3 Griz Arrested

[UMGriz75]

Did she trespass on private property?

Look, I feel terrible for the girl. But she knowingly entered someone's private property. That's a crime. I probably wouldn't charge her, but her little angelic crown is lying on the floor of someone else's property.

If she was saving a kid from drowning in a neighbor's pool?

The "problem" with the "law" is its application where inappropriate. There are reasons that "trespassing" is generally against the law, and it always is, but where the reasons don't exist -- no harm, no intent -- neither does the law apply, except when it fulfills political narratives for those with political agendas and by abandoning the ordinary distinctions that reasonable people used to make, use such laws against disfavored people and groups.

"Private property" is an important concept, important to societal needs. Applying the concept stupidly is destructive to societal needs because, above all, it conveys to its victims that "law" is unfair.

 

[UMGriz75]

UMGriz75, you would have wet your shorts if you saw these guys in your home. Your "legalize" speak would have meant nothing if you experienced what that family did.

You know what they "experienced?"

I've had an intruder on my property. Not walking around like he didn't know I was there. He was hiding behind a workbench. I know exactly how it feels with him in the same room, not across in a separate structure. He knew I was there. I had turned the light on. I knew he was there. I could see the top of his head.

Tell me more. Please, tell me more about what I would do with a similar, or more intimate, experience.

Please, based on your obviously large brain and extensive knowledge of both me and that family at 200 Pattee Creek Drive.

Now, direct your large intellect to explaining how some college students had any idea that the family was there and that the family felt threatened. You know, the "criminal intent" part of all of this.

 

[nzone]

Thank-you 75 for your prospective on this thing. At least you make sense and put up arguments for discussion. The bottom line is these kids didn't face felony charges. Let's wait and see what The Athletic Dept. does. Until then on to isu :thumb:

 

[UMGriz75]

They plead guilty to criminal trespass right? Intent has no bearing on the civil liability once convicted.

Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?

 

[NDSUSR]

Yeah.. Probably time to lock this thread down.
Its done and over with except for what Coach and UM decide to do now.
I listened to the apologies and they seemed pretty sincere although a little forced.
As for the girl... Why did she go inside the house at 3am? To help wrangle football players?
Come on man.....

If the family forgives them, that's all that really matters to me. The rest is irrelevant.

 

[NDSUSR]

They plead guilty to criminal trespass right? Intent has no bearing on the civil liability once convicted.

Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?

Completely. What has you confused?

 

[UMGriz75]

They knew they were illegally entering a private residence (whether they knew/believed it be unoccupied or not), and they certainly knew that taking someone else's beer was criminal.

"They" is not supported by the known facts. It was a student, not a student-athlete, who allegedly took the beer from the garage to the upstairs, but even at that, the only public statement, from the owner, is that "nothing was stolen." Well, if it wasn't stolen, what was it? Take that one to a jury.

As I earlier noted before knowing that, how do you even accuse five guys of stealing one cold pack? Because three UM football players and two other students were so small and weak that they needed five guys to carry it? Indeed, that they called in the Reep girl to help? How ridiculous does this discussion have to become?

 

[UMGriz75]

They plead guilty to criminal trespass right? Intent has no bearing on the civil liability once convicted.

Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?

Completely. What has you confused?

The apparent lack of knowledge of what is required for proof of civil liability and the fact that a criminal conviction is inadmissible in a civil proceeding on the same occurrence.

 

[GoldenEagle]

UMGriz75, you would have wet your shorts if you saw these guys in your home. Your "legalize" speak would have meant nothing if you experienced what that family did.

You know what they "experienced?"

I've had an intruder on my property. Not walking around like he didn't know I was there. He was hiding behind a workbench. I know exactly how it feels with him in the same room, not across in a separate structure. He knew I was there. I had turned the light on. I knew he was there. I could see the top of his head.

Tell me more. Please, tell me more about what I would do with a similar, or more intimate, experience.

Please, based on your obviously large brain and extensive knowledge of both me and that family at 200 Pattee Creek Drive.

Now, direct your large intellect to explaining how some college students had any idea that the family was there and that the family felt threatened. You know, the "criminal intent" part of all of this.

I know nothing more than you do you pompous ass. You are the fake authority that has written pages about how no harm was done without one shred of evidence how that family felt. Fact!

 

[EverettGriz]

Did she trespass on private property?

Look, I feel terrible for the girl. But she knowingly entered someone's private property. That's a crime. I probably wouldn't charge her, but her little angelic crown is lying on the floor of someone else's property.

If she was saving a kid from drowning in a neighbor's pool?

The "problem" with the "law" is its application where inappropriate. There are reasons that "trespassing" is generally against the law, and it always is, but where the reasons don't exist -- no harm, no intent -- neither does the law apply, except when it fulfills political narratives for those with political agendas and by abandoning the ordinary distinctions that reasonable people used to make, use such laws against disfavored people and groups.

