chris henry 911 calls

[Maynard]

both calls are in this one link.....

http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/17/chris-henry-911-call-hes-beating-on-the-truck/

Chris Henry 911 Call -- He's Beating on the Truck
Posted Dec 17th 2009 1:13PM by TMZ Staff

The woman who was driving behind Chris Henry during the pickup truck incident called 911 -- and told the operator he was beating on the back window of the truck.

The caller also describes the Cincinnati Bengals star as "shirtless" and said his arm was in a cast.

A second person called 911 after Chris fell from the back of the truck -- saying "there's a man is in the road ... he looks dead ... there's no movement."

Chris died early this morning as a result of his injuries.

 

[jaxjaggywires]

I'm pretty sure she'll be exonerated of whatever charges they feel like throwing at her...his actions as reported by witnesses, as well as his criminal past, will see to that.

 

[MrBill]

I just don't see any way this woman escapes some type of manslaughter charge. You can't swerve back and forth to throw someone from a moving vehicle just because you got into an argument, I don't care what his history was. The police say that she had no marks or bruises from any type of assault, nor did Henry have a rap sheet that included beating his girlfriend/fiance/baby mama.

The bitch killed her meal ticket and now any life insurance that he had should be put into a trust for their kids so that she doesn't see a dime of it.

 

[brees fan]

Heresay is proof of nothing and most of these statements are heresay unless hard evidence is brought forth to prove it, like maybe dents in the truck although im not sure that is proof of anything on its own but maybe it is with the witness testimony.. she is going to jail or at the very least she will be charged with wrongful death... also because she did not report the domestic violence it will not be admissable (sp) in the court room...

It could have been Charles Manson... She fled the scene of a crime.

not that i disagree with you but didn't some other whatshisface kill a pedestrian while intoxicated and get away scott free because the pedestrian stepped into traffic? Also didn't said WHF leave the scene?

 

[SethMode]

I just don't see any way this woman escapes some type of manslaughter charge. You can't swerve back and forth to throw someone from a moving vehicle just because you got into an argument, I don't care what his history was. The police say that she had no marks or bruises from any type of assault, nor did Henry have a rap sheet that included beating his girlfriend/fiance/baby mama.

The bitch killed her meal ticket and now any life insurance that he had should be put into a trust for their kids so that she doesn't see a dime of it.

There's a lot of time for more to come out, but I don't see how you can't swerve back and forth if somebody jumps on the back of the truck you're driving away in and starts pounding on the back window. What was she going to do? Open the back window and kindly ask him to stop? If somebody was doing that to me while I was driving, I would be afraid of what would happen if he got through and I would likely do what I had to do to protect myself. Stable people do not pretend to be King Kong and beat on vehicles.

 

[Senser81]

Heresay is proof of nothing and most of these statements are heresay unless hard evidence is brought forth to prove it, like maybe dents in the truck although im not sure that is proof of anything on its own but maybe it is with the witness testimony.. she is going to jail or at the very least she will be charged with wrongful death... also because she did not report the domestic violence it will not be admissable (sp) in the court room...

What on earth are you talking about? You have no clue. I think Troy McClure would make a better lawyer than you.

LOL at "Heresay". Do you even know what that means? You obviously don't know how to spell it.

 

[jaxjaggywires]

Dude is standing up in the bed of my truck, eff it...I've got an air bag and a seatbelt. Ram that fucker into a tree, and send that bitch flying.

 

[SethMode]

What on earth are you talking about? You have no clue. I think Troy McClure would make a better lawyer than you.

LOL at "Heresay". Do you even know what that means? You obviously don't know how to spell it.

I believe you are thinking of Lionel Hutz, my friend.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to prove to you not only that Freddy Quimby is guilty, but that he is also innocent of not being guilty."

 

[brees fan]

so I made a spelling mistake, alot of times when Im typing Im going off the dome and things like that will happen, I will remember when making an argument that isn't the same as your to run a spell check before hand, with that outta the way I would like to provide you with the legal defintion of heresay (cause I stick to my guns mfer)

A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (Which would be the 911 calls)

It is the job of the judge or jury in a court proceeding to determine whether evidence offered as proof is credible. Three evidentiary rules help the judge or jury make this determination: (1) Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful. (2) The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand. (3) The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify.

In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.

Hearsay comes in many forms. It may be a written or oral statement; it also includes gestures. Essentially anything intended to assert a fact is considered a statement for the purposes of the Hearsay Rule. A nodding of the head may be a silent assertion of the word yes. A witness pointing to a gun may be asserting, "That is the murder weapon." Even silence has been accepted as a statement, as when a passengers' failure to complain was offered to prove that a train car was not too cold (Silver v. New York Central Railroad, 329 Mass. 14, 105 N.E.2d 923 [1952]).

Not all out-of-court statements or assertions are impermissible hearsay. If an attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the fact that a certain statement was made, but not the truthfulness of that statement, the statement is not hearsay and may be admitted as evidence. Suppose a hearing is held to determine a woman's mental competence. Out of court, when asked to identify herself, the woman said, "I am the pope." There is little question that the purpose of introducing that statement as evidence is not to convince the judge or jury that the woman actually is the pope; the truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant. Rather, the statement is introduced to show the woman's mental state; her belief that she is the pope may prove that she is not mentally competent. On the other hand, a defendant's out-of-court statement "I am the murderer," offered in a murder trial to prove that the defendant is the murderer, is hearsay.

