Coach Delaney Speaks Out on JJ's Return

[ThrashedKid]

FWIW-"Johnson is taking part-time classes at UM and would need to be a full-time student to be eligible to rejoin the team."

http://www.montanakaimin.com/news/article_48600ee0-82ca-11e2-9ade-0019bb30f31a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[getgrizzy]

i dont' think not guilty on the rape charge is the only thing at play here. i think that they might also look at some of the other things that he admitted to during the trial suchas underage drinking, the way he treated the girl accusing him of rape and his own girlfriend. none of those things are enough to not allow him back, but he will probably have to go through all that AGAIN as part of the appeal process. he actually knew the victim for over a year and based on what went on in the trial they were fairly well acquainted. he was then the pursuer (he initiated most of contact between the two and on the day in question) having sex with her despite having no intentions of dating her. nothing criminal in that, but i'm not sure what all is covered by the student code of conduct.

speaking of his girlfriend (i assume ex-girlfriend; kelly ). it'd be interesting to hear what her take on this is. if the victim was motivated to take him to court just because j.j. liked someone else, i bet kelly isn't feeling too sorry for him after he got all serious with her and went and boned someone else just for the hell of it.

I may be wrong but I seem to believe that you have had a decidedly anti-JJ slant for much if not all of this process. You are entitled to your opinion but you have been on the losing side of the issue thus far. Don't give up though, I'm sure something will eventually go wrong for him again (turned ankle or stubbed toe or something like that) and you can then rejoice.

nope. i've been saying all along that he'd be found not guilty and i haven't taken a side. it probably seems like i've taken a side to you because you are so pro-j.j. and compared to my neutral position i seem slanted to you. using the term "losing side" on someone that is neutral gives away your very pro-j.j. slant.

Someone who is nuetral after this trial, either way, is either deaf and blind or has an agenda. Fence riders are pussies, in my opinion. I would at least acknowledge your opinion if you admitted you bias. I admit mine.

i'm of the opinion that he should've been found not guilty. i find it irresponsible to have an opinion on his innoncence when there's no way for me to know. the only people that know what happened are j.j. and the woman. saying he's innocent without knowing that he is just enables rapists. they see that opinion to a rape case and it just tells them they can begin or continue to rape. why would anyone want to do that?

 

[hokeyfine]

if jordan johnson is not the starter in the fall, the griz are in trouble.

 

[rgrizfan]

i dont' think not guilty on the rape charge is the only thing at play here. i think that they might also look at some of the other things that he admitted to during the trial suchas underage drinking, the way he treated the girl accusing him of rape and his own girlfriend. none of those things are enough to not allow him back, but he will probably have to go through all that AGAIN as part of the appeal process. he actually knew the victim for over a year and based on what went on in the trial they were fairly well acquainted. he was then the pursuer (he initiated most of contact between the two and on the day in question) having sex with her despite having no intentions of dating her. nothing criminal in that, but i'm not sure what all is covered by the student code of conduct.

speaking of his girlfriend (i assume ex-girlfriend; kelly ). it'd be interesting to hear what her take on this is. if the victim was motivated to take him to court just because j.j. liked someone else, i bet kelly isn't feeling too sorry for him after he got all serious with her and went and boned someone else just for the hell of it.

I may be wrong but I seem to believe that you have had a decidedly anti-JJ slant for much if not all of this process. You are entitled to your opinion but you have been on the losing side of the issue thus far. Don't give up though, I'm sure something will eventually go wrong for him again (turned ankle or stubbed toe or something like that) and you can then rejoice.

nope. i've been saying all along that he'd be found not guilty and i haven't taken a side. it probably seems like i've taken a side to you because you are so pro-j.j. and compared to my neutral position i seem slanted to you. using the term "losing side" on someone that is neutral gives away your very pro-j.j. slant.

You have said too much already....

