3 Griz Arrested

[jodcon]

This is becoming comical. So the spin now is they were just trying to get out of the rain until their ride came, so they climbed a ladder into the second story of a house, or did I get that wrong?

I don't know about Missoula but there are about 50 places on my street alone to get out of the rain without entering a house, maybe it was raining from every direction that would explain it.

Yeah, no, you pretty much nailed the PR/75 justification.

C'mon, jodcon, do you really expect personal responsibility from these student-athletes we give free educations to?

I get the whole "kids get drunk and do dumb shit" defense, I definitely won't be throwing any stones based on my youth, but these athletes know they are held to a higher standard than the average Joe student because they are the face of the school and, in essence, given an education to represent the school in a certain manner...and it doesn't appear that happened.

 

[doc3kgt]

Is going into an unfinished room above a garage, through a large opening--in a house being renovated and when the room isn't directed connected to the house, "breaking in"? I'm curious about why they went in (and scooted up the ladder).

Phase 2 of this ordeal: KVA, Counts and Schmaing contract with an aggressive lawyer and file suit against the home owner for failing to take reasonable measure to secure the property. The case goes to court after a change in venue to Kaisell and KVA is awarded a multi million dollar award for damages and loss of an NFL career, Counts too is awarded generously as is Schmaing but Schmaing is also awarded the deed to the property in question for the additional pain and suffering it has caused.

Funny that you say this, as I was wondering what would have happened if someone fell through an uncompleted floor (and got seriously hurt) after entering an unsecured construction site. Just occurred to me after reading that the site/building didn't seem to have been secured. Glad no one was hurt, of course.

I too am glad no one was hurt.

Who the f*ck climbs a ladder and enters private property to "get out of the rain"? How about a tree, or you just suck it up and get wet waiting for your ride. This reeks of the typical UM bullshit and it's not fooling anyone.

 

[doc3kgt]

Trespassing....is this something we really need to remind grown men of?

Most people, adults and otherwise, are unaware that crossing even the corner of a lawn is "trespassing" under the statute, and that like most statutes for whom people advocate "zero tolerance," in many cases that approach is simply ridiculous.

Decent people don't wreck lives over stupidity. Other kinds of people can't wait ....

Jesus. You have got to be the biggest UM apologist in existence. Your homerism rivals that of PR, and that is saying something. I would be willing to bet that if a UM football player raped someone you would come up with some irrational bullshit excuse in order to spin the story and make the guilty look innocent...oh wait. Douche bag. Headline: " UM football player leaves the United States to join ISIS". UMGriz75: "Anyone who has googled ISIS is basically a terrorist, so lets cut the guy some slack, after all, he is a UM FOOTBALL PLAYER." smh.

 

[marceagfan5]

Trespassing....is this something we really need to remind grown men of?

Most people, adults and otherwise, are unaware that crossing even the corner of a lawn is "trespassing" under the statute, and that like most statutes for whom people advocate "zero tolerance," in many cases that approach is simply ridiculous.

Decent people don't wreck lives over stupidity. Other kinds of people can't wait ....

Jesus. You have got to be the biggest UM apologist in existence. Your homerism rivals that of PR, and that is saying something. I would be willing to bet that if a UM football player raped someone you would come up with some irrational bullshit excuse in order to spin the story and make the guilty look innocent...oh wait. Douche bag. Headline: " UM football player leaves the United States to join ISIS". UMGriz75: "Anyone who has googled ISIS is basically a terrorist, so lets cut the guy some slack, after all, he is a UM FOOTBALL PLAYER." smh.

75 - Take the Griz effect out of this, say these Adults (they are adults) weren't Griz players. So you have a 6'7 290lb 22 year old and his buddies climb a ladder to get into your second story home that is partially under construction. You have a wife and kids that live in this home. You are just supposed to think they are there to get out of the rain, they are good citizens, nothing is going to go wrong? They just needed to climb to the second floor of your house, go through a window at 2:30 in the morning to get out of the rain or explore and its not a big deal, the same as cutting a corner in your yard or jaywalking....Even when you hear them say they should think about taking something (this was quoted in the paper).

Would you be defending these adults if they weren't griz players? Just curious...

