3 Griz Arrested

[UMGriz75]

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?

I said this about page seven. Misdemeanor Guilty plea, fine, deferred imposition of sentence, eventual dismissal.

ALTHOUGH, as I have also said, back in the days when the police actually did their jobs, this would have been resolved on the spot, the homeowner satisfied that the students did not intend harm, and the students assured that this was a close call, that "trespassing" actually is a crime, and "don't do it again." Lesson would have been learned, and the social justice vultures would have lost an opportunity to call for ultimate penalties simply because they were student athletes, for what used to be the lessons of life for young people growing into adults.

 

[signedbewildered]

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?

I said this about page seven. Guilty plea, fine, deferred imposition of sentence, eventual dismissal.

ALTHOUGH, as I have also said, back in the days when the police actually did their jobs, this would have been resolved on the spot, the homeowner satisfied that the students did not intend harm, and the students assured that this was a close call, that "trespassing" actually is a crime, and "don't do it again." Lesson would have been learned, and the social justice vultures would lost an opportunity to call for ultimate penalties simply because they were student athletes, for what used to be the lessons of life for young people growing into adults.

This

 

[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?

I said this about page seven. Guilty plea, fine, deferred imposition of sentence, eventual dismissal.

ALTHOUGH, as I have also said, back in the days when the police actually did their jobs, this would have been resolved on the spot, the homeowner satisfied that the students did not intend harm, and the students assured that this was a close call, that "trespassing" actually is a crime, and "don't do it again." Lesson would have been learned, and the social justice vultures would lost an opportunity to call for ultimate penalties simply because they were student athletes, for what used to be the lessons of life for young people growing into adults.

I don't necessarily disagree. But it's not exactly news that college athletes don't live in the, "pour it out, kid, and I'll drive you home" days anymore. I watched the 30 for 30 on Colorado FB last night. It was kind of funny to listen to the old players talk about a new policy back then whereby if anyone was arrested, he was suspended for one game automatically. They acted like it was draconian. Funny to see how far it's come in 25 years. I think it's an overall good trend.

 

[Maxim]

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?

You know some of you guys are so fuking biased it's ridiculous. Saying it wasn't super serious. Well if someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night it serious to me and they are probably going to be shot over it. Maybe if that was your family you would feel differently about four big dudes breaking into your house in the middle of the night but most Montanan's I know would have shot them. And rightfully so. Once they stole beer from the garage it was apparent someone lived there yet they choose not to leave. They are damn lucky that this was pled down or something worse did not happen. If I was the coach I would still boot all three from the team. It's a privilege to be a Griz and we need players who make better decisions than that.

 

[statler & waldorf]

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

Thus, the bar is set for future transgressions. The noose is tightened around this and future JP decisions. Selah.

 

[NDSUSR]

Reep to have jury trial on Dec 16th.

 

[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?

You know some of you guys are so fuking biased it's ridiculous. Saying it wasn't super serious. Well if someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night it serious to me and they are probably going to be shot over it. Maybe if that was your family you would feel differently about four big dudes breaking into your house in the middle of the night but most Montanan's I know would have shot them. And rightfully so. Once they stole beer from the garage it was apparent someone lived there yet they choose not to leave. They are damn lucky that this was pled down or something worse did not happen. If I was the coach I would still boot all three from the team. It's a privilege to be a Griz and we need players who make better decisions than that.

Maybe take some emotion out of it. The crime with which they were charged is not super serious. Sorry, it's just not. Before you type it, I'm not saying they are innocent. The chief reason being that they've pleaded guilty already. Also, read the entirety of my post again and reevaluate the first bit of yours.

 

[UMGriz75]

You know some of you guys are so f***[*] biased it's ridiculous. Saying it wasn't super serious. Well if someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night it serious to me and they are probably going to be shot over it.

#1. It wasn't their house. It was a separate structure open (literally) to the street.
#2. Markus Kaarma took your approach. One kid is dead. Point proved. Kid "deserved it," right?

Good example of "reasonableness" and that some people "aren't it."

Based on your statements of action, you would now be in prison. Do you think the "law" treated you fairly?

A 17 year old kid committed "trespass" which justified "premeditated murder."

Morally equivalent, right? Legally equivalent, right?

Equal "super serious crimes," right?

 

[statler & waldorf]

Pissed off parent lawyer, YES!!! Stick it up the city's and county's ass. Then bankrupt them. Love Missoula, but glad I don't live there. Stupidity reighns.

 

[PlayerRep]

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

Yes she did.

Jeez, Everett, don't be so dishonest (by not providing the full info). "Counts walked out to the car and asked her to help him wrangle up their drunken friends. He said when she entered, she thought maybe the house was "coopers," referenced earlier in text messages."

"The homeowner said it best. ... I'm pretty sure Courtney had no idea what she was picking them up from," Henkel said."

