Florio v. Poole

[Cats2506]

:roll:

ya that's what i said. i swear some of you guys don't even read before posting. i simply said that just because other people do stupid stuff.....doesn't mean it's not stupid.

but keep putting words in my mouth to give you something to respond to. :?

No you put the words out there moron. You compared buying two pills to rape and murder, if you were drunk. Seriously, you were out of line and you know it if you actually have a degree from MSU because it is a good school.

so........ being drunk is a valid defense for buying a controlled substance, but not for rape or murder.

All these lawyers on this site, you sure learn a lot of crazy crap :roll:

No Mr. Mental Midget, your stupid BN partner tried to equate (look the word up) buying two pills with rape and murder. The insinuation is disingenuous at best. No, none of the actions is validly defended by claiming to be inebriated but certainly buying drugs, as a first time offense, if someone is drunk is not as crazy as murder and rape. Right?

So now I am confused, is being drunk not a valid defense (just like rape and murder) or is it a valid defense (as PR suggested above) ?

The Cat poster was pointing out that PR was suggesting that being drunk was NOT a valid defense just as it would NOT be a valid defense for any other crime, I think the comparison was spot on :thumb:

 

[PlayerRep]

No you put the words out there moron. You compared buying two pills to rape and murder, if you were drunk. Seriously, you were out of line and you know it if you actually have a degree from MSU because it is a good school.

so........ being drunk is a valid defense for buying a controlled substance, but not for rape or murder.

All these lawyers on this site, you sure learn a lot of crazy crap :roll:

No Mr. Mental Midget, your stupid BN partner tried to equate (look the word up) buying two pills with rape and murder. The insinuation is disingenuous at best. No, none of the actions is validly defended by claiming to be inebriated but certainly buying drugs, as a first time offense, if someone is drunk is not as crazy as murder and rape. Right?

So now I am confused, is being drunk not a valid defense (just like rape and murder) or is it a valid defense (as PR suggested above) ?

The Cat poster was pointing out that PR was suggesting that being drunk was NOT a valid defense just as it would NOT be a valid defense for any other crime, I think the comparison was spot on :thumb:

Actually, if any of you Cat posters could read and comprehend, you would see that PR never even suggested that being drunk was a valid legal defense. What was suggested was that being drunk is an explanation for doing stupid things, and that virtually anyone who drinks has done stupid things when drunk. I hope you understand the difference between the word explanation and valid defense. I also mention that, in sexual assault, being drunk excuses an accuser from giving consent. While I can understand the reasoning to some extent, it doesn't seem fair that a drunk accuser gets a pass, but the other drunk in the situation is still held to the highest standard.

 

[Cats2506]

so........ being drunk is a valid defense for buying a controlled substance, but not for rape or murder.

All these lawyers on this site, you sure learn a lot of crazy crap :roll:

No Mr. Mental Midget, your stupid BN partner tried to equate (look the word up) buying two pills with rape and murder. The insinuation is disingenuous at best. No, none of the actions is validly defended by claiming to be inebriated but certainly buying drugs, as a first time offense, if someone is drunk is not as crazy as murder and rape. Right?

So now I am confused, is being drunk not a valid defense (just like rape and murder) or is it a valid defense (as PR suggested above) ?

The Cat poster was pointing out that PR was suggesting that being drunk was NOT a valid defense just as it would NOT be a valid defense for any other crime, I think the comparison was spot on :thumb:

Actually, if any of you Cat posters could read and comprehend, you would see that PR never even suggested that being drunk was a valid legal defense. What was suggested was that being drunk is an explanation for doing stupid things, and that virtually anyone who drinks has done stupid things when drunk. I hope you understand the difference between the word explanation and valid defense. I also mention that, in sexual assault, being drunk excuses an accuser from giving consent. While I can understand the reasoning to some extent, it doesn't seem fair that a drunk accuser gets a pass, but the other drunk in the situation is still held to the highest standard.

explanation = excuse = defense


keep it up PR, you still are looking like a fool.

 

[SACCAT66]

so........ being drunk is a valid defense for buying a controlled substance, but not for rape or murder.

