Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Michael Bennett
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=111599
Page 1 of 5

Author:  Franky T [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Michael Bennett

Eagles defensive end Michael Bennett was indicted by a grand jury today in Houston on a felony charge of injury of the elderly, stemming from an incident at last year’s Super Bowl.

Bennett, who played for the Seahawks at the time and was attending the Patriots-Falcons Super Bowl as a spectator while his brother Martellus Bennett played for the Patriots, is accused of rushing the field after the game and pushing a 66-year-old paraplegic woman who was working at the stadium.

According to the indictment, Bennett was told he couldn’t access the field from the place where he was trying to gain entry, and instead of complying he pushed the woman aside, injuring her.

There is no word on the nature of the woman’s injuries, and there has been no explanation about why it took 13 months for charges to be brought.

It is unclear whether the Seahawks and Eagles knew about the incident when Bennett was traded from Seattle to Philadelphia last week.

The NFL could discipline Bennett under the league’s personal conduct policy, regardless of the outcome of the criminal case.

Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo called Eagles defensive end Michael Bennett’s shove of a 66-year-old paraplegic “pretty pathetic.” A warrant has been issued for Bennett’s arrest.

A Houston grand jury indicted Bennett on a felony charge of injury of the elderly, stemming from an incident at last year’s Super Bowl. The charge carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

“I think it’s pretty pathetic that you would put your hands on a 66-year-old paraplegic and just treat them like they don’t exist,” Acevedo said, via FOX Q13.

The woman, a stadium employee, sprained a shoulder after Bennett shoved her while trying to rush the field after the game, Acevedo said. Bennett, then with the Seahawks, is a Houston native who was at the game to watch his brother, Martellus, who played with the Patriots at the time.

“He said, ‘You all must not know who I am,'” Acevedo said of Michael Bennett. “‘I could own this [expletive]. I’m going onto the field whether you like it or not.'”

The Eagles released a statement Friday afternoon: “We are aware of the situation involving Michael Bennett and are in the process of gathering more information. Because this is an ongoing legal matter, we will have no further comment at this time.”


From ProFootballTalk.

Author:  badrogue17 [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Did he levy racism charges against all stadium workers yet ? Also :lol: :lol: :lol: @ Julie defending this piece of shit because she interviewed him once and now has gained endless insight into his soul and what a great guy he is . Not like that Patrick Kane at all.

Author:  ZephMarshack [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

The Houston police department deserves the DBOTW. This is either completely trumped up or a sign of gross incompetence given both the "witness" officer not doing anything in the moment and the department not doing anything for 14 months.

Author:  Franky T [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

ZephMarshack wrote:
The Houston police department deserves the DBOTW. This is either completely trumped up or a sign of gross incompetence given both the "witness" officer not doing anything in the moment and the department not doing anything for 14 months.

Denied. A 6'4" 270 pound professional football player pushed a 66-year-old paraplegic.

Author:  ZephMarshack [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Franky T wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
The Houston police department deserves the DBOTW. This is either completely trumped up or a sign of gross incompetence given both the "witness" officer not doing anything in the moment and the department not doing anything for 14 months.

Denied. A 6'4" 270 pound professional football player pushed a 66-year-old paraplegic.

Surely this had to have been caught on film and/or had multiple eyewitnesses outside the officer who couldn't be bothered to actually do anything about it, right?

Author:  Franky T [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

ZephMarshack wrote:
Franky T wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
The Houston police department deserves the DBOTW. This is either completely trumped up or a sign of gross incompetence given both the "witness" officer not doing anything in the moment and the department not doing anything for 14 months.

Denied. A 6'4" 270 pound professional football player pushed a 66-year-old paraplegic.

Surely this had to have been caught on film and/or had multiple eyewitnesses outside the officer who couldn't be bothered to actually do anything about it, right?

I don't know. There was enough evidence for a felony indictment.

Author:  ZephMarshack [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Based on the testimony of cops and only cops who for some reason couldn't be bothered to actually do anything when this allegedly transpired.

