To be honest, I don't have the same reaction to his comments about Earl K Sneed as others have had. I think Mark has always been an out-of-the-box thinker, and I could see him believing it was an out-of-the-box solution. Doesn't mean I agree with the decision, but the reasoning behind it is plausible to me.
I will also say that in these domestic violence cases there's usually more to the story. It's almost always portrayed as poor, innocent little girl is beat up by the big bad bully guy. First off, from a legal stand point, when the cops are called to a domestic disturbance call, someone has to be taken away (99 times out of 100 that's to jail) because of a law in Texas where the cops used their own judgment one time & they were later called back that night to the scene of a homicide. And 99 times out of 100 when the cops to take someone away, they take the guy right or wrong. And pleading guilty. It really doesn't mean anything because you're sitting there & you can either plead no contest & do probation, or you can go to court and do 6 months to 2 years in jail. That's like saying I don't want my job, I don't like where I'm living, I want to give up my whole life. No one wants to do that, so they'll often times plead no contest to charges that if those other factors were not in play, they would fight the case to end.
So, it would totally make sense to me that Earl K Sneed would have a different story to tell Mark, and it would probably be convincing because elements of the truth were probably present in his story. I do find it odd that he wouldn't read the arrest report, but also the guy's a billionaire, he's got a ton on his plate. It doesn't make that right, but I could see him making that error in judgment for sure.
The part that bothers me about the Earl K Sneed situation is the broken wrist the woman had in the first incident. Unless he would claim that she injured herself, that reeks of bad guy abused a woman & I don't know how he would explain that away.
|