This just in...JJ's Back!

[GrizBear]

Reduction of charges? There was no reduction...he was found not guilty.

I think he was saying they consider things like reduction of charges when there is a request for reinstatement. Obviously, not guilty trumps a reduction of charges. Not artfully said, he should have just said they consider things like not guilty verdicts.

 

[NewPapaBear]

"It was great to be able to sit with Jordan and listen to him and talk to him and ask him questions about his desire to return back and play football. It was a thorough process. It was something that was done with the greatest intent and, but we also want to act prudently and keep things moving,” says UM Athletic Director Kent Haslum.

I am NPB & I approve this message!!!
letsgo

 

[timjayko]

We were 1-6 last year in close games: EWU, SUU, ND, MSU, NAU, Weber, and App State.

With an experienced JJ behind center with his speed and arm, while we don't win the national championship and probably not The Big Sky Championship, we go at least 3-4 in the close games, probably more like 4-3 and finish the year 7-4 or 8-3 and make the playoffs in the latter situation. And our streak of 26 winning season continues into a 27th. (What if? As my Drill Instructor in the Marine Corps used to say "What if worms carried 45's? Birds wouldn't mess with them ! ")

We were 3-3 last year at WA-GRIZ--I was so pissed off after our Homecoming loss to NAU I drove straight back to Billings after driving up earlier in the day for the game. We were going to celebrate after the game--celebrate what?, but I was not in the mood.--and our vaunted homefield advantage melted like snow in May !

If Jordy is healthy, we at least make the playoffs and contend for The Big SKy and if I had to guess, I would say 9-2 or 8-3. Is a national championship possible?

Yes, unlikely, but yes. If you doubt that, how many of you at the beginning of the season had The Ravens winning The Super Bowl. How about with a month left? (I didn't !!!)

Anything can happen, we just need to take the season one game at a time, and no better test to start the year out than our established rival App State!

 

[grizfan47]

Memo to ASU: things just got more interesting.

 

[zengriz]

So the grizzlie athletic department recruits perps and pervs, reaps the profits of their on-field success which it uses to pay off the so-called justice system for their off-the-field deviance. Quite the business model. I guess this just makes it official. :roll:

I've always felt that this kind of corruption starts in the home. Today's brainwashed lefty parents let their children get away with murder and scream at the top of their lungs if their little brats don't at least get a blue ribbon for participation (it could damage their fragile self-esteem, you know).

Of course they're going to expect special treatment in this kind of environment.

...hey panther breath..the westboro baptist church called...
...wanted me to tell you they think you're a dick head too...

... ...

 

[griz4life]

I am so glad I don't have to listen to the "not guilty isn't the same as innocent" crowd in Missoula this week. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven otherwise by the prosecution, which did not happen. Based on Missoulian reader comments, it's alarming how many yokels believe the verdict was somehow forced by a Grizzly Football mafia or the local chamber of commerce. That's some bat crap crazy stuff there.

 

[RobGriz]

I am so glad I don't have to listen to the "not guilty isn't the same as innocent" crowd in Missoula this week. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven otherwise by the prosecution, which did not happen. Based on Missoulian reader comments, it's alarming how many yokels believe the verdict was somehow forced by a Grizzly Football mafia or the local chamber of commerce. That's some bat crap crazy stuff there.

After reading the Missoulian today I believe that a MAJORITY of people believe that a jury can find someone innocent. A jury cannot decide that way...period. In other words a jury can say "guilty" or "not guilty" they can not say "innocent" so when I hear that "he was not found innocent, he was found not guilty" it makes me want to punch someone in the throat. You are exactly right. He was found "not guilty" which means guilt wasn't proven and since you are innocent until proven guilty, he is innocent...PERIOD!!!!

 

[Gaeilge1]

ABSOLUTELY 100% POSITIVELY UNEQUIVOCALLY CORRECT.

How can so many continue to not understand this concept?

 

[grizpsych]

I am so glad I don't have to listen to the "not guilty isn't the same as innocent" crowd in Missoula this week. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven otherwise by the prosecution, which did not happen. Based on Missoulian reader comments, it's alarming how many yokels believe the verdict was somehow forced by a Grizzly Football mafia or the local chamber of commerce. That's some bat crap crazy stuff there.

After reading the Missoulian today I believe that a MAJORITY of people believe that a jury can find someone innocent. A jury cannot decide that way...period. In other words a jury can say "guilty" or "not guilty" they can not say "innocent" so when I hear that "he was not found innocent, he was found not guilty" it makes me want to punch someone in the throat. You are exactly right. He was found "not guilty" which means guilt wasn't proven and since you are guilty until proven innocent, he is innocent...PERIOD!!!!

?

 

[RobGriz]

I am so glad I don't have to listen to the "not guilty isn't the same as innocent" crowd in Missoula this week. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven otherwise by the prosecution, which did not happen. Based on Missoulian reader comments, it's alarming how many yokels believe the verdict was somehow forced by a Grizzly Football mafia or the local chamber of commerce. That's some bat crap crazy stuff there.

After reading the Missoulian today I believe that a MAJORITY of people believe that a jury can find someone innocent. A jury cannot decide that way...period. In other words a jury can say "guilty" or "not guilty" they can not say "innocent" so when I hear that "he was not found innocent, he was found not guilty" it makes me want to punch someone in the throat. You are exactly right. He was found "not guilty" which means guilt wasn't proven and since you are guilty until proven innocent, he is innocent...PERIOD!!!!

?

Thanks Grizpsych. That's what I get for typing angry. I fixed it. :thumb:

 

[Grisly Fan]

ABSOLUTELY 100% POSITIVELY UNEQUIVOCALLY CORRECT.

How can so many continue to not understand this concept?

Its called cognitive dissonance. They are so invested in the idea that the way the fans treat football players is the root of unspeakable evil that they simply cannot accept that any football player accused of a crime can possibly be completely innocent. It is simply not possible. They somehow believe the "you weren't there so you can possibly know what happened" conjecture somehow completely over-rides what was as thorough of a justice process as was possible/affordable. (In fact I believe that a moment prior to the announcement of the verdict, each side was confident that they would prevail, i.e. the process was fair). Their discomfort also prevents them from seeing the significance of an extremely brief deliberation period. The irony is that had the verdict been the other way around, they would feel fully vindicated and fully accept the outcome. The fact is to them only the outcome mattered and not the truth that was uncovered via the process. That is a sad reflection upon them and I believe rooted in the fact they were ultimately deceived by the prosecution. In short, as many have said, this case should never have gone to trial. Future real victims would have been better served.

 

[RobGriz]

ABSOLUTELY 100% POSITIVELY UNEQUIVOCALLY CORRECT.

How can so many continue to not understand this concept?

Its called cognitive dissonance. They are so invested in the idea that the way the fans treat football players is the root of unspeakable evil that they simply cannot accept that any football player accused of a crime can possibly be completely innocent. It is simply not possible. They somehow believe the "you weren't there so you can possibly know what happened" conjecture somehow completely over-rides what was as thorough of a justice process as was possible/affordable. (In fact I believe that a moment prior to the announcement of the verdict, each side was confident that they would prevail, i.e. the process was fair). Their discomfort also prevents them from seeing the significance of an extremely brief deliberation period. The irony is that had the verdict been the other way around, they would feel fully vindicated and fully accept the outcome. The fact is to them only the outcome mattered and not the truth that was uncovered via the process. That is a sad reflection upon them and I believe rooted in the fact they were ultimately deceived by the prosecution. In short, as many have said, this case should never have gone to trial. Future real victims would have been better served.

:thumb: :clap: :clap: :clap: