AQM give me facts

[arcane]

You didn't really confuse anybody except for yourself.

Please explain what you mean. I also invite McGahee2TheHouse, who indicates that he liked your comment to explain why he liked it.

When you write a novel trying to explain what hearsay is and there's 6 attorneys and/or law students posting on the same page you did it, you just end up looking stupid.

The crux of the matter is that the primary definition of the word "hearsay" is very different from the legal one. My comment was not about a situation in a courtroom, so the more common meaning applies.

 

[weownfsu]

You didn't really confuse anybody except for yourself.

Please explain what you mean. I also invite McGahee2TheHouse, who indicates that he liked your comment to explain why he liked it.

When you write a novel trying to explain what hearsay is and there's 6 attorneys and/or law students posting on the same page you did it, you just end up looking stupid.

The crux of the matter is that the primary definition of the word "hearsay" is very different from the legal one. My comment was not about a situation in a courtroom, so the more common meaning applies.

You try really hard to sound eloquent with all that **** pouring out of your mouth.

 

[arcane]

You didn't really confuse anybody except for yourself.

Please explain what you mean. I also invite McGahee2TheHouse, who indicates that he liked your comment to explain why he liked it.

When you write a novel trying to explain what hearsay is and there's 6 attorneys and/or law students posting on the same page you did it, you just end up looking stupid.

The crux of the matter is that the primary definition of the word "hearsay" is very different from the legal one. My comment was not about a situation in a courtroom, so the more common meaning applies.

You try really hard to sound eloquent with all that **** pouring out of your mouth.

Then, again, I apologize, but do you understand my last (brief) statement?

 

[CANE4LIFE]

In NO WAY am I defending the administration here, because I really have no idea what the actual facts are that they were faced with, and I am really unhappy about this suspension. And if in ANY way AQM was treated unfairly or overly harsh over this, than UM is stupid as f*ck and whoever the Dean is that signed off on this is an idiot that should be bombarded with scorn for it.

BUT...

We don't know all the facts here that were presented.

As has been stated and restated. Many students and players at UM and other schools have gotten MUCH less over similar situations. So I have to wonder if there was not more here than just a simple "fight". Could AQM have been on probation already for some other violation? Just speculating but its not all that uncommon for students to get slapped with other violations and end up on probation, and then a second incident gets them in a real jam. Another consideration is the whole "fight" issue to begin with. Was it really a fight at all? Or was this some argument where the other dude tried to go away, or walk away, and AQM then went after him and whaled on the dude. That would be treated as a straight up assault, not some "fight" between two people. Also, if he was sworn to tell the truth and he lied and there was sufficient evidence that he lied about the events, I wonder if they treated that as a SEPERATE violation and an issue of "dishonesty" which further exacerbated the situation.

Again, Im speculating here, but a lot of people are rushing to judgement when we really don't know what all the facts were. MAYBE UM really did f*ck this up, and if they did whoever did is a f*CKING moron. BUT... its possible AQM f*cked up a little worse than some are suggesting, and that this was a little worse than just a "fight" between a couple of guys.

All Im saying is, the punishment certainly doesn't seem to fit the crime. Yet what Barry Jackson suggested, was that AQM really did f*ck up. So maybe this was not as simplistic as some here are suggesting.

Either way it sucks @ss. We really needed this kid to have a breakout season. And now I would not be surpised to see him transfer altogether. Just another kick in the balls.

 

[Gables]

They don't know. But that's the narrative they have to invent to be able to attack the administration. Is it possible that the other kid did start it? Yes. But we don't know. Is it possible AQM started it? Yes, but we don't know. But only one of the two unknown possibilities fits their agenda, so they go with that one.

Talk about the pot and the ******* kettle.

How exactly..or is the meaning of that phrase too confusing for you? Like I said, it could be an unfair suspension, it could be totally fair. Don't have the info. Neither do you.

Yeah, it's too confusing for me. Why don't you dumb it down for me some more, c0ckface? The info I based that comment upon is that you spend the bulk of what little life you have here, defending Shalala and Coach Bonnie Grape at every turn. I'm in possession of that info, and it makes your exhortations for objectivity look ridiculous.

So basically you are confirming that you know nothing, but are making grand accusations against the university anyway. Thanks for making that clear.

Basically, I'm calling you an ignorant hypocrite, iq72. Sorry for throwing you for a loop with all the flowery language.

 

[Gables]

LOL at arcane posting the definition of arcane in response to an attorney (MIA########) and dk liking it, since MIA was clearly calling you out on the fact that you are using it improperly

These two bozos must work for the school

I don't know what any of the other posters' professions are. Someone asked me a question, and I answered it. I used to work for the university, but I don't anymore.

ar has to stand for Absolute ******.

Anorexic Rodent.

 

[dk72]

What is your background in criminal law? You're speaking authoritatively on the subject, so you must be involved in the system. To my knowledge, the victim doesn't decide whether charges are filed or not. The State does.