"Private property" is an important concept, important to societal needs. Applying the concept stupidly is destructive to societal needs because, above all, it conveys to its victims that "law" is unfair.

Oh, was one of the players drowning in the rain?


The problem with looking too hard for loopholes in the law (which exist for good and valid reasons) is that it can lead to somewhat ridiculous conclusions. She didn't climb that ladder because someone was in imminent danger. She did so knowing her actions were wrong and illegal.

Do I believe she should be charged? No, I do not. Can I reasonably argue that her charge was inappropriate? No, I cannot. Do I believe she has an actionable claim? No I do not (although I have no issue with going through the exercise if there is some belief -- other than that of an over-protective-my-daughter-is-an-angel-father -- of police misconduct).

 

[horribilisfan8184]

I'm so bored with this thread I think a 3 day break would bring me back to a continuation of innane banter showing a complete stunting of growth such that it would seem in infinite idiotic loop. Time to give it up. It's over!

 

[UMGriz75]

I know nothing more than you do you pompous ass. You are the fake authority that has written pages about how no harm was done without one shred of evidence how that family felt. Fact!

This is fun. A pompous ass accusing someone of being a pompous ass!

Actually, there is plenty of evidence. The owner's statements to the Kaimin. I don't blame him for his "feelings." I also think he describes perfectly the facts that demonstrate that the students didn't know, couldn't have known, that a "family" was even watching at 2:30 a.m. from a separate, presumably locked, building that the students likely did not even know was there.

I will say, without any direct proof, that these students did not intend to threaten or terrorize a family, and I can say that with the confidence borne of common sense, something you obviously lack.

 

[FCSwatcher]

Did Reep go inside the structure? She must have to get a charge right? :?:

Yes she did.

Without signs, and under the "circumstances," it would be impossible on the facts of this case to prove a "criminal" or "malicious" intent. In fact, it would be ridiculous.

Did she trespass on private property?

Look, I feel terrible for the girl. But she knowingly entered someone's private property. That's a crime. I probably wouldn't charge her, but her little angelic crown is lying on the floor of someone else's property.

Perception is a funny thing. If most people in this thread would have read this without knowing that three were Griz football players, they would have come to a different conclusion of how they should be treated.

 

[UMGriz75]

[Oh, was one of the players drowning in the rain?

Don't know, but what I am saying is that stupidity is a poor basis for applying the "letter" of a law, without recognizing the "purpose" of a law.

And when the adult stupidity occurs on the side of those wanting to apply the law, in conjunction with the youthful stupidity of those violating "the law," the results can never be good.

And here we are.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

So, in sum:

Some people broke a law. It wasn't a super serious law to break, but they broke it. In that process, they scared some people, and that sucks. They've admitted that they broke the law, and seem to feel pretty bad about scaring the people. It doesn't seem like they intended to scare the people or enter an occupied residence. That said, they should face some punishment, the severity of which none of us have control.

What did I miss?

 

[Grizzlies1982]

So, in sum:

Some people broke a law. It wasn't a super serious law to break, but they broke it. In that process, they scared some people, and that sucks. They've admitted that they broke the law, and seem to feel pretty bad about scaring the people. It doesn't seem like they intended to scare the people or enter an occupied residence. That said, they should face some punishment, the severity of which none of us have control.

What did I miss?

Damn CDA, you missed all the name calling and finger pointing. You're slipping. :ugeek:

 

[EverettGriz]

[Oh, was one of the players drowning in the rain?

Don't know, but what I am saying is that stupidity is a poor basis for applying the "letter" of a law, without recognizing the "purpose" of a law.

And when the adult stupidity occurs on the side of those wanting to apply the law, in conjunction with the youthful stupidity of those violating "the law," the results can never be good.

And here we are.

75, thanks. I agree. Stupidity is a poor basis for applying anything, let alone law.

But are you ACTUALLY suggesting these seniors in college were too stupid to know they were violating the law? Because if that's your belief, I fully respect it, while fearing desperately for our future.

 

[Griz Time]

...did I read that correctly? 16k in counseling and 80 hrs of community service?!!!!
Holy jeebus.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

So, in sum:

Some people broke a law. It wasn't a super serious law to break, but they broke it. In that process, they scared some people, and that sucks. They've admitted that they broke the law, and seem to feel pretty bad about scaring the people. It doesn't seem like they intended to scare the people or enter an occupied residence. That said, they should face some punishment, the severity of which none of us have control.

What did I miss?

Damn CDA, you missed all the name calling and finger pointing. You're slipping. :ugeek:

I really need to get back up on that horse . . . you dumb bastard!

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

Beer!!! They were stealing BEER!!!

Those Bastards

Typical Grizzles, only time beer turns up missing from my tailgate is Cat griz