucks that this thread is related to Georgia Tech football and I'm sad for Dwyer and his family.

 

[cyptomcat]

Because it shows that he loves his wife and can't imagine living without her?

Seriously, I'm not taking sides here. I haven't looked at all the evidence, and I haven't seen JD's side of the story. I just disagree with the tendency to try people in the court of public opinion before all the facts have been vetted and presented.

Some of the same people judging Dwyer as guilty probably judged Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin death differently before and after all the data came out.

I defended Zimmerman. Reading the police report was enough for me to be able to defend Zimmerman. Same in this case, I read Eric's link of police report and its summary, and it looks bad for Dwyer.

With that said, I had problem with animal about this statement: "If she admitted to biting his lip....she should have been charged as well.......typical example of the one way street that DV takes....especially in the media". Do you think someone should be charged with assault if they are allegedly defending themselves from sexual assault or rape?

 

[AE 87]

I'm not rushing to any judgement on him. I'm simply reading the police report and it doesn't look good on Dwyer's side. Some of his actions that have been proven already such as punching walls, sending suicidal texts, admitting to hiding from the police... all seem to line up well with the events in her story. You aren't going to get any concrete evidence in this case unless there was a video or credible witnesses that saw the whole thing. You have to piece the evidence together to determine what happened and so far the evidence isn't good for Dwyer.

I'm not going to argue with you. The "facts" coming out of Sanford, Florida and out of Fergusson, Missouri for the first few days of reporting ended up not being entirely stable. That's all I'm saying. You could be right or more facts might bring more light.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

That's not true, the old DCS would have said something like, "Maybe she took his donuts" which is extremely inappropriate, both in attacking a former player and making light of a charge of domestic violence. That's why I, for one, am glad that the old DCS doesn't post here anymore.

How right you are. Not only that, but the old DCS would have found this humorous:

First we have the running back that beat his wife.

Then we had the running back who beat his kid.

Undeterred, we had a third RB who beat his wife and kid in the same incident.

If I am a dog who happens to be the pet of an NFL RB that is married with kids, I am laying real low right now, and staying really quiet.

Smh..... the new DCS finds it detestable.

 

[jeffgt14]

I'm not going to argue with you. The "facts" coming out of Sanford, Florida and out of Fergusson, Missouri for the first few days of reporting ended up not being entirely stable. That's all I'm saying. You could be right or more facts might bring more light.

That's why I've only stated the facts that he's admitted to himself.

 

[cyptomcat]

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter 12m
Cardinals placing RB Jonathan Dwyer on reserve, non-football illness, per source, meaning they'll have option not to pay him.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I defended Zimmerman. Reading the police report was enough for me to be able to defend Zimmerman. Same in this case, I read Eric's link of police report and its summary, and it looks bad for Dwyer.

With that said, I had problem with animal about this statement: "If she admitted to biting his lip....she should have been charged as well.......typical example of the one way street that DV takes....especially in the media". Do you think someone should be charged with assault if they are allegedly defending themselves from sexual assault or rape?

Cyptom, clearly sexual assault and rape are terrible and vicious crimes but we also tend to think of those as a predator abducting women and dragging them into alleys or forests. Assault and rape can happen within marriages, even just on dates. But these contexts are one's that take more judiciousness in determining what happened as opposed to the strange vicious predator.

I was struck by her description of Dwyer's behavior as possibly coming from a motive of attempting to end an argument or defuse it by sexual advances. You know the old idea of "kiss and make up"? We both know that this is supposed to happen after the argument. But I do not find it a stretch to think Dwyer, using poor judgment, or maybe based on past ways he resolved arguments with his wife, trying to use intimacy and kisses to calm her anger. It is very hard to know the dynamic between two people in a marriage or relationship. Men can have a tendency to treat an angry woman more like a child in a tantrum that needs more physical restraint; where by "physical restraint" I mean "hugging it out" like when someone holds a child (in a hug) until the struggling child relaxes. Or men can see a woman's anger as "cute" and be drawn to try and hug and kiss them when that is the last thing the woman wants. These are misjudgments and mistakes but not necessarily attempts at sexual assault or rape.

Do I know my scenario for how the physical contact started is correct? Of course not. I do notice there are two days of arguing mentioned in the report including a claim of a punch to the face. I just mention this possible interpretation of motives as a reason to remain level-headed because the psychology of the two people here is a large unknown. It seems pretty clear that Dwyer has at least in these arguments shown some serious manic and possibly depression induced anger.

