ChiefsPlanet - Chiefs Rashee Rice suspected in connection with major accident in Dallas

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Rashee Rice suspected in connection with major accident in Dallas (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=352900)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThaVirus (Post 17465698)

Someone beat me to it but Google is showing 2024 MSRP for Corvettes around $70,000-75,000.

Rice got a $1.7m signing bonus after inking his contract and made $750,000 base salary in 2023. He’s due a little over $1,000,000 for the 2024 season with like $2m more in guarantees alone over the two years after that..

Rashee Rice buying a new Vette actually makes more financial sense than some random Joe Blow buying a $23,000 Corolla on a $60k salary.

yeah but he keeps this behavior up, he's going to have a hard time finding a $60k gig once his playing days are over ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLasVegas (Post 17465653)

Not dancing around. Using critical thinking which many people have just completely lost the capability to do individually.

Getting caught up on and new “news” regarding this entire ordeal. If I have time tonight I will do a deeper analysis for the group.

Why did you not answer my question at all?

You state you are personally involved with BOTH the SMU and Chiefs team? Yet you can't tell or haven't been told by your connections if Rice was there and if so which one he is?

I think it's great if a person is new to CP and wants to help out with new information but thats not what your doing. You state you are personally in with SMU/Chiefs but then go on to write a book sounding like a attorney talking to a jury on Rice being preset and no proof.

You would have gotten a much better response and welcome if you simply wrote that your personally connected with SMU/Chiefs and this is what you have heard.

Denver media is rolling their bean over this.

The big tagline is that Dallas PD are asking for the publics assistance in identifying the 5 guys who "fled."

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmh6476 (Post 17465731)

yeah but he keeps this behavior up, he's going to have a hard time finding a $60k gig once his playing days are over ;)

Calm down Francis.

Hopefully he learns from this, and realizes that he has a lot to lose and who you hang out with matters. Frankly, I'm surprised there isn't more of this shit going on. Kids with money to burn is always going to lead to some bad situations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balto (Post 17465740)

He could be Clark Hunt. His Dallas home is close to the SMU campus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balto (Post 17465740)

You state you are personally in with SMU/Chiefs but then go on to write a book sounding like ~~a attorney talking to a jury on Rice being preset and no proof~~ an Indian schizophrenic on a 5-day coke bender.

FYP

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katipan (Post 17465745)

Denver media is rolling their bean over this.

The big tagline is that Dallas PD are asking for the publics assistance in identifying the 5 guys who "fled."

Can't wait to hear Dave, Alfy, and Ryan go off on this. Might have to wait since the Crockies are playing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLasVegas (Post 17465699)

Copying and pasting from previous post now that my web browser seems to be working[/B]

New here and cannot figure out how to reply to Donte…
To Donte asking for anything missing on potential crimes. I have a some what lengthy response and something to think about at this point in time.

Are we missing anything, YES! Establishment Rice was there and was one of the five men somehow involved.

I’ve been following this for over 24 hours now as I am heavily involved (on a personal level) with the SMU/Chiefs Teams. What I’ve watch “unfold” has been a large group of adults playing telephone.

From what has been provided to the general public this is what we can establish.
- rices car was involved.
There is almost 100% consensus he is not the person in the orange shirt getting out of the car- which leads me back to just looking at this from the very beginning

Is it a fact the corvette (which is fact belongs to rice whether leased or purchased) was engaged in reckless driving? No

Watch the dash cam footage at .25x speed. At best the worst critique that can be giving is the corvette was tailing the car in front of him. The dash cam does not show the corvette engaged in reckless driving. However, it does show the corvette reacting to reckless driving from the lambo. The lambo driving and trying to pass any vehicle from the shoulder is unhinged and absolutely proof of reckless driving. Again, the dash cam shows the corvette reacting to the lambo, and everything falls like dominos after. That is a fact.

It is fact the men from the lambo and corvette knew each other as they are seen from another video all walking away together. It is a fact there were five men in total between the two vehicles.

What is not fact? That rashee is one of these five men.

My goodness- there is hundreds of replies on this forum, Reddit, X, and the likes. Following for over 24 hours I can say we cannot factually place rice here as one of these five men. Look at this thread. There is no general consensus. Popular beliefs are the guy in grey shorts or the guy in the red durag…. There is no argument he was in the orange shirt therefore driving his own car. So I will jump to conclusion that it’s a fact rice was not driving his own car.

Now for the four other men. It is not a fact he is one of those four. Only speculation. I read on another forum that the lambo had been rented. Which is interesting. Which does actually make me pause for a hot second and wonder if rice also lent his car (can’t see him renting his car out). I did ask for a source on the lambo being rented and haven’t been provided w one, so I’m not going to say that is a fact. Still interesting in the larger context. It’s a family holiday weekend. Someone could have easily come into town and borrowed rices car for the weekend… why else was this lambo “rented?” If that is a fact I wonder more about holiday weekend and visitors needing access to a vehicle.

