-
WVAPPeer
- Posts: 12266
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:14 am
- School: Other
- Location: Born: Almost Heaven
- Has thanked: 4615 times
- Been thanked: 2520 times
Unread post
by WVAPPeer » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:25 pm
Gonzo wrote:WVAPPeer wrote:Gonzo wrote:HappyHippie wrote:The police report stated closed fists - having AG back before the courts rule is troubling to me. Am I wrong?
Innocent until proven guilty. We hear it so often it seems that some have forgotten what that actually means.
So you are in the camp that all players should continue practicing and playing until their case is settled in some type of court? ---
Yes. Because there is a presumption of INNOCENCE no matter the nature of the charge. It is the core principle of the criminal court system.
We aren't talking about jail time or paying a fine - we are talking about participating in college athletics
---
"Montani Semper Liberi"
The Dude Abides!!!
-
Gonzo
- Posts: 4894
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:11 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 564 times
- Been thanked: 1975 times
Unread post
by Gonzo » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:29 pm
WVAPPeer wrote:Gonzo wrote:WVAPPeer wrote:Gonzo wrote:HappyHippie wrote:The police report stated closed fists - having AG back before the courts rule is troubling to me. Am I wrong?
Innocent until proven guilty. We hear it so often it seems that some have forgotten what that actually means.
So you are in the camp that all players should continue practicing and playing until their case is settled in some type of court? ---
Yes. Because there is a presumption of INNOCENCE no matter the nature of the charge. It is the core principle of the criminal court system.
We aren't talking about jail time or paying a fine - we are talking about participating in college athletics
---
The hearing will determine his culpability, IMO. He deserves his day in court. I wouldn't support taking away his dessert before a jury of his peers determined the facts.
-
Gonzo
- Posts: 4894
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:11 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 564 times
- Been thanked: 1975 times
Unread post
by Gonzo » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:34 pm
bcoach wrote:Gonzo wrote:HappyHippie wrote:The police report stated closed fists - having AG back before the courts rule is troubling to me. Am I wrong?
Innocent until proven guilty. We hear it so often it seems that some have forgotten what that actually means.
It does not mean that precautions are not taken prior to trial.
He is accused of hitting a woman. The judge may see fit to issue a protective order that keeps him from contacting the prosecuting witness. That is a reasonable precaution and very typical of DV matters.
What sort of "precautions" are you talking about? Kicking him off the team? Presuming guilt until he is proven innocent?
-
Saint3333
- Posts: 13040
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2000 8:42 am
- Has thanked: 3027 times
- Been thanked: 4682 times
Unread post
by Saint3333 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:49 pm
Guys I'm not certain of what is correct or incorrect policy during the season. I'd lean towards suspended from games if accused.
However I'd like to concentrate on the "facts" of this case.
Player "A" is accused of hitting a woman in the offseason, we all agree this is serious and should not be tolerated if it occurred..
A is only partially reinstated for summer workouts and I assume fall camp, lifting, drill work, etc.
The court date is 8/15.
The first game is 8/30.
We will know the verdict prior to the first game, let this play out.
-
WVAPPeer
- Posts: 12266
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:14 am
- School: Other
- Location: Born: Almost Heaven
- Has thanked: 4615 times
- Been thanked: 2520 times
Unread post
by WVAPPeer » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:55 pm
Saint3333 wrote:Guys I'm not certain of what is correct or incorrect policy during the season. I'd lean towards suspended from games if accused.
However I'd like to concentrate on the "facts" of this case.
Player "A" is accused of hitting a woman in the offseason, we all agree this is serious and should not be tolerated if it occurred..
A is only partially reinstated for summer workouts and I assume fall camp, lifting, drill work, etc.
The court date is 8/15.
The first game is 8/30.
We will know the verdict prior to the first game, let this play out.
Saint I agree with you what you have listed in this particular case - my questioning of Gonzo to me, it seems that he is saying that every player we have had who was accused of something should continue to practice and play until it is decided in some type of court? ---
"Montani Semper Liberi"
The Dude Abides!!!
-
bcoach
- Posts: 4307
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:49 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 1256 times
- Been thanked: 1377 times
Unread post
by bcoach » Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:02 pm
Gonzo wrote:WVAPPeer wrote:Gonzo wrote:HappyHippie wrote:The police report stated closed fists - having AG back before the courts rule is troubling to me. Am I wrong?
Innocent until proven guilty. We hear it so often it seems that some have forgotten what that actually means.
