Sullinger Arrested in Domestic Incident

[bdm860]

Here's a question on the malicious destruction of property (not trying to justify it, just thinking about a possibility).

I like to think if I was living with a successful entertainer, who makes millions of dollars, that I would have the very latest smartphone, (iphone 5, galaxy s4, whatever floats your boat) courtesy of my significant other.  I also like to think that they’d take care of the bill, maybe add me as an additional line on their plan, or just pay my bill for me.

So hypothetically, if Jared bought the phone and/or was paying the bill, does that change anything legally?  You can’t be charged for maliciously destroying your own property right?  But even if he bought it and was paying the bill, would it be considered a gift to her, and therefore hers?  Where’s the line here?

Now again hypothetically, say Jared actually smashed more than the phone, he also smashed the door, the dresser, the mirror, the pictures on the wall, etc., destroyed the whole bedroom.  If he paid for all of it, does that matter?  Is that only considered hers too if they’re married?  Or do you have to be living together for a certain period of time, like would it matter if she moved in only last month vs. more than a year ago, or if she moved into his place that he already had furnished, or they moved into the place together with both names on the lease and decorated together?  Of course I’m sure that’s the way a lot of domestic violence cases go down.  Man tells woman she’s nothing, has nothing, everything is his because he bought it, it his and not hers and so proceeds to destroy it, etc.  (Though that scenario plays out a little different in my head if I perceive the woman as a stay at home mom vs. a gold digger vs. a working professional, etc.).

Just wondering where the line is drawn on the "malicious destruction of property" part, not the assault/battery or witness intimidation part.  Wondering how the law is interpreted here, not talking about the moral/ethical nature of the acts.

[clover]

I said it at the start of the thread, and I'll say it again; it's very interesting to look at the difference between this thread and similar threads about other players.

I am reminded of the lack of concern about Fab Melo's domestic violence history when he was drafted.  I'm not sure if I was the only person to even bring it up.

Well that's the issue with things like hindsight--Fab Melo  was never involved in a DV incident while he was with the Celtics, as far as I know. So it's a non-starter.

The same way that this time last year, everyone still (rightly) thought Aaron Hernandez was a great football player who smoked a ton of pot. Warning signs don't mean a whole lot until they're proven right later--kinda like prophecy.

I don't put much faith in the notion of high-character/low-character athletes, which I find to be a fairly arbitrary construction stemming largely from a player's appearance and how they conduct themselves while playing a children's game.

So it's interesting to me to see the responses when an (allegedly high-character) player like Sullinger gets arrested for this sort of thing--I think the (allegedly low character) Jordan Crawford comparison someone else brought up is a good contrast, but I think an even better one would be someone like (allegedly low-character) JR Smith or (alegedly low-character) Ron Artest.

I haven't seen one "thug" in this whole thread, but what else do you call someone who (allegedly) hits women?

Interesting.

The Fab incident was from before the C's  drafted him--and so in line with the hindsight question on whether the Pats should have drafted Hernandez, knowing his past record as they presumably did.