TheHostileDwarf's picture


Northern Virginia (via Cleveland, Oh)

Member since 08 July 2011 | Blog


  • SPORTS MOMENT: 2003 Fiesta Bowl/National Championship Game, duh.
  • NFL TEAM: Cleveland Browns
  • NHL TEAM: Washington Capitals
  • MLB TEAM: Cleveland Indians

Recent Activity

Comment 22 Jul 2013

I think given the information that has been shared, the conclusions havent been that outrageous.

...which is why everyone should wait for vetted information rather than reports. Too many people can't wait to share their [often uninformed or misinformed] opinions, particularly on the internet. Whoa, boy, especially on the internet. We should all know better by now but time and again the jump to conclusions mats make their premature appearance, which is why they're so damn well worn out.

I hope he didn't, but if Hyde assaulted a woman, being off the football team should be the least of his problems, but we've not gotten that far yet. He hasn't even been charged. At this point, we literally know next to nothing. For now, she's not even a "victim." She's not a victim unless and until he's convicted; for now, she's a complainant. The video could be great for Hyde, awful for him, or somewhere in-between. It's just tiring that every fucking time someone is alleged to have done something so many sanctimonious know-it-alls come out of the woodwork. Just let shit play out before crucifying the accused.

Comment 13 Mar 2013

I love this website but threads like this one bring out so much stupid. Perhaps that's just the nature of the internet, but too many people can't wait to pull out their Jump to Conclusions mats and start spouting off about shit they know absolutely nothing about - from the facts to what the laws are. Charges haven't even been filed. Calm down. It'd be nice if everyone could stop assuming the best or the worst about the young men or the young woman involved and just wait for things to play out.

Comment 24 Sep 2012
More of a lurker than a commenter so I'm still South of enough stickers to allow me to vote, but this is a nice upgrade to the site!
Comment 31 Jul 2012

Not to be too picky, but I think the headline may wrong. It looks like Dunn was charged with two misdemeanors and two infractions. The paraphernalia and drug possession charges are both misdemeanors. The seat belt and tail-light violations are likely just traffic infractions, not graded as criminal offenses.

Either way, not a good way to start off your college career...

Comment 10 Jul 2012

Okay, I'll walk back the "wide discretion" portion of my comment, but not the underlying point. Mandatory arrest laws are, at best, directives. Orders are ignored all the time, including by police officers. Unless an officer chose not to arrest someone where there were visible signs of injury on a complainant and that someone subsequently inflicted additional and/or greater damage to that same complainant, the officer's decision would likely never be subject to any kind of scrutiny, so the directive doesn't necessarily have any teeth. "Shall" doesn't always mean "shall," at least not in a practical sense. Mandatory arrest may be a "requirement," but it's not an absolute.

Otherwise, the last paragraph of my preceding response explains how this isn't really all that compelling of a point to be harping on.

[Edit after your Edit:] Now you're position has pivoted. First you said, "If he had [any bruises], she would have been arrested too."

Now you're referencing the code which contains malleable legal standards. Do bruises consitute "probable cause" to arrest or merely "reasonable grounds" to arrest? This language can be played with all day. This clearly leaves open the possibility that a police officer could believe that even a bruised person only provides reasonable grounds to arrest and such an officer could exercise his lawful discretion not to arrest.

Furthemore, your statute parsing leaves something to be desired. Nowhere in the relevant authority to arrest portions of the ORC § 2935 et seq. does the phrase "probable cause" or the word "mandatory" appear. In Chapter 2935, the word mandatory does not appear at all. (Linkified: And the words "probable cause" don't appear until § 2935.041 which is after the authority to arrest without a warrant section and after the domestic violence section. There may exist a portion of the ORC that contains a directive to arrest in domestic cases (or it could exist somewhere in the case law although this is highly unlikely), but I haven't seen it yet and you haven't cited to it. The only standard used is "reasonable grounds" or "reasonable cause."

In fact, here is the relevant portion that I believe covers standard domestic violence cases: ORC § 2935.03 (B)(1) "When there is reasonable ground to believe that ... the offense of domestic violence as defined in section 2919.25 of the Revised Code ... has been committed ... within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the peace officer, a peace officer described in division (A) of this section may arrest and detain until a warrant can be obtained any person who the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the violation." [Emphasis added].

Lastly: You mentioned ORC § 2935.032 (A)(1)(A). This only applies to felonious assault, which is not at all what we're talking about. "If the officer determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person knowingly caused serious physical harm to another or to another’s unborn or knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to another or to another’s unborn by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance, then, regardless of whether the victim of the offense was a family or household member of the offender, the officer shall treat the incident as felonious assault, shall consider the offender to have committed and the victim to have been the victim of felonious assault, shall consider the offense that was committed to have been felonious assault in determining the manner in which the offender should be treated, and shall comply with whichever of the following is applicable..." [Emphasis added].

Comment 10 Jul 2012

If a weapon was used to inflict some type of injury, yeah, that's probably true. Otherwise, important details are left out of police reports all the time. To my knowledge, no one here has seen the relevant police report(s).

Comment 10 Jul 2012

Seriously? You're referring to a comment on another thread entirely made by someone not even involve in this conversation? C'mon.

