Nail on the head. Also, this was the second time they had been called about Kennedy. Once in the bar and once for punching a cabbie. He was a known hostile and the officers performed well.TheBigDA said:
Stans may occasionally lose games, but at least there
- Thread starter The Byrne Center
- Start date
- Status
So you think it's okay that Kennedy had to ask multiple times what he was being charged with or that he was never Mirandized? Or that it's acceptable for the cop to threaten him with being tased before Kennedy is even able to get out of the car? Or that he was threatened again for turning his head to ask the cop what the charge was?
1) The officer explained from 2:20-4:00+ the reason why he was being detained and what he may be arrested for if identified back at the scene.SanfordRJones said:
2) He wasn't being interrogated, so Miranda does not apply. Kennedy was giving any information of his own free will.
3) He had just assaulted an individual and appeared to be a foot taller than the arresting officer. The officer spelled it out for him so the situation would not escalate and it didn't.
4) The officer repeatedly directed him to quit turning around, he would not comply. That is resisting arrest.
So that you would have more ammunition for flinging insults at our coach, while we were busy beating your ***?tossedoff said:
Not even close. Pictures sealed Eustachy's fate...you know, proof of wrongdoing, which we don't have here, at least not as of yet. So fire him for being charged with assault.....and if he's found innocent? Yall are right, though, I wish we had a more upstanding coach, somebody more like Richard Williams. Richard apparently didn't find it worth fighting.
I have been trying to view the video, but am still unable to. I installed the plugin needed to view the video from the wlwt website, but still no video. Anyone have any suggestions??? I am not the most computer savy person...obviously.
The video linked there didn't work for me but when I clicked on one of the links on that page (there were like 5 videos linked), it played fine. Try clicking on one of the available videos displayed on that page and see if it works. If you've already done this, then I've got nothing.
Thanks for the help. I think I just needed to wait a minute for the plugin to load? Or something like that. Either way, I was finally able to watch the video. Classic. Although, I do find it hard to approve of arresting someone just because of another man's accusations. Could I sit outside of a bar, look for someone to be thrown out, then claim they insulted me then assaulted me??? Not taking up for AK whatsoever, but is the process of arrest really fair?
Bash me if you want, but I am not trying to stir anyone up.
Bash me if you want, but I am not trying to stir anyone up.
I don't care about richard williams.
My point was that you don't have to have a trial to think a coach has done something extremely questionable that deserves to put his job in jeopardy. But you missed that point b/c you were too busy getting offended and trying to defend ole miss.
My point was that you don't have to have a trial to think a coach has done something extremely questionable that deserves to put his job in jeopardy. But you missed that point b/c you were too busy getting offended and trying to defend ole miss.
DawgforHire said:
I'm no expert, but yes I believe you can get arrested for pretty much nothing, and yes you could sit outside and claim to be assaulted, and you'd probably get that person arrested and booked. However, the risk for you, if you're making it up, is that you could face a countersuit that'll end up costing you money.
But yes, I'm pretty sure you could get someone arrested for nothing if you really wanted to do it.
chose not to fight the allegations of wrongdoing and subsequent firing, AK should too? Sound logic. No, you don't have to have a trial to fire a coach, but apparently you missed the proof of wrongdoing point which is central to the difference between AK and Eustachy. Pictures, which Eustachy chose not to dispute/explain, resulted in his firing. AK disputes the charges against him and could very possibly be found innocent. What has AK done that was questionable that has been proven? Consumed alcohol? Good luck with that. Went to a bar? Not illegal and hardly questionable. Punched a cabbie? We'll see- at trial, which is exactly what I said initially.
"chose not to fight the allegations of wrongdoing and subsequent firing, AK should too? Sound logic."
Where did I say that?
If Im a university, I'd be pretty damn pissed if my coach was out drunk the night before a game. To me, its comparable to Eustachy's behavior. Trials don't catch every single wrongdoer. So just b/c a jury finds you not guilty, doesn't mean you are.
Regardless, Im not arguing the merits of Kennedy's case. My whole point, which you continue to miss is that it does not take a trial for a university to find wrongdoing. Eustachy didn't go to trial b/c he didn't even do anything that could allegedly be illegal.
Where did I say that?
If Im a university, I'd be pretty damn pissed if my coach was out drunk the night before a game. To me, its comparable to Eustachy's behavior. Trials don't catch every single wrongdoer. So just b/c a jury finds you not guilty, doesn't mean you are.
