Poole

[BDizzle]

If he follows the rules given to him on his deferred sentence the charges will still be on his criminal record for life. He actually may be able to get off his deferred sentence in 9 months (called half-time). If he gets arrested again 20 years down the road it will say he was arrested in 2012 and pled guilty to felony drug charges. But if a regular person does a regular background check on Mr. Poole nothing will come up. So when he applys for a job/housing/financial aid he won't have to list that he is a convicted felon. I'm guessing he won't be allowed in bars, be able to drink/do drugs, or possess a firearm while he is on probation. Other than that he can do most anything.

I admit that I don't know this area of the law, but what you just posted looks wrong to me. Do you know what you're talking about?

Actually I do. I have some experience in this.

 

[grizchamp]

If he follows the rules given to him on his deferred sentence the charges will still be on his criminal record for life. He actually may be able to get off his deferred sentence in 9 months (called half-time). If he gets arrested again 20 years down the road it will say he was arrested in 2012 and pled guilty to felony drug charges. But if a regular person does a regular background check on Mr. Poole nothing will come up. So when he applys for a job/housing/financial aid he won't have to list that he is a convicted felon. I'm guessing he won't be allowed in bars, be able to drink/do drugs, or possess a firearm while he is on probation. Other than that he can do most anything.

I admit that I don't know this area of the law, but what you just posted looks wrong to me. Do you know what you're talking about?

Actually I do. I have some experience in this.

As do I and this is accurate.

 

[GrizPony]

If he follows the rules given to him on his deferred sentence the charges will still be on his criminal record for life. He actually may be able to get off his deferred sentence in 9 months (called half-time). If he gets arrested again 20 years down the road it will say he was arrested in 2012 and pled guilty to felony drug charges. But if a regular person does a regular background check on Mr. Poole nothing will come up. So when he applys for a job/housing/financial aid he won't have to list that he is a convicted felon. I'm guessing he won't be allowed in bars, be able to drink/do drugs, or possess a firearm while he is on probation. Other than that he can do most anything.

I admit that I don't know this area of the law, but what you just posted looks wrong to me. Do you know what you're talking about?

Actually I do. I have some experience in this.

So when was your conviction? Haha

 

[Griz2k]

So what you're saying PR, is that I'm not a true "fan" for wanting Griz players to stay out of trouble? Interesting.

No, everyone wants UM players to stay out of trouble. However, when the trouble is either not major or resolved in a favorable way (like charges are dropped, reduced, or resolved with a deferred prosecution (which means they completely go away), then the university should look at its athletic code for guidance and consider what should be doing going forward. If the charges have gone away, which these will if the kid abides by his agreement, then it appears to me that the athletic code does not provide for continuing dismissal. "Fans" who are unreasonable, like yourself in my view, should be ignored. From what I've heard, the kid is a good kid. He has never been in legal trouble. His dad and uncle played at UM. This seems like a perfect situation to treat the kid well--assuming he abides by his agreement and the charges disappear.

Why is it that you continue to put the word fan in quotations? Am I not a fan because I have a differing opinion from you? Am I not a fan because I believe there should be harsher penalties for players that commit felonies, even if it is their first offense? Seems to me that any "man" would respect another person's opinion, even if they whole heartedly disagree with it, but to show you that I am indeed a reasonable person, if Poole stays out of trouble and this charge does indeed go away, then I would agree that he should be given a second chance and I will fully support his returning to the Griz football team at that time. Fair enough?

I don't know you, so I don't know if you are a fan or not. If you feel better, whenever I say "fan", feel free to read it as "bad" fan. Ha-ha. I don't respect everyone's opinion, but because opinions are totally wrong or idiotic. On this subject, I thought your initial opinion was wrong. And like you have to right to express your opinions, whether right or wrong, others have the right to challenge or disagree with your opinions. However, your last sentence of the above post is exactly what I was suggesting. So, we're in agreement, and we didn't call each other names.

Isn't it funny how some so-called adults on here can't have a discussion without doing just that?

 

[Ursa Major]

In reading the last page or so I was reminded of something. I thought both of the POVs (‘off the team’ and ‘a second chance’) have aomw merit and I bet they mimic the internal conflict that college coaches or for that matter college ADs and presidents must face in dealing with disciplinary actions. It’s easy to second guess prior decisions made or vilify those that have made those decisions. The rights of a student athlete; the image of the program and the school; giving a young person that made a mistake a second chance; are all often conflicting ideals in making these disciplinary decisions. And the truth is that you will never be able to codify a comprehensive disciplinary guide that covers every situation a student athlete may find themselves in (not that you shouldn't try). The reminder for me is that these are often not black and white issues and often not easy to make a determination on.

Okay, back to lynch mobbing and witch hunting…

 

[billingsgriz]

Kids make mistakes, and since this is his first big, illegal one, I would bring back Mr. Poole and put him on a real tight leash that would include regular drug testing.