I hope this doesn't turn out as bad as it was originally reported, but as a few posters have said, the players were still breaking the law, yet so many are claiming its not a big deal.....

 

[AZGrizFan]

Bullseye! I really don't know how you refute - They Broke The Law. Black or white. No grey here.

Swing and miss. There are infinite levels of "grey" in the law. Jaywalking is breaking the law. Murder is breaking the law. Should a "zero tolerance" policy kick a player off for both offenses? Trespassing is breaking the law. Burglary is breaking the law. Should a "zero tolerance" policy result in the same suspension regardless of the level of offense?

Of course not...the nuance you describe is relevant. But, there are some who actually think the homeowners are at fault, or it was unclear if it was a dwelling, or the rain forced them into the structure. Those ideas floating around on here in an attempt to somehow dismiss this are insane.

They did the wrong thing. No nuance there in my opinion. The remedy formed by the court, admin, and coaches has spece for nuance. I believe Stitt needs to send a strong message in his first big test. I would.

Great post

Must be some other thread railing on the homeowners for being at fault. I haven't seen a single post here blaming them.

 

[ilovethecats]

let's remember that the "just getting out of the rain" theory was just that...a theory. someone mentioned this might be a reason for entering someones home and other posters just rolled with it.

 

[grizfnz]

Swing and miss. There are infinite levels of "grey" in the law. Jaywalking is breaking the law. Murder is breaking the law. Should a "zero tolerance" policy kick a player off for both offenses? Trespassing is breaking the law. Burglary is breaking the law. Should a "zero tolerance" policy result in the same suspension regardless of the level of offense?

Of course not...the nuance you describe is relevant. But, there are some who actually think the homeowners are at fault, or it was unclear if it was a dwelling, or the rain forced them into the structure. Those ideas floating around on here in an attempt to somehow dismiss this are insane.

They did the wrong thing. No nuance there in my opinion. The remedy formed by the court, admin, and coaches has spece for nuance. I believe Stitt needs to send a strong message in his first big test. I would.

Great post

Must be some other thread railing on the homeowners for being at fault. I haven't seen a single post here blaming them.

Not the homeowners fault, blame clearly falls on the city for issuing a permit for an accessory dwelling unit in the first place. No permit....no 2nd floor window to explore.

 

[mcg]

Trespassing....is this something we really need to remind grown men of?

Most people, adults and otherwise, are unaware that crossing even the corner of a lawn is "trespassing" under the statute, and that like most statutes for whom people advocate "zero tolerance," in many cases that approach is simply ridiculous.

Decent people don't wreck lives over stupidity. Other kinds of people can't wait ....

Jesus. You have got to be the biggest UM apologist in existence. Your homerism rivals that of PR, and that is saying something. I would be willing to bet that if a UM football player raped someone you would come up with some irrational bullshit excuse in order to spin the story and make the guilty look innocent...oh wait. Douche bag. Headline: " UM football player leaves the United States to join ISIS". UMGriz75: "Anyone who has googled ISIS is basically a terrorist, so lets cut the guy some slack, after all, he is a UM FOOTBALL PLAYER." smh.

75 - Take the Griz effect out of this, say these Adults (they are adults) weren't Griz players. So you have a 6'7 290lb 22 year old and his buddies climb a ladder to get into your second story home that is partially under construction. You have a wife and kids that live in this home. You are just supposed to think they are there to get out of the rain, they are good citizens, nothing is going to go wrong? They just needed to climb to the second floor of your house, go through a window at 2:30 in the morning to get out of the rain or explore and its not a big deal, the same as cutting a corner in your yard or jaywalking....Even when you hear them say they should think about taking something (this was quoted in the paper).

Would you be defending these adults if they weren't griz players? Just curious...

I hope this doesn't turn out as bad as it was originally reported, but as a few posters have said, the players were still breaking the law, yet so many are claiming its not a big deal.....

Actually I don't think anyone has said that the players didn't break the law. The question is what law did they break? Because different laws have different consequences.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

75 - Take the Griz effect out of this, say these Adults (they are adults) weren't Griz players. So you have a 6'7 290lb 22 year old and his buddies climb a ladder to get into your second story home that is partially under construction. You have a wife and kids that live in this home. You are just supposed to think they are there to get out of the rain, they are good citizens, nothing is going to go wrong? They just needed to climb to the second floor of your house, go through a window at 2:30 in the morning to get out of the rain or explore and its not a big deal, the same as cutting a corner in your yard or jaywalking....Even when you hear them say they should think about taking something (this was quoted in the paper).

