3 Griz Arrested

[SoldierGriz]

Ummm...go back a few pages. Look for the words attractive nuisance, or look for the posts discussing what might have happened if players fell through the floor, or codes about marking construction sites, or posts stating the kids were asleep therefore not traumatized, or the post doubting the homeowner heard criminal intent. The posts are there. Others can have a different conclusion about what they mean. They aren't ambiguous to me. Just like the actions of the players are not ambiguous.

This is classic, an example of taking a factual description and twisting it into an agenda.

I used the words "attractive nuisance" because I know what they mean on an unmarked construction site. I'm one of those people that understand the law even if I don't agree with it, unlike the morons who post here in their all knowing fashion, and then further misrepresent what was said, because what was actually posted wasn't good enough. I dislike fabrication to obtain a talking point. Find the post about "codes marking construction sites." Find the post about players "falling through the floor." Find the post about "the kids being asleep." I didn't write them. I don't remember anyone else writing them. It's simply false.

Did you know that deceit is "against the law?" How should you be punished?

This is precisely what I mean by a bunch of pious hypocrites piling onto a Halloween night visit to a construction site. They need to lie to sustain some dam fool narrative that they carry around like a rotten potato, because no slander is good enough if a fb player is involved. Get a life.

I didn't make those things up...you can find them in this thread. You did write the following:

"Had anyone been injured, this would have been an "attractive nuisance" case. Although major construction is obviously underway, there are no signs posted."

The other things are in this thread as well...

Anyway...I appreciate your passion. We just have different expectations of players, and that's fine.

 

[putter]

Can't believe that there are so many posters trying to justify what they did. Do I think it warrants a felony, absolutely not, but you can't tell me that any of those kids did not know that - when they climbed a ladder at 2:30 am - they were someplace, doing something they shouldn't. Yes we all have done stupid things and this qualifies. If we are caught driving home from a Griz game impaired we will get a DUI, these kids got caught and given the microscope of Griz athletics some type of punishment is warranted, even removal from the team if Haslam and Stitt see fit.

 

[UMGriz75]

I didn't make those things up...you can find them in this thread. You did write the following:

"Had anyone been injured, this would have been an "attractive nuisance" case. Although major construction is obviously underway, there are no signs posted."

And that's my point. I described the front of the house. You don't like the description because you think it is "suggestive." Had the house, on the other hand, had posted signs, how do college students get past those on direct examination in court without it being suggestive of ulterior motive or intent? It doesn't say a lot that there were no signs, but it would say a lot if there were. However, you can't know either one unless SOMEONE DESCRIBES IT FOR YOU. I said nothing about "construction codes," and neither did anyone else. You made it up. But what I did do was describe what was there. You imply a false motive for doing so, indeed, the opposite of what it would have meant had signs been posted.

I did bring up "attractive nuisance" because it happens to be an element of civil law that is an endless headache for property owners, including properties under construction. Are you claiming ignorance of that, or is this yet another red herring? The fact is, "attractive nuisance" is "out there" whether or not you agree with it, just as "trespass" is out there if you take a short cut across a lawn and somebody is one of those true believers in "zero tolerance." "Reasonableness" has to play a role, and you're not it. When strenuous efforts are made to convict you for something best classified as "stupid," your "take" on "reasonable" will change dramatically.

But, most of this thread is about false motives and lack of reasonableness; a lynch mob on its way to a good old fashioned hanging, you know, to "teach somebody a lesson" because of several posters fired with the enthusiasm of instant justice, rush to judgment, zero tolerance, and teach 'em a real lesson for being young and athletes.

 

[nzone]

The only thing we know for sure is at this time tomorrow we will know.

 

[SoldierGriz]

I didn't make those things up...you can find them in this thread. You did write the following:

"Had anyone been injured, this would have been an "attractive nuisance" case. Although major construction is obviously underway, there are no signs posted."

