3 Griz Arrested

[Maxim]

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.

Whether someone committed a crime and whether or not they are charged are not always mutually exclusive. This is not a hard concept to understand. That being said Jason will probably drop the charges before all is said and done.

 

[UMGriz75]

I guess I assumed the elements of the crime were met by virtue of the guilty plea.

I've described in some detail why the guilty plea is appropriate. One reason, however, is not appropriate. This has already cost them, likely, in excess of $7500 each with bail costs and attorney retainers. These are students. They don't have that kind of money, but this is a system that coerces those results precisely because university students do not have the financial resources of the charging State.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I guess I assumed the elements of the crime were met by virtue of the guilty plea.

I've described in some detail why the guilty plea is appropriate. One reason, however, is not appropriate. This has already cost them, likely, in excess of $7500 each with bail costs and attorney retainers. These are students. They don't have that kind of money, but this is a system that coerces those results precisely because university students do not have the financial resources of the charging State.

Agreed. Which is why I said: "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 never suggested they pleaded guilty for crimes for which they were arrested.

Same team, man.

 

[Maxim]

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.

First off I was unaware until just now about the structure being separate from the house, so of cours that would change things. But in my statement above it was in regards to someone breaking into my house not an unoccupied structure, and the law is with me protecting my family. But I'm not Mr. Karma i don't relish the opportunity for violence, I hope the situation never happens. Don't cast stones at me asshole when u don't know anything about me.

 

[Griz!ron]

I'd rank this at the level on a drunken first fight, maybe slightly less. The sentencing by the judge seemed similar to the earlier situation. Could have gotten much, much worse, if it wasn't for a reasonable home owner.

Hold them out for the ISU game. Leave it at that.

The girl is probably innocent, just picking up friend who got drunk and needed a ride.

 

[Maxim]

I guess I assumed the elements of the crime were met by virtue of the guilty plea.

I've described in some detail why the guilty plea is appropriate. One reason, however, is not appropriate. This has already cost them, likely, in excess of $7500 each with bail costs and attorney retainers. These are students. They don't have that kind of money, but this is a system that coerces those results precisely because university students do not have the financial resources of the charging State.[/quote

If you don't want to be out of bail money you have the choice to sit in jail for a couple of days and see if the judge will release at arraignment. That is the choice a defendant has to make. If u don't like it don't get arrested. Right or wrong early freedom comes at a cost, that is the way of the system.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I guess I assumed the elements of the crime were met by virtue of the guilty plea.

I've described in some detail why the guilty plea is appropriate. One reason, however, is not appropriate. This has already cost them, likely, in excess of $7500 each with bail costs and attorney retainers. These are students. They don't have that kind of money, but this is a system that coerces those results precisely because university students do not have the financial resources of the charging State.[/quote

If you don't want to be out of bail money you have the choice to sit in jail for a couple of days and see if the judge will release at arraignment. That is the choice a defendant has to make. If u don't like it don't get arrested. Right or wrong early freedom comes at a cost, that is the way of the system.

That's actually a really good point, Maxim.

 

[UMGriz75]

I guess I assumed the elements of the crime were met by virtue of the guilty plea.

I've described in some detail why the guilty plea is appropriate. One reason, however, is not appropriate. This has already cost them, likely, in excess of $7500 each with bail costs and attorney retainers. These are students. They don't have that kind of money, but this is a system that coerces those results precisely because university students do not have the financial resources of the charging State.

If you don't want to be out of bail money you have the choice to sit in jail for a couple of days and see if the judge will release at arraignment. That is the choice a defendant has to make. If u don't like it don't get arrested. Right or wrong early freedom comes at a cost, that is the way of the system.

"If you don't like it, don't get arrested?" HAHAHAHAHAHA!

"If you don't like it, don't get overcharged by the Missoula PD." Nice theory.

Note one key fact: none of the felony charges stood up. By Monday morning, the County Attorney knew she had a problem with what had been charged. There was no basis for them in the first place. If someone held you against your will for several days, demanding a high ransom, what would you call it? Oh, that's right, "a choice!"

Recall, "bail" also represents the monetary estimate of the likelihood of leaving the jurisdiction. Did it make any sense for any of these "defendants?"

 

[kemajic]

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.

First off I was unaware until just now about the structure being separate from the house, so of cours that would change things. But in my statement above it was in regards to someone breaking into my house not an unoccupied structure, and the law is with me protecting my family. But I'm not Mr. Karma i don't relish the opportunity for violence, I hope the situation never happens. Don't cast stones at me asshole when u don't know anything about me.

We know one thing about you; you spout off a lot for someone who obviously hasn't read the thread or the background information. It has been stated numerous times in this thread that the entered structure was separate from the occupied home. It is very hard to miss. You must be reading only your own stuff.

 

[Umista]

I am to way dumb to participate in this debate but I am curious about this "Griz arrest" thing almost 40 pages in length.
At the Griz games (all season long) beer drinking is a very big item as it seems like 10,000 of the 26,000 fans are drinking beer. Some call it tail-gating, others simply drink and many carry beer cans around the outside of Wa Griz and nothing is thought of it. The president (Engstrom) not only drinks beer in his private perch but also serves whiskey to his esteemed group as they watch the football games.
So now comes the question. What young student attending U of M would not borrow a can of beer left laying around and drink it? In Montana taking a beer found almost anywhere and drinking it is not a "crime" and is often laughed at by the person leaving the beer around anyway.
Young people ( I never was) can be blamed for drinking beer found at 2 AM on a construction site? Seriously?
Drinking beer is a football thing but do not let a Griz player have a cold one even after he plays his guts out while smelling the beer oozing from 10,000 people watching him play? His friends in the stands are having fun as he sweats and toils while the drunkin crowd roars? Are you serious?

