EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED IN HAWKS

[Hawk Sista]

Kindly take your political diatribe to the appropriate place (which, BTW is NOT in a Seahawks' fan forum, specifically not in this thread with a completely different subject matter.

THANK YOU!

[obiken]

Yeah that's a joke, I reported him HS. That's a spam in disguise.

[c_hawkbob]

After Kraft saying his team would accept any punishment handed down by the NFL for them to then turn around and tell them what that punishment should be is unimaginable.

According to the Miami Herald:

NFL is weighing a suspension of New England quarterback Tom Brady that could span up to one season.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/dolphins ... dered.html

While I recognize that a lot of that may be wishful thinking division rival, that's a stunner right there.

[obiken]

4 games would be fair. 1 game a joke. Can you imagine if the Hawks had done this?? The league would have been like a hound from hell, and WE would have been the dog food.

[burrrton]

While I recognize that a lot of that may be wishful thinking division rival, that's a stunner right there.

My gawd- no kidding.

[burrrton]

Kindly take your political diatribe to the appropriate place

*looks at name on hidden post*

He's got a "911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" circle-jerk going in the Off Topic forum, so he knows dmn well where his political rants belong- he's just frustrated nobody is paying attention.

[Seahawks4Ever]

Well, the Hawks have a fig leaf from both the D.A. and the victim, Ms. Hurt. The D.A. says that Clark did not hit Ms. Hurt and she is NOT talking to anybody, not the press and certainly not the Seahawks. Clark has been warned by the NFL that they will consider any other accusations of assault as a 2nd. offense. John & Pete both know that if Clark gets in to any more trouble, especially if it involves a woman, they will have major egg on their faces.

Since the D.A. has come out and said that she believes Clark never struck Ms. Hurt then I guess John Schneider was not lying.

[NorthHawk]

I would think that a woman would be more sensitive to Domestic Violence and may be more aggressive in prosecuting than an old man might be, so maybe there is less to this story than the police report states.

I'm all over the place on this case. Sometimes I think he's guilty as all get out, and other times I think maybe it's not what it appears.

[Hawk Sista]

At best, it is unclear. Maybe he turns out to be a model citizen who not only helps himself but others. This very public debate we are having (nationally) is a step in an improved direction from even 5 or 10 years ago when these things were swept under the rug.

I will admit that I should have waited for more information to have such a strong and public opinion. I'm in the wait and see mode.

[HumanCockroach]

Wasn't anything wrong with anyone's opinion, as we all were ( and still are) operating on bits and pieces. Which was the reason I stayed for the most part away from judging either way. Not sure what happened, but I doubt anyone is "happy" either as fans/team or the parties involved directly in whatever really happened that night. Ultimately it is up to Clark to do the right things, and none of us can "make" it happen.

Willing to give the kid a chance to prove Seattle made the right decision, but he had zero wiggle room IMHO.

[burrrton]

I would think that a woman would be more sensitive to Domestic Violence and may be more aggressive in prosecuting than an old man might be

Why would you think that??

[savvyman]

Kindly take your political diatribe to the appropriate place (which, BTW is NOT in a Seahawks' fan forum, specifically not in this thread with a completely different subject matter.

THANK YOU!

Yeah that's a joke, I reported him HS. That's a spam in disguise.

I could spend two or three paragraphs on the silliness of these two posts - However let me be succient.

Just use the Ignore feature and block me - problem solved.

But you won't - because my posts are either insightful, informative or entertaining - and many times all 3.

[savvyman]

One thing for certain about Frank Clark is that he was dealt a very difficult hand to start life that I would not wish on anyone. He has had to overcome a lot - not just his tough economic conditions but also basically growing up with both parents missing.


http://www.fieldgulls.com/2015/5/3/8534275/Frank-Clark-Morality-Tale

>>>>>>>

According to data compiled by the LA Times, Baldwin Village has more than 30,000 residents, with a median household income of less than $40,000. Roughly 32 percent of families in the area are headed by a single parent. It ranks high among Los Angeles neighborhoods for violent crimes and property crimes. Crack and meth are currency. In 2011, one drug raid was so large, the L.A. Sports Arena parking lot was used as a staging ground for the 900 police officers used.

These are the streets Clark wandered with his mother, Teneka Clark, from the early 1990s until 2003, when he was handed a plane ticket.

Frank Clark can't provide a last known address in Los Angeles. He and Teneka, along with his two older siblings, were nomadic. They rambled around town, sleeping in a shelter one night, in a random friend’s house another night. Teneka had drug problems, Frank explains, and this was the fallout.

