• 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!

Jordy Johnson is gone when school lets out

Status
Not open for further replies.
Young Mr Johnson is in a tough situation. In my opinion he doesn't help himself one bit leaving. If he does that, then the majority of people are going to assume he is guilty. If we was leaving I think he already would have. I heard from a very credible source that he assurred Coach Delaney that everything was going to work out, and that assurance came in the last week.

I support the kid regardless of his decision.
 
You guys are crazy-what you call wanting a fresh start I call running from your problems. Only guilty people or cowards run from their problems. If he didn't do anything wrong no need to leave IMO. Stand up, be a man, act like you have a pair, and shove it down their throats when you are proven not guilty. I hope the kid stays and sees this thing through football or no football.
 
grizpsych said:
For those questioning the adoption of new policies by a school, it works the same as business adopting a new handbook and/or policy. Basically, you are given the new rules and asked to sign your name stating that you will abide by them. Once you sign your name, you are subject to be judged by the new rules, regardless at time of offense. Of course, if you did not sign your name, you would be judged by the old rules/policy, which likely would say you are subject to dismissal if you did not agree to future rule/policy changes. :)

At least that is how it works here at Kent State, and every job I have ever had.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is how it works in the real world. Unfortunately, the U is trying to apply the new code to an act that occurred BEFORE the new code was adopted. That's why I am saying its Constitutionally wrong.
 
Which Constitution are you referring to? The joke we have as Pres of the USA doesn'e even abide by the US Constitution.
 
...what ever happened in the johnson deal...
...the timing of it couldn't have been worse..

... 8-) ...
 
crackgina said:
grizpsych said:
For those questioning the adoption of new policies by a school, it works the same as business adopting a new handbook and/or policy. Basically, you are given the new rules and asked to sign your name stating that you will abide by them. Once you sign your name, you are subject to be judged by the new rules, regardless at time of offense. Of course, if you did not sign your name, you would be judged by the old rules/policy, which likely would say you are subject to dismissal if you did not agree to future rule/policy changes. :)

At least that is how it works here at Kent State, and every job I have ever had.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is how it works in the real world. Unfortunately, the U is trying to apply the new code to an act that occurred BEFORE the new code was adopted. That's why I am saying its Constitutionally wrong.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying this has happened to me before. I think the grandfather-like clause only applies to criminal matters.
 
The old code could just as easily apply. All the new code has done is taken some of the arbitrary applications out.

All Coach D promised was it would be worked out, don't recall any "results" being promised. I'm guessing the kid is going home where he should be for a while. Even 20 year olds need their folks from time to time.
 
Most students, even at the college level, would be surprised to know that their fourth and fifth amendment rights are severely limited. The reason is functionally that a persons individual rights generally do not outweight the safety of the masses in an insitution like a high school or college.

This has allowed schools to implement student codes of conduct that in any other fascet of life would be patently unconstitutional. This also allows the administration at most college and schools to carry a significant amount of discrestion when it comes to the application of those codes of conduct. Students when they apply and agree to the code of conduct should know they have fewer due process rights than as a citizen in day-to-day life. Johnson isn't being treated unfairly, he is being treated in the same way that all students are under the code of conduct. The point is that conduct codes of schools are meant to protect the safety of all students and there are a number of supreme court cases that hold that to be true.

As a result schools can to a degree implement most changes to codes of conduct with little or no acknowledgement from students. In most cases, paying for school and attending school is a tacit understanding that you agree to the code of conduct.
 
Grizfan-24 said:
Most students, even at the college level, would be surprised to know that their fourth and fifth amendment rights are severely limited. The reason is functionally that a persons individual rights generally do not outweight the safety of the masses in an insitution like a high school or college.

This has allowed schools to implement student codes of conduct that in any other fascet of life would be patently unconstitutional. This also allows the administration at most college and schools to carry a significant amount of discrestion when it comes to the application of those codes of conduct. Students when they apply and agree to the code of conduct should know they have fewer due process rights than as a citizen in day-to-day life. Johnson isn't being treated unfairly, he is being treated in the same way that all students are under the code of conduct. The point is that conduct codes of schools are meant to protect the safety of all students and there are a number of supreme court cases that hold that to be true.

As a result schools can to a degree implement most changes to codes of conduct with little or no acknowledgement from students. In most cases, paying for school and attending school is a tacit understanding that you agree to the code of conduct.
Click to expand...

Some clarification. Due process rights for students come under the 14th amendment (equal protection), not the 5th amendment (due process). Generally, university students have more rights than high school students. I'm not sure there's a rational basis or reason for this; it's just the way the case law has gone. Schools try to characterize many proceedings as academic, as opposed to something else like disciplinary. Many of the cases have arisen under the purely academic prong, i.e. kicking out a student for bad grades or cheating. Generally, there are more due process rights allowed or required in disciplinary proceedings.

Schools get away of alot of bad process because they have the upper hand and people don't tend to bring lawsuits on these types of matters. However, when a lawsuit is brought, my impression is that the students tend to get favorable results. In JJ's situation, where the stakes are higher, the matter is already semi-public and there are already lawyers involved, I believe there is a higher likelihood of a lawsuit against the university if the university hasn't provided good due process and/or made mistakes.