Double standard for some pious folks? Many silly nuts trying to keep our area free of bums? A liberal town and University down on kids drinking beer that has been going on from the begining?

Carry me off again with some kind of ban. I'm out.

 

[doc3kgt]

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.

I know I'm a Cat fan and don't get a vote, but this seems like post of the month material here.

 

[doc3kgt]

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.

Ok. It's official. PR is a bigger dbag than um75.

Edit: After paying closer attention to PR's comments I have concluded that he may have Aspergers disorder. Nobody can unknowingly be that big of a tool without having some kind of disability causing them to be this socially maladjusted.

 

[Richard Cranium]

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.

EverettGriz, this is the same chump that came up to me on the turf after the game that could barely stand with glassy eyes and just starred at me, as I was talking to a Griz parent. As a elderly friend, who seemed quite embarrassed for him guided him away from the situation that would have certainly ended with that person laying on the turf, by me or the Griz parent. He is a true gem, and should be pitied rather than ridiculed. Every Griz parent that I know, and have long time friendships with, know him to be a total idiot and jock sniffer. Quite sad for a man of his stature, education and athletic past.

 

[SaskGriz]

I don't know all the facts but here are a couple of observations from a great distance.

1. If the cops in Missoula knew how many structures we chilled out in after dozens of schmidts (I was a duck can man myself) up and down Rattlesnake and Pattee canyon, I would owe the city of Missoula about $100,000. We just thought of it as Montana Saturday Night but it appears to some as the crime of the century.

2. Yeah, bad decision and a shame they scared the family, they all sound very apologetic. I have young kids and I know I would be angry as shit if someone came into my house in the middle of the night and scared me and mine.

3. If fighting gets you a game, trespass can't get much more than that.

4. The way this was handled is an interesting view into the industry that the police/legal system is; $25,000 in income for 5 misdemeanors has to be an awesome rate of return for the costs. It's no wonder that the country leads the world in incarcerated people, what a gold mine!

Take these all with a grain of salt, they are written by a libtard, socialist, Canadian.

 

[Maxim]

I guess I assumed the elements of the crime were met by virtue of the guilty plea.

I've described in some detail why the guilty plea is appropriate. One reason, however, is not appropriate. This has already cost them, likely, in excess of $7500 each with bail costs and attorney retainers. These are students. They don't have that kind of money, but this is a system that coerces those results precisely because university students do not have the financial resources of the charging State.

If you don't want to be out of bail money you have the choice to sit in jail for a couple of days and see if the judge will release at arraignment. That is the choice a defendant has to make. If u don't like it don't get arrested. Right or wrong early freedom comes at a cost, that is the way of the system.

"If you don't like it, don't get arrested?" HAHAHAHAHAHA!

"If you don't like it, don't get overcharged by the Missoula PD." Nice theory.

Note one key fact: none of the felony charges stood up. By Monday morning, the County Attorney knew she had a problem with what had been charged. There was no basis for them in the first place. If someone held you against your will for several days, demanding a high ransom, what would you call it? Oh, that's right, "a choice!"

Recall, "bail" also represents the monetary estimate of the likelihood of leaving the jurisdiction. Did it make any sense for any of these "defendants?"

It works the other way too . Sometimes people are arrested and released after a minor charge then the CA reviews it and at arraignment amends the charge to a felony and the person is then taken into custody. Other times people are released OR on 50k bail at arraignment even though the charges remain as a felony.

 

[Grizzly Oredigger]

I don't know all the facts but here are a couple of observations from a great distance.

1. If the cops in Missoula knew how many structures we chilled out in after dozens of schmidts (I was a duck can man myself) up and down Rattlesnake and Pattee canyon, I would owe the city of Missoula about $100,000. We just thought of it as Montana Saturday Night but it appears to some as the crime of the century.

2. Yeah, bad decision and a shame they scared the family, they all sound very apologetic. I have young kids and I know I would be angry as shit if someone came into my house in the middle of the night and scared me and mine.

3. If fighting gets you a game, trespass can't get much more than that.

4. The way this was handled is an interesting view into the industry that the police/legal system is; $25,000 in income for 5 misdemeanors has to be an awesome rate of return for the costs. It's no wonder that the country leads the world in incarcerated people, what a gold mine!

Take these all with a grain of salt, they are written by a libtard, socialist, Canadian.

This seems like a fair assessment...not too extreme either way

 

[UMGriz75]

Ok. It's official. PR is a bigger dbag than um75.

This comment must be based on the long experience of the poster at being one, but obviously without the self-awareness to know that he is.

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

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?

The two situations are very different and I have already argued as such. No, they're not legally equivalent.

The only true thing you said is this post is that it's a good example of reasonableness. And again, had the dudes actually entered the dwelling, the presumptive reasonableness would have applied.

They did not, so it did not warrant lethal force.

If the homeowner went out to confront them and one of the dudes made a move that made the man feel like his life was in jeopardy, he could have used lethal force legally due to the disparity of force. There was no disparity of force in the Kaarma case.

This situation and the Kaarma situation have very little in common other than both originate with criminal trespass.

 

[UMGriz75]

First off I was unaware until just now about the structure being separate from the house, so of cours that would change things. But in my statement above it was in regards to someone breaking into my house not an unoccupied structure, and the law is with me protecting my family. But I'm not Mr. Karma i don't relish the opportunity for violence, I hope the situation never happens. Don't cast stones at me asshole when u don't know anything about me.

I do know that you claimed the right to murder a kid that "broke into" your house.

That's about as much as I care to know about you.

 

[UMGriz75]

There was no disparity of force in the Kaarma case.

:?:
We "think" differently.