Would you be defending these adults if they weren't griz players? Just curious...

I hope this doesn't turn out as bad as it was originally reported, but as a few posters have said, the players were still breaking the law, yet so many are claiming its not a big deal.....

MarcEagle, I'll try to take the Griz effect out of this.

If I were the homeowner and at 2:30 am I heard then saw men entering a structure on my property I damn sure would call the cops. I wouldn't matter if it was just me & my wife, or with kids in the house. It wouldn't matter if the guys appeared to be 7 feet tall. I'd dial 911 as quickly as I could. After the cops arrived I'd then let them sort it out and expect there would be some degree of punishment.

With that said, the news stories have been confusing. It is a fact they were on someone's property, in a structure under construction. Somehow this wasn't directly accessible to the home so it's unclear if it was an addition or if a separate guest cottage. Either way doesn't eliminate the fact they were on this property. It is also possible these guys had some malicious intent (theft, vandalism, etc...). The homeowner calling the cops was the right move, and the guys actions were the wrong choice.

Though college kids, or young adults, are known to do dumb things without considering the potential implications or their consequences. If they were waiting for someone to pick them up from a party. Then got tired of waiting and were walking down the road in the rain towards town I can envision someone saying "Hey, let's find a place to wait out of the rain. There is a ladder leading up to that empty window. Let's see what is up there and sit until Joe shows up." In that case this is a much different matter than what the initial news report implied.

There should be legal consequences for these guys (and on the team if we do consider they were athletes). Yet I am not Solomon and don't know precisely what the punishment should be. However it shouldn't be much if the actual circumstances are close to the second scenario, rather than the newspaper's implied breaking & entering burglary scenario. That is my two bits. :ugeek:

 

[mondayamqb]

Like most of you when I heard 3am felony burglary, I said o'crap, stupid, boot'em. Later the address caught my attention. I have been watching this extensive remodel/addition all summer. They had to bring in a large crane to place a long roof beam. The owners have lived in the original house during construction. It's framed. The roof is on; most of the siding and the smaller windows are in. The Griz sign someone mentioned is logoed construction wrap that goes on before the siding. I don't think sheetrock is up; probably why the large window is still open so they will have access. The window is above the garage, with a wooden ladder leaning into it. The driveway is relatively short onto Pattee Canyon Drive. So, why did they trespass? What are they going to steal in a large unfinished room? Contractors lock up their valuable tools. Nothing to vandalize. Pattee is all residential with no alleys. Not a place to prowl. Just doesn't add up. I'll be very surprised to learn they were just out to raise hell with criminal intent driven by extreme stupidity.

 

[EverettGriz]

let's remember that the "just getting out of the rain" theory was just that...a theory. someone mentioned this might be a reason for entering someones home and other posters just rolled with it.

This is precisely my point, ILTC. I don't CARRRRRRRRRREEEE what the "justification" is. The decision was wrong and illegal. It's the same argument I made during the MSU players breaking into the Mayor's house. I don't care if they knew a guy who knew a guy who once was there. It was wrong. They KNEW it was wrong (and illegal), and they did it anyway.

Again, it's about personal responsibility. Unless Schmaing was about to have a baby, I cannot envision ANY reason why they needed to be in that house. None. And they went there knowing it was illegal. I guess I just don't see why there needs to be any discussion beyond that.

 

[marceagfan5]

75 - Take the Griz effect out of this, say these Adults (they are adults) weren't Griz players. So you have a 6'7 290lb 22 year old and his buddies climb a ladder to get into your second story home that is partially under construction. You have a wife and kids that live in this home. You are just supposed to think they are there to get out of the rain, they are good citizens, nothing is going to go wrong? They just needed to climb to the second floor of your house, go through a window at 2:30 in the morning to get out of the rain or explore and its not a big deal, the same as cutting a corner in your yard or jaywalking....Even when you hear them say they should think about taking something (this was quoted in the paper).

Would you be defending these adults if they weren't griz players? Just curious...

