Posted by Ralphie2 on March 21, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lynn, Riar, take responsibility and learn from this. You are both kids and have a lot of life a head of you. Learn from this and realize that people are often willing to give second chances, but they're rarely willing to give third chances.

Posted by ChicagoBuffsFan on March 21, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm no lawyer but this doesn't sound good.

Posted by ChicagoBuffsFan on March 21, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This guys website gives a pretty good definition of 2nd-degree assault in the state of Colorado:

http://www.patrickmulliganlaw.com/Col...

What it means to Geer and Katoa, we'll find out later in April but you can bet that no matter what Boulder does, judicial affairs will come down hard on these 2. Hopefully not any worse than a 1 semester suspension like Silipi.

From what I've read about the incidents, Katoa might have a better defense siting defense of another but Geer might be f%*&ed since it looks like he actually started the fight.

I hope both stay out of prison and hopefully they both learned their lesson and will mellow out a little. People are going to mess with you, learn to roll with it and let the police do their job.

Keep your chin up boys and do the right thing.

Posted by halluxvalgus on March 21, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

there is absolutely zero chance that either end up in prison. zero.

Hopefully, they get suspended until the fall (which would be 2 semesters), deal with their probation, and move on. Katoa loses the advantage of being on campus early, Geer loses a little practice time, and we just keep moving.

God, I was in a few fights at CU, and the cops were never called at all. Even as a witness. This is absurd. College kids scrapping is not a felony.

Posted by ChicagoBuffsFan on March 22, 2008 at 6:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope you're right halluxalgus! I would hate to see them in prison. Having to sit out spring and summer while walking around picking stuff up in an orange jumpsuit should be punnishment enough for a couple of hotheaded kids.

Does anybody remember what Silipi was charged with? That would be a good gauge on how these 2 will be treated.

Posted by BuffNut99 on March 22, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What is going on with Katoa? He went to the jail instead of the courthouse? Could somebody (responsible) please buddy up/mentor this guy and at least get him to attend his own (future deciding) court hearings?!?!

I agree though that neither of these guys get any jail time - but this doesn't look good for their prospects of playing this season. My guess is that both will be treated like Sipili, and we'll see them next year, as long as they stay in school and out of trouble.

Posted by VWolf on March 22, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If they are treated like Sipili, they won't be staying in school. Sipili was suspended from school for a semester.

Sipili was initially charged with second degree assault but it was dropped down to a misdemeanor on plea. Hopefully Katoa and/or Geer will get similar offers, but at first glance their situations sound worse.

Posted by mewag28 on March 22, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know if it sounds worse than Sipili-I think the problem with Sipili was he really beat the guy up bad, causing harm needing surgery. Was anyone really hurt badly in this situation? Has anyone come up with the stun gun guy yet or connection to the apartment? Was he on the grassy knoll?

Posted by VWolf on March 23, 2008 at 1:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The reason it sounds worse to me is that he used a weapon (a rock) and that he stormed into an apartment to attack different people than the ones who stunned Nonu.

Posted by rswright on March 23, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, where are the "every young boy gets in a fight" and "innocent until proven guilty" posters?
One side effect of this incident might be to show these nuts they are really out of control. Listen to Katoa's dad and learn how responsible people act.

Posted by rswright on March 23, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey extrapoint: why don't you tell us again about those 3 categories of football haters who run to lawyers and the police to avoid the lessons taught by an 18 inch bicep. (post: 3/18/08)

Posted by extrapoint on March 23, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nothing has changed.
good thing you are not the judge and jury, rich guy.

Posted by rswright on March 23, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Read this column and tell us again how football players are are targets of those guys in 3 categories;rich guys, poor guys and uneducated guys. DA must hate football players too because he making them the target of a felony prosecution for pushing a guy's head through a wall and sending the other guy to the hospital. Give us a break Mr.DA, our posters tell us that football players are targets of all those rich guy football haters. Think again before you say that they should be responsible for their conduct.

When CU needs financial support from ticket sales this prosecution doesn't help. Oh,sorry, this prosecution won't hurt ticket sales because our brilliant posters say every young man is entitled to fight, they are innocent until proven guilty and it's all the fault of those rich guys.

The sad thing (besides our posters trying to excuse them) is that for these young men their careers are probably over.

Posted by extrapoint on March 23, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rswright
do you get a warrant before you wiretap?
You probably dont have time....seeing as how Boulder is turning into Baghdad.

I've thought about it again....and I still say everyone should be responsible for their conduct.

Now as for yours,
your shrillness and alligator tears over those young men's careers is slightly schizophrenic.
I think you would be a lot happier if you put your torch and pitchfork away and moved to Florida. There are a lot more tennis courts down there.
besides, sooner or later they will find out you were the guy with the tazer.....or worse yet, related to Mark Kizla.