All these lawyers on this site, you sure learn a lot of crazy crap :roll:

No Mr. Mental Midget, your stupid BN partner tried to equate (look the word up) buying two pills with rape and murder. The insinuation is disingenuous at best. No, none of the actions is validly defended by claiming to be inebriated but certainly buying drugs, as a first time offense, if someone is drunk is not as crazy as murder and rape. Right?

So now I am confused, is being drunk not a valid defense (just like rape and murder) or is it a valid defense (as PR suggested above) ?

The Cat poster was pointing out that PR was suggesting that being drunk was NOT a valid defense just as it would NOT be a valid defense for any other crime, I think the comparison was spot on :thumb:

Actually, if any of you Cat posters could read and comprehend, you would see that PR never even suggested that being drunk was a valid legal defense. What was suggested was that being drunk is an explanation for doing stupid things, and that virtually anyone who drinks has done stupid things when drunk. I hope you understand the difference between the word explanation and valid defense. I also mention that, in sexual assault, being drunk excuses an accuser from giving consent. While I can understand the reasoning to some extent, it doesn't seem fair that a drunk accuser gets a pass, but the other drunk in the situation is still held to the highest standard.

Did you just go 3rd party on us?

 

[PTGrizzly]

Bringing a felony amount of drugs to a largely advertised party that is almost guaranteed to get busted? I just don't get it...

I don't know Poole. He's probably a good kid that made a stupid mistake, but this is stupid and selfish behavior that warrants him being kicked off the team pernamently. Too bad. He had the potential of being an All-Conference LT. Hopefully he finishes out school and gets things turned around for himself.

The charging document says he bought the pills at the party. Maybe he was drunk when he bought them.
Did you ever do anything dumb when you were drunk? Have you ever bought or used an illegal drug?

If he was drunk, that would just add to the issue considering he's only 20. I'm also not sure how you think being drunk is a legitimate excuse. Why do you keep on trying to act like what Poole did was understandable? He did something stupid that hurt himself and his team. He should pay the consequences.

 

[PTGrizzly]

so........ being drunk is a valid defense for buying a controlled substance, but not for rape or murder.

All these lawyers on this site, you sure learn a lot of crazy crap :roll:

No Mr. Mental Midget, your stupid BN partner tried to equate (look the word up) buying two pills with rape and murder. The insinuation is disingenuous at best. No, none of the actions is validly defended by claiming to be inebriated but certainly buying drugs, as a first time offense, if someone is drunk is not as crazy as murder and rape. Right?

So now I am confused, is being drunk not a valid defense (just like rape and murder) or is it a valid defense (as PR suggested above) ?

The Cat poster was pointing out that PR was suggesting that being drunk was NOT a valid defense just as it would NOT be a valid defense for any other crime, I think the comparison was spot on :thumb:

Actually, if any of you Cat posters could read and comprehend, you would see that PR never even suggested that being drunk was a valid legal defense. What was suggested was that being drunk is an explanation for doing stupid things, and that virtually anyone who drinks has done stupid things when drunk. I hope you understand the difference between the word explanation and valid defense. I also mention that, in sexual assault, being drunk excuses an accuser from giving consent. While I can understand the reasoning to some extent, it doesn't seem fair that a drunk accuser gets a pass, but the other drunk in the situation is still held to the highest standard.

So are you talking in third person now or did you just forget to log out of one of your other accounts?

Does PR = GrizPony?

More questions to come later on our latest saga of eGriz News!

 

[ilovethecats]

No Mr. Mental Midget, your stupid BN partner tried to equate (look the word up) buying two pills with rape and murder. The insinuation is disingenuous at best. No, none of the actions is validly defended by claiming to be inebriated but certainly buying drugs, as a first time offense, if someone is drunk is not as crazy as murder and rape. Right?

actually, this stupid moron wasn't "equating" buying pills with murder. reading comprehension should lead you to believe that asking questions about other circumstances does not alway equal a comparison. i'll slow it down and break it up and see if that helps. then you can come back with name calling and personal attacks and we'll be back on course..... :thumb:

PR asked the question what if poole had been drunk when he bought the pills. my point was to ask why that matters. is being drunk a defense for any crime? i used rape and murder intentionally because they are huge crimes. if being drunk is not a defense for raping someone....i doubt it is a defense for buying drugs. i think many agree that murder is worse than buying drugs. but in this beautiful country they are both crimes, and both will likely not be dismissed simply because the guy was drunk. so again....my point was asking PR what does it matter if he was drunk? what if he was falling-down hammered? speaking of which...isn't he only 20?