Author:  Franky T [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

ZephMarshack wrote:
Based on the testimony of cops and only cops who for some reason couldn't be bothered to actually do anything when this allegedly transpired.

And likely the 66 year-old handicapped women who suffered a sprained shoulder.

Author:  Don Tiny [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Franky T wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
Franky T wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
The Houston police department deserves the DBOTW. This is either completely trumped up or a sign of gross incompetence given both the "witness" officer not doing anything in the moment and the department not doing anything for 14 months.

Denied. A 6'4" 270 pound professional football player pushed a 66-year-old paraplegic.

Surely this had to have been caught on film and/or had multiple eyewitnesses outside the officer who couldn't be bothered to actually do anything about it, right?

I don't know. There was enough evidence for a felony indictment.

How much evidence does there need to be to get one? I'm not arguing either side, I just don't know and I presume you could characterize it in a way that a mope like me might understand. And to prevent you from making the joke, because I'm a jerk, I do realize it's on a case by case basis. :D

Author:  Franky T [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Don Tiny wrote:
Franky T wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
Franky T wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
The Houston police department deserves the DBOTW. This is either completely trumped up or a sign of gross incompetence given both the "witness" officer not doing anything in the moment and the department not doing anything for 14 months.

Denied. A 6'4" 270 pound professional football player pushed a 66-year-old paraplegic.

Surely this had to have been caught on film and/or had multiple eyewitnesses outside the officer who couldn't be bothered to actually do anything about it, right?

I don't know. There was enough evidence for a felony indictment.

How much evidence does there need to be to get one? I'm not arguing either side, I just don't know and I presume you could characterize it in a way that a mope like me might understand. And to prevent you from making the joke, because I'm a jerk, I do realize it's on a case by case basis. :D

Enough for them to determine that there exists probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. In this case causing injury to an elderly, handicapped woman. Granted, it is completely a one-sided affair as only the prosecutor presents evidence. And even is his actions don't rise to the level of a crime in the end, they certainly seem to be worthy of a douchebag nomination.

Author:  Don Tiny [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

10-4 ... thanks kindly.

Author:  ZephMarshack [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Franky T wrote:
Enough for them to determine that there exists probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. In this case causing injury to an elderly, handicapped woman. Granted, it is completely a one-sided affair as only the prosecutor presents evidence. And even is his actions don't rise to the level of a crime in the end, they certainly seem to be worthy of a douchebag nomination.

I take it you're unfamiliar with the unfortunately commonplace notion that a motivated DA could indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to?

Also do you agree that the police department's utter inaction also is worthy of a DBOTW nomination, as I suggested above?

Author:  Don Tiny [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

ZephMarshack wrote:
Franky T wrote:
Enough for them to determine that there exists probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. In this case causing injury to an elderly, handicapped woman. Granted, it is completely a one-sided affair as only the prosecutor presents evidence. And even is his actions don't rise to the level of a crime in the end, they certainly seem to be worthy of a douchebag nomination.

I take it you're unfamiliar with the unfortunately commonplace notion that a motivated DA could indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to?

Also do you agree that the police department's utter inaction also is worthy of a DBOTW nomination, as I suggested above?

Maybe it's unintentional but you're coming across as someone with a personal vested interest in this case and you're on the knife's edge of going berserk over it.

Author:  pittmike [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Yeah no offense but does Bennet need a white knight?

Author:  ZephMarshack [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Don Tiny wrote:
Maybe it's unintentional but you're coming across as someone with a personal vested interest in this case and you're on the knife's edge of going berserk over it.

I watched the police chief's press conference and could smell the bullshit emanating from the screen, so yes I'm a bit peeved at the credulity that appears to be being extended here for little reason. This is literally turning on the testimony of a single officer with no other witnesses or video AT THE SUPER BOWL who chose not to intervene and whose own department chose not to investigate this heinous felonious assault of a senior citizen until September, most coincidentally shortly after Bennett complained about another police department. Even if Bennett did what he was actually accused of, I still fail to see why nothing was done at the Super Bowl and why this was only investigated after he just so happened to be speaking out about cops.