Posted by tallisall on March 24, 2008 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nike may need to provide black and white striped uniforms for the players...

Posted by rodrigo on March 24, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nothing has changed since this all began. Class 2 assaults are felonies and anybody who can turn on a computer and type "google" would have known that two weeks ago.

rs, you're a phony. Go back to watching the women play tennis.

Posted by nwbuff32 on March 24, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh you are so funny tal. Did you stay up all night thinking of that one? I guess I would have a terrible sense of humor if I still lived in my parents basement.

Posted by rswright on March 24, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is just like OJ. You can our posters standing up and cheering if the DA screws up. From the posts of 3/18 our posters believe these players represent a prosecuted minority who are targets of football haters. Unlike Katoa's dad who accepted responsibility for his son's actions, over and over we get excuses from our posters "innocent until proven guilty" "every young man gets in a fight" and the best of all, we need to teach them a lesson only an 18 inch bicep can teach. Rather then realize they are being given a free university education,separate dorms, training tables and the best of facilities CU has to offer, they believe they are really victums of football haters. This claim of being a victum is an excuse for not taking responsibility for their actions. For anyone who has been reading these posts this has to be an education in the culture of violence.

Posted by rodrigo on March 24, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's talk education.

It's spelled "victim."

And this - "You can our posters standing up and cheering if the DA screws up" - makes absolutely no sense.

I'm assuming these are typos or half-thoughts pounded out in fits of bitter bile, but even so maybe you should stop and take a deep breath. You're just making a fool of yourself.

Posted by extrapoint on March 24, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I realize our current govt has been hacking away at the constitution, but has "innocent until proven guilty" gone by the wayside too?

This seems to be the case in rswright's mind and he talks about "football haters" like they were someone else. His animation suggests my dissertation strick a nerve.

It appears to me ol rs has firmly planted himself squarely in the 2ndbuff, whosyourdaddy, tallisall catagory of poster.

Posted by tallisall on March 24, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I miss Dr. Tom, he was entertaining...

Posted by rswright on March 24, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You guys are so far gone that you can't see what you are all about. I hate to tell you but no one hates football players as a group. Read your posts again. It's not difficult to see that you believe that football players are targets of football haters. When you believe you are really victims it is not a big step to say that if they are violent it is only because they were were reacting to being targets of those football haters. This is the OJ mentality and it is no wonder that OJ was a football player.
The truth is the opposite. Most people believe that football players are the best athletes, work hard and represent the school. But when charged with a felony it doesn't help to claim they are innocent until proven guilty or that everyone is a football hater who needs to be taught a lesson from an 18 inch bicep. You guys should be the project of a psych major PHD thesis. It would help a lot more not to make excuses but do as Katoa's dad did and accept responsibility for one's conduct.

Posted by extrapoint on March 24, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"....it doesnt help to claim they are innocent until proven guilty"
I still cant get past that. It also renders meaningless any condescending words you throw out on the table about football players.
Did an 18 inch bicep ruin one of your days in the past?

Posted by tallisall on March 24, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hawkins better get a grip on this program or the libs in Boulder will run him out just like they did Barnett..

You can't have your football players terrorizing the campus...It's bad PR...

Posted by rodrigo on March 24, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rs, you make absolutely no freakin' sense.

I will absolutely, positively, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die send you a check for $10,000 if you can show me where I - that's Rodrigo - ever made an excuse for Geer or Katoa, claimed either was the target of "football haters" or was innocent.

Seriously.

Also, to further your education, psych majors don't write a PHD thesis. People majoring in something are undergrads, while Master's students write a thesis and doctoral students (PhDs) produce dissertations.

Posted by rswright on March 24, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tell us o learned posters who believe every one is "innocent until proven guilty" do you really believe OJ was innocent? As you say, he is innocent until proven guilty and since he wasn't proven guilty he must be innocent. Simple question and deserves a simple answer, do you really believe OJ was innocent,yes or no?

Posted by halluxvalgus on March 24, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

again- it is absurd to think that these kids will end up in prison. No chance. None. I will never post again if that happens.

2nd- if they get suspended from school, it will be a darn shame. When kids have problems, the answer is never to alienate them from a sense of familiarity and family. CU Boulder should be ashamed of themselves for even considering it. Nothing happened on campus. Nothing is a threat to the institution. These are kids. Kids have issues. Hold them closer, make sure they attend EVERY class and every study hall and every curfew. Teach them responsibility. We have the resources, and we have the coach. Let him handle it. Don't be swayed by the bad apples since Mac left. If it was up to him, Elliot Uzelac would have been the coach. Mac managed to keep a tenuous grasp on some very questionable athletes. Let (Mac endorsed) Hawk work with some exceptional young men who have made mistakes.