As someone else has already noted, I too have some concern that having the feds investigating the university and county attorneys office, will cause those bodies to go out of their way to conclude in favor the accuser. However, if the county attorneys office and university have true integrity, they won't bow to the pressures and do something that they wouldn't otherwise do under their normal policies.
 
mtgrizrule said:
I hope this is a joke that went bad. In this case, after what JJ is going through, a new start would be completely understandable. Even if he is innocent, he is marked in the community. That would be hard at any age, let a lone when life is at it's best.
Click to expand...
Oh, C'MON! You saying everything is downhill after 20? The only problem for JJ is if he lets this experience nag him the rest of his life. It's not that it's not serious, but I think that these days, with all the attention on domestic violence and violence against women, that women accuse men for acts that a few decades ago would not have been reported. I'm not saying that women should NOT report these things. All I'm saying is times have changed, and guys need to be more aware of how they act when they're with their dates or girlfriends.

To me, the TRO signifies an act of indiscretion. Nothing more. The young lady has nothing more to do with JJ. So be it. I do not know where JJs case is going, now that it's been referred to the CA. All I'm trying to do is lend some historical perspective to this situation, and that this should not make JJ believe he's a bad person, simply because this thing was reported to authorities, when several decades ago it would not have been.

I would not be surprised if JJ leaves UM and Missoula. He's a talented QB and a good student. He's learned something in dating young ladies, today. Women are "mad as hell, and [they] aren't going to take it, anymore." He needs to move on with his life, if this UM experience is bad for him, a painful lesson learned. I'm sure there are plenty of other good schools that would be happy to have him, schools where he can complete his education as well as at UM.
 
ALPHAGRIZ1 said:
Do you guys want to know what I would do if I was JJ?
:coffee:
Click to expand...

sure. but from both sides. let us know what you'd do if you raped a chick. then what you'd do if you didn't rape a chick....

seems like that would be pretty valuable info before speculating what'd you'd do.... :idea:
 
ALPHAGRIZ1 said:
Do you guys want to know what I would do if I was JJ? :coffee:
Click to expand...
Typical Alfalfa. Who gives a sh*t. Just say it. Nobody cares what you'd do, any more than they'd care what I'd do. Geezuz! Why post this?
 
grizaremoregooder said:
You guys are crazy-what you call wanting a fresh start I call running from your problems. Only guilty people or cowards run from their problems. If he didn't do anything wrong no need to leave IMO. Stand up, be a man, act like you have a pair, and shove it down their throats when you are proven not guilty. I hope the kid stays and sees this thing through football or no football.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's as cut and dried as that. If the charges are bogus then the U should have stood by him, and Pflu did just that and got fired. Facing criminal charges is one thing, but the backing and belief in yoour innocence is another thing, and I think he's getting the read that the U isn't solidly behind his cause, so I would be inclined to say F-you and walk. Life's too short to be jerked around by a bunch of namby pamby process types that tuck their tails between their legs at the slightest hint of unfavorable publicity. He can fight the charges elsewhere, besides I question his attitude being ruined by all of this.

This whole thing is the biggest cluster fox trot I have ever seen.
 
What kind of a message is the U sending to future athelets? Hey, come give us your best and we'll Sh%t on you when you need us most? Folks, JJ is our QB and needs our support, no cop out's. His situation is no different the Jimmy Wilson's. He is innocent until proven guilty and we need to all be behind him and the rest of the team thru these trying times. If he is tried and convicted, we still need to support him in the best way possible.
WE ARE GRIZ NATION AND TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN!!!
 
TxGriz said:
grizaremoregooder said:
You guys are crazy-what you call wanting a fresh start I call running from your problems. Only guilty people or cowards run from their problems. If he didn't do anything wrong no need to leave IMO. Stand up, be a man, act like you have a pair, and shove it down their throats when you are proven not guilty. I hope the kid stays and sees this thing through football or no football.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's as cut and dried as that. If the charges are bogus then the U should have stood by him, and Pflu did just that and got fired. Facing criminal charges is one thing, but the backing and belief in yoour innocence is another thing, and I think he's getting the read that the U isn't solidly behind his cause, so I would be inclined to say F-you and walk. Life's too short to be jerked around by a bunch of namby pamby process types that tuck their tails between their legs at the slightest hint of unfavorable publicity. He can fight the charges elsewhere, besides I question his attitude being ruined by all of this.

This whole thing is the biggest cluster fox trot I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

And Maybe he is as good a kid as suggested, had a few too many and knows he stepped over the line (no matter what their initial intentions were they occasionally change closer to the "act" as anyone who has been married for any length of time knows and simply hopes to work this out. It may not rise to the level of sexual assault but a kid with character will realize where he was wrong.
 
MTOutsider said:
Which Constitution are you referring to? The joke we have as Pres of the USA doesn'e even abide by the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Where were all you strict Constituitionist when W was "The Decider?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top