The Federal Rules of Evidence outline the various types of statements that are excluded by the Hearsay Rule, and are thus admissible in court. These exceptions apply to circumstances believed to produce trustworthy assertions. Some hearsay exceptions are based on whether the declarant of the statement is available to testify. For example, a witness who has died is unavailable. A witness who claims some sort of testimonial privilege, such as the Attorney-Client Privilege, is also unavailable to testify, as is the witness who testifies to lack of memory regarding the subject matter, or is too physically or mentally ill to testify. These definitions fall under Rule 804 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. There are also situations where hearsay is allowed even though the declarant is available as a witness. These situations are outlined under Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Present Sense Impression. "A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter," is admissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 803(1)). An example is the statement "That green pickup truck is going to run that red light."

 

[jaxjaggywires]

Fine, you don't use their 911 calls...just call them into court to testify about what they saw.

 

[Senser81]

so I made a spelling mistake, alot of times when Im typing Im going off the dome and things like that will happen, I will remember when making an argument that isn't the same as your to run a spell check before hand, with that outta the way I would like to provide you with the legal defintion of heresay (cause I stick to my guns mfer)

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

 

[brees fan]

Actually I may be wrong in regards to that evidence being heresay due to the context in which it was recieved, but I still believe wholeheartdly that she will be charged with his death in some way shape or form and very well should be...

Fine, you don't use their 911 calls...just call them into court to testify about what they saw.

Second to last paragraph...

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

You commented on my repeated misspellings of the word and asked me if I knew what it meant, I will admit I had a rough idea of what it meant and I needed the legal definition to further understand it, Thank you for pointing out that my own personal defintion of the word wasn't exactly right.... Also from what I can see I didn't spell it wrong, it is used in various diff places with two diff spellings but essentially meaning the say thing...

 

[SethMode]

Actually I may be wrong in regards to that evidence being heresay due to the context in which it was recieved, but I still believe wholeheartdly that she will be charged with his death in some way shape or form and very well should be...

First of all, IMO, you are wrong. Most of the time 911 calls recorded that are reciting actions as they occur are admissible.

Secondly, I'm confused as to how you are making this opinion regarding charging her. If anything the evidence we currently have is that he was clearly unstable and beating on the window of her truck while she was driving. I ask again, what the fuck was she supposed to do? I'm perplexed here how you could think, at this point, that she will be charged with ANYTHING besides potentially fleeing the scene of the crime (something I'm still not 100% positive she'll get nailed for considering if someone was trying to beat on ME and was crazy enough to tear his way into my car and I managed to get him off, I'm not going to turn around and find out if he's alright. I don't know what she did TODAY or if someone contacted her after ambulances were on the scene, so that could change that)?

 

[SethMode]

Second to last paragraph...

breesfan, I'm beginning to think that you understanding of the law is very limited. I'm honestly not trying to insult you, you're just being very confusing. I really can't seem to grasp what you're arguing for or against here. Are you saying that the 911 caller can testify or can not?

 

[jaxjaggywires]

breesfan, I'm beginning to think that you understanding of the law is very limited. I'm honestly not trying to insult you, you're just being very confusing. I really can't seem to grasp what you're arguing for or against here. Are you saying that the 911 caller can testify or can not?

Agreed...make up your mind, dude.

 

[ralaw]

IIRC Stallworth didn't flee the scene but I could be wrong.

Stallworth actually stayed at the scene and called in the accident.

 

[Maynard]

im not so sure i agree with you guys who think she should be charged. Forgetting his person history and whatever record he may have, she tried to leave the home in a truck and he chased her and climbed into the bed of the truck.

She was obviously trying to get away from him and the argument could be made that she was in fear. Then as the caller stated, he was banging on the window of the truck which anyone could argue was irrational behavior ( along with the fact that he even climbed into the truck to go after her) and made her even more frighted. one could then argue that any weaving that took place was a result of her fear and his actions while she was driving. And that he fell out of the truck as a result of his own actions.

assuming this all started due to a domestic dispute, i dont see how any charges could be filed against her based on the information currently being released. the first 911 call pretty much confirms that imo.

 

[brees fan]

First Im gonna quote myself

(cause I stick to my guns mfer)

Then Im gonna say that this is the internet and on here I could give a fuck less if im wrong, If I take a stance I stand on it till its washed away then I go find another one to stand on... that might say alot about me in real life too I just dont get to go back and read it all again. Now to the task at hand...how do you use multiquote?
She will be charged because, with my new understanding of hearsay, all we really know is she was driving he was in the bed of the truck beating on the roof. For all we know at this point, he was reinacting some king kong fetish she\he had. He got hurt (without a coroners report we don't really know if he fell out of a truck I guess) and someone saw him on the ground (not falling out of the truck) unconcious and called the law, as far as I have learned she did not call the law AFTER he fell out of the moving vehicle or BEFORE when he was assaulting or attempting to assault her (no bruises or marks from what Ive read). He also has no history of domestic violence but, I will admit most cases do go unreported. In all honesty, the only reason I feel like she will be charged is her story just doesn't sit right with me, I clearly am not a lawyer (I do tend to let my mouth, or fingers actually, overload my ass sometimes) and don't know all the facts so I could very well be wrong... I doubt it though