Author:  Regular Reader [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

This doesn't seem to pass the smell test, certainly not 14 months after the alleged incident.

It's a bit amusing that Bennett got the rich/famous guy treatment, until he publicly talked about his personal allegations of police abuse.

Author:  Don Tiny [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

ZephMarshack wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
Maybe it's unintentional but you're coming across as someone with a personal vested interest in this case and you're on the knife's edge of going berserk over it.

I watched the police chief's press conference and could smell the bullshit emanating from the screen, so yes I'm a bit peeved at the credulity that appears to be being extended here for little reason. This is literally turning on the testimony of a single officer with no other witnesses or video AT THE SUPER BOWL who chose not to intervene and whose own department chose not to investigate this heinous felonious assault of a senior citizen until September, most coincidentally shortly after Bennett complained about another police department. Even if Bennett did what he was actually accused of, I still fail to see why nothing was done at the Super Bowl and why this was only investigated after he just so happened to be speaking out about cops.

Okay, I suppose that's a fair question ... that's why I asked Franky T, one of our board's fine lawyers, to characterize for me how easy or difficult getting an indictment was. Whether it seems fair or not to seek one in this case is a separate discussion as to what's involved in getting one in a more general sense.

Author:  Don Tiny [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Regular Reader wrote:
This doesn't seem to pass the smell test, certainly not 14 months after the alleged incident.

It's a bit amusing that Bennett got the rich/famous guy treatment, until he publicly talked about his personal allegations of police abuse.

I kinda sorta thought that his situation wasn't quite as 'bad cop' as had been initially reported?

Author:  Seacrest [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

ZephMarshack wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
Maybe it's unintentional but you're coming across as someone with a personal vested interest in this case and you're on the knife's edge of going berserk over it.

I watched the police chief's press conference and could smell the bullshit emanating from the screen, so yes I'm a bit peeved at the credulity that appears to be being extended here for little reason. This is literally turning on the testimony of a single officer with no other witnesses or video AT THE SUPER BOWL who chose not to intervene and whose own department chose not to investigate this heinous felonious assault of a senior citizen until September, most coincidentally shortly after Bennett complained about another police department. Even if Bennett did what he was actually accused of, I still fail to see why nothing was done at the Super Bowl and why this was only investigated after he just so happened to be speaking out about cops.


Are you forgetting that he is being accused by two people other than the cop?

Author:  badrogue17 [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Don Tiny wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
This doesn't seem to pass the smell test, certainly not 14 months after the alleged incident.

It's a bit amusing that Bennett got the rich/famous guy treatment, until he publicly talked about his personal allegations of police abuse.

I kinda sorta thought that his situation wasn't quite as 'bad cop' as had been initially reported?

It wasn't . Thats why he ( Bennett and 99% of the media ) shut the fuck up about after the tapes were released.

Author:  Franky T [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

ZephMarshack wrote:
Franky T wrote:
Enough for them to determine that there exists probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. In this case causing injury to an elderly, handicapped woman. Granted, it is completely a one-sided affair as only the prosecutor presents evidence. And even is his actions don't rise to the level of a crime in the end, they certainly seem to be worthy of a douchebag nomination.

I take it you're unfamiliar with the unfortunately commonplace notion that a motivated DA could indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to?

Also do you agree that the police department's utter inaction also is worthy of a DBOTW nomination, as I suggested above?

Did you miss the part where I said "it is completely a one-sided affair as only the prosecutor presents evidence"?

What police inaction are you referring to? That they didn't arrest him on the spot? That's not uncommon, especially on the field and in the aftermath of a Super Bowl. I'm guessing if the shove by a 6'4" 270 pound professional football player of a 66 year-old handicapped woman resulted in more serious injuries he would have been.

