Heard from a little birdie today....

[GTKyle]

yes GA has a speedy trial act (two terms of ct) probably around ~6 months in (is it Dekalb?)

I saw this episode of CSI where they used that to get a pre-trial set before all the evidence could be processed and therefore get a dismissal.

 

[Bunger Henry]

Life isn't fair. A criminal charge of this nature is far more important than football. As I said, this is a tragic situation.

Not playing football isn't a penalty that he gets a trial for.

He gets a trial for his liberty over the next 10-30 years.

If you have a problem with the football decision you need to take that up with GT and nearly every other college. Further, having players on a team with pending criminal charges would distract the team from their goals, even if the player was innocent.

Players who hope to go into the NFL and make millions of dollars have a limited time in which to build a body of work that shows to an NFL team that they are worth signing. Yes, I know there are camps and things, but primarily, the scouts are going to look at the body of work the player creates while playing for a college team.

If a player was unable to participate in a year because of a criminal charge which was then dropped, something that was beyond his control, and subsequently he fails to get an NFL career because this "lost year" impacted his ability to build a body of work with which to sell himself to the NFL, then he should sue everyone involved in these false allegations for the millions that he lost. That would include the girl who made the allegations, the district attorney, and anyone at GT who decided he shouldn't be allowed to play while there was some "question" about whether he was innocent or not.

 

[GTKyle]

Players who hope to go into the NFL and make millions of dollars have a limited time in which to build a body of work that shows to an NFL team that they are worth signing. Yes, I know there are camps and things, but primarily, the scouts are going to look at the body of work the player creates while playing for a college team.

If a player was unable to participate in a year because of a criminal charge which was then dropped, something that was beyond his control, and subsequently he fails to get an NFL career because this "lost year" impacted his ability to build a body of work with which to sell himself to the NFL, then he should sue everyone involved in these false allegations for the millions that he lost. That would include the girl who made the allegations, the district attorney, and anyone at GT who decided he shouldn't be allowed to play while there was some "question" about whether he was innocent or not.

Good point.

btw, any reason why you decided to name yourself after one of the worst buildings on campus?

 

[beej67]

I guess my point was...

Were the charges dropped or not?

I just read 4 pages of this crap and I still don't know the answer.


WERE THE CHARGES DROPPED OR NOT?

 

[beej67]

btw, any reason why you decided to name yourself after one of the worst buildings on campus?

Ok, yeah, that was funny.

 

[buzztheirazz]

WERE THE CHARGES DROPPED OR NOT?

I'd say...probably not yet. But there's a good chance they will be.
I think JT will be out til next year.

 

[GTWannaBee]

Players who hope to go into the NFL and make millions of dollars have a limited time in which to build a body of work that shows to an NFL team that they are worth signing. Yes, I know there are camps and things, but primarily, the scouts are going to look at the body of work the player creates while playing for a college team.

If a player was unable to participate in a year because of a criminal charge which was then dropped, something that was beyond his control, and subsequently he fails to get an NFL career because this "lost year" impacted his ability to build a body of work with which to sell himself to the NFL, then he should sue everyone involved in these false allegations for the millions that he lost. That would include the girl who made the allegations, the district attorney, and anyone at GT who decided he shouldn't be allowed to play while there was some "question" about whether he was innocent or not.

I agree with everything but being allowed to sue the Institute. Playing football is a privilege that can be taken away for any reason that does not discriminate. I don't like it, and I wish he could play while this is being decided, but that's just the way it is. He can redshirt this year, right?

 

[augustabuzz]

I agree with everything but being allowed to sue the Institute. Playing football is a privilege that can be taken away for any reason that does not discriminate. I don't like it, and I wish he could play while this is being decided, but that's just the way it is. He can redshirt this year, right?

No, IIRC he used his redshirt last year. You have 5 years to play 4. After this year, he'll have 3 left.

 

[aeromech]

Life isn't fair. A criminal charge of this nature is far more important than football. As I said, this is a tragic situation.

Not playing football isn't a penalty that he gets a trial for.

He gets a trial for his liberty over the next 10-30 years.

If you have a problem with the football decision you need to take that up with GT and nearly every other college. Further, having players on a team with pending criminal charges would distract the team from their goals, even if the player was innocent.

I would rather use this philosophy to our advantage. Right before the UGA game, GT shoud hire some bimbo to accuse Richt, Swafford, Moreno, whomever is playing well this year for UGA, of gang rape. It will take at least a few weeks for the DA to sort it out, then after the game we can have the guy/girl drop the charges. We just need them suspended from the team for 3-4 hours on game day. :biggthumpup:

 

[TechSBP]

Players who hope to go into the NFL and make millions of dollars have a limited time in which to build a body of work that shows to an NFL team that they are worth signing. Yes, I know there are camps and things, but primarily, the scouts are going to look at the body of work the player creates while playing for a college team.

If a player was unable to participate in a year because of a criminal charge which was then dropped, something that was beyond his control, and subsequently he fails to get an NFL career because this "lost year" impacted his ability to build a body of work with which to sell himself to the NFL, then he should sue everyone involved in these false allegations for the millions that he lost. That would include the girl who made the allegations, the district attorney, and anyone at GT who decided he shouldn't be allowed to play while there was some "question" about whether he was innocent or not.

No doubt the player has an interest in playing in the NFL. But everyone else who is arrested and charged has interests in their lives too. A homeless person who is arrested has an interest in doing whatever it is that they do as well. The difference is--economic loss while charges are pending, etc.

Is that a factor the courts consider in deciding how fast to proceed? The homeless person has just as much an interest in a speedy trial as an NFL prospect, even if they don't suffer as much for it.

I have no horse in this race, as I've stated many times. But it is in everyone's best interest that the investigation run its course. NO ONE KNOWS THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. EVERYTHING ON HERE IS SPECULATION.