So you are in the camp that all players should continue practicing and playing until their case is settled in some type of court? ---
Yes. Because there is a presumption of INNOCENCE no matter the nature of the charge. It is the core principle of the criminal court system.
If that is the case no matter the nature of the charge then why are people sitting in jail awaiting trial?
-
appstate77
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:49 am
- School: Appalachian State
- Location: South Carolina
- Has thanked: 1469 times
- Been thanked: 980 times
-
Contact:
Unread post
by appstate77 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:08 pm
bcoach wrote:Gonzo wrote:WVAPPeer wrote:Gonzo wrote:HappyHippie wrote:The police report stated closed fists - having AG back before the courts rule is troubling to me. Am I wrong?
Innocent until proven guilty. We hear it so often it seems that some have forgotten what that actually means.
So you are in the camp that all players should continue practicing and playing until their case is settled in some type of court? ---
Yes. Because there is a presumption of INNOCENCE no matter the nature of the charge. It is the core principle of the criminal court system.
If that is the case no matter the nature of the charge then why are people sitting in jail awaiting trial?
Any number of reasons. They are considered a threat to run. Perhaps they cannot post bail. Some for odd reasons known only to themselves are content to stay there.
-
Gonzo
- Posts: 4894
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:11 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 564 times
- Been thanked: 1975 times
Unread post
by Gonzo » Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:12 pm
What he said. The primary function of a secured bond is to prevent a defendant from fleeing prior to the hearing.
I would not advise anyone to miss their court date after they've paid a bondsman. They are some very sketchy characters, and they stand to lose a lot of money if you get a failure to appear.
-
WVAPPeer
- Posts: 12266
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:14 am
- School: Other
- Location: Born: Almost Heaven
- Has thanked: 4615 times
- Been thanked: 2520 times
Unread post
by WVAPPeer » Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:17 pm
Gonzo wrote:What he said. The primary function of a secured bond is to prevent a defendant from fleeing prior to the hearing.
I would not advise anyone to miss their court date after they've paid a bondsman. They are some very sketchy characters, and they stand to lose a lot of money if you get a failure to appear.
We are talking APP State football not the NC jail system
"Montani Semper Liberi"
The Dude Abides!!!
-
Gonzo
- Posts: 4894
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:11 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 564 times
- Been thanked: 1975 times
Unread post
by Gonzo » Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:20 pm
WVAPPeer wrote:Gonzo wrote:What he said. The primary function of a secured bond is to prevent a defendant from fleeing prior to the hearing.
I would not advise anyone to miss their court date after they've paid a bondsman. They are some very sketchy characters, and they stand to lose a lot of money if you get a failure to appear.
We are talking APP State football not the NC jail system
You and I were. Bcoach asked about jail, bail, etc.
-
Maddog1956
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:03 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
Unread post
by Maddog1956 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:01 pm
Gonzo wrote:WVAPPeer wrote:Gonzo wrote:HappyHippie wrote:The police report stated closed fists - having AG back before the courts rule is troubling to me. Am I wrong?
Innocent until proven guilty. We hear it so often it seems that some have forgotten what that actually means.
So you are in the camp that all players should continue practicing and playing until their case is settled in some type of court? ---
Yes. Because there is a presumption of INNOCENCE no matter the nature of the charge. It is the core principle of the criminal court system.
Everyone in jail is innocence (pre-trial), so are you saying they should all be set free and allowed to play football?
-
Gonzo
- Posts: 4894
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:11 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 564 times
- Been thanked: 1975 times
Unread post
by Gonzo » Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:18 pm
Maddog1956 wrote:Gonzo wrote:WVAPPeer wrote:Gonzo wrote:HappyHippie wrote:The police report stated closed fists - having AG back before the courts rule is troubling to me. Am I wrong?
Innocent until proven guilty. We hear it so often it seems that some have forgotten what that actually means.
So you are in the camp that all players should continue practicing and playing until their case is settled in some type of court? ---
Yes. Because there is a presumption of INNOCENCE no matter the nature of the charge. It is the core principle of the criminal court system.
Everyone in jail is innocence (pre-trial), so are you saying they should all be set free and allowed to play football?
Well no. Only the ones who already played football. And were able to bail out.
Adam Sandler's anti-App line in the Longest Yard remake has soured me to penal football.
