PDA

View Full Version : Suspect arrested in run-in with Pacers at strip club



naptown
10-10-2006, 09:18 AM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061010/SPORTS04/61010003

Suspect arrested in run-in with Pacers at strip club

Indianapolis police this morning arrested a man they say was driving the car that struck Indiana Pacers player Stephen Jackson outside of a Westside strip club.

Deon “Dino” Willford, 23, Indianapolis, was arrested about 1 a.m. today on initial charges of criminal recklessness, leaving the scene of an accident and driving without a license, police said. He was held this morning in the Marion County Jail with bond set at $100,000, records show.
Jackson and three other Pacers were leaving Club Rio, 5054 W. 38th St., when police say Jackson fired five shots from a 9 mm handgun after a man punched him in the face and tried to run him over with a car outside the club at 3 a.m. Friday.

Police have said Jackson appeared to be firing in self-defense. Marion County prosecutors will evaluate the evidence and make the ultimate decision on whether Jackson or his teammates — Jamaal Tinsley, Marquis Daniels and Jimmie “Snap” Hunter — will face charges.

Police interviewed Quentin “Fingers” Willford, 24, Indianapolis, in connection with the incident, but he was not arrested. Police are still investigating a third man linked to the incident, Sgt. Matthew Mount said.

Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi said Monday that fingerprint checks are being conducted on a small bag of marijuana found in Tinsley’s car Friday. Police did not arrest anyone at the scene because they could not link the drug to any particular person.

Friday’s incident began with an exchange of words inside the club and spilled into the parking lot as the Pacers tried to leave.

One man slugged Jackson in the jaw, bloodying his mouth. The other men got into a blue Oldsmobile, and the car struck Jackson.
Jackson suffered bruises and, after the incident, he went to the hospital, where he had stitches to close cuts on his mouth. He was not seriously hurt but rested during the team’s afternoon practice.

Jackson told officers he fired all five shots into the air, an account police are still checking out. Officers seized his handgun and guns found in the cars of Tinsley and Daniels. Police said all have valid permits.

Part of the incident was captured on Club Rio’s security camera, Mount said. The grainy video shows Jackson firing one shot in the air, then getting struck by the car, Mount said. The other events occurred outside the camera’s view.

DisplacedKnick
10-10-2006, 09:28 AM
Uh-oh - now we're gonna spend the next month listening to details of conflicting stories and how poor Dino was/wasn't a victim. Evidently Fingers wasn't arrested.

I'll be very interested when they release his criminal record, if he has one.

indygeezer
10-10-2006, 09:30 AM
hmmm

lessee......a "mouthpiece" could claim that he was fleeing from a gun wielding madman(Jax) when Jackson suddenly jumped in front of the car and out of fear of being shot the guy sped off throwing Jax to the ground.

Someone can dress that up to sound nice and legalese but that COULD be the general idea.




edit....were there any security tapes anywhere???

Rinuven
10-10-2006, 09:37 AM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061010/SPORTS04/61010003

Suspect arrested in run-in with Pacers at strip club



I first read this sentence as if they found "Dino" at another strip club where he was then apprehended. My first thought was, "Man, this guy sure likes strip clubs."

A second reading cleared it up. I think I need more coffee. :)

naptown
10-10-2006, 09:40 AM
indygeezer,

Yes there were lots of security tapes taken from the scene. Which is why he got arrested. The cops have said almost from the beginning that security tapes and eye witness accounts completely collaborate everything the players told them about the chain of events.

D-BONE
10-10-2006, 09:47 AM
I first read this sentence as if they found "Dino" at another strip club where he was then apprehended. My first thought was, "Man, this guy sure likes strip clubs."

A second reading cleared it up. I think I need more coffee. :)

Drink all the joe you'd like and please enjoy, but it won't solve the problem of a poorly worded headline. Not only does it read like they got him at another club but that it was another run-in and the entire team was involved. Neither of which may seem so far fetched given those in question.

rabid
10-10-2006, 09:51 AM
I still think attempted murder charges are possible... after all he intentionally tried to run over a man with a car.

Rinuven
10-10-2006, 09:51 AM
Drink all the joe you'd like and please enjoy, but it won't solve the problem of a poorly worded headline. Not only does it read like they got him at another club but that it was another run-in and the entire team was involved. Neither of which may seem so far fetched given those in question.