Posted by extrapoint on March 24, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

because OJ was probably guilty we need to scrap our entire justice system.....especially when it comes to football players, probably because one beat him up when he was in high school.

Throw everybody in jail....forget the trials. We cant let one guilty guy go free even if we incarcerate three doazen innocent. Wait, no one can be innocent if the cops or some deranged tennis groupie says they arent.

Aaarrggghhhh.......rswright must be popping a bloodvien!!!
"sinple answer, yes or no....(because I'm simply a pinhead fundamentalist.
Thinking is soooooo hard!)"

Posted by StopTheInsanity on March 25, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

halluxvalgus:

Back in 1995, Tom Osborne was vilified for taking this exact approach with Lawrence Philip. Skip the lecture on his "crime" vs. the charges being made at CU. They are both the same: felony assault. TO took a look at Philips background and thought he was doing the right thing by suspending him for 6-7 games. But today TO would be the first one to admit it was a big mistake because LP had bigger issues than anyone knew about back then.

Also, spare me the lecture NU needed Philips to win the national championship that year. The backup running back that year was a guy named Ahman Green. You may have heard of him.

"When kids have problems, the answer is never to alienate them from a sense of familiarity and family. CU Boulder should be ashamed of themselves for even considering it. Nothing happened on campus. Nothing is a threat to the institution. These are kids. Kids have issues. Hold them closer, make sure they attend EVERY class and every study hall and every curfew. Teach them responsibility. We have the resources, and we have the coach. Let him handle it. Don't be swayed by the bad apples since Mac left. If it was up to him, Elliot Uzelac would have been the coach. Mac managed to keep a tenuous grasp on some very questionable athletes. Let (Mac endorsed) Hawk work with some exceptional young men who have made mistakes."

Posted by rodrigo on March 25, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rs,

It's our system, you moron. It doesn't always work perfectly because life has nuances and the world isn't always black and white. If you don't like it move or do something positive - screaming and holding your breath don't count - to change it. (Geez, I feel like I'm talking to my six-year-old daughter, fer chissake, but then again the simplest things seem to elude you).

Bottom line: no matter what you, I, ep, tall or the man in the moon thinks or wants, there is a real world process that will unfold, warts and all, and whatever happens with Geer and Katoa will be determined by that, not your pathetic bias, not ep's belief in an anti-football cabal among some students or my desire to see CU win a national championship in football. I'll accept the verdict, whatever it is, and move on.

By the way, I'm firmly convinced OJ was guilty. But then again I also believe our current president is, too. Sometimes life isn't fair. Regularly ranting on the Internet isn't likely to influence that.

Posted by JBuff on March 25, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's the truth:

Phillips dragged his girlfriend down the stairs by her hair and beat her while he had a gun in his possession. Osborne took the gun from Phillips and put it in his desk which is obstruction of justice - he was never prosecuted.

Geer and Kotoa need to pay for their mistakes, no more, no less.

CU judicial affairs needs to understand the circumstances. They also need to understand it's the school's best interest to review each case independantly and, in some circumstances that may be giving a student a second chance and keeping them in school.

Boulder DA needs to prosecute these kids as they would any 18 year old from the community. That means no ratcheting up the prosecution or penalty for football players.

Hawk will do the right thing and punish these kids while helping them develop to the type of men he wants to produce.

I doubt several of these things will happen.

Posted by rswright on March 25, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You cannot claim "innocent until proven guilty" means anyone (including these kids) is innocent if you believe one who was found innocent is really guilty. It is not a question that the system doesn't sometimes work well it is a question of those who claim to know it don't and use it for their own purposes. Don't tell your version to your six your old daughter.

The true meaning of "innocent until proven guilty" is stated in a previous post (3/18) if you care to look it up.

Bottom line is that you and ep are of the same ilk. You might be more sophisticated but you are as much trying to help these kids avoid taking responsibility for their conduct as ep. His expose into the inner working of the 18 inch bicep is frightening to any right thinking person.
(I tried it out on my friends at the bar, one of whom played for Nebraska and they couldn't believe it).

These young men don't need you or ep.
They clearly have made mistakes (as Katoa's dad admits) but the good thing is with a dad like Katoa's in the long run they will learn from these mistakes and do well.

Posted by rodrigo on March 25, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One of the more amusing aspects of your posts, rs, is the degree to which you presume you can speak for some greater truth, i.e. your belief you alone can tell the rest of us the true meaning of "innocent until proven guilty."

I wake up every day very content and truly happy knowing you have absolutely no influence whatsoever over me, my daughter, Lynn Katoa, Riar Geer, the CU football team in general, the university in general, in fact, the universe in general.

