Details revealed on Chiefs’ Justyn Ross arrest, charges

[KCJake]

Originally Posted by DaFace

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?

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by KCJake

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.

[Abba-Dabba]

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.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Abba-Dabba

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.

What weapon did he threaten her with?

[Abba-Dabba]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

What weapon did he threaten her with?

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.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Abba-Dabba

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.

What weapon are you referring to?

[Abba-Dabba]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

What weapon are you referring to?

It was reported either as a pair of scissors or knife. Considering both probably have an edge and point, any decent attorney can argue the potential nature of either of them being used as a weapon. But that is just legally.

Professionally the threshold to hold accountability doesn't need a conviction or guilt.

[ShortRoundChief]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

What weapon did he threaten her with?

His hands. They're made of stone.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Eleazar

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.

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.