Okay, well at least I'm not alone in thinking there was a poor choice of phrasing. But the coffee still tastes good.

naptown
10-10-2006, 09:56 AM
$100,000 bond.... there must be some very damaging scenes on those tapes and some pretty damaging eye witness accounts.

DisplacedKnick
10-10-2006, 10:07 AM
$100,000 bond.... there must be some very damaging scenes on those tapes and some pretty damaging eye witness accounts.

That or a list of convictions as long as your arm.

One scene that is on the tape is the car hitting Jackson - and evidently Dino was driving (good thing too based on the physical description of "Fingers").

RWB
10-10-2006, 11:00 AM
So that we're better informed because there's going to be a lot of talk, here is the Indiana Code.

IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property........

(a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if he reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to himself or a third person or the comission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself or his family by reasonable means necessary.

(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry or attack on his dwelling or curtilage.

(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in his possession, lawfully in possession of a member of his immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property he has authority to proctect.. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a) of this sectinon.

(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section, a person is not justified in using force if:

(1) he is commiting, or is escaping after the comission of a crime;

(2) he provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person: or

(3) he has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor, unless he withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person his intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful actaion.

Forgive the typos, too much typing.

vapacersfan
10-10-2006, 01:39 PM
I still think attempted murder charges are possible... after all he intentionally tried to run over a man with a car.

There are a lot of posible charges, attempted murder will not be one of them

Putnam
10-10-2006, 01:51 PM
So that we're better informed because there's going to be a lot of talk, here is the Indiana Code.

IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property........

(a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if he reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to himself or a third person or the comission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself or his family by reasonable means necessary.

(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry or attack on his dwelling or curtilage.

(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in his possession, lawfully in possession of a member of his immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property he has authority to proctect.. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a) of this sectinon.

(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section, a person is not justified in using force if:

(1) he is commiting, or is escaping after the comission of a crime;

(2) he provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person: or

(3) he has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor, unless he withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person his intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful actaion.

Forgive the typos, too much typing.



RWB, thanks for posting these. Aren't there also sections in the code concerning discharging a firearm and vehicular assault? I don't know the law, but I'm guessing those sections would come into consideration, too.

Pacesetter
10-10-2006, 02:39 PM
Where's Paul Harvey at now ... this should be a good one!

Jose Slaughter
10-10-2006, 03:25 PM
hmmm

lessee......a "mouthpiece" could claim that he was fleeing from a gun wielding madman(Jax) when Jackson suddenly jumped in front of the car and out of fear of being shot the guy sped off throwing Jax to the ground.

Someone can dress that up to sound nice and legalese but that COULD be the general idea.



Is that harder ro believe than Jackson walking away from a fight?

All thats been reported, as far as the fight goes, is that Jax was hit in the mouth. You seriously believe thats all there was to it?

Consider how Jackson has handled himself the past two seasons & tell me how you think he handled himself last Friday morning?

rabid
10-10-2006, 04:14 PM
There are a lot of posible charges, attempted murder will not be one of them

Why not? It appeared to be intentional and it's on videotape, with witnesses.

I think a moving car qualifies as a deadly weapon, no?

Seriously, please explain. Why not?

Since86
10-10-2006, 04:24 PM
In order for it to be attempted murder, you'd have to prove that he wanted to kill him, which would be next to impossible.

Intent is a VERY tricky thing to prove.

Putnam
10-10-2006, 04:41 PM
Here's an excerpt from a legal case regarding the difference between murder and manslaughter. I am no lawyer, and anyone who is should speak up and speak with authority.

But it looks to me that Since86 is right. There was "sudden heat" which would eliminate the possibility of attempted murder.




(b) ‘The existence of sudden heat is a mitigating factor that reduces
what otherwise would be Murder to Voluntary Manslaughter.’


http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09070602pds.pdf#search=%22indiana%20murder%20defin ition%22

LoneGranger33
10-10-2006, 04:57 PM
So these dudes are brothers eh? I don't know if I'd ever go to a strip club with my brother (not that I would without him but, for argument's sake) - that just strikes me as weird (personally). I also thought they'd be older, say, mid-30's or 40's...I wondered if race had anything to do with it - that is, a white fan versus a black athlete (of course this wouldn't be a simple diagnosis if it proves to be the case, but its a point of interest nonetheless), but they didn't release the ethnicity of the brothers so it is hard to determine at this point.