And that's my point. I described the front of the house. You don't like the description because you think it is "suggestive." Had the house, on the other hand, had posted signs, how do college students get past those on direct examination in court without it being suggestive of ulterior motive or intent? It doesn't say a lot that there were no signs, but it would say a lot if there were. However, you can't know either one unless SOMEONE DESCRIBES IT FOR YOU. I said nothing about "construction codes," and neither did anyone else. You made it up. But what I did do was describe what was there. You imply a false motive for doing so, indeed, the opposite of what it would have meant had signs been posted.

I did bring up "attractive nuisance" because it happens to be an element of civil law that is an endless headache for property owners, including properties under construction. Are you claiming ignorance of that, or is this yet another red herring? The fact is, "attractive nuisance" is "out there" whether or not you agree with it, just as "trespass" is out there if you take a short cut across a lawn and somebody is one of those true believers in "zero tolerance." "Reasonableness" has to play a role, and you're not it. When strenuous efforts are made to convict you for something best classified as "stupid," your "take" on "reasonable" will change dramatically.

But, most of this thread is about false motives and lack of reasonableness; a lynch mob on its way to a good old fashioned hanging, you know, to "teach somebody a lesson" because of several posters fired with the enthusiasm of instant justice, rush to judgment, zero tolerance, and teach 'em a real lesson for being young and athletes.

Again, you and I have different expectations for those who play football for the University of Montana. The VAST majority of our players make good choices. A very FEW do not. These players did not. I am disappointed...and in my view they should not see the field again this season. Our first year head coach should set the bar high.

People can make up their own minds about what you and PR have posted in this thread. They can also make up their minds about what I have posted - no doubt some will disagree. I have thick skin. I have no agenda...just a fan who wants the program to thrive again.

 

[PlayerRep]

Yeah...cutting across the lawn is the same thing.

Actually, I said it was "ridiculous."

But, that's just me, because that is also the dead-end of "zero tolerance." It IS the same thing to fanatics for those kinds of simplistic notions of "justice."

YOU are a big part of the reason why the Griz program is in shambles, JM.

The Griz program is not in shambles. Playoffs 3 of the last 4 years. Strong mens and womens basketball. Fund-raising going well. 75 is a great supporter and one of the reasons the Griz program is strong.

NW, you are one of the reasons the internet is in shambles.

 

[PlayerRep]

Paul Ryan is representing some of these potential felons, and so far his strategy is to depict this breaking and entering as simply some curious guys with a ladder and perhaps some interest in construction:

A Missoula attorney representing one of the University of Montana football players arrested early Sunday on burglary charges says the students entered a Pattee Canyon residence out of curiosity.

“I haven’t seen any charging documents,” Paul Ryan said. “From what it appeared to them, it was just an unoccupied structure.”

“They were just curious as much as anything,” he added.

The Griz Cleaner is back. Is this one pro bono too? I called it in the Urban Meyer thread. Whom exactly is paying for Counselor Ryan's services yet again? Is there an Uncle Milt in the equation? :shock:

Can you give an example of any situation in which Ryan provided pro bono services for an athlete? Put up or shut up. You are really dishonest. Rotten apple. Pretty much a troll.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Ummm...go back a few pages. Look for the words attractive nuisance, or look for the posts discussing what might have happened if players fell through the floor, or codes about marking construction sites, or posts stating the kids were asleep therefore not traumatized, or the post doubting the homeowner heard criminal intent. The posts are there. Others can have a different conclusion about what they mean. They aren't ambiguous to me. Just like the actions of the players are not ambiguous.

None of those posts blamed anything on the homeowner. Not one thing. Every post I've seen has said good things about the homeowner. Jeez, saying the kids were probably sleeping to counter people saying the kids were traumatized, is "blaming the homeowner"? That's pretty funny.

 

[SeattleBobcat]

So real question, it's seems like a lot of people are saying the home owner doesn't care, and doesn't think this is a big deal. If so, why doesn't the homer owner drop the charges?