 

[BDizzle]

If he follows the rules given to him on his deferred sentence the charges will still be on his criminal record for life. He actually may be able to get off his deferred sentence in 9 months (called half-time). If he gets arrested again 20 years down the road it will say he was arrested in 2012 and pled guilty to felony drug charges. But if a regular person does a regular background check on Mr. Poole nothing will come up. So when he applys for a job/housing/financial aid he won't have to list that he is a convicted felon. I'm guessing he won't be allowed in bars, be able to drink/do drugs, or possess a firearm while he is on probation. Other than that he can do most anything.

I admit that I don't know this area of the law, but what you just posted looks wrong to me. Do you know what you're talking about?

Actually I do. I have some experience in this.

So when was your conviction? Haha

Which one?

 

[doebrmn]

A deferred Sentence should not be confused with a deferred prosecution. Under a deferred sentence, there is a conviction. In this case (according to the Missoulian) he will plead guilty to a felony and the deal is for the prosecutors to ask for 18 month deferred sentence. If the Judge accepts the plea, he will be a convicted and it will show up as a deferred imposition of sentence. It will show up on the law enforcement data base as a conviction. If he stays out of trouble he will then not be sentenced. However, it will always show up on the law enforcement database (and other governmental databases. Not sure which ones and how they are different). Basically, if he tries to apply for military, law enforement etc., it will be recorded as a felony conviction in their records.

Conversly, a deferred prosectution would be a deal wherein the prosecutor agrees to not bring the charges if a person meets certain requirements. Under those circumstances there never is a conviction because the crime has never been prosecuted. It is very rare for prosecutores to use a deferred prosecution.

 

[poorgriz]

So what you're saying PR, is that I'm not a true "fan" for wanting Griz players to stay out of trouble? Interesting.

No, everyone wants UM players to stay out of trouble. However, when the trouble is either not major or resolved in a favorable way (like charges are dropped, reduced, or resolved with a deferred prosecution (which means they completely go away), then the university should look at its athletic code for guidance and consider what should be doing going forward. If the charges have gone away, which these will if the kid abides by his agreement, then it appears to me that the athletic code does not provide for continuing dismissal. "Fans" who are unreasonable, like yourself in my view, should be ignored. From what I've heard, the kid is a good kid. He has never been in legal trouble. His dad and uncle played at UM. This seems like a perfect situation to treat the kid well--assuming he abides by his agreement and the charges disappear.

You're not a big fan of the concept "Zero Tolerance"... are ya

 

[George Ferguson]

Actually, right now, Poole is on zero tolerance. He is NOT a member of the Griz football team. He was dismissed from the team immediately. This thread is FAN speculation about whether or not he may be allowed back next year. There has not been one single shred of public evidence from the school or the coaching staff to suggest Poole is coming back. Until that happens, Poole is NOT a Montana Grizzly. So nice try Poorgriz, we all know where you're going with that, but right now, you have no where to go cuz the kid isn't on the team, no matter what fans are posting here.

 

[goarmy]

Kids make mistakes, and since this is his first big, illegal one, I would bring back Mr. Poole and put him on a real tight leash that would include regular drug testing.

He's lucky they don't have him Breathalyzer and drug testing from now till July. He'd never make it.

 

[PlayerRep]

A deferred Sentence should not be confused with a deferred prosecution. Under a deferred sentence, there is a conviction. In this case (according to the Missoulian) he will plead guilty to a felony and the deal is for the prosecutors to ask for 18 month deferred sentence. If the Judge accepts the plea, he will be a convicted and it will show up as a deferred imposition of sentence. It will show up on the law enforcement data base as a conviction. If he stays out of trouble he will then not be sentenced. However, it will always show up on the law enforcement database (and other governmental databases. Not sure which ones and how they are different). Basically, if he tries to apply for military, law enforement etc., it will be recorded as a felony conviction in their records.

Conversly, a deferred proseceution would be a deal wherein the prosecutor agrees to not bring the charges if a person meets certain requirements. Under those circumstances there never is a conviction because the crime has never been prosecuted. It is very rare for prosecutores to use a deferred prosecution.

Thanks. This will work for now, but I will check with some criminal lawyers tomorrow.

What does this sentence from the Missoulian article mean? It doesn't seem consistent with the above explanation.

"...but may eventually be able to have the crime removed from his record."

 

[PlayerRep]

So what you're saying PR, is that I'm not a true "fan" for wanting Griz players to stay out of trouble? Interesting.

No, everyone wants UM players to stay out of trouble. However, when the trouble is either not major or resolved in a favorable way (like charges are dropped, reduced, or resolved with a deferred prosecution (which means they completely go away), then the university should look at its athletic code for guidance and consider what should be doing going forward. If the charges have gone away, which these will if the kid abides by his agreement, then it appears to me that the athletic code does not provide for continuing dismissal. "Fans" who are unreasonable, like yourself in my view, should be ignored. From what I've heard, the kid is a good kid. He has never been in legal trouble. His dad and uncle played at UM. This seems like a perfect situation to treat the kid well--assuming he abides by his agreement and the charges disappear.

You're not a big fan of the concept "Zero Tolerance"... are ya

You are correct. Zero Tolerance doesn't even exist, does it? What college athletic program has zero tolerance of any mistakes? Montana St certainly doesn't have such a policy, nor does UM--nor does any program anywhere.