Regardless, Im not arguing the merits of Kennedy's case. My whole point, which you continue to miss is that it does not take a trial for a university to find wrongdoing. Eustachy didn't go to trial b/c he didn't even do anything that could allegedly be illegal.
the University, and as far as I know, he didn't. I was pretty damn pissed that AK was out getting dranked before our biggest game to date at that point too, but I don't think it warranted firing him and apparently our administration agreed. My whole point which you find equally difficult to grasp is that in this case, there has been no proof of wrongdoing, yet, and our university is content to use the trial as a means of determining his guilt or innocence. You didn't answer an earlier question- What if we fire him and he's found innocent? State wouldn't have axed Stans in this situation, and I wouldn't have expected you to, until definitive proof has been put forward that he did something. Having said that, it would be diffcult to retain him if he's found guilty of "ethnic intimidation" or whatever the charge is. As for the assault charge, I think it's a closer call, and I would guess he stays.
"My whole point which you find equally difficult to grasp is that in this case, there has been no proof of wrongdoing, yet"
That's my whole point---there was no proof of wrongdoing with Eustachy except for in the eyes of the university. Eustachy did nothing illegal.
"You didn't answer an earlier question- What if we fire him and he's found innocent?"
I don't know. What if? If Im a university pres, Im judge and jury of my coaches. I don't really care what 12 yahoos randomly selected in Cincinatti think. And I repeat, Eustachy was innocent.
My whole point was in response to your saying "wait until trial". That's ridiculous. No one has to wait until trial if they don't want to. If Ole miss wants to, then that's fine, but if a university deems the behavior to put a black mark on the university, you can do whatever you want.
That's my whole point---there was no proof of wrongdoing with Eustachy except for in the eyes of the university. Eustachy did nothing illegal.
"You didn't answer an earlier question- What if we fire him and he's found innocent?"
I don't know. What if? If Im a university pres, Im judge and jury of my coaches. I don't really care what 12 yahoos randomly selected in Cincinatti think. And I repeat, Eustachy was innocent.
My whole point was in response to your saying "wait until trial". That's ridiculous. No one has to wait until trial if they don't want to. If Ole miss wants to, then that's fine, but if a university deems the behavior to put a black mark on the university, you can do whatever you want.
and risk a future lawsuit and the loss of a great coach if he's found innocent. There is no reason to preemptively strike in this case. AK being found innocent after firing him would result in a much bigger black mark than he has caused thus far. If he's found innocent only State and Ole Miss fans will remember this 5 years from now. If he's guilty, it will be interesting to see how they handle it.
even if none of this had ever happened. And the embarrasment of this is going to be remembered for a long time even if he's found innocent (not that it will really make much difference). Hell, how many people still remember the Bobby Knight chair throwing incident?
before a game, then yes, he might be fired. Like Mike Price is out the night before SEC Coaches Conference in Destin and bangs a stripper. Criminal - not really. Black eye for the university - definitely.
since the stripper stole a university credit card issued to him to buy room service, they had grounds to fire him for that alone. Which compounds the hilariousness of the situation. If I remember things correctly.
<font size="1">Moral of the story: heed Jay-Z's warning. And don't <17>'n feed 'em.</font>
<font size="1">Moral of the story: heed Jay-Z's warning. And don't <17>'n feed 'em.</font>
but it wouldn't be because I was waiting on a bunch of randoms in Cincinatti to return a verdict. Would I have a basis to fire him? probably so. And that's where you are at a crossroads. Just admit that there are grounds to fire him, but you just don't want to.
I wouldn't have fired Eustachy either. Im sure Iowa State wishes they hadn't.
And Im sure there is a clause in his contract. I'd be stunned if there wasn't.
I wouldn't have fired Eustachy either. Im sure Iowa State wishes they hadn't.
And Im sure there is a clause in his contract. I'd be stunned if there wasn't.
between Ole Miss and State besides Ole Miss and State fans? People remember the chair toss because it was caught on camera, he's one of the greatest coaches ever, and he happened to be coaching at IU. Knight clearly threw the chair, no disputing it. If AK didn't punch the cabbie, it won't be nearly as memorable, especially outside of Mississippi.
you keep saying that, but it's just not right. the jury may find that the evidence didn't show that you were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that's very different.
as far as the lawsuit, i'm sure AK's contract has some language that allows termination for "conduct unbecoming of a representative of the university" or something along those lines. very standard, especially with public figures like coaches and other university figureheads. if the lawyers at um forgot to put that in his contract, then they should all be fired. THAT is why you can fire him and not risk a lawsuit.
as far as the lawsuit, i'm sure AK's contract has some language that allows termination for "conduct unbecoming of a representative of the university" or something along those lines. very standard, especially with public figures like coaches and other university figureheads. if the lawyers at um forgot to put that in his contract, then they should all be fired. THAT is why you can fire him and not risk a lawsuit.
It's been posted several times that the owner of the bar has gone on record saying AK and his coaches were never asked to leave the bar, yadda yadda yadda...ARebel21 said:
So that makes it true? Man, if that's the case I can't wait for Pat Patterson to sign with MSU, suckas!!!
- Status