My point is to caution against strong judgments based on the abstract notion of "self-defense against sexual assault or rape" where of course everyone, even Animal I bet, would accept any means of self-defense as justified. Arguments in the abstract over principles and then seeing how exactly they fit into facts, or claims of fact, as they are available to us are two different discussions to have.

Animal seems to be coming from the point of view of a personal experience that influences his rhetoric on the issue but I think his intent has primarily aimed at avoiding a rush to judgment.

 

[forensicbuzz]

It appears there will be enough corroborating witnesses to back up her/his story, if they differ. If she has a fracture in her nose, obviously, there was a doctor involved. If the neighbors were truly involved, there will be other witnesses. Either way, it doesn't do either party any good for this to be tried in the court of public opinion. If he didn't really do this and it's all about custody, she's either crazy or stupid because it's going to sink his NFL career and that big pay check. Either way, she's in a safe environment now and over time the details will be revealed.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I could add, rushes to judgment are never advisable. These can happen in both directions. There are enough Duke Lacrosse incidents as well as authentic "blaming a victim" scenarios to make both sides feel passionately justified in rushing around but they will both still just be rushing around as a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[jeffgt14]

Cyptom, clearly sexual assault and rape are terrible and vicious crimes but we also tend to think of those as a predator abducting women and dragging them into alleys or forests. Assault and rape can happen within marriages, even just on dates. But these contexts are one's that take more judiciousness in determining what happened as opposed to the strange vicious predator.

I was struck by her description of Dwyer's behavior as possibly coming from a motive of attempting to end an argument or defuse it by sexual advances. You know the old idea of "kiss and make up"? We both know that this is supposed to happen after the argument. But I do not find it a stretch to think Dwyer, using poor judgment, or maybe based on past ways he resolved arguments with his wife, trying to use intimacy and kisses to calm her anger. It is very hard to know the dynamic between two people in a marriage or relationship. Men can have a tendency to treat an angry woman more like a child in a tantrum that needs more physical restraint; where by "physical restraint" I mean "hugging it out" like when someone holds a child (in a hug) until the struggling child relaxes. Or men can see a woman's anger as "cute" and be drawn to try and hug and kiss them when that is the last thing the woman wants. These are misjudgments and mistakes but not necessarily attempts at sexual assault or rape.

Do I know my scenario for how the physical contact started is correct? Of course not. I do notice there are two days of arguing mentioned in the report including a claim of a punch to the face. I just mention this possible interpretation of motives as a reason to remain level-headed because the psychology of the two people here is a large unknown. It seems pretty clear that Dwyer has at least in these arguments shown some serious manic and possibly depression induced anger.

My point is to caution against strong judgments based on the abstract notion of "self-defense against sexual assault or rape" where of course everyone, even Animal I bet, would accept any means of self-defense as justified. Arguments in the abstract over principles and then seeing how exactly they fit into facts, or claims of fact, as they are available to us are two different discussions to have.

Animal seems to be coming from the point of view of a personal experience that influences his rhetoric on the issue but I think his intent has primarily aimed at avoiding a rush to judgment.

You summed up my thoughts pretty well.

 

[cyptomcat]

They can replace him by signing Chris Rainey from the practice squad who was also arrested for domestic violence.

they already cut Rainey

 

[cyptomcat]

@Bruce Wayne, isn't it also a 'rush to judgment' when someone says that Dwyer's wife should be charged for assault? The same claim of 'not all facts are known' applies there too. Especially when it was allegedly defense against an unwanted forceful sexual advance.

 

[GT Man]

Man, I'm so sick of this crap. Sports used to be a great way to get away from the real world for a while. Now you turn on the radio and hear legal jargon and disciplinarian actions. It sucks big time.

 

[cyptomcat]

In the police arrest report, the officer checked boxes for "Prior history of DV" and "Frequency/intensity of DV increasing" for the defendant. Does anyone know if this indicates a previous case or is it just referring to the current case being discussed?

Link:

 

[Bruce Wayne]

@Bruce Wayne, isn't it also a 'rush to judgment' when someone says that Dwyer's wife should be charged for assault? The same claim of 'not all facts are known' applies there too. Especially when it was allegedly defense against an unwanted forceful sexual advance.