If he is cleared, GT should reinstate him immediately.

BTW--if he sues everyone for false allegations/slander--whatever--those things may not be easy to prove.

That said, feel free to believe whatever you want to believe. Pretend you understand the facts based on an AJC article (or an internet post). I'm not going to assume that I have any of the facts other than he's been charged and I hope that in the end justice is done--whatever outcome that produces.

 

[TechSBP]

I would rather use this philosophy to our advantage. Right before the UGA game, GT shoud hire some bimbo to accuse Richt, Swafford, Moreno, whomever is playing well this year for UGA, of gang rape. It will take at least a few weeks for the DA to sort it out, then after the game we can have the guy/girl drop the charges. We just need them suspended from the team for 3-4 hours on game day. :biggthumpup:

I don't think that's quite the same thing as this situation. Of course, you are welcome to construe facts however you want, since that is what every thread on this subject matter has done.

I've never said he was guilty as you accused me of earlier. I've simply stated a reality: criminal charges have real world consequences that usually transcend one's interest in a career/sports. Regardless of presumptions of innocence, criminal charges affect people's lives. The presumption of innocence does not mean you don't suffer awful consequences after an accuasation. Unfair if you are innocent? Yes. Reality? Yes.

I'm sorry if the reality of this offends you so horribly. I truly hope that the just result in this matter is obtained, no matter what result that is (and I have no idea what that is). I simply think that GT has a valid interest in asking that those charged with serious crimes not represent them on the athletic field until things have been cleared up.

 

[aeromech]

I don't think that's quite the same thing as this situation. Of course, you are welcome to construe facts however you want, since that is what every thread on this subject matter has done.

Get your pants out of a wad. I'm not construing anything, simply pointing out a possible end to the practice of penalizing people based on accusations.

I've never said he was guilty as you accused me of earlier.

You are full of crap. I never accused or implied you thought he was guilty; but you are practicing presumption of guilt until he is found innocent if you are going to penalize him by removing him from the team.

I've simply stated a reality: criminal charges have real world consequences that usually transcend one's interest in a career/sports. Regardless of presumptions of innocence, criminal charges affect people's lives. The presumption of innocence does not mean you don't suffer awful consequences after an accuasation. Unfair if you are innocent? Yes. Reality? Yes.

I'm sorry if the reality of this offends you so horribly.

When people in authority compound these consequences as a matter of policy, it should offend us all. I'm sorry you don't understand that. Put yourself in this situation, somebody accuses you of a felony that you didn't commit, should you be suspended from your job for however long it takes for the charge to make it's way through the slow grind of the legal system? You may argue that this is different because he doesn't have a family to support, or this is just football; but the principle is exactly the same. Should anyone who is accused of a felony be allowed to represent the company you work for?

I truly hope that the just result in this matter is obtained, no matter what result that is (and I have no idea what that is). I simply think that GT has a valid interest in asking that those charged with serious crimes not represent them on the athletic field until things have been cleared up.

 

[beej67]

Sooo.. ...charges have or have not been dropped?

 

[TechSBP]

You are full of crap. I never accused or implied you thought he was guilty; but you are practicing presumption of guilt until he is found innocent if you are going to penalize him by removing him from the team.

Well, you've said I am "practicing the presumption of guilt."

I'm not practicing any presumption of guilt. I've said and I've said again, I don't know. The presumption of innocence refers to the idea that the prosecutor, in a trial, bears the burden of establishing the accused's guilt.

Because I know none of the facts, I practice "wait and see" before proclaiming the accusations as baseless or correct.

We have vastly different understandings of when the "presumption of innocence" is applicable. Libel/slander/etc. apply to all of us. But we aren't required, in most situations, to presume someone to be innocent or guilty. For reasons I state below, I don't think that removing someone from a job--or athletic team, is applying a presumption of guilt. It is merely preserving the legitimate interests of the employer or school.

When people in authority compound these consequences as a matter of policy, it should offend us all. I'm sorry you don't understand that. Put yourself in this situation, somebody accuses you of a felony that you didn't commit, should you be suspended from your job for however long it takes for the charge to make it's way through the slow grind of the legal system?

Maybe I shouldn't be suspended from my job. But that should be up to my employer.

I think that employers have a right to employ who they want when they want, subject only to the terms of the employment contract and appliable law. Fair? Maybe not. If you don't like this go lobby the legislature and ask them to change things. But GT and other employers certainly have an interest in not tarnishing their reputation if the person turns out to be guilty and by preventing the team from having an ongoing distraction.

[text omitted] Should anyone who is accused of a felony be allowed to represent the company you work for

In our world an accused often bears a stigma from any accusation. Legal remedies for this injury (assuming that the accused was innocent) are limited. Is it unfair? Probably.

Your argument suggests that Tech or employers should also share in this stigma by continuing to employ/allow a representative who is accused of a crime to continue with their routine, even though it might harm their image. I suggest--that those companies and universities should be able to protect themselves from that stigma. We have a legitimate disagreement.

I can understand why you are so upset about the negative effects of this. I'm not claiming that I wouldn't be upset. Maybe a different system should be adopted--where employers can't fire people accused of crimes--or colleges can't dismiss students from athletic teams when they are charged with a crime.

 

[aeromech]

Well, you've said I am "practicing the presumption of guilt."

I'm not practicing any presumption of guilt. ...

I get the feeling we are talking past each other. Maybe to help me understand your ideal of 'presumption of guilt' you can tell me what action you would take if you *were* practicing 'presumption of guilt'. (From a GTAA or Football coach perspective) My argument is that if you presume he is innocent until proven guilty, you would take no punitive action toward him until he is proven guilty, and that suspension from the team is punitive action and is commonly used as such for team discipline issues.