No, the state does not in many cases. Think of all the cases where someone (such as a spouse) gets hit and it's in the news and you see the line "the victim chose not to file charges."

Oh man, I just came back and read your series of posts where you attempt to explain the charging process, and I can't stop laughing, especially at the bold. Next time you attempt to explain the law, remember that some of us are in a criminal court room every day

Ok Judge Judy, please do point out where I'm wrong. In fact, I even looked it up to confirm, and I was correct.

Victim is not party to case in criminal court. Domestics get tossed bc they happen in home usually w victim being only witness. If only witness backs out there is no evidence (or a lot less) so it is dropped.
Many times (murders for instance) the victim cannot say whether they wish to press charges. Charges are based on all evidence available.

In this particular case, I keep reading about eye witnesses. So there was additional evidence that didn't apparently rise to the level needed for an arrest--probable cause.

Nice try, but many DAs and cops will not pursue a case if the victim refuses to press charges. Go look it up.

 

[dk72]

Talk about the pot and the ******* kettle.

How exactly..or is the meaning of that phrase too confusing for you? Like I said, it could be an unfair suspension, it could be totally fair. Don't have the info. Neither do you.

Yeah, it's too confusing for me. Why don't you dumb it down for me some more, c0ckface? The info I based that comment upon is that you spend the bulk of what little life you have here, defending Shalala and Coach Bonnie Grape at every turn. I'm in possession of that info, and it makes your exhortations for objectivity look ridiculous.

So basically you are confirming that you know nothing, but are making grand accusations against the university anyway. Thanks for making that clear.

Basically, I'm calling you an ignorant hypocrite, iq72. Sorry for throwing you for a loop with all the flowery language.

Clearly you don't know what "hypocrite" means, as whether or not you agree with my stance, nothing about it is hypocritical. Though that's no surprise, as you've got ignorant down pat.

 

[Gables]

How exactly..or is the meaning of that phrase too confusing for you? Like I said, it could be an unfair suspension, it could be totally fair. Don't have the info. Neither do you.

Yeah, it's too confusing for me. Why don't you dumb it down for me some more, c0ckface? The info I based that comment upon is that you spend the bulk of what little life you have here, defending Shalala and Coach Bonnie Grape at every turn. I'm in possession of that info, and it makes your exhortations for objectivity look ridiculous.

So basically you are confirming that you know nothing, but are making grand accusations against the university anyway. Thanks for making that clear.

Basically, I'm calling you an ignorant hypocrite, iq72. Sorry for throwing you for a loop with all the flowery language.

Clearly you don't know what "hypocrite" means, as whether or not you agree with my stance, nothing about it is hypocritical. Though that's no surprise, as you've got ignorant down pat.

Right. You gonna haul out Webster's as a teaching aid like your boyfriend did? What a sad case you are.

 

[De Pinga]

Gables and MIA win by ruthlessness

 

[Weslingg]

Look dk, I respect your effort, but its incredibly misguided. This "press charges" idea is more or less a legal fiction. Sure, alleged victims, can give statements and discuss outcomes with prosecutors/DAs. The State (prosecutor/DA) are the only ones that get to choose who is charged and who is not. Law enforcement nor victims get to choose. Rarely will the State discuss whether someone will be charged with the alleged victim, and certainly not in battery or domestic cases.

Law enforcement essentially gives the State its report and the State takes over from there. The State then weighs the evidence that it has at that time and decides whether or not to charge anyone. In most states a Judge would have to sign off on the fact that their is probable cause (low burden) that the Defendant in fact committed the crime. At that point the Defendant is then officially charged/indicted. We do not know here if anything was ever turned over to the State.

While true that if a victim is not likely to cooperate it makes the case more difficult for the State. However, generally there are statements, pictures, and/or other evidence that may or may not be able to be used. It is all for naught in the present case though, because it appears that other eye witnesses were present. Thus, if this was an obvious battery on behalf of AQM, and eye witnesses indicated as such, I have no doubt that he would have been charged. My assumption is that conflicting statements were given on what really happened. Which leads to my argument that this penalty was entirely too harsh.

 

[dk72]

Look dk, I respect your effort, but its incredibly misguided. This "press charges" idea is more or less a legal fiction. Sure, alleged victims, can give statements and discuss outcomes with prosecutors/DAs. The State (prosecutor/DA) are the only ones that get to choose who is charged and who is not. Law enforcement nor victims get to choose. Rarely will the State discuss whether someone will be charged with the alleged victim, and certainly not in battery or domestic cases.

Law enforcement essentially gives the State its report and the State takes over from there. The State then weighs the evidence that it has at that time and decides whether or not to charge anyone. In most states a Judge would have to sign off on the fact that their is probable cause (low burden) that the Defendant in fact committed the crime. At that point the Defendant is then officially charged/indicted. We do not know here if anything was ever turned over to the State.