Author:  Franky T [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Seacrest wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
Maybe it's unintentional but you're coming across as someone with a personal vested interest in this case and you're on the knife's edge of going berserk over it.

I watched the police chief's press conference and could smell the bullshit emanating from the screen, so yes I'm a bit peeved at the credulity that appears to be being extended here for little reason. This is literally turning on the testimony of a single officer with no other witnesses or video AT THE SUPER BOWL who chose not to intervene and whose own department chose not to investigate this heinous felonious assault of a senior citizen until September, most coincidentally shortly after Bennett complained about another police department. Even if Bennett did what he was actually accused of, I still fail to see why nothing was done at the Super Bowl and why this was only investigated after he just so happened to be speaking out about cops.


Are you forgetting that he is being accused by two people other than the cop?

Exactly. I assume the 66 year-old handicapped woman who suffered a sprained shoulder by his shove gave a statement.

Author:  WaitingforRuffcorn [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

This is a pattern with this guy now. He openly doesn’t like cops or authority. I don’t think he meant to hurt anyone, but what’s up with people not believing the victims in this case. Hmm.

Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Regular Reader wrote:
It's a bit amusing that Bennett got the rich/famous guy treatment, until he publicly talked about his personal allegations of police abuse.


What are you saying, here? That Bennett was charged because a grand jury in Arizona is protecting the credibility of cops in Nevada? You're not saying that, are you? And if not, what ARE you saying?

Here's Julie saying the same thing, and I'd put your respective credibility as litigators and legal minds at about the same level, maybe giving her the edge over you by a smidge.

Image

Is this what you mean to imply, that Michael Bennett was effectively charged because he's suing the police in another state?

Author:  Regular Reader [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
It's a bit amusing that Bennett got the rich/famous guy treatment, until he publicly talked about his personal allegations of police abuse.


What are you saying, here? That Bennett was charged because a grand jury in Arizona is protecting the credibility of cops in Nevada? You're not saying that, are you? And if not, what ARE you saying?

Here's Julie saying the same thing, and I'd put your respective credibility as litigators and legal minds at about the same level, maybe giving her the edge over you by a smidge.

Image

Is this what you mean to imply, that Michael Bennett was effectively charged because he's suing the police in another state?


Hey dipshit bigoted troll of mine, go get a life!

You're boring the rest of us.

Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Regular Reader wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
It's a bit amusing that Bennett got the rich/famous guy treatment, until he publicly talked about his personal allegations of police abuse.


What are you saying, here? That Bennett was charged because a grand jury in Arizona is protecting the credibility of cops in Nevada? You're not saying that, are you? And if not, what ARE you saying?

Here's Julie saying the same thing, and I'd put your respective credibility as litigators and legal minds at about the same level, maybe giving her the edge over you by a smidge.

Image

Is this what you mean to imply, that Michael Bennett was effectively charged because he's suing the police in another state?


Hey dipshit bigoted troll of mine, go get a life!

You're boring the rest of us.


I'm sitting here like patience on a monument waiting for you to post any evidence of your claims.

Author:  Regular Reader [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Fwiw, I don't care enough to look further into the matter. But I am curious to see what a grand jury in Arizona has to do with a case in Houston, Texas.

Author:  Hockey Gay [ Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Someone should [Edit] JLN. What a fucking nerd.

Correct answer to this is "Bennett is a loser but who gives a shit?"

The tiring thing about JLN is he is a whatabe lawyer. I'd love to [Edit] this homo in the face.

Shut the fuck up already, burrito.

Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Regular Reader wrote:
Fwiw, I don't care enough to look further into the matter. But I am curious to see what a grand jury in Arizona has to do with a case in Houston, Texas.


Thought the SB in question took place there. My mistake.

Author:  Juice's Lecture Notes [ Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Michael Bennett

Hockey Gay wrote:
Someone should [Edit] JLN.


Yeah this isn't ok to be on the board. Later dudes.

Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/