 

[GrizPony]

So i assume jordan is currently enrolled for spring?

i've been assuming the same, however nobody has given a definitive answer.... figured he might be taking on-line classes much like Manziel is at A&M after his newfound publicity....

I've answered this about five times. Yes, he is currently in class.

 

[Grisly Fan]

I may be wrong but I seem to believe that you have had a decidedly anti-JJ slant for much if not all of this process. You are entitled to your opinion but you have been on the losing side of the issue thus far. Don't give up though, I'm sure something will eventually go wrong for him again (turned ankle or stubbed toe or something like that) and you can then rejoice.

nope. i've been saying all along that he'd be found not guilty and i haven't taken a side. it probably seems like i've taken a side to you because you are so pro-j.j. and compared to my neutral position i seem slanted to you. using the term "losing side" on someone that is neutral gives away your very pro-j.j. slant.

Someone who is nuetral after this trial, either way, is either deaf and blind or has an agenda. Fence riders are pussies, in my opinion. I would at least acknowledge your opinion if you admitted you bias. I admit mine.

i'm of the opinion that he should've been found not guilty. i find it irresponsible to have an opinion on his innoncence when there's no way for me to know. the only people that know what happened are j.j. and the woman. saying he's innocent without knowing that he is just enables rapists. they see that opinion to a rape case and it just tells them they can begin or continue to rape. why would anyone want to do that?

You don't seem to understand that "innocense" is a legal distinction when used it this context. It doesn't mean that he is an angel or didn't do something wrong at some level. Pretty clearly he made a mistake -- and one I am sure that he will never make again. You can only possibly conclude that JJ being believed innocent by being proven "not guilty" enables rapists because you believe he was guilty but got away with it. In other words, if any innocent person is charged in court with a crime of which they may truly be innocent and is exhonerated then it enables anyone who is actually guilty. Wow. That fails logical scrutiny at he most fundamental level. Face it, you think he got away with it and that is the basis for your angst.

 

[getgrizzy]

nope. i've been saying all along that he'd be found not guilty and i haven't taken a side. it probably seems like i've taken a side to you because you are so pro-j.j. and compared to my neutral position i seem slanted to you. using the term "losing side" on someone that is neutral gives away your very pro-j.j. slant.

Someone who is nuetral after this trial, either way, is either deaf and blind or has an agenda. Fence riders are pussies, in my opinion. I would at least acknowledge your opinion if you admitted you bias. I admit mine.

i'm of the opinion that he should've been found not guilty. i find it irresponsible to have an opinion on his innoncence when there's no way for me to know. the only people that know what happened are j.j. and the woman. saying he's innocent without knowing that he is just enables rapists. they see that opinion to a rape case and it just tells them they can begin or continue to rape. why would anyone want to do that?

You don't seem to understand that "innocense" is a legal distinction when used it this context. It doesn't mean that he is an angel or didn't do something wrong at some level. Pretty clearly he made a mistake -- and one I am sure that he will never make again. You can only possibly conclude that JJ being believed innocent by being proven "not guilty" enables rapists because you believe he was guilty but got away with it. In other words, if any innocent person is charged in court with a crime of which they may truly be innocent and is exhonerated then it enables anyone who is actually guilty. Wow. That fails logical scrutiny at he most fundamental level. Face it, you think he got away with it and that is the basis for your angst.

haha, what a load. whatever the case there's no reason for anyone to try to say he's innocent or that she was in fact raped. because you simply don't know. I can admit that I don't know. you can't? anyone thinking they know what happened and says he's innocent or that she was raped, is a cause of angst for anyone.