While true that if a victim is not likely to cooperate it makes the case more difficult for the State. However, generally there are statements, pictures, and/or other evidence that may or may not be able to be used. It is all for naught in the present case though, because it appears that other eye witnesses were present. Thus, if this was an obvious battery on behalf of AQM, and eye witnesses indicated as such, I have no doubt that he would have been charged. My assumption is that conflicting statements were given on what really happened. Which leads to my argument that this penalty was entirely too harsh.

Sorry, but the idea that they will simply charge without the victim cooperating is not always the case, and in fact is often not the case. I'm not going to go posting links here, but in about 15 minutes I was able to find 10+ articles about the issue, including one where a police department in Alabama was frustrated because victims were often not willing to press charges and the DA typically won't take such cases. I personally know of such a case here in Florida involving a neighbor and an old friend (ex-friend) of his.

 

[swdp12]

No, the state does not in many cases. Think of all the cases where someone (such as a spouse) gets hit and it's in the news and you see the line "the victim chose not to file charges."

Oh man, I just came back and read your series of posts where you attempt to explain the charging process, and I can't stop laughing, especially at the bold. Next time you attempt to explain the law, remember that some of us are in a criminal court room every day

Ok Judge Judy, please do point out where I'm wrong. In fact, I even looked it up to confirm, and I was correct.

Victim is not party to case in criminal court. Domestics get tossed bc they happen in home usually w victim being only witness. If only witness backs out there is no evidence (or a lot less) so it is dropped.
Many times (murders for instance) the victim cannot say whether they wish to press charges. Charges are based on all evidence available.

In this particular case, I keep reading about eye witnesses. So there was additional evidence that didn't apparently rise to the level needed for an arrest--probable cause.

Nice try, but many DAs and cops will not pursue a case if the victim refuses to press charges. Go look it up.

Why don't you go google it for us and report back your findings. Thanks.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

It takes a special type of moron to argue about criminal law, with criminal lawyers, and to base said arguments on internet links.

 

[dk72]

It takes a special type of moron to argue about criminal law, with criminal lawyers, and to base said arguments on internet links.

If weslingg is a criminal lawyer, he is a very poor one, as I'm correct. Like I said, endless resources and examples available out there.

 

[WhatTheHell]

"Oh, you guys have three years of law school and x amount of years experience in the profession?

Don't care, Ken from Yahoo! Answers says I'm right. Here's a link, doofus."



If there's one constant on this board, it's dk making an *** out of himself on various subjects. The village idiot at work once again. Dance, little monkey, dance!

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

It takes a special type of moron to argue about criminal law, with criminal lawyers, and to base said arguments on internet links.

If weslingg is a criminal lawyer, he is a very poor one, as I'm correct. Like I said, endless resources and examples available out there.

I know. You received your JD from the prestigious University of Google. How can anyone argue with you?

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

"Oh, you guys have three years of law school and x amount of years experience in the profession?

Don't care, Ken from Yahoo! Answers says I'm right. Here's a link, doofus."



If there's one constant on this board, it's dk making an *** out of himself on various subjects. The village idiot at work once again. Dance, little monkey, dance!

Prosecuted AND defended hundreds of criminal cases? **** that bro. Google.

 

[cubin10]

It takes a special type of moron to argue about criminal law, with criminal lawyers, and to base said arguments on internet links.

That's like saying DBC brokered a deal amongst all parties.

 

[weownfsu]

Look dk, I respect your effort, but its incredibly misguided. This "press charges" idea is more or less a legal fiction. Sure, alleged victims, can give statements and discuss outcomes with prosecutors/DAs. The State (prosecutor/DA) are the only ones that get to choose who is charged and who is not. Law enforcement nor victims get to choose. Rarely will the State discuss whether someone will be charged with the alleged victim, and certainly not in battery or domestic cases.

Law enforcement essentially gives the State its report and the State takes over from there. The State then weighs the evidence that it has at that time and decides whether or not to charge anyone. In most states a Judge would have to sign off on the fact that their is probable cause (low burden) that the Defendant in fact committed the crime. At that point the Defendant is then officially charged/indicted. We do not know here if anything was ever turned over to the State.

While true that if a victim is not likely to cooperate it makes the case more difficult for the State. However, generally there are statements, pictures, and/or other evidence that may or may not be able to be used. It is all for naught in the present case though, because it appears that other eye witnesses were present. Thus, if this was an obvious battery on behalf of AQM, and eye witnesses indicated as such, I have no doubt that he would have been charged. My assumption is that conflicting statements were given on what really happened. Which leads to my argument that this penalty was entirely too harsh.

Sorry, but the idea that they will simply charge without the victim cooperating is not always the case, and in fact is often not the case. I'm not going to go posting links here, but in about 15 minutes I was able to find 10+ articles about the issue, including one where a police department in Alabama was frustrated because victims were often not willing to press charges and the DA typically won't take such cases. I personally know of such a case here in Florida involving a neighbor and an old friend (ex-friend) of his.

You are an idiot.