I also assume, you are happy as dictator of your own insignificant piece of the planet. Best wishes to you and your friend who used to play for Nebraska.

Posted by extrapoint on March 25, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I always get advice on CU football from Nebraska
(snicker)

One thing I do find interesting is rswright's continual reference to the 18 inch bicep line in my hypothetical sociology paper.

That post was a little fundamentalist in nature and I admit it was created with a little trolling in mind. It looks like I not only hit a nerve but rswright swallowed it hook line and sinker.

So I guess my question for rs is: when did that 18 inch bicep come crashing down on you? Recounting your own personal experience with us just might help us understand if not reinforce your frantic argument.

Reading your posts for over a year now, however, chances are very good you may have done a little goading yourself. I know there is hardly anything close to a majority in any of the 3 catagories, I previously outlined, but convince us that by some wild chance I didnt peg you as the "rich idiot."

Posted by rodrigo on March 25, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've got an idea: since you're so passionate about the guilt of Katoa and Geer, rs, why don't you show up at their next court hearing and, as an expert on the meaning of "innocent until proven guilty," ask to address the court?

I'm sure the judge would be thrilled to hear your views.

Posted by extrapoint on March 25, 2008 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

maybe the judge would take him a little more seriously if he wore a Stalin mustache.

Posted by rswright on March 25, 2008 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stop worrying about me. The kids are the point of this column.

Posted by rodrigo on March 26, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly. And they'll go through the system, be judged innocent or guilty and move on. That's the point everybody BUT you has been making all along. You've already convicted them.

Posted by tallisall on March 26, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So, has Hawkins talked to them and asked them if they did it or not?? If they fessed up to Hawk, what then??

Posted by buffalo_flyer on March 26, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lets not compare an off campus fight to the lawrence phillips affair, a couple of CU footballers scrapping with some drunk students who see footballers as a gauge of toughness, no real hate, in fact a certain amount of respect, if I can kick this guys ass , then I can kick anyones ass.
LP was a hardened criminal given sanctuary by a corrupt program and city to satiate their hunger for success on the gridiron, he should have gone to jail along with osbourne
Can't wait to see these guys back on the field next season but since CU insists on going by the book, we'll have to wait until 2009

Posted by walto_clown on March 26, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think OJ was guilty. I came to the conclusion after watching the ad naseum coverage of his trial.

In this case there's been no trial, and thus, no real information, so I'm unable to develop a conclusion one way or the other. That's the point.

The comparison between OJ's trial and the situations involving Katoa and Geer are apples and oranges. Get it? Verdicts arrive in both legal form AND in the form of personal opinion (though clearly only one of those is binding).

In the case of OJ the audience had more than sufficient information to make that judgment. In the cases of Geer and Katoa that information is lacking...therefore any judgment--either legal or personal--would be premature.

I think the "innocent until proven guilty" proponents are correct to cautiously wait for more facts.

If, in the end, the boys are determined to be guilty, I will root for a just and appropriate legal response. In any case, I hope that they learn from the experience and their opportunities as members of CU's footbal team can inprove their lives (I wasn't entirely critical of Coach Osborne's decision to keep LP on the team and bench him until the bowl game, regardless of how he turned out).

Posted by tallisall on March 26, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why wait for a trial..

Can Hawkins not just call these young men in and get their account of the events that happened and act accordingly??

Posted by extrapoint on March 26, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lame attempt at trolling, tall
I realize at least one of the posters here has no idea how the justice system, or justice itself, for that matter, works.
You and I, however, know Hawk doesnt have a badge.
Why dont you try and get one? If you do, you can at least go after those guys at the Dpost who lynched your hero.

Posted by extrapoint on March 26, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

how long has it been since the Colorado Scout site had a new article? Time for a rebate on the subscription.
The DT from Salt Lake should have his test scores by now. I guess he failed or picked another school after Katoa called him.

Posted by Realist on March 26, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since when does Coach Hawkins need a badge to have control over his football players? Well, in view of whats transpired, maybe he does!!

Posted by extrapoint on March 26, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

trollin trollin trollin
do you have all your ID's numbered?

Posted by choderlos1741 on March 26, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What the heck does OJ Simpson have to do with this? Lynn Katoa and Riar Geer are accused of assault, not double homcide. Of course, if RS Wright sees a bloodthirsty thug whenever he sees a football player, thats his problem, but why humor him?

And StopDrTomsInsanityisTall, Lawrence Phillips was not suspended for "6 or 7 games" by Tommy Osborne, he was suspended for the 94 spring game. And I would go out on a limb and say that Riar Geer defending himself when two men attacked him is on a different level than dragging a girl by her hair and throwing her down a flight of stairs. And Lynn Katoa giving a guy a few stitches when his friend got tased by some spolied punks seems on a different level than Lawrence Phillips too.

