• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Police/Legal Blotter (stop breaking the law, asshole!)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
DontHateOState;1664266; said:
Which is a tremendous technicality as it relates to a football coach's punishment. If you refuse to blow, it is assumed by everyone not named Law and Order that you have a reason for refusal.
Click to expand...
Which, of course, is the precise reason for the 5th Amendment's command that one may not be made to provide evidence (testify) against themselves and precisely why Courts instruct juries that they shall NOT consider silence as evidence of guilt.

A person might refuse to blow because they're drunk and they know they are.
A person might refuse to blow because they're sober as a priest on Sunday but believe the concept is "offensive" for some reason
A person might refuse to blow because, despite not thinking they're over the limit, they know they just had a beer (a single beer) and don't want to take the chance of a high test...

Again, it's not a "technicality" it's the goddmaned United States Constitution.

Edit: I would agree with you, however, that most people draw the conclusion that the person must be hiding something... Just like when a lawsuit settles most people assume it was because the person or entity paying was covering up wrong doing.... when it may have simply been the cheaper option.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1664270; said:
Which, of course, is the precise reason for the 5th Amendment's command that one may not be made to provide evidence (testify) against themselves and precisely why Courts instruct juries that they shall NOT consider silence as evidence of guilt.

A person might refuse to blow because they're drunk and they know they are.
A person might refuse to blow because they're sober as a priest on Sunday but believe the concept is "offensive" for some reason
A person might refuse to blow because, despite not thinking they're over the limit, they know they just had a beer (a single beer) and don't want to take the chance of a high test...

Again, it's not a "technicality" it's the goddmaned United States Constitution.
Click to expand...


I wonder where Tiger Woods stands on this subject of refusal to blow?
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1664270; said:
Again, it's not a "technicality" it's the goddmaned United States Constitution.
Click to expand...

And again, it is a tremendous technicality as it relates to a football coach's punishment. The opportunity to play football is more similar to the privilege of driving than a criminal trial. Alonso has no rights in this situation, other than the right to not be beaten with a rubber hose for being stupid enough to get arrested the night his coach addresses discipline.
 
Upvote 0
buxfan4life;1664334; said:
I think that is the first time I have ever seen someone described as a "fifth year senior" when they are still in high school.
Click to expand...


I actually knew a clown that took a redshirt in HS 20+ years ago. The dumb fuck got hurt, missed his SR year and was such a loser he petitioned the state for an extra year then intentionally flunked his classes to have to repeat his SR year when he somehow got the fucking waiver.

This fucker made Al Bundy look like a pauper in terms of HS football being the apex of his life.
 
Upvote 0
DontHateOState;1664297; said:
And again, it is a tremendous technicality as it relates to a football coach's punishment.
Click to expand...
Maybe we're having a misunderstanding here..... your original post said something about "refusing to prove himself innocent" These words implicate law, and the United States Constitution is not a "tremendous technicality" and one does not ever have to prove themselves innocent. This is why I made my "big fan of the Constitution" jab - which kicked off the half page or so discussion regarding the 5th Amendment

But, when you go on to say:
The opportunity to play football is more similar to the privilege of driving than a criminal trial. Alonso has no rights in this situation, other than the right to not be beaten with a rubber hose for being stupid enough to get arrested the night his coach addresses discipline.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I certainly was not arguing that Alonso enjoys significant constitutional protection (ie that like he'd receive in a criminal prosecution against him) from discipline from his football coach.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1664270; said:
Which, of course, is the precise reason for the 5th Amendment's command that one may not be made to provide evidence (testify) against themselves and precisely why Courts instruct juries that they shall NOT consider silence as evidence of guilt.

Again, it's not a "technicality" it's the goddmaned United States Constitution.
Click to expand...

Just to be a wiseass, since this is a college football thread, I'd like to point out that the NCAA doesn't believe in the protections of the 5th Amendment. This is a portion of the NCAA's letter to Rich Rodriguez, which was released by TSUN yesterday:

Per NCAA Bylaw 32.6.2, failure to respond to an allegation may be construed by the Committee on Infractions as an admission that the alleged violations occurred.
Click to expand...

So take that, you frickin' Constitutional lawyers! :biggrin:



p.s. I'm not sure RichRod's interviews with NCAA investigators included waterboarding, but it's the NCAA, so I wouldn't rule it out.
 
Upvote 0
BB73;1664520; said:
p.s. I'm not sure RichRod's interviews with NCAA investigators included waterboarding, but it's the NCAA, so I wouldn't rule it out.
Click to expand...


If anyone at the NCAA has any moral hangups with using that particular technique tell them to just give me a call. I've got a gallon jug with his name on it.
 
Upvote 0
BB73;1664520; said:
Just to be a wiseass, since this is a college football thread, I'd like to point out that the NCAA doesn't believe in the protections of the 5th Amendment. This is a portion of the NCAA's letter to Rich Rodriguez, which was released by TSUN yesterday:



So take that, you frickin' Constitutional lawyers! :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Ahhhh...the NCAA is not a state actor. :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top