 

[GrizPony]

i dont' think not guilty on the rape charge is the only thing at play here. i think that they might also look at some of the other things that he admitted to during the trial suchas underage drinking, the way he treated the girl accusing him of rape and his own girlfriend. none of those things are enough to not allow him back, but he will probably have to go through all that AGAIN as part of the appeal process. he actually knew the victim for over a year and based on what went on in the trial they were fairly well acquainted. he was then the pursuer (he initiated most of contact between the two and on the day in question) having sex with her despite having no intentions of dating her. nothing criminal in that, but i'm not sure what all is covered by the student code of conduct.

speaking of his girlfriend (i assume ex-girlfriend; kelly ). it'd be interesting to hear what her take on this is. if the victim was motivated to take him to court just because j.j. liked someone else, i bet kelly isn't feeling too sorry for him after he got all serious with her and went and boned someone else just for the hell of it.

You are an idiot, at best. If you can't see that 12 jurors, listening to ALL the testimony and seeing ALL the physical evidence, took less than three hours to acquit him as a universal verdict on who is believable, then nothing will knock you off your agenda. He will be back. He wants to and is entitled to same. I think he might get credit for the drinking since he has already "served" a 13 month suspension, unless you don't think that is enough time? You are pathetic.

 

[getgrizzy]

i dont' think not guilty on the rape charge is the only thing at play here. i think that they might also look at some of the other things that he admitted to during the trial suchas underage drinking, the way he treated the girl accusing him of rape and his own girlfriend. none of those things are enough to not allow him back, but he will probably have to go through all that AGAIN as part of the appeal process. he actually knew the victim for over a year and based on what went on in the trial they were fairly well acquainted. he was then the pursuer (he initiated most of contact between the two and on the day in question) having sex with her despite having no intentions of dating her. nothing criminal in that, but i'm not sure what all is covered by the student code of conduct.

speaking of his girlfriend (i assume ex-girlfriend; kelly ). it'd be interesting to hear what her take on this is. if the victim was motivated to take him to court just because j.j. liked someone else, i bet kelly isn't feeling too sorry for him after he got all serious with her and went and boned someone else just for the hell of it.

You are an idiot, at best. If you can't see that 12 jurors, listening to ALL the testimony and seeing ALL the physical evidence, took less than three hours to acquit him as a universal verdict on who is believable, then nothing will knock you off your agenda. He will be back. He wants to and is entitled to same. I think he might get credit for the drinking since he has already "served" a 13 month suspension, unless you don't think that is enough time? You are pathetic.

ahh, the good ol' egriz shout down. if someone doesn't say j.j. is innocent they get the shout down treatment even if they agree with the verdict, is that it? yes, i must want j.j. gone, because i'm pointing out reasons why he might not come back. that's it! you're right! i'm so pathetic. :lol: :lol: :roll:

 

[GrizPony]

i dont' think not guilty on the rape charge is the only thing at play here. i think that they might also look at some of the other things that he admitted to during the trial suchas underage drinking, the way he treated the girl accusing him of rape and his own girlfriend. none of those things are enough to not allow him back, but he will probably have to go through all that AGAIN as part of the appeal process. he actually knew the victim for over a year and based on what went on in the trial they were fairly well acquainted. he was then the pursuer (he initiated most of contact between the two and on the day in question) having sex with her despite having no intentions of dating her. nothing criminal in that, but i'm not sure what all is covered by the student code of conduct.

speaking of his girlfriend (i assume ex-girlfriend; kelly ). it'd be interesting to hear what her take on this is. if the victim was motivated to take him to court just because j.j. liked someone else, i bet kelly isn't feeling too sorry for him after he got all serious with her and went and boned someone else just for the hell of it.

You are an idiot, at best. If you can't see that 12 jurors, listening to ALL the testimony and seeing ALL the physical evidence, took less than three hours to acquit him as a universal verdict on who is believable, then nothing will knock you off your agenda. He will be back. He wants to and is entitled to same. I think he might get credit for the drinking since he has already "served" a 13 month suspension, unless you don't think that is enough time? You are pathetic.

ahh, the good ol' egriz shout down. if someone doesn't say j.j. is innocent they get the shout down treatment even if they agree with the verdict, is that it? yes, i must want j.j. gone, because i'm pointing out reasons why he might not come back. that's it! you're right! i'm so pathetic. :lol: :lol: :roll:

Yeah that was a shout down. :roll: You continue to post bullshit. Recognize the jury verdict for what it is. They did not believe her. They couldn't have believed her or they would have found him guilty. Her testimony, if believed, was evidence sufficient to convict. They had to discount her version to find him not guilty. Face reality. He is coming back. For sure.