Posted by walto_clown on March 27, 2008 at 1:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Chodleros,

I agree that RS's reference to OJ is unrelated to this thread. His fallacious argument suggests that anyone who believes OJ is innocent, despite the verdict (presumably he's referring to the criminal trial since he was determined to be guilty in the civil trial), can't reasonably believe that anyone is innocent until proven guilty. It's a ridiculous argument that--aside from the nature of the charges--doesn't hold up to the circumstances surrounding our young Buffs (as indicated in my previous post).

Also--Lawrence Phillips WAS suspended for six games and didn't actually start until the bowl game against Florida. The assault in which he dragged his girlfriend down the stairs (and for which he was legally charged and subsequently plead "no contest") didn't even occur until September of 1995. Nobody dislikes Nebraska (the state, the football team, the fans...) more than me, but when dealing with the folks in red, you gotta get your facts straight...otherwise they'll just run off to huskerpedia and complain about the the uninformed CU fans...

Posted by choderlos1741 on March 27, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Walto:

My mistake about the suspension. Doesn't change my point though, since defending yourself or your friends in a fight isn't really comparable to beating up a girl. And StoptheInsanity saying that the situations are the same is just ridiculous. After he beat up Kate McEwen (and not for the first time, if you believe Kate McEwen) he should have never played for Nebraska again.

"It's not as though Lawrence is an angry young man all the time and a threat to society. I don't believe that. But there are occasions every four to five months when he becomes a little explosive."

Dr. Tom Osborne

Posted by rswright on March 27, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Try at least to check your facts before you post. You say "he was determined to be guilty in the civil trial". That is not true. OJ was not found guilty in the civil trial. The issue in previous posts was whether "innocent until proven guilty" which is applicable only to criminal trials, means the defendants are innocent which, as shown by the OJ analogy, it does not. The analogy was apt. Your understanding wasn't.

Finally, what Phillips did doesn't matter unless you are saying it is important that NU's criminals are worse than our potential criminals. And if you think that it is important that our criminals may not play when NU's criminals played, it isn't because it won't sell a ticket. If we had sell outs like NU it might not matter, but CU doesn't and our fans care or are you forgetting 04 with the scandals,how our fans turned in their season tickets and cost CU 2.3 million. CU needs fans to buy tickets. Once again we are high on the internet point standing for the most crimes by a team and your stating that NU's criminal did far worse than our potential criminals, doesn't help. Try to talk about things that matter.

Posted by rodrigo on March 27, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah, the twisted logic of our lone ranger, rs.

You see, in that private little world of one, you create your own reality, one that has no relation to generally accepted global reality, then you berate everyone for their false conciousness.

Only in this way can the fact that OJ was found innocent in criminal court prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Geer and Katoa are guilty.

Has this approach ever worked, RS? Do you have a wife? Family? Friends? Does anyone - anyone? - not find you to be an insufferable idiot? The harder you try the more ridiculous your argument gets.

Posted by BigBuff on March 27, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ugh. Is this still going on? rs sucks. I'd prefer another empty seat in the stadium to him.

Posted by choderlos1741 on March 27, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are you paying attention, rswright? OJ Simspon was aquitted in the criminal trial, but found liable in the civil trial, to the tune of 8.5 million dollars. You can look it up, rswright. So maybe before you shoot off your mouth about getting facts straight, you should get your own facts straight. Not that it matters, because if you knew anything about our system of justice and the constitution, you would know that "innocent until proven guilty" is meant to protect everyone, even if the occasional criminal like OJ goes free. That's what the founding fathers intended. Now go drink your warm milk, rs, and take a long nap.

Posted by extrapoint on March 27, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think I'm pretty much an average guy. I have probably been involved in a dozen or so brawls since middle school. Even at the ripe old age of 45 I had to defend myself from some miscreant who thought I was someone else who done him wrong.
This in no way is promoting fighting. The sad truth is we are still a heck of a long way from separating testosterine from stupidity in the male gender of the human species.

Because of this, football players are targets. They also live with the temptation of using their "18 inch biceps" knowing they would most likely come out on top of some altercation.
They also live in an environment of discipline supplied by (most of) their coaches. They also have to keep up their grades or give up football.

What is my point? I'll bet the average guy non football player gets in a lot more scrapes than the average player. Some place like Nebraska may overlook a few more true thugs because of the desperate nature of football there, but by and large I'm willing to bet the vast majority of players on the husker roster are upstanding guys as well.

So when a couple of loose canons due emerge that are on the football team, People with a grudge on football or feel oppressed by football, like our resident law student, rswright (jeez - the irony of that name)"pick up the ball and run with it" shrieking at the top of their lungs and trying to paint the whole program or culture with it......
AND COMPARE THEM TO OJ!