Of course police have discretion to not arrest someone in cases such as this. I hate to assume, but this conversation is beginning to require it for illustrative purposes. So, again assuming he had no bruises, that doesn't mean she wasn't assaultive herself. I'm not saying that she was. My point is: we don't know. But assuming he did have bruises, the police did not have to arrest him. What do you think would happen to an officer who did not arrest this woman even if Klein had some bruising? Prosecution? HA! Some type of internal police department sanction? Perhaps, but unlikely. Let me give a different example. I live in a VERY LARGE, VERY POPULATED county. We do not have as many instances of the police shooting suspects as in many much smaller counties, but there have been dozens piled on top of dozens, perhaps hundreds, over the years and many of them have been questionable, including several instances where unarmed suspects have been shot and/or killed. It has been over 40 years since any police officer has ever been prosecuted for unlawfully shooting a suspect. 40 YEARS! And you think an officer who fails to arrest this woman is going to face some kind of actual punsihment or sanction for not arresting her? C'mon.

I'm well versed on the standard that a police officer needs to meet before effectuating an arrest. I'm also well versed on the fact that police do not always arrest both participants in a fight/assault and that oftentimes the one who wasn't arrested is just as guilty or more so than the one who was arrested. In these cases, police almost always arrive on the scene after the fact and do their best with the information available to them, but sometimes they get it wrong.

Lastly, assuming he had no visible injuries or bruising, you picked out ONE of the questions I posed and are harping on that one question. I'll be charitable and take that one out. That still leaves a string of unanswered questions, and I'm sure there are more that I didn't think of. To rush to judgment with so many unknowns is simply irresponsible.

Comment 10 Jul 2012
Not necessarily. This is just another assumption/speculation. Police have wide discretion on whom to charge in domestic cases. Even if Klein had no visible injuries, just as bruising != assault, no visible injuries != no assault. We simply don't know what happened yet. Snippets of police reports that are by their very nature written after the fact by persons who did not see what occurred do not necessarily tell the full story. What is so wrong with not rushing to judgment? And I haven't seen anyone say she is some crazy bitch. This is a straw man. Again, we simply don't know what happened yet and it is irresponsible to assume or fill in gaps with pure speculation.
Comment 10 Jul 2012

Yep. Other than pointing out my typo, thanks for that btw, that whole response pretty much embodies the ignorance I was referring to and makes my point. Here's a hint: Urban wasn't there. He doesn't know shit. He's heard what he's heard, but he doesn't know anything. He's just reacting to charges being lodged. While I hope you don't actually believe any of that, too many do, and that's a sad indictment of our collective intelligence/judgment. Here's another hint: someone doesn't need to be involved in a reckless prosecution in order to be not guilty. Particularly in domestic situations, sometimes the police arrest someone just to defuse an acrimonious situation and then they let the legal system sort it out. This is how it should work, but some people simply aren't interested in doing things the right way, apparently.

Bruising != assault. Have you seen the bruises? Have you seen pictures of the bruises? Did you see the complainant before the incident to determine whether the bruises were already there? Do you know where the bruises are? Do they look like defensive bruises where she was hit or merely that she was grabbed by the wrists/arms, you know, such as would be consistent with being grabbed in order to be removed from a location, such as someone's apartment? Do you know how she was acting during this altercation? Do you know whether her actions contributed in any way her bruises? Do you know any of the physical characteristics of the complainant? Do you know whether she bruises easily? Do you know whether she has ever been assaultive towards Klein? Do you know whether she's ever been assaultive towards anyone else? Did you see the altercation? Do you know whether anyone else saw the altercation? Do you anyone who saw the altercation? Do you know who was the aggressor? Do you know whether Klein had any bruises as a result of the incident? Do you know whether there is any history of violence between these two individuals?

The answer to all of the above is most certainly: No. So get off your high horse, put your Jump to Conclusions Mat/Map away, and see what plays out.

P.S. None of the stories I've seen claim that she's currently pregnant. So she is not "impregnated." She's the mother of his child, not the "future mother of his child." To be clear, I'm from the school of thought that a man should never place his hands on a woman, but there are exceptions to every rule, such as when a woman is acting hysterically and assaultive herself. It's okay to defend one's self. In this sense, without an understanding of the specific circumstances, it is irresponsible to assume what may have happened, which your post was full of. It's likely that Klein acted inappropriately in this case just because he should have called the police himself if he wanted her to leave instead of forcibly removing her, but sometimes, in the heat of the moment, shit happens. That doesn't mean he acted illegally.

Comment 09 Jul 2012

I agree with Angel.

First, nothing new is really learned here. Klein has been charged with DOMESTIC violence. That typically means either that the participants live together or that they have a child in common, so, option B here.

Second, she is not the "victim" unless and until he is convicted. For now, she is the alleged victim. Perhaps Klein assaulted her. Perhaps not. The orginial story got this correct.

Third, in this case, a suspension or "dismissal" from the team is entirely warranted pending the outcome. These are tricky situations, but this is obviously more (potenially) serious than the Stoneburner/Mewhort situation, even if the charges are misdemeanors.

Some people simply need to put their Jump to Conclusions maps away.