I hope this doesn't turn out as bad as it was originally reported, but as a few posters have said, the players were still breaking the law, yet so many are claiming its not a big deal.....

MarcEagle, I'll try to take the Griz effect out of this.

If I were the homeowner and at 2:30 am I heard then saw men entering a structure on my property I damn sure would call the cops. I wouldn't matter if it was just me & my wife, or with kids in the house. It wouldn't matter if the guys appeared to be 7 feet tall. I'd dial 911 as quickly as I could. After the cops arrived I'd then let them sort it out and expect there would be some degree of punishment.

With that said, the news stories have been confusing. It is a fact they were on someone's property, in a structure under construction. Somehow this wasn't directly accessible to the home so it's unclear if it was an addition or if a separate guest cottage. Either way doesn't eliminate the fact they were on this property. It is also possible these guys had some malicious intent (theft, vandalism, etc...). The homeowner calling the cops was the right move, and the guys actions were the wrong choice.

Though college kids, or young adults, are known to do dumb things without considering the potential implications or their consequences. If they were waiting for someone to pick them up from a party. Then got tired of waiting and were walking down the road in the rain towards town I can envision someone saying "Hey, let's find a place to wait out of the rain. There is a ladder leading up to that empty window. Let's see what is up there and sit until Joe shows up." In that case this is a much different matter than what the initial news report implied.

There should be legal consequences for these guys (and on the team if we do consider they were athletes). Yet I am not Solomon and don't know precisely what the punishment should be. However it shouldn't be much if the actual circumstances are close to the second scenario, rather than the newspaper's implied breaking & entering burglary scenario. That is my two bits. :ugeek:

Great Post...

 

[haZyskies]

I don't care how stupid you are, nobody climbs up a ladder into a random house at 2:30 in the morning to get out of the rain. The article states the home owner heard the men discussing if they should steal something. At the end of the day it shouldn't matter why in the hell they went into that house, because they broke the law. Myself and many others are tired of seeing Griz players getting into trouble. They should be removed from the team and lose their scholarships.

 

[ilovethecats]

let's remember that the "just getting out of the rain" theory was just that...a theory. someone mentioned this might be a reason for entering someones home and other posters just rolled with it.

This is precisely my point, ILTC. I don't CARRRRRRRRRREEEE what the "justification" is. The decision was wrong and illegal. It's the same argument I made during the MSU players breaking into the Mayor's house. I don't care if they knew a guy who knew a guy who once was there. It was wrong. They KNEW it was wrong (and illegal), and they did it anyway.

Again, it's about personal responsibility. Unless Schmaing was about to have a baby, I cannot envision ANY reason why they needed to be in that house. None. And they went there knowing it was illegal. I guess I just don't see why there needs to be any discussion beyond that.

preaching to the choir here. this has been my point all along. the kids screwed up and will likely face punishment. that seemed to be a given from nearly everyone.

what we have since on this board is people making up theories, hypotheticals, scenarios, what-ifs, possibilities, etc and no one knows anything other than what they read in the one article. and as i have witnessed many times over and over today, some people can't even get the facts of the article correct.

this was my point all along. all this back and forth between us posters is pointless. we don't know anything. they could have went up there with the worst intentions imaginable, (i won't dare say what kind)...or they might have went up there with the most harmless intentions.

i'm with you though. as far as right or wrong none of this matters. it was wrong. as far as fans making up any theory they think of to fit their agenda....the actual FACTS of the case are important.

 

[Caseyorourke]

Our game is over, so I don't have a dog in this fight, so I hope I can offer something constructive as an outsider looking in. As a current teacher and an experienced Air Force NCO/Supervisor, I've dealt with students and young airman (not much older than these kids) doing questionable things.

I read the provided articles and for me it leaves me with some unanswered questions.

If I missed something or I touch on something somebody has already answered, please (civilly) educate me.

One personal question of mine is, did they come back with the team or catch an earlier flight?

Where were they before this event? A friends home? A local club? At 2:30 (at least in Oregon and Texas) most bars are closed at that time.

Was alcohol a factor? I didn't see any reference to any BAI level or mention of any of them being intoxicated, so I am assuming they were all sober at the time.

When did they call to be picked up? Before or after the fact? Why didn't they wait in a more accessible location?

