-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
3 Griz Arrested
- Thread starter grizindabox
- Start date
- Status
statler & waldorf
Well-known member
HelenaHandBasket said:
Common sense must be an absolute contraindication during the MPD hiring process. Looks like students lack of common sense actually qualifies them for MPD employment.
Wonder what's taking the athletic committee so much time? Don't think the coach is even on the committee, and I don't like the composition of the committee. From recollection, the punishment under the code should be a one-game suspension and some lesser stuff, if the individuals haven't had other problems in the past 2 (or 3) years. Assume there's wiggle room to do more. Assume it'll get run by Engstrom. Then there's Stitt. Stitt doesn't like stuff like this type of stuff at all and wants to minimize this type of stuff. All coaches do, but I think Stitt is more hard line, and he didn't have to deal with much of this at Mines, I assume.I suppose he could make a statement by being very tough. On the other hand, he knows they've already gone through alot and gotten significant penalties from the county attorneys office. He know these are good kids, who haven't been in trouble, to my knowledge. I assume he and the coaches also believe UM has a decent chance of sneaking into the playoffs if they win all 3 games, especially if they were in convincing fashion. No reason to have given up on the season. I assume Brady is getting close to be ready to go, even if it's off the bench, but don't know. I've been trying to think of what Stitt or the committee could impose, without going to 2 or more game suspensions. That just wouldn't be right, in my view.
Few of you know this about me but I also was once a Judge. Best goddamn chili that I've ever had!!LongTimeCatFan said:
Sam A. Blitz
Well-known member
Couple opinions I have:
1. I think you can definitely chalk this up to kids making a stupid mistake. I'm sure all 3 of the players are good kids. None of them have the reputation of being good kids with no criminal history. There is a lot of stupidity in what they did and it is also concerning that they would have been out drinking heavily during the season (especially a loss), however, you also have to give the guys credit for calling a designated driver. I went to school with many many kids that drove home from those situations, which is probably a worse offense than what occurred here.
2. This was a criminal act where there were victims that had their rights violated. That shouldn't be downplayed. The fact that the premises was occupied speaks to the seriousness of the trespass, despite the "intent". From listening to some on here, you would have thought the building was rough construction with studs and roof rather than an inhabitable building, that was in fact inhabited. Regardless, when people's rights are violated that must be taken more seriously than a stern talking to and an apology.
3. The restitution being paid out to the family bothers me. $16,500 four counseling seems very excessive. The bond that was set also seems very high for the actual violation committed. I do believe the other aspects of the sentence was fair.
4. I think a one game suspension is warranted just for the drinking. If i were Stitt, I'd be livid just on that. I don't think punishment beyond that should be required by this committee, but if Stitt wants to bench them for an extra game, I think that would make a lot of sense.
1. I think you can definitely chalk this up to kids making a stupid mistake. I'm sure all 3 of the players are good kids. None of them have the reputation of being good kids with no criminal history. There is a lot of stupidity in what they did and it is also concerning that they would have been out drinking heavily during the season (especially a loss), however, you also have to give the guys credit for calling a designated driver. I went to school with many many kids that drove home from those situations, which is probably a worse offense than what occurred here.
2. This was a criminal act where there were victims that had their rights violated. That shouldn't be downplayed. The fact that the premises was occupied speaks to the seriousness of the trespass, despite the "intent". From listening to some on here, you would have thought the building was rough construction with studs and roof rather than an inhabitable building, that was in fact inhabited. Regardless, when people's rights are violated that must be taken more seriously than a stern talking to and an apology.
3. The restitution being paid out to the family bothers me. $16,500 four counseling seems very excessive. The bond that was set also seems very high for the actual violation committed. I do believe the other aspects of the sentence was fair.
4. I think a one game suspension is warranted just for the drinking. If i were Stitt, I'd be livid just on that. I don't think punishment beyond that should be required by this committee, but if Stitt wants to bench them for an extra game, I think that would make a lot of sense.
jodcon said:
What would be the rush? Just got the charges squared away, and the three were going to miss this week anyway. Seems like there is already precedent to draw upon, and if the committee thinks this was comparable, then it gets handled @ the speed of the adminsitrative process. It's probably better that this doesn't have the smell of rubber stamp to it, if not for the five folks in town besides the family who think this was another example of Griz gone wild.
montanaguy
Well-known member
$16500 for counseling??? Complete crock. Can I be reimbursed for counseling the next time some texting nitwit rear-ends my car? My dog might be traumatized too. We have entered a new era of the perpetually-traumatized-overly-sensitive-victimhood persona. 
Besides, a great number of the counselors in town are kooks anyway. Fact.
Besides, a great number of the counselors in town are kooks anyway. Fact.
LongTimeCatFan
Well-known member
UMGriz75 said:
Actually the intent makes Kaarma a mutual combatant and you can't be the aggressor and claim self defense.
Anyway, let's just agree that the homeowner exercised a great deal of avoidance, which was the exact right thing to do.
...
LongTimeCatFan
Well-known member
UMGriz75 said:
He didn't know that, but he couldn't see him either so he couldn't determine jeopardy. Lots of holes in Kaarma's self defense case.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
It was a better case than what has been presented by people like you on this thread as to why the homeowner felt threatened and needed $16,000 in counselling. Kaarma got prison. Ironically, the deceased in the Kaarma case not only had criminal intent, had actually committed the crime several times -- crimes the State did little to resolve -- but was absolved of it by the State's insistence that Kaarma, by leaving his premises open, enticed the deceased.LongTimeCatFan said:
The criminal intent in this case was missing entirely and the State took an entirely opposite approach to leaving property overtly open to the public; that anyone similarly enticed, with no criminal intent, deserved what they got, indeed, needed to be crushed financially, humiliated publicly, and branded as criminals for all time.
Because, people who do not intend to do harm deserve to have the book thrown at them; kids who do commit crimes ... not so much. The State did not take Kaarma's 911 calls nearly so seriously.
It is a nice lesson, best suited to law review articles written by legal scholars who understand such fine nuances, not as well understood by young people getting out of the rain. Thanks for playing.
How about people just give it a rest already....
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
Keali'i Ah Yat on the off-season & upcoming youth camp
- Latest: HelenaHandBasket
-