 

[GrizzlyEdd]

Good God guys.... the man was announced as innocent of all charges by a jury of his peers. Seven women and 5 men. He doesn't need to be tried all over by eGriz.com... get over it and move on. He is a good young man as young college men go. Let it alone, it is OVER. Lets get on with the new season and put to rest all the rest of this crap. He deserves every opportunity to become the Griz QB again and to receive our support. Move on ladies and gentlemen... move on.... :dead:

 

[Grizbeer]

So i assume jordan is currently enrolled for spring?

i've been assuming the same, however nobody has given a definitive answer.... figured he might be taking on-line classes much like Manziel is at A&M after his newfound publicity....

Johnson is taking part-time classes at UM and would need to be a full-time student to be eligible to rejoin the team.

http://www.montanakaimin.com/news/article_48600ee0-82ca-11e2-9ade-0019bb30f31a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[wbtfg]

So i assume jordan is currently enrolled for spring?

i've been assuming the same, however nobody has given a definitive answer.... figured he might be taking on-line classes much like Manziel is at A&M after his newfound publicity....

I've answered this about five times. Yes, he is currently in class.

But not full time, apparently?

 

[grizchamp]

So i assume jordan is currently enrolled for spring?

i've been assuming the same, however nobody has given a definitive answer.... figured he might be taking on-line classes much like Manziel is at A&M after his newfound publicity....

I've answered this about five times. Yes, he is currently in class.

But not full time, apparently?

He could add enough classes Ito get to full time if he wanted to. You can add classes all the way until April I believe.

 

[wbtfg]

i've been assuming the same, however nobody has given a definitive answer.... figured he might be taking on-line classes much like Manziel is at A&M after his newfound publicity....

I've answered this about five times. Yes, he is currently in class.

But not full time, apparently?

He could add enough classes Ito get to full time if he wanted to. You can add classes all the way until April I believe.

I think you can drop classes until April, but can only add until the 10th or 15th class day. Last day to add classes was probably sometime end of January or beginning of February.

 

[grizchamp]

I've answered this about five times. Yes, he is currently in class.

But not full time, apparently?

He could add enough classes Ito get to full time if he wanted to. You can add classes all the way until April I believe.

I think you can drop classes until April, but can only add until the 10th or 15th class day. Last day to add classes was probably sometime end of January or beginning of February.

I just checked the catalog, he can add until the 45th day of instruction with professor approval. That's about early to mid April.

 

[Grizbeer]

But not full time, apparently?

He could add enough classes Ito get to full time if he wanted to. You can add classes all the way until April I believe.

I think you can drop classes until April, but can only add until the 10th or 15th class day. Last day to add classes was probably sometime end of January or beginning of February.

I just checked the catalog, he can add until the 45th day of instruction with professor approval. That's about early to mid April.

Correct

http://www.umt.edu/uac/adddrop.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beginning the sixteenth (16) instructional day of the semester through the forty-fifth (45) instructional day, students use paper forms to drop, add and make changes of section, grading option, or credit. The drop/add form must be signed by the instructor of the course and the student's advisor. The signed drop/add form must be returned to the Registration Counter (or the Registrar's Office at Missoula College) no later than the forty-fifth instructional day. A $10.00 processing fee is charged for each drop/add form. Added courses and credits may result in additional fees. There are no refunds or reductions of fees for courses dropped and grades of W (withdrew) are recorded.

Classes started Jan 28th. 45 instruction days is April 8th

 

[GrizMusician]

Ok... so the only thing I learned in this thread is that if I am ever CHARGED for a crime I will never be INNOCENT even if I am ACQUITTED.

