Considering my wife does corporate communications, I'm a firm believer in hiring someone to help you in a situation like this, so I hope he didn't write it.
The statement is terrible and written by someone only slightly more literate than Kerley. Sentences don' start with the word "rather" as that suggests a continuation of the previous sentence. "It resulted from my decision to exercise remain silent..." makes no sense and is grammatically abhorrent. The word enforcement isn't hyphenated and even if it was, there would not be one at the end. The whole statement is littered with illiteracy.
If Kerley wrote this, he did exponentially better than I would have expected. If Kerley paid someone to write this, that's the next person he needs to find and kick their a$!
100%. Also, "while there was a physical alteration" loll. If a lawyer or publicist wrote this they should never work again. If Fred wrote it, fair enough he did his best.
Sounds like liberal cop haters making excuses for a criminal lowlife with a history of bad behavior...He's gonna be getting arrested for the rest of his life....watch....
Of course the brojo’s thought it was a good statement, haven’t any of you read any of their “journalism”. The only thing they dislike more than paying a web designer would be paying an editor.
poster above nailed it… in Florida, a domestic dispute with any probable cause triggers a mandatory arrest. Cops just doing their job. He exercised his rights.
Had friends at the meet staying at this hotel. Apparently there was blood everywhere after the altercation. Kerley's 3rd arrest for violence in the past year? Let's hope this one actually sticks...
Had friends at the meet staying at this hotel. Apparently there was blood everywhere after the altercation. Kerley's 3rd arrest for violence in the past year? Let's hope this one actually sticks...
Considering my wife does corporate communications, I'm a firm believer in hiring someone to help you in a situation like this, so I hope he didn't write it.
The statement is terrible and written by someone only slightly more literate than Kerley. Sentences don' start with the word "rather" as that suggests a continuation of the previous sentence. "It resulted from my decision to exercise remain silent..." makes no sense and is grammatically abhorrent. The word enforcement isn't hyphenated and even if it was, there would not be one at the end. The whole statement is littered with illiteracy.
If Kerley wrote this, he did exponentially better than I would have expected. If Kerley paid someone to write this, that's the next person he needs to find and kick their a$!
chatting about grammar. what does that have to do with competence as a lawyer?
The statement is terrible and written by someone only slightly more literate than Kerley. Sentences don' start with the word "rather" as that suggests a continuation of the previous sentence. "It resulted from my decision to exercise remain silent..." makes no sense and is grammatically abhorrent. The word enforcement isn't hyphenated and even if it was, there would not be one at the end. The whole statement is littered with illiteracy.
If Kerley wrote this, he did exponentially better than I would have expected. If Kerley paid someone to write this, that's the next person he needs to find and kick their a$!
chatting about grammar. what does that have to do with competence as a lawyer?
One loses credibility as a lawyer if stringing a sentence together is a struggle. That said, I really don't think a lawyer wrote this. A lawyer would NEVER have admitted there was a "physical alteration (altercation)", for one thing. A lawyer also would never have him say "I take full accountability for placing myself in this situation", when Fred hasn't been convicted of anything. This statement could potentially be used against him in court, so only the absolute WORST lawyer would have released it.
It reads more like the words of a publicist, who would think admitting some fault was endearing.
Fred speaking would have resulted in some sort of under the influence or public intoxication charge. You ever hear him speak? They wouldn’t believe he wasn’t on something.
He was under arrest when read Miranda rights, so booking was going to happen whether he spoke to them or not. To say he was booked because he asked for an attorney is not accurate.
Exactly. Does Fred think invoking the 5th amendment is a get out of jail free card? As long as the police did not try to interrogate him after requesting an attorney his rights were not violated.
It's not a jail free card. As far as we know nobody really got hurt in the altercation.
chatting about grammar. what does that have to do with competence as a lawyer?
One loses credibility as a lawyer if stringing a sentence together is a struggle. That said, I really don't think a lawyer wrote this. A lawyer would NEVER have admitted there was a "physical alteration (altercation)", for one thing. A lawyer also would never have him say "I take full accountability for placing myself in this situation", when Fred hasn't been convicted of anything. This statement could potentially be used against him in court, so only the absolute WORST lawyer would have released it.
It reads more like the words of a publicist, who would think admitting some fault was endearing.
I just think people put too much energy in nitpicking sentences. You know the point he was making. Why would a lawyer lie about an altercation when there is definitely going to be footage? That is damning their credibility if you ask me.
One loses credibility as a lawyer if stringing a sentence together is a struggle. That said, I really don't think a lawyer wrote this. A lawyer would NEVER have admitted there was a "physical alteration (altercation)", for one thing. A lawyer also would never have him say "I take full accountability for placing myself in this situation", when Fred hasn't been convicted of anything. This statement could potentially be used against him in court, so only the absolute WORST lawyer would have released it.
It reads more like the words of a publicist, who would think admitting some fault was endearing.
I just think people put too much energy in nitpicking sentences. You know the point he was making. Why would a lawyer lie about an altercation when there is definitely going to be footage? That is damning their credibility if you ask me.
Putting too much energy into nitpicking every tiny detail is exactly what happens during a criminal trial.
I just think people put too much energy in nitpicking sentences. You know the point he was making. Why would a lawyer lie about an altercation when there is definitely going to be footage? That is damning their credibility if you ask me.
Putting too much energy into nitpicking every tiny detail is exactly what happens during a criminal trial.
I hear ya. I kinda agree with you but him making a statement can't be perceived as a bad move. That's what I'm really getting at
One loses credibility as a lawyer if stringing a sentence together is a struggle. That said, I really don't think a lawyer wrote this. A lawyer would NEVER have admitted there was a "physical alteration (altercation)", for one thing. A lawyer also would never have him say "I take full accountability for placing myself in this situation", when Fred hasn't been convicted of anything. This statement could potentially be used against him in court, so only the absolute WORST lawyer would have released it.
It reads more like the words of a publicist, who would think admitting some fault was endearing.
I just think people put too much energy in nitpicking sentences. You know the point he was making. Why would a lawyer lie about an altercation when there is definitely going to be footage? That is damning their credibility if you ask me.
'Why would a lawyer lie'...lol, well you might be unfamiliar with the profession..
The reason a lawyer would not admit to this is that you do NOT assume there is footage. And even if there is, you don't assume they'll be able to get it. Even if they can, you don't assume it will reveal anything incriminating. Even if it does, the prosecution might not use it in a trial if something in the footage makes your client look sympathetic to a jury. Lawyers don't concede anything right at the start.
Even if the lawyer has seen the footage already, knows the prosecution is using it and that it looks terrible, the last thing they'll do is make a public statement about it that draws attention to it.
Fred speaking would have resulted in some sort of under the influence or public intoxication charge. You ever hear him speak? They wouldn’t believe he wasn’t on something.
No he didn't! He was involved in a fight...Shocker!!! Fred has major issues and needs psychiatric help...PERIOD! He has domestic violence issues and should be suspended from track until his legal issues are resolved, similar to what the NFL does.