3 Griz Arrested

[EverettGriz]

I don't consider my kids' friends who sneak into our garage looking for bee to be breaking the law.

Pray tell, did you have a proxy take the bar exam?

 

[PlayerRep]

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 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. 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.

Pretty funny. You don't even realize that no one broke into anyone's home. I suppose we'll eventually see you rooming with Karma in prison someday after you illegally shoot someone for coming onto your property.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Actually, don't know who you are or know when we may have met. Know you are the former head of the alumni association. Also heard the conference has been noticing your comments on the conference. Looking forward to talking to you in person. Also now know you are a huge liar, as what you just said isn't true. Game on. This will be fun.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

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?

I was going a bit more narrow scope than this.

 

[EverettGriz]

Let me see if I have this straight.

You don't know who I am, and have no recollection of meeting me. But you're saying that what I'm saying about our meetings is a lie. Do I have that about right?






:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



And I didn't think it could any better!!!

 

[EverettGriz]

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?

I was going a bit more narrow scope than this.

Most understand it, CDA. A small few do not.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Actually, you keep saying she has committed a crime. Again, I say the charge doesn't stick. Let's bet $1,000 on that. Put up or shut up.

 

[EverettGriz]

She did commit a crime. Just not one I would have charged her for, and one for which I'm on the record saying "won't stick" as they say in the legal community..... :?

 

[PlayerRep]

Let me see if I have this straight.

You don't know who I am, and have no recollection of meeting me. But you're saying that what I'm saying about our meetings is a lie. Do I have that about right?






:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



And I didn't think it could any better!!!

Yes, I know how I act, and I know what people around me think. Thus, I know what you said is a lie. Feel free to describe all the times and places you have met me. That will also further expose your dishonesty.

 

[UMGriz75]

I was going a bit more narrow scope than this.

Of course you were, because you didn't know he was the Fuller Brush man, and may have thought he was intending to assault your family, but I gave you the give-away. I defined it for you, he had no "criminal intent" or desire to commit "malicious harm." Knowing that narrowed the scope for you.

I gave you the facts that allowed you to "narrow the scope" because it enabled you to do so with actual knowledge of the facts whereas without knowledge of "intent" you did in fact speculate to impute "criminal intent" precisely because you lacked the knowledge of "intent."

And still, he "committed the crime." Both you and Everett are correct. In the way you both read "the law," every Fuller Brush Man, every Vote campaign volunteer, everybody looking to retrieve their stray cat, 'BREAKS THE LAW!!"

"She did break the law," in Everett's specific words. But that's if, and only if, you read the law as being devoid of any requirement for criminal intent.

See how that worked?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I was going a bit more narrow scope than this.

Of course you were, because you didn't know he was the Fuller Brush man, and may have thought he was intending to assault your family, but I gave you the give-away. I defined it for you, he had no "criminal intent" or desire to commit "malicious harm."

I gave you the facts that allowed you to "narrow the scope" because it enabled you to do so with actual knowledge of the facts whereas without knowledge of "intent" you did in fact speculate to impute "criminal intent" precisely because you lacked the knowledge of "intent."

And still, he "committed the crime."

See how that worked?

I kinda skipped that stuff since they have already pleaded guilty. It's a cool academic exercise you propose, however.

 

[GoldenEagle]

I was going a bit more narrow scope than this.

Of course you were, because you didn't know he was the Fuller Brush man, and may have thought he was intending to assault your family, but I gave you the give-away. I defined it for you, he had no "criminal intent" or desire to commit "malicious harm." Knowing that narrowed the scope for you.

I gave you the facts that allowed you to "narrow the scope" because it enabled you to do so with actual knowledge of the facts whereas without knowledge of "intent" you did in fact speculate to impute "criminal intent" precisely because you lacked the knowledge of "intent."

And still, he "committed the crime." Both you and Everett are correct. In the way you both read "the law," every Fuller Brush Man, every Vote campaign volunteer, everybody looking to retrieve their stray cat, 'BREAKS THE LAW!!"

See how that worked?

I bet you have a "Woody" now.

 

[UMGriz75]

I bet you have a "Woody" now.

You need to post more of these brilliant explosions of profound thought that go right to the heart (?) of any actual discussion of issues.

 

[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 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. 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.

Pretty funny. You don't even realize that no one broke into anyone's home. I suppose we'll eventually see you rooming with Karma in prison someday after you illegally shoot someone for coming onto your property.

I not a sociopath who baits people but if I encounter 4 strangers that break into my house in the middle of the night I am protecting my family it's as simple as that. If you cannot understand the difference than you don't understand the law.

 

[Ursa Major]

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.

Actually, you keep saying she has committed a crime. Again, I say the charge doesn't stick. Let's bet $1,000 on that. Put up or shut up.

I'll bet you $10,000 that EG doesn't take your asinine bet. Put up or shut up!

 

[UMGriz75]

I kinda skipped that stuff since they have already pleaded guilty. It's a cool academic exercise you propose, however.

Well, actually you posted it after they pleaded guilty, but it is possible to both post and skip at the same time without potential academic damage, aside from the actual financial and reputational damage done to young people to the celebration of the actual mob gathered to lynch and cheer. It's probably academic to you. I understand Courtney, however, has a trial date set.

 

[GoldenEagle]

I bet you have a "Woody" now.

You need to post more of these brilliant explosions of profound thought that go right to the heart (?) of any actual discussion of issues.

Really, I'm not judging you. You just seem the type of attorney that gets aroused when he gets to write such stimulating legal prose and inform the lesser minds. Wouldn't you agree PlayerRep? You seem to be on the same page as UMGriz75.

 

[Maxim]

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?

No, no kid deserves to be shot, that is tragic. But someone does have a right to protect their family. I wrote in my post if someone had broken into my house if this was a separate building from their house, that is different and I was not aware of that, but I still stick by my statement that they should be kicked off the team.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I kinda skipped that stuff since they have already pleaded guilty. It's a cool academic exercise you propose, however.

Well, actually you posted it after they pleaded guilty, but it is possible to both post and skip at the same time without potential academic damage, aside from the actual financial and reputational damage done to young people to the celebration of the actual mob gathered to lynch and cheer. It's probably academic to you. I understand Courtney has a trial date set.

I guess I assumed the elements of the crime were met by virtue of the guilty plea. I've never practiced criminal law, but I thought a defendant kind of conceded the elements by pleading guilty. It sucks that these guys seem to have been arrested for alleged crimes that far exceeded what apparently transpired. I'm not debating that. I was just trying to sum up the entire situation in a few sentences. I'm with you for the most part. It's not a serious crime. As for the girl, that is an interesting situation.

 

[UMGriz75]

I not a sociopath who baits people but if I encounter 4 strangers that break into my house in the middle of the night I am protecting my family it's as simple as that. If you cannot understand the difference than you don't understand the law.

I understand the law pretty well. It was a separate structure, unoccupied, open to the public by the fact that it did not yet have windows and doors. The family lived in a separate structure, enclosed by windows and (presumably) locked doors.

Generally, a sociopath might claim that a structure that he does not live in is his "house," and that the fact that there was nothing to "break into" because the owners had not yet installed anything that excluded the exterior from the interior, but that does not justify murder even if you can prove that you are simply a sociopath that views things, you know, "differently," like Kaarma. He didn't "bait" anyone. Who could see a purse in the dark in the back of a garage on the third or fourth visit? His purpose was that they would steal specific items that could later be "ID'd." You didn't understand that, did you? Perhaps you didn't understand the case.

The guys broke a law. Was there "criminal intent?"

You argue that the death penalty is appropriate.

You are a sociopath. It is as simple as that.