 

[PlayerRep]

Ummm...go back a few pages. Look for the words attractive nuisance, or look for the posts discussing what might have happened if players fell through the floor, or codes about marking construction sites, or posts stating the kids were asleep therefore not traumatized, or the post doubting the homeowner heard criminal intent. The posts are there. Others can have a different conclusion about what they mean. They aren't ambiguous to me. Just like the actions of the players are not ambiguous.

This is classic, an example of taking a factual description and twisting it into an agenda.

I used the words "attractive nuisance" because I know what they mean on an unmarked construction site. I'm one of those people that understand the law even if I don't agree with it, unlike the morons who post here in their all knowing fashion, and then further misrepresent what was said, because what was actually posted wasn't good enough. I dislike fabrication to obtain a talking point. Find the post about "codes marking construction sites." Find the post about players "falling through the floor." Find the post about "the kids being asleep." I didn't write them. I don't remember anyone else writing them. It's simply false.

Did you know that deceit is "against the law?" How should you be punished?

This is precisely what I mean by a bunch of pious hypocrites piling onto a Halloween night visit to a construction site. They need to lie to sustain some dam fool narrative that they carry around like a rotten potato, because no slander is good enough if a fb player is involved. Get a life.

I didn't make those things up...you can find them in this thread. You did write the following:

"Had anyone been injured, this would have been an "attractive nuisance" case. Although major construction is obviously underway, there are no signs posted."

The other things are in this thread as well...

Anyway...I appreciate your passion. We just have different expectations of players, and that's fine.

What 75 said is an accurate statement of the law. The statement in no way blames anything on the homeowner. Nothing, nada, zero.

 

[PlayerRep]

Can't believe that there are so many posters trying to justify what they did. Do I think it warrants a felony, absolutely not, but you can't tell me that any of those kids did not know that - when they climbed a ladder at 2:30 am - they were someplace, doing something they shouldn't. Yes we all have done stupid things and this qualifies. If we are caught driving home from a Griz game impaired we will get a DUI, these kids got caught and given the microscope of Griz athletics some type of punishment is warranted, even removal from the team if Haslam and Stitt see fit.

Where are the posts justifying what the players did? I haven't seen any.

 

[UMGriz75]

Can't believe that there are so many posters trying to justify what they did.

WTF is the matter with you? Who is "justifying" it? This kind of straw man crap infects the way people think, and corrupts every discussion about anything.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

What a thread. Little known facts but camps springing up cementing baseless conclusions that will not be swayed once the facts are known and disclosed. If it turns out this gal has a text from the players with the address to pick them up and that they are gonna get out of the rain in a garage under construction, and the owner sees that and decides not to prosecute on any charge, one camp here will cry foul and special treatment and booster pressure etc. If there is evidence on her phone or she says something which shows the player weren't just looking for Bob Dylan relief, then the felony charges might be filed, and the other camp will cry over prosecution (or persecution).
Sadly, both camps are motivated primarily by emotion and desire for particular outcome, rather than a result based on fact, law and truth.

BTW, anybody who lives near home construction that says they haven't gone into buildings under construction without permission to see what the home is or will look like when finished is a big fat liar. Those of us in the business or with relatives in the construction business have stories up the wazoo about lookie lou's.

 

[tnt]

Trying to make sense out of something that doesn't make sense, seems to be a reasonable discussion topic.

I suspect if the players and their friends were asked what in the hell they were thinking, their honest answer would be something along the lines of "I don't know what the hell I was thinking" If they were truly carrying out a burglary, they were piss poor burglars. The fortunate thing is we have a justice system that will sort it out, and hopefully not destroy young lives while holding them accountable for some bad choices while at the same time "encouraging" better decisions in the future. Natural consequences have a way of doing that.

The most encouraging thing is that the county attorney appears to be treating them as individuals as they should.

 

[PlayerRep]

I didn't make those things up...you can find them in this thread. You did write the following:

"Had anyone been injured, this would have been an "attractive nuisance" case. Although major construction is obviously underway, there are no signs posted."