I wonder if they're fans of the Pacers, or NBA basketball for that matter, or not...because if they are, this is just another case of fan/player interaction that has hurt the Pacers. Player gets wronged by fan, overreacts (if indeed Jax overreacted is debateable).

vapacersfan
10-10-2006, 05:15 PM
In order for it to be attempted murder, you'd have to prove that he wanted to kill him, which would be next to impossible.

Intent is a VERY tricky thing to prove.

Rabid, this is why.

Now you would have to consult with a lawyer to see if they could get him with attempted manslaughter or something along those lines, but attempted murder is a stretch, and a big one at that

vapacersfan
10-10-2006, 05:20 PM
Here's an excerpt from a legal case regarding the difference between murder and manslaughter. I am no lawyer, and anyone who is should speak up and speak with authority.

But it looks to me that Since86 is right. There was "sudden heat" which would eliminate the possibility of attempted murder.



http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09070602pds.pdf#search=%22indiana%20murder%20defin ition%22




I am not a lawyer, but I did play one on TV!

On a more serious note, I am not a lawyer but I am studying law(god help us all! haha)

What Since said is correct, at least from what I have learned.

Now if Indiana has any state specific laws, that I could not answer. I can say, though, that any murder or attempted murder charge would be a reach.

Skaut_Ech
10-10-2006, 05:34 PM
I am not a lawyer, but I did play one on TV!

On a more serious note, I am not a lawyer but I am studying law(god help us all! haha)

What Since said is correct, at least from what I have learned.

Now if Indiana has any state specific laws, that I could not answer. I can say, though, that any murder or attempted murder charge would be a reach.

You got it. In order to prove murder, you need to prove intent (They meant to commit the murder, i.e., thought out how to do it). The fact that the guy acted in the heat of the moment, apparently, makes intent very hard to prove, short of a confession.

In order to prove an "attempt" with any charge (attempt murder, attempt burglary, etc.), you have to be able to prove the person took a substantial step towards committing the crime.

Neither manslaughter (attempt) or attempt murder is going to fly. At all. Odds are they/he will get charged with Criminal Recklessness with a Vehicle, a D felony. Easily proven in this case.

cariocapacer
10-10-2006, 06:25 PM
Does anyone know why Tinsley and Danials´ cars were searched?

bulldog
10-10-2006, 06:29 PM
Does anyone know why Tinsley and Danials´ cars were searched?

Good point. Since we got the lawyers out, what's up with that?

rabid
10-10-2006, 06:36 PM
You got it. In order to prove murder, you need to prove intent (They meant to commit the murder, i.e., thought out how to do it). The fact that the guy acted in the heat of the moment, apparently, makes intent very hard to prove, short of a confession.

In order to prove an "attempt" with any charge (attempt murder, attempt burglary, etc.), you have to be able to prove the person took a substantial step towards committing the crime.

Neither manslaughter (attempt) or attempt murder is going to fly. At all. Odds are they/he will get charged with Criminal Recklessness with a Vehicle, a D felony. Easily proven in this case.

Didn't mean to provoke a big discussion on this, but a couple points I want to make:

- As far as I know, there is no such thing as "attempted" manslaughter. The whole point of manslaughter as a crime is that it doesn't involve intent.
- I'm no lawyer either, but I think "intent" can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt using evidence other than confessions etc. For example, if the tape shows Jax in the path of the car, and then this guy accelerated without turning, it'd be pretty easy to prove intent to do harm, and a speeding car can be considered just as deadly of a "weapon" as a gun. Also, we don't know what sorts of comments might have been made immediately before or during this part of the incident.
- At the very least, "assault with a deadly weapon" or SOMETHING should be in order. It wasn't just a hit-and-run; he hit Jax ON PURPOSE. It was intentional.


EDIT: It just seems to me that if you intentionally try to run somebody over with a car that you should be charged with something more severe than "criminal recklessness, leaving the scene of a personal injury accident, and a misdemeanor count of driving without a license." Am I missing something here? No assault charge? Seems kinda weird.