next, PR asked the question if anyone on this board has tried illegal drugs. again, I was confused how that matters. people all over the world do stupid stuff all the time. i could pretty much do any asinine thing i can come up with and justify it because i know others have done it too. that doesn't hold up in the real world. the trick is NOT doing stupid crap to get in trouble just because other people do it. so again....not "equating" buying drugs and murder as both being as severe. but they are both illegal, both stupid, both crimes other people have committed, and both not ok just because others have done it.

hopefully that helps clear stuff up. i'm aware that even though i'm saying the same things that 98% of this board are saying; that because i have the name "cats" in my sig it will be cause for uproar. take my comments however you want. it's clear you don't know me or my posting history so do with that what you will. keep "equating" me with everyone else who i happen to cheer for the same football team with. :thumb:

 

[PlayerRep]

Bringing a felony amount of drugs to a largely advertised party that is almost guaranteed to get busted? I just don't get it...

I don't know Poole. He's probably a good kid that made a stupid mistake, but this is stupid and selfish behavior that warrants him being kicked off the team pernamently. Too bad. He had the potential of being an All-Conference LT. Hopefully he finishes out school and gets things turned around for himself.

The charging document says he bought the pills at the party. Maybe he was drunk when he bought them.
Did you ever do anything dumb when you were drunk? Have you ever bought or used an illegal drug?

If he was drunk, that would just add to the issue considering he's only 20. I'm also not sure how you think being drunk is a legitimate excuse. Why do you keep on trying to act like what Poole did was understandable? He did something stupid that hurt himself and his team. He should pay the consequences.

I have never said being drunk was a legitimate excuse. Learn to read. I said people tend to do stupid things when they are drunk. Do you disagree with my last sentence. By the way, did you ever get a job? Seems like your posting more than you did when you were in PT school.

 

[PTGrizzly]

Bringing a felony amount of drugs to a largely advertised party that is almost guaranteed to get busted? I just don't get it...

I don't know Poole. He's probably a good kid that made a stupid mistake, but this is stupid and selfish behavior that warrants him being kicked off the team pernamently. Too bad. He had the potential of being an All-Conference LT. Hopefully he finishes out school and gets things turned around for himself.

The charging document says he bought the pills at the party. Maybe he was drunk when he bought them.
Did you ever do anything dumb when you were drunk? Have you ever bought or used an illegal drug?

If he was drunk, that would just add to the issue considering he's only 20. I'm also not sure how you think being drunk is a legitimate excuse. Why do you keep on trying to act like what Poole did was understandable? He did something stupid that hurt himself and his team. He should pay the consequences.

I have never said being drunk was a legitimate excuse. Learn to read. I said people tend to do stupid things when they are drunk. Do you disagree with my last sentence. By the way, did you ever get a job? Seems like your posting more than you did when you were in PT school.

Oh how cute, look at you being all passive-aggressive trying to figure out what I'm doing with my life. Sorry bub, I've heard too many stories about you to share details with you. I do find it humorous though. Almost as humorous as when you PM's me trying to figure out who told me that you weren't allowed access to the athletic department anymore. Also...it's a little creepy that you know the frequency at which I post. Perhaps I should consider a restraining order? You wouldn't happen to know a lawyer, would you?

Now then, you never did say being drunk was a legitimate excuse, but you're sure as hell implying it when you say people do stupid things when they're drunk. In all reality, there was no purpose for you to bring it up, because well...he's under-age. So if he was drunk, well then he'd be in more trouble. And of course people do stupid things when they're drunk, that however does not make them any less liable for the decisions they make when they are drunk.

Back to the real question...earlier were you talking in 3rd person or is PonyGriz another one of your names? Thanks for your time and consideration.

 

[PlayerRep]

The charging document says he bought the pills at the party. Maybe he was drunk when he bought them.
Did you ever do anything dumb when you were drunk? Have you ever bought or used an illegal drug?

If he was drunk, that would just add to the issue considering he's only 20. I'm also not sure how you think being drunk is a legitimate excuse. Why do you keep on trying to act like what Poole did was understandable? He did something stupid that hurt himself and his team. He should pay the consequences.