I still cant believe that.
How many people out there think Nastase makes all tennis players look like serbo-croation war lords?

Posted by JAWS on March 28, 2008 at 12:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fact is rswright, in his true to form idiocy, is TRYING to sound smart (let's all laugh in unison...)by twisting the CRIMINAL legal term 'innocent until proven guilty' in to the same CIVIL legal jargon 'liable or not liablr.' So yes rswright, you - a true genius - are correct when you say that OJ was 'not proven guilty' in his civil trial. He was proven 'liable' - so I hope that you feel accomplished that you were able to correct the verbage that the layperson may not use in the EXACT and correct legal terminology. So basically, and I'm sure that we'd all agree (minus those of you attached to the colon of Nebraska, DA Mary Keenan Lacy, and Katie Hnida) would now say that you are about 1/8437 on your comments... Congrats IDIOT!!!

Posted by walto_clown on March 28, 2008 at 3:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RS,

I suspect every poster on this board is well aware that innocence or guilt is INDEPENDENT of a trial or verdict.

Yes, we get your point. If Katoa and Geer are guilty, they are guilty NOW, regardless of when a trial is held or what the verdict is.

But rather than getting caught up in the wording, please listen to the points made by the fans on this board.

The central themes tend to be:

--There is not enough information to determine the guilt or innocence of these players. I believe that's the intent behind the "innocent until proven guilty" statements that we see in this context. Or, if it's easier for you to understand, think of it as "let's not all assume they're guilty until facts suggest otherwise."

--I haven't seen any poster suggest that these guys should receive a "free pass" for being football players.

--In my eyes, the points about young college-age males often participating in violence as a means of validation or conflict resolution are accurate. I was in a few altercations myself. Are football players sometimes the targets of the "validation" side of this coin? Probably. Does the priviledge that student athletes on scholarship enjoy (free tuition, some local celebrity) warrant that they respond as non-violently as reasonable. I think so. But again, in this case there's not enough information to determine whether or not they did that.

I've noted your posts in the past, and haven't been able to determine whether you're a person who:

1. Enjoys CU sports so much, and so equally that you resent footballs primacy in funding and attention.

2. Just doesn't like the sport of football or football players, for whatever reason.

3. Likes to provoke a response from other posters out of a general sense of obnoxiousness.

While I suspect motive number 3, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt give you credit for number 1 or 2. So if I might be so presumptious to give you some advice. Pay less attention to the words and more attention to the intent and meaning. It will heighten the dialogue and promote a better sharing of ideas.

Posted by rodrigo on March 28, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The weird thing is - as is regularly the case - at a certain level RS hints at a debatable though highly contentious point. Problem is in arguing his opinion he routinely drives the bus right over the cliff.

So here's the question: Given the general nasty smell that still lingers above the program, should Hawkins institute a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to football players and run-ins with the law? Get arrested - for whatever reason and whatever the legal outcome - and you're gone?

Posted by Buff_since_76 on March 28, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems like everyone here can't wait for spring break to end, and practice to resume.

Any else here going to the open practice next Saturday at 1? I made it to a couple before the spring game last year, and it just as good of an event as the spring game.

Posted by tallisall on March 28, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hawkins needs a badge to ask his players what happened?????

Wow, I didn't realize that.

Posted by rswright on March 28, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The central themes (of our posters) tend to be:

--There is not enough information to determine the guilt or innocence of these players."

This is contrary to the facts. The central theme of our posters based on 3/18 posts shows our posters were ready to to excuse these kids before the facts came out."every young man gets in a fight" was one post. "Innocent until proven guilty" was used to imply they were innocent. This is what caused the OJ analogy which was used to show it does not mean they are innocent. The only point was to show that out of control football fans are ready to claim their innocence or make an excuse before the facts have come out.

No post written on this end has ever said nor implied these kids are guilty. In fact, my first post stated there are not enough facts to determine guilt or innocence.

Further, there was no twisting of words here, OJ was not found guilty, period. The contention that a layman doesn't know the difference, is no excuse.If you are going to use legal terms you should know the difference."Guilt" means jail is possible, "liable" means damages. If you think a layman doesn't know the difference, ask OJ. But for the difference he would be in prison instead of using his pension to avoid paying damages.

Sorry about the tone in the past. Lesson learned.