Depends on what motivated Animal's comment I think. I just looked back at his original comment and Animal actually does not say much and so I think you filled in his premises one way and I went another way. I actually read him as saying that the complainant admitted to a form of physical assault and so Animal (given where he is clearly coming from) meant it looks muddled enough that he thinks both parties should be suspected of assault until it is all sorted out. I read him that way in part because he did not say "Dwyer should not have been arrested" or at least I did not take that as a hidden premise of his post.

You put emphasis on the report suggesting that the order of events in her words makes the biting defense against some form of sexual assault. I suppose I was splitting the middle between both your and Animal's reactions by pointing out that her account starts with having an argument and then Dwyer trying to kiss and "remove" (I took that to mean not tear or rip off) her clothes. Her account thus struck me as more indicative of Dwyer seriously miscalculating her anger and the state of the argument that they were in and so making a very ill-advised attempt to defuse the situation by intimacy. He may very well have been in an enraged state and it was attempted (or even aggravated) sexual assault.

So on your part I bolded out what I based my response on. That doesn't mean that Animal is not equally capable of a rush to judge in defense of the accused male husband/assailant. I just didn't happen to read him that way. Looking back at his posts he actually didn't give us a lot to go on and I defaulted to a charitable reading (I think).

 

[Animal02]

@Bruce Wayne, isn't it also a 'rush to judgment' when someone says that Dwyer's wife should be charged for assault? The same claim of 'not all facts are known' applies there too. Especially when it was allegedly defense against an unwanted forceful sexual advance.

The spin you but on things makes your rush to judgement all to obvious. And yes, unless she was pinned down and could otherwise not flee, she should be charged for her admitted assault.

 

[Animal02]

Depends on what motivated Animal's comment I think. I just looked back at his original comment and Animal actually does not say much and so I think you filled in his premises one way and I went another way. I actually read him as saying that the complainant admitted to a form of physical assault and so Animal (given where he is clearly coming from) meant it looks muddled enough that he thinks both parties should be suspected of assault until it is all sorted out. I read him that way in part because he did not say "Dwyer should not have been arrested" or at least I did not take that as a hidden premise of his post.

You put emphasis on the report suggesting that the order of events in her words makes the biting defense against some form of sexual assault. I suppose I was splitting the middle between both your and Animal's reactions by pointing out that her account starts with having an argument and then Dwyer trying to kiss and "remove" (I took that to mean not tear or rip off) her clothes. Her account thus struck me as more indicative of Dwyer seriously miscalculating her anger and the state of the argument that they were in and so making a very ill-advised attempt to defuse the situation by intimacy. He may very well have been in an enraged state and it was attempted (or even aggravated) sexual assault.

So on your part I bolded out what I based my response on. That doesn't mean that Animal is not equally capable of a rush to judge in defense of the accused male husband/assailant. I just didn't happen to read him that way. Looking back at his posts he actually didn't give us a lot to go on and I defaulted to a charitable reading (I think).

I think I made myself clear when I posted.....I agree that until all the details come out and both sides have their say, there should not be any judgements made.
And then I was judged based on my old college nickname....."Anyway, it's time to stop arguing about domestic violence with someone who calls himself 'an animal"......that put further responses clearly into perspective.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

In the police arrest report, the officer checked boxes for "Prior history of DV" and "Frequency/intensity of DV increasing" for the defendant. Does anyone know if this indicates a previous case or is it just referring to the current case being discussed?

Link:

Since the officer who filled out those documents does not list any prior arrests for DV (or prior arrests at all) then I incline to read the later checkmarks for prior history and increasing intensity as based on the testimony from the complainant about these incidents. The report does describe 2 distinct arguments turned into fights over the course of two days. That may be enough for the officer to mark both those boxes.

I wonder if they did run a check on Dwyer through some databases to get arrest history from other residences or not? Those sections don't say "n/a" they are simply blank.

But it seems to me they would have something listed there to which those checked boxes could refer if there were more reported incidents other than these 2 days of fights.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think I made myself clear when I posted.....I agree that until all the details come out and both sides have their say, there should not be any judgements made.
And then I was judged based on my old college nickname....."Anyway, it's time to stop arguing about domestic violence with someone who calls himself 'an animal"......that put further responses clearly into perspective.

Ok, (should I say it DCS?) so now you and Cyptom can "kiss and make up" so John will not have to fear where this thread will go?

I know, way too soon!