You got you ass kicked on this one. Multiple times. Put your tail between your legs and slink off.

You are the definition of an insincere and unknowledgeable fan, i.e. bad fan. Cheer and praise the Griz when everything is going well. Hang around Engstrom. Try to suck up to coaches on the rare occasion you're around them. Diss the conference frequently. Diss players and coaches when you feel like it. Act houlier than thou. Hope I get a chance to see/meet you in person, and let you know what I think of you.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Actually, Everett, what she did is likely not a crime. Just walking onto someone's property is not a crime. More complicated than that. 75 has tried to explain it to me, but you are dense to understand.

 

[EverettGriz]

PR, we've met. On multiple occasions. You're as imbecilic in person as you are on the board. In each case, everyone around was talking about what a moronic dick you are.

So, you're saying she entered the structure? Yeah, that's what I said. And ONLY what I said. You're the one who attached meaning to the statement. Cannot blame me for that.

It's your ass which got kicked. Stop being such an apologizer for players doing wrong. Occasionally you make a decent point or argument. The problem is, no one takes you seriously. For good reason.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

I will bet you a $1,000 that this charge for the woman doesn't stick. Put up or shut up.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Yeah I think the civil suit is just her daddy posturing. Lawyers like threatining to sue more than actually doing it.

If the charge isn't dropped immediately, there will likely by a claim/lawsuit. You obviously know nothing about litigation and laws in MT.

 

[EverettGriz]

DUUUDDDE! I've already said I wouldn't have charged her. Can you even read??? I know you're not the brightest bulb. But either try to keep up, or stop posting altogether. The sensible people thank you in advance.

 

[UMGriz75]

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

Yes she did.

Jeez, Everett, don't be so dishonest (by not providing the full info). "Counts walked out to the car and asked her to help him wrangle up their drunken friends. He said when she entered, she thought maybe the house was "coopers," referenced earlier in text messages."

"The homeowner said it best. ... I'm pretty sure Courtney had no idea what she was picking them up from," Henkel said."

The police officer could have known this at the scene; should have known it. There was no basis, whatsoever, for a FELONY charge of any kind requiring a $50,000 bail, and the lost of $5,000 cash, criminal charges filed, and an impending trial date, her name on the Internet forever, for someone who was being a designated driver.

If there is a "wrong" anywhere here to be found, as to "intent" and "knowing," this is the travesty, committed by sober adults, whose desire for blindly punishing young people exceeds any regard for even having a legitimate reason to do so, and likely pushed by the intolerant lynch mob -- exposed for all their venality in this case -- that exists with regard to Griz athletes and anyone associated with them.

Where is the lynch mob's "indignation?"

I've known her Dad for a long time, good friend of mine. I hope he goes for it.

Seriously, assholes? Prosecute the designated driver?

And what was her "criminal intent?"

Or is it merely enough that she was picking up Griz athletes? That's really the sin, isn't it?

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

No, just time for you to get out of the thread and stop saying stupid stuff. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[PlayerRep]

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!

Actually, 75 is the most knowledgeable lawyer posting on egriz, and usually gets considerable info. You, sir, at being the ass on this one.

 

[PlayerRep]

[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.

I don't consider people walking into a construction site, including myself, or walking through my yard or grabbing a peach or pear from my fruit trees, to be breaking the law. I don't consider my kids' friends who sneak into our garage looking for beer to be breaking the law.

Had I seen these 3 guys in my yard or garage, I would have walked out and introduced myself.

 

[UMGriz75]

I don't necessarily disagree. But it's not exactly news that college athletes don't live in the, "pour it out, kid, and I'll drive you home" days anymore. I watched the 30 for 30 on Colorado FB last night. It was kind of funny to listen to the old players talk about a new policy back then whereby if anyone was arrested, he was suspended for one game automatically. They acted like it was draconian. Funny to see how far it's come in 25 years. I think it's an overall good trend.

We do live in an era when there are agendas out there by groups of people seeking to destroy other people and groups of people they disagree with. It's called "lawfare," and it represents an ideological twisting of the older anglo-saxon view of "the law." Certain groups are targeted. Student athletes walk into a construction project because they are curious and the project is not closed by fence, window or door (the ordinary expressions of exclusion), CRIMINALS!

But then, burn down Ferguson, Missouri? Invitation to the White House. That's how the "trend" has been working. That's the message sent to young people by cases like this.

No. It's not a good trend. It is precisely how the law was interpreted in the South a century ago. Some "groups" are punished, some groups are favored.

Guy that knocks on your door to see if you want to buy Fuller brushes? He is, just as technically, in violation of the trespassing law, in particular because you have enclosed windows, a closed door, and possibly even a fence and you did not invite him.

Call the police?

It is, under the statute, a violation of the law. Is it reasonable? Does he have the intent, by trespassing, to commit the crime as "criminal intent" with a desire to harm?