P.S. Where in the Constitution does it say a defendant is innocent until proven guilty? The world waits.
P.S.S. "I suspect every poster on this board is well aware that innocence or guilt is INDEPENDENT of a trial or verdict." That is incorrect. Innocence or guilt is directly dependent on a trial and verdict. The issue was whether our posters should use "innocent until proven guilty" to imply these defendants were innocent.
P.S.S "Just doesn't like the sport of football or football players, for whatever reason."
Wrong. Love football. No one criticized my rant on whether Nebraska's felon was worse than our potential felons. When our fans debate who was worse and whether they should play, it only shows football fans are out of control. The thought that CU would play a felon or a potential felon just to win a game is abhorrent to most people. It is these people that make college football out of control. $4 million to a college football coach? Give me a break.As soon as the NCAA treats it as what it is, a training ground for the NFL and divorce it from educational institutions the better. D1 football is a professional sport and has no business at a University whose primary purpose is education. Unless it can pay for itself every other sport (as intended by the University) it causes more harm to the Dept. the AD and CU than good. (i.e. 8 million debt in 04, 2.3 million to two girls in 08).

Posted by rodrigo on March 28, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There's your answer, walto. Definitely the worst elements of both 1 & 2.

Posted by rodrigo on March 28, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way rs, try the Bill of Rights.

Posted by extrapoint on March 28, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

does this guy even have a high school education?

Posted by rswright on March 28, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't kid youself guys. When the University is underfunded;there are not enough paying fans to fill the stadium; when football causes an 8 million dollar AD deficit in 05, 4 million in 06;pays 2.3 million for raping two girls in 07; when two of our players are charged with violent assaults, we are leading in the internet poll of teams with the most felonies, these are facts(not opinion)which you guys ignore or deny. Our posters (i.e. iowabuff)urge the AD to grant raises but with no idea whether he has the money. When the coach says CU fans only come to games when the better teams play your coach he is telling you the truth. They are facts not opinion and pointing them out does not mean one is anti-football.

It is great that Hawk has creates enthusiasm, things are looking up and tv revenues help the AD show a profit.

Football needs to be examined by both sides and not just one. Something you guys never do.

Posted by choderlos1741 on March 28, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can we all agree to just ignore Rs Wright? His opinion that football is a cancer on this unverisity is not going to be changed based on facts or rational argument. His opinion that football players are thugs terrorizing our poor campus is not going to be changed by facts or rational argument. And I think we can see that basic accounting principles are beyond him. I submit, therefore, that we members of the reality-based community start ignoring rswright so that we can talk about football instead of OJ Simpson and the presumption of innocence.

Posted by rodrigo on March 28, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's have a little education on our legal and judicial systems:

RS, you are correct in asserting that nowhere do the words "innocent until proven guilty" appear in the Constitution. Of course neither do the words the right to bear arms, the right to vote or the word God (expect where the signatories refer to the date of signing).

But every judge, lawyer, officer of the court and educated citizen will find ample evidence and precedent that the notion of innocence is explicitly embedded in the Bill of Rights, specifically in terms of one's right, in any criminal or civil case, to a fair and speedy trial before an impartial jury. This carries with it a presumption of innocence and places the burden of proof on the prosecution, not the defendent.

Posted by rodrigo on March 28, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oops. In the spirit of choderlos' sensible request, I respectfully withdraw my last post.

Posted by extrapoint on March 28, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

again
thanks choderlos
I have perused the early offers made by Hawk for next year's class.
Outside of Nick Kasa, just down the road, Hawk has offered only one other DE. I know it is extremely early, but he has offers out to a number of WRs and RBs. I would think we would be set with RBs for another year at least.
I wanna squish Daniels like OU did with a mean pass rush.

Posted by rswright on March 28, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rodrigo, wrong again.
First: Rodrigo admits "innocent until proven guilty" is not the Consitution after implying it was in the Bill of Rights. Secondly, Rodrigo says "... neither do the words the right to bear arms". Wrong again. As any gun owner knows the right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment. Finally, the phrase is certainly not "explicit" as it is not in the Consitution.
How ironic, having entitled his post "Let's have a little education on our legal and judicial systems"

Now, you guys have the right to ignore the facts. CU was financially responsible for deficits,rapes and potentially violent assaults all because of football, but you can and do ignore these facts.
No one really cares if you do because what is important is that CU needs fans to fill the stadium and your posts don't help. Our posters are either making excuses for guys arrested and charged with felonies or want to debate whether Phillips did something worse than Katoa and Geer and if convicted, that they should play. How many people do you guys think want to root for felons? CU was just coming out of an era of scandals. From your posts,it obviously doesn't bother even one of you that CU is right back there.

Ignore the facts if you want but please before you debate again whether a potential felon should represent CU
try looking at the facts from the point of view of a potential fan for a change.

Posted by extrapoint on March 28, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The other DE Hawk has offered is from Polk's high school in AZ.
The guy looks like a potential felon to me. I sure hope they sign him.