"I’d walk for hours with my mother, wondering where we were going next, what we were going to do next," Clark said.

He avoided the underbrush of The Jungle, despite being tempted by the voices of the streets. Clark says one of his childhood friends, Henry Smith, was killed in front of a local church during a drive-by shooting. Smith was running with the gangs and paid the price.

"(Frank) has seen a lot and experienced a lot."

This is Regina Bryant, the sister of Frank’s father, Frank Clark III. Regina remembers when Teneka Clark’s mother called from Los Angeles in 2003, saying her grandson needed to get out of that place. She called her counterpart in Cleveland, speaking grandma to grandma, and decided that young Frank would board a plane and head east.

Since then, Clark has harnessed an uncomplicated motive of ambition. He realized soon after what was nearly lost [to the probation charge in 2012] -- the opportunity to change his reality -- and that his circumstances are as fickle as they are fleeting.

"My mother struggles with a lot of things, know what I mean?" he said. "Just being away from her, knowing I can’t help her at a time where I look at it like she needs me, especially as an adult -- that’s what hurts the most. My mother was a big figure in my life and still is a big figure in my life, though, I don’t talk to her every day. The one thing that I want to do is to help her as much as I can when I get to that place where I can help her."

Frank Clark hasn’t seen his mother since they went to the airport in 2003. It eats at him. During his junior year of high school, he returned to California for a football camp and hoped to see his family. An aunt and some cousins showed up. His mom and siblings didn’t.

Clark hasn’t been back since, but wears the birthmark of Baldwin Village to this day. It doesn't wash off.

"I chose not to go back to my boys and my neighborhood, especially while I’m in college, because they wouldn’t really understand me, if you know what I mean," Clark said. … "Before I left, the road I was going down was the road that my best friend was going down. … I was going down the road where there was the gangs, the drugs and the violence -- the road every typical guy growing up in my neighborhood and in inner-city Los Angeles went down."<<<<<<<<<<<<<

[NorthHawk]

'NorthHawk' I would think that a woman would be more sensitive to Domestic Violence and may be more aggressive in prosecuting than an old man might be

Why would you think that??

Because they seem to be more sensitive and in tune about DV than us often callous males.

[burrrton]

Because they seem to be more sensitive and in tune about DV than us often callous males.

I can imagine a male and female prosecutor feeling differently, but you assume that would automatically make the male less outraged by DV, and that's not a given at all.

[NorthHawk]

The difference is women often take these things personally.
Men can be just as outraged, but it's something that happens to someone else and probably wouldn't happen to them.
No matter how PC we are, us men for the most part are more used to dealing with physical threats and don't see things in the same light.
Getting into fights was in my day and probably still is part of growing up a male, but it usually isn't the female experience.

[burrrton]

The difference is women often take these things personally.

So do men. Imagine a guy whose mom or daughter was in an abusive relationship...

No matter how PC we are, us men for the most part are more used to dealing with physical threats and don't see things in the same light.

Again, "being used to dealing with physical threats" and seeing things differently doesn't at all mean the man will necessarily take DV more lightly.

I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be comparing one caricature to another. There's no reason to think a man should be more dismissive of DV, nor is there any reason to think he'd be any less likely (to any noticeable degree) to come to the same legal conclusions re: prosecution.

[RiverDog]

Just when the Hawks thought they were going to get some slack cut their way after the DA said she didn't think Clark "punched" his girlfriend comes this article:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... irlfriend/

A hotel night manager told police in Ohio that Seahawks top draft pick Frank Clark threatened her and admitted hitting his girlfriend during a Nov. 15 altercation, according to newly released documents.

In a statement to police in Sandusky, Ohio, the day after the incident, manager Stephanie Burkhardt wrote that soon after she entered the couple’s hotel room Clark told her, “I will hit you like I hit her” and shouldered her out of the way before leaving. The documents, obtained by The Seattle Times via public-records request, supplement the initial police report.

Burkhardt said Sandusky Prosecutor Lynne Gast-King never contacted her before her decision to reduce Clark’s charges from first-degree misdemeanor domestic violence and assault to fourth-degree persistent disorderly conduct.

“I don’t know why they didn’t even question me about it,” Burkhardt said. “He straight up admitted to hitting her, and they didn’t do anything about it.’’

Not only did the Seahawks not talk with the witnesses, it would seem that the DA didn't, either. So how in the hell is everyone so convinced that Clark never hit his GF when they haven't even bothered to talk to the GD witnesses?

[HumanCockroach]

Who said they were "convinced"? One way or the other.

[RiverDog]

Who said they were "convinced"? One way or the other.