Leisure Suit Larry
10-10-2006, 06:47 PM
So these dudes are brothers eh? I don't know if I'd ever go to a strip club with my brother (not that I would without him but, for argument's sake) - that just strikes me as weird (personally). I also thought they'd be older, say, mid-30's or 40's...I wondered if race had anything to do with it - that is, a white fan versus a black athlete (of course this wouldn't be a simple diagnosis if it proves to be the case, but its a point of interest nonetheless), but they didn't release the ethnicity of the brothers so it is hard to determine at this point.

I wonder if they're fans of the Pacers, or NBA basketball for that matter, or not...because if they are, this is just another case of fan/player interaction that has hurt the Pacers. Player gets wronged by fan, overreacts (if indeed Jax overreacted is debateable).

Yeah the first thing that popped in to my mind when I heard about "Dino" and "Fingers" was two old white guys...:rolleyes:

vapacersfan
10-10-2006, 07:08 PM
Good point. Since we got the lawyers out, what's up with that?

I was not sure of this, but another member brought up the point yesterday and I tend to think they are probably correct.

While the police were investigating the crime scene, they are forced to search all parties who have weapons on them (mostly just to make sure they have permits, the guns are not stolen,all that good stuff..) All reports are Tinsley had a handgun in his car, so that would explain why his car was searched.

vapacersfan
10-10-2006, 07:14 PM
Didn't mean to provoke a big discussion on this, but a couple points I want to make:

- As far as I know, there is no such thing as "attempted" manslaughter. The whole point of manslaughter as a crime is that it doesn't involve intent.
- I'm no lawyer either, but I think "intent" can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt using evidence other than confessions etc. For example, if the tape shows Jax in the path of the car, and then this guy accelerated without turning, it'd be pretty easy to prove intent to do harm, and a speeding car can be considered just as deadly of a "weapon" as a gun. Also, we don't know what sorts of comments might have been made immediately before or during this part of the incident.
- At the very least, "assault with a deadly weapon" or SOMETHING should be in order. It wasn't just a hit-and-run; he hit Jax ON PURPOSE. It was intentional.


EDIT: It just seems to me that if you intentionally try to run somebody over with a car that you should be charged with something more severe than "criminal recklessness, leaving the scene of a personal injury accident, and a misdemeanor count of driving without a license." Am I missing something here? No assault charge? Seems kinda weird.

There is a such thing as "attempted manslaughter

You are correct about your second statement, but once again you are reaching. As you said, we dont know what was said, and the defendant could claim Jackson made some comment about assulting him, or somethign along those lines, and without a confession from either side it is hard to prove one way or the other. In that case it turns into a "he said vs she said". Intent is very hard to prove, and I would be willing to bet a paycheck the guy does not get his with manslaughter. Jackson, fair or not, has a repuation has a hothead, so if this guy claimed Jackson egged him on then that would not be so hard to beleive. In that case, once again the intent changes. I just dont see him getting hit wiht manslaughter


I have no clue what Indiana laws are, but I could see where you would get the assult with a deadly weapon.


I cant asnwer the last question for you. I would think they could easily get him with battery and as you said earlier assult with a deadly weapon (the car), but maybe I am missing something.

rabid
10-10-2006, 07:49 PM
There is a such thing as "attempted manslaughter

You are correct about your second statement, but once again you are reaching. As you said, we dont know what was said, and the defendant could claim Jackson made some comment about assulting him, or somethign along those lines, and without a confession from either side it is hard to prove one way or the other. In that case it turns into a "he said vs she said". Intent is very hard to prove, and I would be willing to bet a paycheck the guy does not get his with manslaughter. Jackson, fair or not, has a repuation has a hothead, so if this guy claimed Jackson egged him on then that would not be so hard to beleive. In that case, once again the intent changes. I just dont see him getting hit wiht manslaughter


I have no clue what Indiana laws are, but I could see where you would get the assult with a deadly weapon.


I cant asnwer the last question for you. I would think they could easily get him with batter and as you said earlier assult with a deadly weapon (the car), but maybe I am missing something.

Thanks VA. All I'm saying really is that it seems like there should be one or two more severe charges added to that list. JMHO.

Eindar
10-11-2006, 02:06 AM
This is the first time I've been tempted to run a criminal history check on someone. Fortunately for me, I like my job.