(08-15-2023, 05:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Maybe go back and read the last couple of pages of this thread.

If Joe never brandished a gun then that's a whole other story, but it seems we're leaning toward Joe's innocence because the female was "not scared". 

You highlighted "there was no jury" for the trial yet there is not one.  The judge will decide Joe's fate.  But what seems apparent from what has been reported about the testimony so far....If you are talking about the court of public opinion that is yet to be fully heard from


1) what has been pointed out is that she claimed fear in her testimony but not in her police statement.  And that her own behavior indicated anger not fear.  Those are salient points in deciding the veracity of her testimony.  There are no witnesses to the actual incident so it will come down to who the judge believes is telling the truth Joe or the "victim"   

2) there was no evidence presented, other than her testimony, of a gun being actually present.   

3) based only on her testimony it is possible that Joe would also have a case of menacing against her as she initiated the 2nd encounter by continuing to follow him, pulling alongside him at a stop light, and yelling obscenities toward him. He would have no idea as to what her intent was and it was just as possible for him to believe that she had a weapon she planned to use.

I believe I also said that Joe testifies tomorrow so we will finally hear the story from his standpoint and will be able to make more judgment based on that.  Right now, just based on what has been reported, I don't believe the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.  But that opinion very well may change after tomorrow when we hear what Joe has to say.

(08-15-2023, 07:38 PM)pally Wrote: You highlighted "there was no jury" for the trial yet there is not one.  The judge will decide Joe's fate.  But what seems apparent from what has been reported about the testimony so far....If you are talking about the court of public opinion that is yet to be fully heard from


1) what has been pointed out is that she claimed fear in her testimony but not in her police statement.  And that her own behavior indicated anger not fear.  Those are salient points in deciding the veracity of her testimony.  There are no witnesses to the actual incident so it will come down to who the judge believes is telling the truth Joe or the "victim"   

2) there was no evidence presented, other than her testimony, of a gun being actually present.   

3) based only on her testimony it is possible that Joe would also have a case of menacing against her as she initiated the 2nd encounter by continuing to follow him, pulling alongside him at a stop light, and yelling obscenities toward him. He would have no idea as to what her intent was and it was just as possible for him to believe that she had a weapon she planned to use.

I believe I also said that Joe testifies tomorrow so we will finally hear the story from his standpoint and will be able to make more judgment based on that.  Right now, just based on what has been reported, I don't believe the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.  But that opinion very well may change after tomorrow when we hear what Joe has to say.

When I asked "a question for the jury" I was talking to the folks here that were judging that Joe did nothing wrong because she wasn't scared. I thought that was quite obvious. Even if it weren't a Bench Trial I could not ask them a question from this message board....

Nevermind. 

(08-15-2023, 07:17 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Is there evidence he pulled a gun outside of her word?

To me that's the most important part. Weather or not the woman was "scared or angry" is moot. 

(08-15-2023, 06:09 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: I think the Blackburns are very serious and concerned about the image of the team. Zac certainly is. I seriously doubt they feel there’s the slightest validity to this. He’s got an ironclad character clause in his contract I’m sure. They had plenty of ammo to move on but didn’t.

Or perhaps they realize he has a history of violence towards women, (which he does; whether you concede the point or not) and feel he's matured since his younger days, But you're most likely right, the Blackburns don't have access to the Internet, so are most likely unaware of his history.



They haven't "moved on" because he agreed to take a pay cut. 

(08-15-2023, 07:38 PM)pally Wrote: You highlighted "there was no jury" for the trial yet there is not one.  The judge will decide Joe's fate.  But what seems apparent from what has been reported about the testimony so far....If you are talking about the court of public opinion that is yet to be fully heard from


1) what has been pointed out is that she claimed fear in her testimony but not in her police statement.  And that her own behavior indicated anger not fear.  Those are salient points in deciding the veracity of her testimony.  There are no witnesses to the actual incident so it will come down to who the judge believes is telling the truth Joe or the "victim"   

2) there was no evidence presented, other than her testimony, of a gun being actually present.   