For one, the Seattle Times, which used that exact terminology to describe the DA's opinion:

Based primarily on her talk with Hurt, Gast-King said she came away convinced that Clark was involved in a "physical confrontation," but it didn't amount to domestic violence.


http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... irlfriend/

[c_hawkbob]

I am no more or less convinced that this woman is telling the truth than I am that he he never struck Hurt. I find it interesting that she's changes her story enough to get back into the news once it's clear she's been cycled out of it. If he really threatened to "hit her like he did his girlfriend" why didn't she lead with that version?

[HumanCockroach]

Sorry RD, when you said "everyone" I thought you meant it literally, not just the Seahawks and DA.

[mykc14]

I will once again defer to the fact that they did not question her in the investigation so I wouldn't expect the Hawks to. Also, she still did not see what happened during the altercation so I don't see how this changes much. Based on what I have heard this week I am going to side with the Hawks, Clark, and the DA who handled the case. The DA's story basically backs up what the Hawks have been saying all along, DV did not occur. Clearly the DA's conversation with Hurt led her to conclude that what the initial police report said is not what actually transpired. Hurt still has a voice and she has had ample opportunity to come out and tell the world what actually happened in the hotel room that night and she has said nothing. I understand that she doesn't have to but short of that happening there isn't much that these other 'witnesses' can come up with that would cause me to further question what happened.

[RiverDog]

I am no more or less convinced that this woman is telling the truth than I am that he he never struck Hurt. I find it interesting that she's changes her story enough to get back into the news once it's clear she's been cycled out of it. If he really threatened to "hit her like he did his girlfriend" why didn't she lead with that version?

I don't necessarily believe her, either. But there's enough conflicting testimony to raise a doubt as to what actually happened rather than the DA and the Seahawks choosing to believe Clark's version. Had they at least spoken with her, they may have been able to determine how credible her story was.

And so long as we're on the issue of changing stories, I found it odd that the DA would initially refuse to say whether or not she believed that Clark struck his GF then a day or so later, issues a statement saying that it was her opinion that he didn't.

[RiverDog]

I will once again defer to the fact that they did not question her in the investigation so I wouldn't expect the Hawks to. Also, she still did not see what happened during the altercation so I don't see how this changes much. Based on what I have heard this week I am going to side with the Hawks, Clark, and the DA who handled the case. The DA's story basically backs up what the Hawks have been saying all along, DV did not occur. Clearly the DA's conversation with Hurt led her to conclude that what the initial police report said is not what actually transpired. Hurt still has a voice and she has had ample opportunity to come out and tell the world what actually happened in the hotel room that night and she has said nothing. I understand that she doesn't have to but short of that happening there isn't much that these other 'witnesses' can come up with that would cause me to further question what happened.

If the Hawks were limiting their questioning only to those interviewed in the criminal investigation, then why didn't they question the investigator herself (the DA)?

This looks to me like the Hawks went into this "investigation" of theirs with an agenda: To find a reason to justify drafting Clark. They talked to a couple of counselors, the ones that they knew in advance that had recommended reducing the charges, what they thought, heard what they wanted to hear and figured that they had sufficient cover to fend off any criticism, and called it good. I do not see this exhaustive investigation into the incident that Schneider was eluding to when he was first asked.

[RiverDog]

Sorry RD, when you said "everyone" I thought you meant it literally, not just the Seahawks and DA.

Thanks, Roach. I can see where my statement could have been mis interpeted.

[burrrton]

I haven't read over all this, but...

Am I correct that there were no charges pressed, and no charges pending??

[RiverDog]

I haven't read over all this, but...

Am I correct that there were no charges pressed, and no charges pending??

He was offered and accepted a plea bargain that did not include a DV charge (can't remember the exact crime except that it wasn't a felony). There are no charges pending.

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nf ... /70978402/

Persistent disorderly conduct.

Pretty decent article, recommend giving it a read.

The most fascinating part of all of this to me is that everyone seems to stand behind Clark, including everyone that shouldn't, like Hurt, Hurts mother the staff and school officials in Michigan, and the DA. Something odd, HAD to have occurred IMHO to take this out of the realm of a standard DV situation, and created something that made everyone close to these two people side with Clark...

I have a little girl, and I promise, under NO circumstances would I side with a guy hitting her, much less "support" him. Something tells me Hurt has some pretty drastic issues, that will never come to light, doesn't mean I believe Clark is innocent by any stretch, just that this was not just another football player being a jackass and beating up his GF situation again.

[mykc14]

If the Hawks were limiting their questioning only to those interviewed in the criminal investigation, then why didn't they question the investigator herself (the DA)?