And that's my point. I described the front of the house. You don't like the description because you think it is "suggestive." Had the house, on the other hand, had posted signs, how do college students get past those on direct examination in court without it being suggestive of ulterior motive or intent? It doesn't say a lot that there were no signs, but it would say a lot if there were. However, you can't know either one unless SOMEONE DESCRIBES IT FOR YOU. I said nothing about "construction codes," and neither did anyone else. You made it up. But what I did do was describe what was there. You imply a false motive for doing so, indeed, the opposite of what it would have meant had signs been posted.

I did bring up "attractive nuisance" because it happens to be an element of civil law that is an endless headache for property owners, including properties under construction. Are you claiming ignorance of that, or is this yet another red herring? The fact is, "attractive nuisance" is "out there" whether or not you agree with it, just as "trespass" is out there if you take a short cut across a lawn and somebody is one of those true believers in "zero tolerance." "Reasonableness" has to play a role, and you're not it. When strenuous efforts are made to convict you for something best classified as "stupid," your "take" on "reasonable" will change dramatically.

But, most of this thread is about false motives and lack of reasonableness; a lynch mob on its way to a good old fashioned hanging, you know, to "teach somebody a lesson" because of several posters fired with the enthusiasm of instant justice, rush to judgment, zero tolerance, and teach 'em a real lesson for being young and athletes.

Again, you and I have different expectations for those who play football for the University of Montana. The VAST majority of our players make good choices. A very FEW do not. These players did not. I am disappointed...and in my view they should not see the field again this season. Our first year head coach should set the bar high.

People can make up their own minds about what you and PR have posted in this thread. They can also make up their minds about what I have posted - no doubt some will disagree. I have thick skin. I have no agenda...just a fan who wants the program to thrive again.

Stitt is free to do what he wants to do, above the athletic code. However, a coach ought to be careful about doing something that is perceived to be unfair, or grossly unfair, by players, parents, recruits, etc. A coach has to consider the importance of supporting and believing in players, especially good kids and good students. Getting rid of bad apples is different. While making the statement that some of you want the coach to make, for what may turn out to be a very minor mistake by the players (i.e. impulsively walking in to what they believed to be an unoccupied construction site), could come back to haunt the program in recruiting. If I thought a coach or program was going too far in this regard (and not treating players fairly), I would factor that into account, or so advise my kids and relatives if they were being recruited. Kids are going to continue to make mistakes. Some will be big and some will be small. They will not all be the same. In my view, the coach and the program need to sort through each one and make the appropriate decision based on their rules/codes and the particular mistake/conduct.

 

[SoldierGriz]

I didn't make those things up...you can find them in this thread. You did write the following:

"Had anyone been injured, this would have been an "attractive nuisance" case. Although major construction is obviously underway, there are no signs posted."

And that's my point. I described the front of the house. You don't like the description because you think it is "suggestive." Had the house, on the other hand, had posted signs, how do college students get past those on direct examination in court without it being suggestive of ulterior motive or intent? It doesn't say a lot that there were no signs, but it would say a lot if there were. However, you can't know either one unless SOMEONE DESCRIBES IT FOR YOU. I said nothing about "construction codes," and neither did anyone else. You made it up. But what I did do was describe what was there. You imply a false motive for doing so, indeed, the opposite of what it would have meant had signs been posted.

I did bring up "attractive nuisance" because it happens to be an element of civil law that is an endless headache for property owners, including properties under construction. Are you claiming ignorance of that, or is this yet another red herring? The fact is, "attractive nuisance" is "out there" whether or not you agree with it, just as "trespass" is out there if you take a short cut across a lawn and somebody is one of those true believers in "zero tolerance." "Reasonableness" has to play a role, and you're not it. When strenuous efforts are made to convict you for something best classified as "stupid," your "take" on "reasonable" will change dramatically.

But, most of this thread is about false motives and lack of reasonableness; a lynch mob on its way to a good old fashioned hanging, you know, to "teach somebody a lesson" because of several posters fired with the enthusiasm of instant justice, rush to judgment, zero tolerance, and teach 'em a real lesson for being young and athletes.