-
Maddog1956
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:03 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
Unread post
by Maddog1956 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:50 pm
Gonzo wrote:Maddog1956 wrote:Gonzo wrote:WVAPPeer wrote:
So you are in the camp that all players should continue practicing and playing until their case is settled in some type of court? ---
Yes. Because there is a presumption of INNOCENCE no matter the nature of the charge. It is the core principle of the criminal court system.
Everyone in jail is innocence (pre-trial), so are you saying they should all be set free and allowed to play football?
Well no. Only the ones who already played football. And were able to bail out.
Adam Sandler's anti-App line in the Longest Yard remake has soured me to penal football.
The original with Burt Reynolds was better anyway, but that was prison, they weren't innocence.
Just wondering what the cut-off should be if it's ok to play someone picked up for hitting a women. Is a B&E ok?. I think they have to be consistent, and not based the "play or not play" decision on the fact it was a crime against a female, so the guy should get a break. (like I said before I hope SS has more information)
-
Gonzo
- Posts: 4894
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:11 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 564 times
- Been thanked: 1975 times
Unread post
by Gonzo » Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:18 pm
That's what I'm saying, man. We don't suspend due process based on the nature of a crime in the legal system, so why should we when responding to accusations about a player? Murder or petty theft -- innocent until proven guilty.
And I do like the original LY.
-
hapapp
- Posts: 16575
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2000 12:48 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Location: Rocky Mount, VA
- Has thanked: 2429 times
- Been thanked: 2764 times
Unread post
by hapapp » Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:30 pm
In the case of representing the university, perceptions matter. If a player is charged with a particular crime I think it very appropriate there should be some level of punishment based on the severity of the charge. If we did otherwise, we would have the most lax policy in the country. Anytime a player gets mixed up in something potentially unsavory, he casts a negative perception for the university. I don't see where innocent until proven guilty applies here, football is not a court of law.
-
bcoach
- Posts: 4307
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:49 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 1256 times
- Been thanked: 1377 times
Unread post
by bcoach » Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:56 pm
WVAPPeer wrote:Gonzo wrote:What he said. The primary function of a secured bond is to prevent a defendant from fleeing prior to the hearing.
I would not advise anyone to miss their court date after they've paid a bondsman. They are some very sketchy characters, and they stand to lose a lot of money if you get a failure to appear.
We are talking APP State football not the NC jail system
My fault. I guess jail was a bad example. If a player is arrested for punching an assistant coach but has not yet gone to trial should he be allowed to practice and play?
-
Rekdiver
- Posts: 7560
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:14 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 1441 times
- Been thanked: 3762 times
Unread post
by Rekdiver » Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:19 am
I agree with hapapp. I hate to keep invoking the former Furman and NCDtate coach Sheridan but he ran the tightest program and had a well defined no tolerance policy. His theme was... You get yourself in a position that would embarrass the program and you will be suspended guilty or not. As an example (I can't remember the name) an all American Ayer of his at State got involved in a bar fight.... He didn't start it but Sheridan said he should have left when things started getting heated. He suspended him for the year
-
WVAPPeer
- Posts: 12266
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:14 am
- School: Other
- Location: Born: Almost Heaven
- Has thanked: 4615 times
- Been thanked: 2520 times
Unread post
by WVAPPeer » Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:26 am
Rekdiver wrote:I agree with hapapp. I hate to keep invoking the former Furman and NCDtate coach Sheridan but he ran the tightest program and had a well defined no tolerance policy. His theme was... You get yourself in a position that would embarrass the program and you will be suspended guilty or not. As an example (I can't remember the name) an all American Ayer of his at State got involved in a bar fight.... He didn't start it but Sheridan said he should have left when things started getting heated. He suspended him for the year
A lot of things were different then - I'm just not sure a coach can make it in today's world with a zero tolerance rule - not condoning it at all, just trying to be realistic ---
"Montani Semper Liberi"
The Dude Abides!!!
-
bigCasu
- Posts: 5523
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 3:32 pm
- School: Appalachian State
- Has thanked: 93 times
- Been thanked: 770 times
-
Contact:
Unread post
by bigCasu » Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:25 am
For those wanting an update, the case has been continued until September 12th. I am sure AG will remain "partially reinstated" until he meets the conditions that were ordered.
Last edited by
bigCasu on Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
sixtoes9134
- Posts: 1245
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:42 am
- Has thanked: 59 times
- Been thanked: 278 times
Unread post
by sixtoes9134 » Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:14 am
I thought he was already partially reinstated? This just means longer wait to get back on the field, assuming a favorable outcome.