This looks to me like the Hawks went into this "investigation" of theirs with an agenda: To find a reason to justify drafting Clark. They talked to a couple of counselors, the ones that they knew in advance that had recommended reducing the charges, what they thought, heard what they wanted to hear and figured that they had sufficient cover to fend off any criticism, and called it good. I do not see this exhaustive investigation into the incident that Schneider was eluding to when he was first asked.

I have no idea who the Hawks talked to, how much effort they put into the investigation, what protocol they usually do in situations like these, or if they were just looking for the 'right' answers. To me not too much of that matters. For all I know they have a specific protocol for situations like this and they talked to who they would normally talk to in situations like this and got answers that allowed them to draft him. If their normal protocol led them to answers they didn't like maybe they would have asked others or taken him off their board. Or they could have known exactly who would tell them what they wanted, talked to those people only and heard what they wanted to hear to fend off any criticism. The truth is we will never know for sure. Here's what I know. Pete and John decided (at least publicly) that he didn't commit DV. The DA covering the case decided that he didn't commit DV. Clark himself has said he didn't commit DV. The victim has not come out publicly and said he hit her. At the same time she has not said that he didn't hit her either, not that she has to do either of those but if she did publicly come out and say he did I would at least be willing to re-evaluate my view. This wasn't some circumstance where they 'settled out of court' in order for him to avoid charges. This was the DA, after talking to all parties involved, deciding to come out and say he didn't hit her. For all we know Hurt told the DA "I was lying. He didn't hit me. I was out of control and he was trying to hold me down..." If that were the case it is no wonder she didn't talk to the witnesses she didn't need to. Nothing they could have told her would have shed any light on what actually happened in that hotel room.

[RiverDog]

I have no idea who the Hawks talked to, how much effort they put into the investigation, what protocol they usually do in situations like these, or if they were just looking for the 'right' answers. To me not too much of that matters. For all I know they have a specific protocol for situations like this and they talked to who they would normally talk to in situations like this and got answers that allowed them to draft him. If their normal protocol led them to answers they didn't like maybe they would have asked others or taken him off their board. Or they could have known exactly who would tell them what they wanted, talked to those people only and heard what they wanted to hear to fend off any criticism. The truth is we will never know for sure. Here's what I know. Pete and John decided (at least publicly) that he didn't commit DV. The DA covering the case decided that he didn't commit DV. Clark himself has said he didn't commit DV. The victim has not come out publicly and said he hit her. At the same time she has not said that he didn't hit her either, not that she has to do either of those but if she did publicly come out and say he did I would at least be willing to re-evaluate my view. This wasn't some circumstance where they 'settled out of court' in order for him to avoid charges. This was the DA, after talking to all parties involved, deciding to come out and say he didn't hit her. For all we know Hurt told the DA "I was lying. He didn't hit me. I was out of control and he was trying to hold me down..." If that were the case it is no wonder she didn't talk to the witnesses she didn't need to. Nothing they could have told her would have shed any light on what actually happened in that hotel room.

I don't know what their protocol for investigating potential draft choices is, either. All I am saying is that when they don't talk to any of the witnesses or to the DA that it comes up quite short of being extensive or exhaustive IMO.

As far as the motivations of the GF and mother of the GF are, who knows. It could be just as HC states it, or it could be that they see Clark as the girl's meal ticket. There are such things as gold diggers.

[HumanCockroach]

The link actually provides a lot of the steps Seattle took. May not be enough for some, but wasn't as half assed as some believe it to have been.

[HumanCockroach]

As far as the motivations of the GF and mother of the GF are, who knows. It could be just as HC states it, or it could be that they see Clark as the girl's meal ticket. There are such things as gold diggers

Absolutely there are, but I would be pretty hard pressed to say Hurt was one, as at this point, 2nd round NFL rookies aren' flush with tons of money, and those would be some pretty ling odds to make a lot of money ( maybe four years down the road) and I doubt the MOTHER, and the DA, as well as school officials, coaches and remaining student body would also go along with it. Usually when an athlete, especially a star athlete gets caught up in something like this they are nit just jettisoned from the team, but the school as well, not only was Clark allowed to continue his schooling, but worked out for scouts at Michigan's pro day.... Lot of thing don't add up across the board on this thing, and I doubt ANY of us will ever get the "truth" out if ANY of the parties involved.