Posted by choderlos1741 on March 28, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

extrapoint: are you talking about devon kennard? He would indeed be quite a recruit. Are we in on any top-flight corners?

Posted by extrapoint on March 29, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, I think his name is Murphy. The only corner I see on the radar is James White from Texas who is actually a running back in high school. I dont know if we will get him or not. We havent heard from rswright if he is guilty.

Posted by mntbyker on March 29, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think there's as much a problem with our 2 brutes than the problem with Simas and his tattoos. I mean what's to compare? Laziness in the classroom-importance of where his next tattoos going to be-and- has the audacity to redshirt to become stronger and faster-what's the problem here? I'd rather have him out there partying off campus roughing up or being roughed up instead of daydreaming in the classroom! I'm sure glad I'm not a high profile athlete under the microscope... I'll just stick to bumping down the mountain on my mtnbyke, and on Sat. enjoying the Buffs kick-butt this year. I'll leave the kids to Coach Hawk, I'm too dumb for such legalities anyway! Just play football.
See you at the Spring Game.............

Posted by rodrigo on March 30, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RS,

Let's start over. Very slowly this time...

You write:

"First: Rodrigo admits "innocent until proven guilty" is not the Consitution after implying it was in the Bill of Rights. Secondly, Rodrigo says "... neither do the words the right to bear arms". Wrong again. As any gun owner knows the right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment."

RS, please pay attention. If you know any lawyers or legal scholars, please consult them for their opinion before debating the fine points of something you clearly do not understand.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are two different things. Innocent until proven guilty is implied - as I stated and has been interpreted for the past 200+ years to be inherent in - the Bill of Rights. Again. It's in the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. They are separate things.

Second. the Second Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution, NOT an amendment to the Bill of Rights. While the words "right to bear arms" arms are in the Second Amendment, they are most definitely NOT in the Constitution, as many people believe.

So my comment about a little education stands, and is now doubly ironic.

Posted by mntbyker on March 30, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know something rodrigo,rs, ep? EP has posted and kept us abreast of many of the recruiting news and profiles of athletes and CU football, as well as yourself rodrigo, and rs. DROP IT! This has gone too far and I'm not enjoying it anymore! Let the AD handle it and let's continue the deep information of CU football that keep these posts fun. I know the significance of the situation, but let's wait till it's handled by the true legal authorities, and hope justice is appropriately served. I don't myself post much, but I surely enjoy reading what's written and knowledgeable about CU football. Save the fights for the NU, TX people who troll!

Posted by rodrigo on March 30, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh. sorry.

Posted by choderlos1741 on April 2, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rodrigo:

One last thing and then this needs to die: what we call "the Bill of Rights" consists of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. It is not separate from the constitution. The second amendment to the constitution does indeed grant the right to bear arms, regrettably. But rswright is still a moron.

Posted by rodrigo on April 3, 2008 at 6:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know what the Bill of Rights is. My point is was and will always be that you will not find any of anything - innocent until proven guilty, right to bear arms - we are talking about in the Constitution itself. The writers and framers of the document said nothing of these things. Later generations of lawmakers did.

Posted by rodrigo on April 3, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, at the risk of being an insufferable bore (in the rs mode) please let me try to lay this whole thing to rest:

The entire debate started with me (and others) defending and rs questioning Geer's and Katoa's right to the presumption of innocence. If you look back through the posts you'll find rs asking: "P.S. Where in the Constitution does it say a defendant is innocent until proven guilty? The world waits."

Up until then, no one had said anything about the Constitution. And oddly enough, rs was right. Those words are not in the document we know as the Constitution itself. But no one had suggested they were.

My response was: "By the way rs, try the Bill of Rights." At which point we spiraled off.

Now we can have an honest and probably pretty meaningful but highly academic debate over whether something in the Bill of Rights or any of the constitutional amendments can be considered to be part of the Constitution, but something tells me 99.5% of the folks here don't give rat's ass.

The bottom line is, rs, as usual, is speaking out of his own personal belief system (as well as, in my opinion, his ass) when he declares that neither Geer nor Katoa has the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

And on that I'll happily rest.

Posted by mntbyker on April 3, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Touche! Rodrigos final laurel,and adieu! Thanks...rs might not rest though...LOL

Posted by extrapoint on April 3, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rs will never rest until he puts to bed that demon in his past

Posted by rswright on April 3, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"And oddly enough, rs was right."
Tee,hee.

Posted by rodrigo on April 4, 2008 at 5:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice try, rs. You were right about an irrelevant point that you raised and no one else disagreed with. Congratulations.

Posted by rswright on April 4, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cheer up, these are only posts, not life, and you will always get another chance.
.

Posted by rodrigo on April 4, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One only hopes you make more sense and have more friends in real life.