This legal mumbo jumbo is all a bunch of BS.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Born2BaGriz]

Ok... so the only thing I learned in this thread is that if I am ever CHARGED for a crime I will never be INNOCENT even if I am ACQUITTED.

This legal mumbo jumbo is all a bunch of BS.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I know some feel this is beating a dead horse but I believe this is relevant to defend Jordy and the Griz football team. I am not an attorney, but I seem to remember from my "Civics" class that in a criminal trial the defendant is presumed innocent and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. JJ was found to be not guilty! So, if he was presumed to be innocent and a jury of his peers decided that he was not guilty is seems to me that they confirmed he was indeed innocent of the charges against him. Now, for those of you that wish to look down your noses in judgement and have more information due to what was presented in the trial to indicate that JJ merely got away with a crime, then you are welcome to your opinion but you are wrong. There is information available that would have increased the strength of JJ's case but not allowed into trial. Also, what is true nobody but JJ and the young woman know what went on that night and it has cost them both.

If you want to stand in moral judgement of JJ, then you are a far better person then I am. As the father of three daughters, with one soon to be attending the University of Montana, I worry all the time about the current situation regarding sexuality of young people. But, I didn't shy away from this topic with my girls and was forthright regarding my stance that no, means no at any time. BUT, be smart enough not to put yourself in the position where it can become an issue. Would I consider JJ to be of high moral character? To be truthful I don't know him well enough to make that judgement because while I consider myself to be a pretty moral person now, if somebody took a snapshot of me along the way of growing up and tried to determine my standing at that point, I could be considered a jerk. However, I did fail as a person a time or two, but I learned from my mistakes and worked towards becoming a better person. I believe that JJ has earned the right to learn from his mistakes, get an education and play again for the Montana Grizzlies. Hell, not very likely, but if somehow he became friends with my soon to be Freshman daughter, i would welcome into my home.

 

[grizfan47]

Ok... so the only thing I learned in this thread is that if I am ever CHARGED for a crime I will never be INNOCENT even if I am ACQUITTED.

This legal mumbo jumbo is all a bunch of BS.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I know some feel this is beating a dead horse but I believe this is relevant to defend Jordy and the Griz football team. I am not an attorney, but I seem to remember from my "Civics" class that in a criminal trial the defendant is presumed innocent and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. JJ was found to be not guilty! So, if he was presumed to be innocent and a jury of his peers decided that he was not guilty is seems to me that they confirmed he was indeed innocent of the charges against him. Now, for those of you that wish to look down your noses in judgement and have more information due to what was presented in the trial to indicate that JJ merely got away with a crime, then you are welcome to your opinion but you are wrong. There is information available that would have increased the strength of JJ's case but not allowed into trial. Also, what is true nobody but JJ and the young woman know what went on that night and it has cost them both.

If you want to stand in moral judgement of JJ, then you are a far better person then I am. As the father of three daughters, with one soon to be attending the University of Montana, I worry all the time about the current situation regarding sexuality of young people. But, I didn't shy away from this topic with my girls and was forthright regarding my stance that no, means no at any time. BUT, be smart enough not to put yourself in the position where it can become an issue. Would I consider JJ to be of high moral character? To be truthful I don't know him well enough to make that judgement because while I consider myself to be a pretty moral person now, if somebody took a snapshot of me along the way of growing up and tried to determine my standing at that point, I could be considered a jerk. However, I did fail as a person a time or two, but I learned from my mistakes and worked towards becoming a better person. I believe that JJ has earned the right to learn from his mistakes, get an education and play again for the Montana Grizzlies. Hell, not very likely, but if somehow he became friends with my soon to be Freshman daughter, i would welcome into my home.

Very well said. That sums it up for me as well. I to, have three daughters, one of which graduated from UM last spring. We have had conversations about this case also and they realize that they have the responsibility to not put themselves in that kind of position.