Trainer Chad Brown arrested on charges of 'obstruction of breathing'

[HottalkersinKY]

yes he was at the track today had two women and 2 kids with him in the winners circle

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by HottalkersinKY

yes he was at the track today had two women and 2 kids with him in the winners circle

Apparently it isn't the first time he's had 2 women with him.

[$w1fT]

As is the norm in horse racing, the FOX broadcast did their very *best* to barely mention the ongoing situation with Brown today.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by $w1fT

As is the norm in horse racing, the FOX broadcast did their very *best* to barely mention the ongoing situation with Brown today.

What would you like them to have done? They mentioned his arrest yesterday and today they said there were no new developments (if I remember correctly).

What exactly is 'ongoing' about it?
He got arrested, appeared in court, and made bail.
They are not going to play the 'he said-she said' game and give details of how it went down, if that's what you're looking for.

I'm guessing that Brown won't be doing any interviews for awhile.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

What would you like them to have done? They mentioned his arrest yesterday and today they said there were no new developments (if I remember correctly).

What exactly is 'ongoing' about it?
He got arrested, appeared in court, and made bail.
They are not going to play the 'he said-she said' game and give details of how it went down, if that's what you're looking for.

I'm guessing that Brown won't be doing any interviews for awhile.

Right on. It’s horse racing not TMZ

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

her having a key......is huge in this

Yep, it means that she was welcome in the house, She did not break in, and had an implied "right" to be there. Sort of destroys his defense.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Yep, it means that she was welcome in the house, She did not break in, and had an implied "right" to be there. Sort of destroys his defense.

Yeah, there's still possibilities I guess (perhaps he revoked her implied license and told her to mail back the keys?), but the facts seem very likely to be some version of "she came home to a place she reasonably felt she had a right to enter, discovered evidence of his sexual activity with another woman, and got upset, causing him to respond by using a great deal of force against her". And that's likely to result in a guilty verdict/plea for domestic assault or the equivalent charge in NY.

[oughtoh]

It could have always changed the locks when she did not mail the keys back. Maybe he couldn't afford to do that. LOL

[Tom]

Does he have a horse in the Queen's Plate this week?

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Yep, it means that she was welcome in the house, She did not break in, and had an implied "right" to be there. Sort of destroys his defense.

Again, we need to have everything play itself out - but my quick take on her own statement describing herself as his "on again/off again significant other" means that at this point it was likely "off again" and she should not be expected to be coming into his house. She wouldn't have described it that way if they were currently "on" - would have just said "significant other." This only speaks to her "right" to be there - not to the actions that followed.

Depending on who our neighbors were, we've exchanged keys in case of emergencies, pet sitting, plant watering, etc. Neither of us thought it gave us free rein to come into the others' house. That right was only for the duration of whatever temporary relationship we entered into. We didn't live next door to Cosmo Kramer.

[GMB@BP]

I like how the press was told they were not allowed to ask him about the incident if they talked to him...is that how it works?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I like how the press was told they were not allowed to ask him about the incident if they talked to him...is that how it works?

If they want to interview him...yes...

Else he walks away...pretty simple to understand

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by BarchCapper

Again, we need to have everything play itself out - but my quick take on her own statement describing herself as his "on again/off again significant other" means that at this point it was likely "off again" and she should not be expected to be coming into his house. She wouldn't have described it that way if they were currently "on" - would have just said "significant other." This only speaks to her "right" to be there - not to the actions that followed.

Depending on who our neighbors were, we've exchanged keys in case of emergencies, pet sitting, plant watering, etc. Neither of us thought it gave us free rein to come into the others' house. That right was only for the duration of whatever temporary relationship we entered into. We didn't live next door to Cosmo Kramer.

In general, a court (and certainly a jury) is not going to accept an argument that a woman you have sex with and give a key to is not allowed in your house- at least absent some specific testimony revoking the implied license (i.e., "I told her I never want to sleep with her again and that she needs to mail me back my key").

And specifically, it really doesn't matter very much that he might claim a breakup or that she was only supposed to use a key in an emergency. He presumably knew who she was, knew she did not pose a danger, and tried to asphyxiate her. He's highly unlikely to skate for that.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

If they want to interview him...yes...

Else he walks away...pretty simple to understand

I will have to see if that is the tact when I see other people such as politicians when the get arrested and are interviewed, seems to me they are asked anyways. I could be wrong, just what I am used to seeing in media clips.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

In general, a court (and certainly a jury) is not going to accept an argument that a woman you have sex with and give a key to is not allowed in your house- at least absent some specific testimony revoking the implied license (i.e., "I told her I never want to sleep with her again and that she needs to mail me back my key").

And specifically, it really doesn't matter very much that he might claim a breakup or that she was only supposed to use a key in an emergency. He presumably knew who she was, knew she did not pose a danger, and tried to asphyxiate her. He's highly unlikely to skate for that.

he is going to plead it down and get like 3 months suspended. Its just a misdemeanor.