:spock:

If he caused an amount of damage that falls into the felony category, it's a felony. It's in the definition of the law.

Even though he damaged his own property?

It's pretty easy to prove who owns a car. The fact that his charges have been upgraded and only the car would seem to account for such a figure suggest he does not own the car.

What a dumbass. I really don't care about the property damage. That is the least of the problem. The property damage just shows his mental immaturity. I am more concerned he felt the need to bring out a weapon during a domestic dispute where there is evidence of him being the aggressor.

The question has to be asked by his employer, considering the organizations past history. What if he turned that weapon on something else other than a possession. Chiefs would be wise to cut their losses on the investment and move on as quickly as they could.

Nice hairpiece too. Looks like someone glued a beaver pelt to his head.

Shemp was okay. He was passable. But man, the Joe/Curly Joe performances are unwatchable.

As minor trivia, Larry married a woman who didn't like to do housework, so they lived in hotels for the first 20 years of their marriage.

1963chief... Please report to the thread dedicated to you on the front page

I wouldn't think that he has enough money to buy a Mercedes for a woman, but it's also possible that he paid for the car and her name is on it. If that's the case, then he needs to take a personal finance course for a number of different reasons.

I don't usually dig into the details of these type stories, so maybe it is an out of control DA.

But bringing felony charges usually, though certainly not always, means there is some credible evidence.

And the NFL is certainly not operating on an innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard. And neither in general is any other private employer.

Not that I think the NFL is doing a good job with this stuff either. But when you try to market athletes as celebrity heroes, it doesn't look good when some go off script.

What weapon did he threaten her with?

Them hoes ain’t loyal….

This.

Maybe you need to read again what I wrote. I never said he threatened her with a weapon. I am posing a liability question that his employer should... probably is asking.

His employer doesn't need for him to turn a weapon on a human being before posing that question for their own protection from his actions in this incident, or potentially future incidents. They have been sued in the past for wrongful death from the actions of a player. I'm quite sure that is not something they want to have to go through again.

His hands. They're made of stone.

What weapon are you referring to?