So again to answer the question, “is there anything missing?” Yes, establishing rice is even one of these five men.

Everything regarding alcohol, drugs, guns, etc is all speculation. I’m definitely not on board with the gun speculation coming from a woman who was involved and the presumption (and racists) comment on them having stolen these vehicles because they couldn’t afford them.

That’s another fact. Rice can afford a corvette.

Some of these assumptions being echoed all day have really snow balled. Don’t even tell me that little brief case was holding a bunch of guns. The guy gets out of the lambo w it like a ladies purse. I’m taking zero facts from that video other than the evidence of 5 men walking away.

I’m not on the innocent until proven guilty train, I’m just on the train of until it’s 100% factual rice has yet to be identified as one of the five men for these potential crimes.

More fact than speculation, we can guarantee he won’t be in a line up for State Farm insurance!

TDLR: not fact as this point in time rice was there- nor actual evidence the corvette was engaged in reckless driving.

Only 90% of post was copied, but it gets the response to Dante

Interesting!

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLasVegas (Post 17465699)

The text argues that Rice was one of the five men involved in a car accident, and that there is almost 100% consensus that he was not the person in the orange shirt getting out of the car. The dash cam footage does not show Rice's car engaged in reckless driving, but it does show Rice reacting to reckless driving from the lambo. The men from the lambo and corvette knew each other, and it is a fact that there were five men in total between the two vehicles. Rice is not one of the five men, and speculation about alcohol, drugs, and guns is also present. The text concludes that Rice is one of the five men involved in the car accident, and that the speculation surrounding alcohol, drugs, and guns is all speculation. Rice can afford to buy his own car, and the text concludes that Rice is one of the five men involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 17465544)

Yes, you can absolutely draw the inferences to convict and doing essentially exactly what you've laid out. -- "Hey, the video shows he was the second guy out of the passenger side - you think they swapped seats at impact?" -- but prosecutors are loathe to spin that wheel because jurors are stupid and obstinate.

wrong

the reason you don't do that is simple:

OBJECTION - Speculation

sustained

Juries tend to get things right more than wrong, so I dont know if theyre any more dumb than any other sample.. i bet theyre not.

Hopefully this doesn’t interfere with his upcoming workouts with Mahomes in Texas.

Priorities… the focus is singularly on the threepeat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. tegu (Post 17465701)

I think most assumptions about the bag having something illegal are centered around it being an explanation for why they left, and why bag guy specifically seemed to leave ahead of the rest. There is nothing at all, no visual reports, as to what exactly is in there.

From the same witness that said the cars were likely stolen, probably because the scary black men left the scene.

I'm not saying those that left the scene were smart, but the bias of the witness kind of impeaches their credibility.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ming the Merciless (Post 17465778)

Well there's nobody to ask the question to - at least not in that context.

You show the video, you question the respective witnesses, you hem them into their positions and then you close the loop in your closing argument.

Oh you can go ahead and lob a skunk into the jury box to plant a seed at some point. Probably when you're questioning the 'driver', and you know full well that you're gonna eat the objection - but that was never the point. And frankly it's not strictly necessary (so you feel out the judge and/or weigh how many points you've earned with him prior to asking a 'question' everyone in the building knows is going to draw an objection).

The point is to get the respective positions in as testimony so you can speak to them in close. And then in close you point out the absurdity of the position. You're most assuredly allowed to be incredulous in a closing argument and that's going to be the last thing the jury hears. Well...apart from the feeble efforts of defense counsel to reiterate what 'reasonable doubt' means after you've told the jury that 'reasonable' doesn't mean you absolutely have to believe their story that the real driver actually climbed over the passenger after the wreck so that he could get out first...

Closing the loop in close is pretty much the way you finish off an inference or really any kind of circumstantial argument. You draw the dots in your case in chief; you connect them in the closing argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ming the Merciless (Post 17465778)

Oh - and yes, juries tend to get things right. But it's largely because prosecutors won't pursue anything that they don't think is damn near iron-clad.

If it gets to a jury, it's typically broken down to the point that it can be spoon fed to them. If it can't be; if it's a job that requires much critical thinking - juries largely aren't up for the job.

They usually get asked "What's 2+2?" and when that's the case, they'll usually work it out. Ask them "What's 2+2(3-1)?" and they're lucky to get that one right half the time.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Statement from Rashee Rice’s attorney, Royce West: <a href="https://t.co/l4c2cIArWL">pic.twitter.com/l4c2cIArWL</a></p>— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1774893197254168678?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>