3) based only on her testimony it is possible that Joe would also have a case of menacing against her as she initiated the 2nd encounter by continuing to follow him, pulling alongside him at a stop light, and yelling obscenities toward him. He would have no idea as to what her intent was and it was just as possible for him to believe that she had a weapon she planned to use.

I believe I also said that Joe testifies tomorrow so we will finally hear the story from his standpoint and will be able to make more judgment based on that.  Right now, just based on what has been reported, I don't believe the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.  But that opinion very well may change after tomorrow when we hear what Joe has to say.

Depending upon the life which one has lived, either emotion is completely acceptable in a fight or flight response type of situation.  Given my own temperament, in my younger days I could see myself getting angry with someone brandishing a gun to intimidate me.  Now that I'm older, I think more about my mortality, and would likely let off the gas, so to speak.

If there's no evidence and all they have to go on his her wotd. Someone who was clearly angry if she was gonna follow him and then give him the finger not really sure why this is dragging on. To me it seems like a simple case of both of them need to learn a valuable lessen and not get angry while driving. You never know what someone else will do and it's just not worth it. Not really sure how a conviction could come from this.

(08-15-2023, 08:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Depending upon the life which one has lived, either emotion is completely acceptable in a fight or flight response type of situation.  Given my own temperament, in my younger days I could see myself getting angry with someone brandishing a gun to intimidate me.  Now that I'm older, I think more about my mortality, and would likely let off the gas, so to speak.

according to her testimony she was angry before any mention of a gun

(08-15-2023, 08:18 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: If there's no evidence and all they have to go on his her wotd. Someone who was clearly angry if she was gonna follow him and then give him the finger not really sure why this is dragging on. To me it seems like a simple case of both of them need to learn a valuable lessen and not get angry while driving. You never know what someone else will do and it's just not worth it. Not really sure how a conviction could come from this.

Yeah, the whole "Don't dis me" culture..

(08-15-2023, 08:38 PM)pally Wrote: according to her testimony she was angry before any mention of a gun

Perhaps Joe was driving badly, and had already provoked her with his behavior behind the wheel?  I mean, have you driven on the highways lately?  People can really be a**holes in their vehicles..

(08-15-2023, 07:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Or perhaps they realize he has a history of violence towards women, (which he does; whether you concede the point or not) and feel he's matured since his younger days,



They haven't "moved on" because he agreed to take a pay cut. 

Wow! They’d have moved on if they thought he’d shown violence in this road rage incident and saved a lot more than they did. If he hits his incentives he’ll do pretty good.

(08-15-2023, 06:50 PM)casear2727 Wrote: There was no N word from her friend.  How do you live in Oklahoma and not know the truth about this?

Well I live in Norman. Know attorneys involved and a policeman involved and have known the landlord of Pickleman’s for over 50 years.

(08-15-2023, 08:47 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: Wow! They’d have moved on if they thought he’d shown violence in this road rage incident and saved a lot more than they did. If he hits his incentives he’ll do pretty good.

That sounds like a great feel-good answer, but the team also has a business to run.  Mixon is a quantity for this team, one that the budget didn't afford releasing completely, as cost of replacement might interrupt bigger picture plans for team budget.  Sure, the team probably likes him and has a good relationship with the man they drafted.  However, it's also completely possible that he's a different type of person when he's driving around in public than he is when he's at work.

(08-15-2023, 08:47 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: Wow! They’d have moved on if they thought he’d shown violence in this road rage incident and saved a lot more than they did. If he hits his incentives he’ll do pretty good.

You're really moving the goalpost here. 

It was asserted that JM had a history of violence against females, which is only TRUE if there's violence against females in his history.

You say it's a reach to suggest there are instances of violence against females in JM's history, I say it's a reach not to.

The "well the Blackburns love him" is just arguing against something that was never said. 

Much like the earlier theme of "JM did nothing because the woman wasn't scared". 

For all I know, JM was on his way to choir practice and this lady made up everything. That doesn't change the simple fact that JM has a history of violence against women.

Hell, I have a history of drinking Tequilla and fighting everyone in sight (only dudes I don't roll like Joe). it's been over 30 years since I've touched TQ and I haven't fought in decades, but the history is there; especially in Juarez. 