I keep coming back to asking, "What would a REASONABLE person do in this situation?"

Personally, and forgive me if I tread on any toes, I can't see or find any reasonable actions in any of this.

After experiencing a grueling rode trip with a plane flight to a another city, a physically exhausting football game in extremely inclement weather conditions, then a late flight home, is it reasonable for anyone to be out walking around at 2:30 in the morning in what I understand to be to be cold, wet and rainy weather?

Would a reasonable person even consider climbing a ladder (possibly risking injury) to climb into an open second story window on another person's property (unoccupied or not) as an excuse to get out of the weather while waiting for a ride.

I assume that in Montana, like Texas, a "castle defense statute" exonerates a property owner who disables or kills an intruder in their home, which, if they have been in Montana for a while they should know.

If they were freshman on their own for the first time, I could excuse it for inexperienced exuberance, but these were experienced, hopefully well-educated upperclassmen and in the eyes of society, legal adults, responsible for their actions.

On the surface, I can't see any reasonable actions on any of these individuals, but then again, we don't know all the facts in this matter. I say let the detectives conduct their investigation and if it goes to trial let a jury decide guilt or innocence.

As for what the college administration decides to do, as long as it is in accordance to the student code of conduct and NCAA regulations, I'm fine with that.

 

[bigkid]

Mods please lock this thread and let's wait it out. People on here think the players are bad examples of the program when in fact egrizers are much worse. It's a sad day when we can't give our own the benefit of the doubt.

 

[NDSUSR]

Castle does not apply if the homeowner does not detect a imminent threat.

Montana 45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure.

(1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

 

[montanaguy]

I'm under the impression that charges aren't brought against a person for misdemeanor trespass unless the property owner demands charging. Maybe someone can clarify. If I was the property owner of a construction project adjacent to my actual living quarters I think I would let it slide. I still remember doing things in college that could have altered my life if somebody had been the vengeful type. Thanks to people who gave me a break. I learned my lesson without making headlines.

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

Castle does not apply if the homeowner does not detect a imminent threat.

Montana 45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure.

(1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

Let me simplify, Castle/Stand your ground, is nothing more than the absence of a duty to retreat.

 

[PlayerRep]

Trespassing....is this something we really need to remind grown men of?

Most people, adults and otherwise, are unaware that crossing even the corner of a lawn is "trespassing" under the statute, and that like most statutes for whom people advocate "zero tolerance," in many cases that approach is simply ridiculous.

Decent people don't wreck lives over stupidity. Other kinds of people can't wait ....

Jesus. You have got to be the biggest UM apologist in existence. Your homerism rivals that of PR, and that is saying something. I would be willing to bet that if a UM football player raped someone you would come up with some irrational bullshit excuse in order to spin the story and make the guilty look innocent...oh wait. Douche bag. Headline: " UM football player leaves the United States to join ISIS". UMGriz75: "Anyone who has googled ISIS is basically a terrorist, so lets cut the guy some slack, after all, he is a UM FOOTBALL PLAYER." smh.

75 - Take the Griz effect out of this, say these Adults (they are adults) weren't Griz players. So you have a 6'7 290lb 22 year old and his buddies climb a ladder to get into your second story home that is partially under construction. You have a wife and kids that live in this home. You are just supposed to think they are there to get out of the rain, they are good citizens, nothing is going to go wrong? They just needed to climb to the second floor of your house, go through a window at 2:30 in the morning to get out of the rain or explore and its not a big deal, the same as cutting a corner in your yard or jaywalking....Even when you hear them say they should think about taking something (this was quoted in the paper).

Would you be defending these adults if they weren't griz players? Just curious...

I hope this doesn't turn out as bad as it was originally reported, but as a few posters have said, the players were still breaking the law, yet so many are claiming its not a big deal.....

The players weren't in the home. They were in a room atop the new garage, and the room didn't have direct access to the house. The "window" was a huge open space that doesn't yet have a window or anything in it. It is a huge hole just above the garage doors. The "ladder" was a makeshift wooden thing for carrying stuff to and from the room being built.

My view is that if they hadn't been Griz players they probably wouldn't have been charged with a felony.

Talked to a lawyer downtown tonight who wasn't sure if they would ultimately be charged with anything. I think they will.