I have never said being drunk was a legitimate excuse. Learn to read. I said people tend to do stupid things when they are drunk. Do you disagree with my last sentence. By the way, did you ever get a job? Seems like your posting more than you did when you were in PT school.

Oh how cute, look at you being all passive-aggressive trying to figure out what I'm doing with my life. Sorry bub, I've heard too many stories about you to share details with you. I do find it humorous though. Almost as humorous as when you PM's me trying to figure out who told me that you weren't allowed access to the athletic department anymore. Also...it's a little creepy that you know the frequency at which I post. Perhaps I should consider a restraining order? You wouldn't happen to know a lawyer, would you?

Now then, you never did say being drunk was a legitimate excuse, but you're sure as hell implying it when you say people do stupid things when they're drunk. In all reality, there was no purpose for you to bring it up, because well...he's under-age. So if he was drunk, well then he'd be in more trouble. And of course people do stupid things when they're drunk, that however does not make them any less liable for the decisions they make when they are drunk.

Back to the real question...earlier were you talking in 3rd person or is PonyGriz another one of your names? Thanks for your time and consideration.

I never sent you a PM asking you who told you anything. I was asking you in a nice way to stop telling lies.

 

[PTGrizzly]

Please respond to more than one of my statements. Thanks for your time and consideration, PonyGriz.

 

[GrizMusician]

Well... it's pretty obvious that we aren't recruiting these kids for their academics... :roll:

I bet something like this will happen in each recruiting class.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk 2

That is a pretty ignorant statement given the GPA for Griz athletes is higher than the rest of the student body and the graduation rate is about 35% higher than the rest of the student body. If you are going to rip the Griz, at the very least could you refrain from making shit up. It makes you look like a stupid ass.

I guess I should have been clearer. Coaches recruit these athletes for their skills & performance on the field. If they are good football players, meet the academic requirements, & have no previous run-ins with the law the coaches will take them. My point was that they are recruited for their skills, not their book smarts which is why it doesn't surprise me that we have athletes who make miscalculated decisions & make stupid decisions like Poole did.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[PTGrizzly]

Well... it's pretty obvious that we aren't recruiting these kids for their academics... :roll:

I bet something like this will happen in each recruiting class.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk 2

That is a pretty ignorant statement given the GPA for Griz athletes is higher than the rest of the student body and the graduation rate is about 35% higher than the rest of the student body. If you are going to rip the Griz, at the very least could you refrain from making shit up. It makes you look like a stupid ass.

I guess I should have been clearer. Coaches recruit these athletes for their skills & performance on the field. If they are good football players, meet the academic requirements, & have no previous run-ins with the law the coaches will take them. My point was that they are recruited for their skills, not their book smarts which is why it doesn't surprise me that we have athletes who make miscalculated decisions & make stupid decisions like Poole did.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk 2

.......

You're not a very bright individual.

 

[GrizMusician]

Well... it's pretty obvious that we aren't recruiting these kids for their academics... :roll:

I bet something like this will happen in each recruiting class.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk 2

That is a pretty ignorant statement given the GPA for Griz athletes is higher than the rest of the student body and the graduation rate is about 35% higher than the rest of the student body. If you are going to rip the Griz, at the very least could you refrain from making shit up. It makes you look like a stupid ass.

I guess I should have been clearer. Coaches recruit these athletes for their skills & performance on the field. If they are good football players, meet the academic requirements, & have no previous run-ins with the law the coaches will take them. My point was that they are recruited for their skills, not their book smarts which is why it doesn't surprise me that we have athletes who make miscalculated decisions & make stupid decisions like Poole did.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk 2

.......

You're not a very bright individual.

Keep telling yourself that bud. :wink:

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Griz-O-Matic]

So, the point of this thread was that there has been a ton of shit written here about how Florio has skewered the football program. The first article that I found concerning this issue is posted in the first post. Here's the only update that I found that is now about 2 days old (October 30th) http://missoulian.com/news/local/prosecutor-griz-tackle-poole-bought-drugs-at-party/article_b35c30d2-216f-11e2-a89e-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please discuss, "Has Florio given Poole a fair shake in print?"