Again, you and I have different expectations for those who play football for the University of Montana. The VAST majority of our players make good choices. A very FEW do not. These players did not. I am disappointed...and in my view they should not see the field again this season. Our first year head coach should set the bar high.

People can make up their own minds about what you and PR have posted in this thread. They can also make up their minds about what I have posted - no doubt some will disagree. I have thick skin. I have no agenda...just a fan who wants the program to thrive again.

Stitt is free to do what he wants to do, above the athletic code. However, a coach ought to be careful about doing something that is perceived to be unfair, or grossly unfair, by players, parents, recruits, etc. A coach has to consider the importance of supporting and believing in players, especially good kids and good students. Getting rid of bad apples is different. While making the statement that some of you want the coach to make, for what may turn out to be a very minor mistake by the players (i.e. impulsively walking in to what they believed to be an unoccupied construction site), could come back to haunt the program in recruiting. If I thought a coach or program was going too far in this regard (and not treating players fairly), I would factor that into account, or so advise my kids and relatives if they were being recruited. Kids are going to continue to make mistakes. Some will be big and some will be small. They will not all be the same. In my view, the coach and the program need to sort through each one and make the appropriate decision based on their rules/codes and the particular mistake/conduct.

I agree completely with what you've written above. I think the disciplinary bar for the program should be high. If we have recruits worried about what will happen to them if they have misconduct...maybe these are not the recruits we want? Believe it or not, there actually are young men who manage to never make poor choices who are also exceptional athletes. We have a bunch of them on our roster right now.

 

[tnt]

Stitt is free to do what he wants to do, above the athletic code. However, a coach ought to be careful about doing something that is perceived to be unfair, or grossly unfair, by players, parents, recruits, etc. A coach has to consider the importance of supporting and believing in players, especially good kids and good students. Getting rid of bad apples is different. While making the statement that some of you want the coach to make, for what may turn out to be a very minor mistake by the players (i.e. impulsively walking in to what they believed to be an unoccupied construction site), could come back to haunt the program in recruiting. If I thought a coach or program was going too far in this regard (and not treating players fairly), I would factor that into account, or so advise my kids and relatives if they were being recruited. Kids are going to continue to make mistakes. Some will be big and some will be small. They will not all be the same. In my view, the coach and the program need to sort through each one and make the appropriate decision based on their rules/codes and the particular mistake/conduct.

I suspect we will learn a lot about Coach Stitt. The man has every reason to be frustrated beyond frustrated. I can't imagine what must have gone through his head when he got the phone call. How he reacts will certainly pretense his tenure here.

 

[SoldierGriz]

Trying to make sense out of something that doesn't make sense, seems to be a reasonable discussion topic.

I suspect if the players and their friends were asked what in the hell they were thinking, their honest answer would be something along the lines of "I don't know what the hell I was thinking" If they were truly carrying out a burglary, they were piss poor burglars. The fortunate thing is we have a justice system that will sort it out, and hopefully not destroy young lives while holding them accountable for some bad choices while at the same time "encouraging" better decisions in the future. Natural consequences have a way of doing that.

The most encouraging thing is that the county attorney appears to be treating them as individuals as they should.

Good post.

 

[putter]

Can't believe that there are so many posters trying to justify what they did.

WTF is the matter with you? Who is "justifying" it? This kind of straw man crap infects the way people think, and corrupts every discussion about anything.

Look at Patomic Griz on page 7 and your post on page 8 for starters.

Really, straw man crap - affecting the way people think and corrupts discussion? How soft are you?

 

[AZGrizFan]

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.

What is truly amazing about this, is the high level of restraint and judgement of the homeowner. This guy could have shot any or all them and didn't. That people are here defending their actions or not, seems to overlook just how lucky they were and are.

Sure. He could have shot them. If he wanted to join Karma in prison for the rest of his life.