[RiverDog]

As far as the motivations of the GF and mother of the GF are, who knows. It could be just as HC states it, or it could be that they see Clark as the girl's meal ticket. There are such things as gold diggers

Absolutely there are, but I would be pretty hard pressed to say Hurt was one, as at this point, 2nd round NFL rookies aren' flush with tons of money, and those would be some pretty ling odds to make a lot of money ( maybe four years down the road) and I doubt the MOTHER, and the DA, as well as school officials, coaches and remaining student body would also go along with it. Usually when an athlete, especially a star athlete gets caught up in something like this they are nit just jettisoned from the team, but the school as well, not only was Clark allowed to continue his schooling, but worked out for scouts at Michigan's pro day.... Lot of thing don't add up across the board on this thing, and I doubt ANY of us will ever get the "truth" out if ANY of the parties involved.

Did any of the officials at UM say that they thought Clark did not hit his GF? Certainly they must have thought that he bore quite a bit of the responsibility if they kicked him off the team. That's a pretty serious action for a team to take, almost a death penalty solution. Or was the embattled Brady Hoke so spiteful of his team that he decided to take one of his players down with him?

I don't find it odd or unusual that a university would not kick a person they believed may have struck a woman out of school. If he's not judged to be a high risk to repeat, then I don't see why they would. Remember, we're not talking about whether or not Clark is a habitual batterer and a threat to society, only that he hit his GF once, which would invalidate Schneider's zero tolerance "deal breaker" policy. IMO Schneider should have never agreed to that lofty standard and painted himself into a corner like he did. He should have left himself an out.

[NorthHawk]

Postby burrrton » Sat May 09, 2015 11:27 am

The difference is women often take these things personally.



So do men. Imagine a guy whose mom or daughter was in an abusive relationship...

No matter how PC we are, us men for the most part are more used to dealing with physical threats and don't see things in the same light.



Again, "being used to dealing with physical threats" and seeing things differently doesn't at all mean the man will necessarily take DV more lightly.

I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be comparing one caricature to another. There's no reason to think a man should be more dismissive of DV, nor is there any reason to think he'd be any less likely (to any noticeable degree) to come to the same legal conclusions re: prosecution.

In a perfect world, yes I agree.
But we are all far from perfect and women do react to some stimuli differently than men.
In this case we only have to look at the initial post of this thread from Sis to see how she reacted to the pick relative to those posts that followed.
Most of us males are concerned, and turned off by the descriptions of the history of our pick, but few of the (assuming male) posters had such a visceral or intense response.
Maybe my PoV is a generational thing and those younger than me feel the same as women. I just know that my cohort has a larger divide regarding reactions to DV and discussions about it often make the women more agitated than the men - unless we know the people involved. Which get back to my point that women often take these things more personally.

It could of course be in this case that the DA has seen so much worse in her work that it has hardened her outlook, or maybe there is other information that is not publicly shared that mitigates our pick's fault (I'm not sure that fault is the word I'm looking for).

[Hawktawk]

I dunno, the more I study this one the more I can understand Clarks reaction. The man was struck and then BIT IN THE NOSE. Man it hurts just thinking about that. He would be well within his right to separate her from him physically at that point IMO, even if it was physical. A reaction like that hardly makes a man an abuser. I have personally been struck by an escort radar detector, a blender, a block of WIC cheese, dinner plates, and the bill of a baseball cap which cut my cheek over 30 years in 2 marriages. Most of it was in the first rocky marriage. I never struck a woman but the primal instinct was lurking beneath the surface for sure.Nobody of either gender enjoys getting struck, having stuff thrown at them, or being bitten.

[burrrton]

But we are all far from perfect and women do react to some stimuli differently than men.

Again ... seeing things differently doesn't at all mean the man will necessarily take DV more lightly.

Again, north, you're arguing by caricature- the sensitive, emotional female DA vs the hardened, tobacco-chewing male DA.

That's not reality- there's broad consensus across gender lines about the grave nature of DV, and all other things being equal, to assume a Y chromosome would make a DA noticeably less likely to prosecute is silly.

[obiken]

I have gone from the belief a man is a just a piece of manure to hit a woman, to some woman just ask for it; to its really complex. Ray Rice just beating the snot out of a gal is the extreme. My brother married a big bi-polar gal, she wakes him up at 3 am and sprays Lysol on him saying you stink. I am sorry most men would have just blasted her. They got a divorce then remarried. Go figure.

[burrrton]

I have gone from the belief a man is a just a piece of manure to hit a woman, to some woman just ask for it;

Agree- I'm pretty old school on it myself, but there's no question women, as one might expect, can be just as big douchebags (even if, on average, they're outweighed/outmuscled/etc).

[obiken]

Yeah I am still mostly old school because most guys are stronger that most gals, but not always. Comes from working in prison. You throw mutt people together its just a big kennel, female or male gets blurred.