(08-15-2023, 08:50 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: Well I live in Norman. Know attorneys involved and a policeman involved and have known the landlord of Pickleman’s for over 50 years.

My media company covered the story, spoke with the detective.  Every one INSIDE the restaurant said the friend never said that.  And the video is quite evident.

The witnesses that agreed with Joe that the gay guy called 220 pound Mixon the "N" word were ALL outside.  These are the same thug dumbasses that were in this girls face telling her to f-ck Mixon for his birthday as her and her friend were just trying to go inside.

It was a lie by Mixon and his attorney that later simply went away.  One has to be stupid to believe this after everything that came out.

I let you slide with all your psuedo Bengals insider bullcrap that I know is false, but you really need to stop.  You dont want others to join JimBreech calling you out every time you post things that simply are not true.

(08-15-2023, 08:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That sounds like a great feel-good answer, but the team also has a business to run.  Mixon is a quantity for this team, one that the budget didn't afford releasing completely, as cost of replacement might interrupt bigger picture plans for team budget.  Sure, the team probably likes him and has a good relationship with the man they drafted.  However, it's also completely possible that he's a different type of person when he's driving around in public than he is when he's at work.

I’m pretty sure from day one they protected themselves with his past. I’d bet if they felt he’d really been guilty of the crime they could have cut bait with no penalty. Don’t forget this happened in late January. JMO had they thought he was guilty they would have moved on either in FA or the draft. They’d saved more money.

(08-15-2023, 09:24 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: I’m pretty sure from day one they protected themselves with his past. I’d bet if they felt he’d really been guilty of the crime they could have cut bait with no penalty. Don’t forget this happened in late January. JMO had they thought he was guilty they would have moved on either in FA or the draft. They’d saved more money.

Who were they going to get in Free Agency?  6M for washed up Zeke?  9M for Cook?

And they did draft a RB.

(08-15-2023, 09:19 PM)casear2727 Wrote: My media company covered the story, spoke with the detective.  Every one INSIDE the restaurant said the friend never said that.  And the video is quite evident.

The witnesses that agreed with Joe that the gay guy called 220 pound Mixon the "N" word were ALL outside.  These are the same thug dumbasses that were in this girls face telling her to f-ck Mixon for his birthday as her and her friend were just trying to go inside.

It was a lie by Mixon and his attorney that later simply went away.  One has to be stupid to believe this after everything that came out.

I let you slide with all your psuedo Bengals insider bullcrap that I know is false, but you really need to stop.  You dont want others to join JimBreech calling you out every time you post things that simply are not true.

I’ve never made anything up. It’s not who I am. I’ve been wrong on opinions. I don’t know what you think I’ve made up. What would someone gain on a message board for making things up to enhance themselves with people they will never meet? But I sure don’t need this as much as some of you think so adios. I had enjoyed it and thank many of you for great discussions about the Bengals.

(08-15-2023, 09:33 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: I’ve never made anything up. It’s not who I am. I’ve been wrong on opinions. I don’t know what you think I’ve made up. What would someone gain on a message board for making things up to enhance themselves with people they will never meet? But I sure don’t need this as much as some of you think so adios. I had enjoyed it and thank many of you for great discussions about the Bengals.

Mandated response:



WTS, in this back-and-forth you're the one that attempted to assert another was wrong. Dude said JM had a history of violence against women, which is categorically true. Don't pull the chain is you don't want to wake the dog. 

(08-15-2023, 07:30 PM)Whatever Wrote: There are apparently other witnesses.

 No witness testified to seeing the scene or a gun, witnesses that testified where all after the incident, one witness testifiedshe did not see a gun in the car after the incident.  So a case of he said she said.

(08-15-2023, 09:33 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: I’ve never made anything up. It’s not who I am. I’ve been wrong on opinions. I don’t know what you think I’ve made up. What would someone gain on a message board for making things up to enhance themselves with people they will never meet? But I sure don’t need this as much as some of you think so adios. I had enjoyed it and thank many of you for great discussions about the Bengals.

If you do enjoy conversations on this board and it's just a few people you vehemently get annoyed with arguing back and forth with, I suggest using the mute feature. I've muted just a couple people over the years, but it's been great not having to see their posts unless I want to :)