YoloinOhio Posted April 22, 2015 Author Posted April 22, 2015 Did they say that they had a deal with an employee too? I'm not as familiar with that one.Yep http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/08/sports/college-football-florida-state-s-warrick-is-suspended-after-an-arrest.html
LB3 Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) the really amusing part was when they asked him to explain any legal or disciplinary issues and he mentioned his cafeteria incident, and then they prodded more and he mentioned the bb gun, and then almost with a look of disbelief they asked about the crab legs.... and thats of course ignoring the sexual assualt issues. ultimately, unless the employee was the owner, its still theft from the store - like the previous incident FSU had. I'm not that surprised that ESPN stayed away from the alleged sexual assault. I viewed it as more of a fluff piece where they can advertise that they asked the "tough questions" by bringing up the crab legs. I agree that it is still theft. I was a concerned at first that it seemed as though he didn't recognize that it was wrong, but realized that it was a bit hypocritical of me. When I was in school, a couple of my friends and I had a friend who worked at the dining hall and would let us pass for free sometimes. At the time, I didn't view it as a big deal, buy now realize it was stealing regardless of how harmless I felt or even still feel it was. Edited April 22, 2015 by KikoSeeBallKikoGetBall
Mr. WEO Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Your criticisms of Winston's attorney and Winston for being shameless in being non-responsive in a noncriminal and non-civil setting is off the mark. Any hack attorney knows that providing any material information when not necessary is foolish to do. The real concern is not about the preliminary non formal proceedings but the concern is how it affects the potential later formal legal proceedings. What is stated in the college judicial settings can be used at a later time against the client (Winston) in the more serious legal proceedings. There is no doubt that Winston and his family were well aware how serious the stakes were for his future. He sought good counsel prior to the hearings and he acted on the sound legal advice i.e. to say as little as possible. I have many doubts about the character of Winston. But from a legal standpoint at the hearing you made reference to he took the right reticent approach in order to protect his interests. You misunderstood my post. The lawyer is to be criticized for mouthing off that "she's 0-6". He wasn't allowed to speak or advise at the school hearing, which actually was a "formal proceding". I said Winston was shameless in not bothering to respond in the hearing, except to note how "vicious" the world is at the end of his "statement". Douchebag. It really didn't matter if he answered questions or not in that hearing. The final decision was a foregone conclusion before it started. The transcript tells you all you need to know. This will be an easy suit to win--the jusry will at the same time reading about the massive Title IX failure at FSU regarding this incident and they will already be familiar with the local police and FSU efforts to not actually investigte this complaint.
NoSaint Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 I'm not that surprised that ESPN stayed away from the alleged sexual assault. I viewed it as more of a fluff piece where they can advertise that they asked the "tough questions" by bringing up the crab legs. I agree that it is still theft. I was a concerned at first that it seemed as though he didn't recognize that it was wrong, but realized that it was a bit hypocritical of me. When I was in school, a couple of my friends and I had a friend who worked at the dining hall and would let us pass for free sometimes. At the time, I didn't view it as a big deal, buy now realize it was stealing regardless of how harmless I felt or even still feel it was. it happens - but for him to completely omit it (and several other things) in a question about his past transgressions was definitely a "c'mon man" moment, using espn lingo.
YoloinOhio Posted April 22, 2015 Author Posted April 22, 2015 @BruceFeldmanCFB: Jimbo Fisher on Jameis saying he had a "hook-up" regarding the crab legs story: FSU Compliance thinks it's a totally isolated incident. 😂😂
LB3 Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 it happens - but for him to completely omit it (and several other things) in a question about his past transgressions was definitely a "c'mon man" moment, using espn lingo. Can't disagree here.
JohnC Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 You misunderstood my post. The lawyer is to be criticized for mouthing off that "she's 0-6". He wasn't allowed to speak or advise at the school hearing, which actually was a "formal proceding". I said Winston was shameless in not bothering to respond in the hearing, except to note how "vicious" the world is at the end of his "statement". Douchebag. It really didn't matter if he answered questions or not in that hearing. The final decision was a foregone conclusion before it started. The transcript tells you all you need to know. This will be an easy suit to win--the jusry will at the same time reading about the massive Title IX failure at FSU regarding this incident and they will already be familiar with the local police and FSU efforts to not actually investigte this complaint. The claimant's civil case is going to be more focused on the way the case was handled by the school and the police than by what what happened between Winston and the girl, which is under dispute. That is where the real liability is. No one is suggesting that Winston is a sterling character because obviously he is not. What is most outrageous about this episode has more to do with a contaminated/biased process by the authorities (school and police) that was designed to protect a prominent athlete and a football program at the expense of a potential victim. The final decision was a foregone conclusion before it started. I agree with that statement. In my view the corrupt process is more of a serious and central issue than the incident.
Chuck Wagon Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Does Jameis remind anyone else of Bo Callahan from "Draft Day"? The whole "I didn't steal any crab legs, they were given to me by an employee" reeks of cluelessness. I'm sure the owner's of Publix never ok'd a "Free Crablegs and birthday cakes for Jameis" promotion. Someone could steal the Hope Diamond and give it to you, you are still getting in trouble for having it in your possession.
RuntheDamnBall Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 who is anyone to decide where the line lies between drunk-but-coherent, and drunk-and-compromised? If she at any point said "no," it's rape.
FireChan Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) who is anyone to decide where the line lies between drunk-but-coherent, and drunk-and-compromised? If she at any point said "no," it's rape. He didn't say she said no. Just by virtue of having alcohol in her system makes it rape. Which makes 99% of American males rapists, I guess. Edited April 22, 2015 by FireChan
Chuck Wagon Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 When I was in college there were posters plastered all over campus that clearly stated an intoxicated girl could not legally consent. That was 10 years ago, but I clearly remember that being mentioned/posted several times. We can argue the merit of that stance, but the truth of the matter is guys can be in a very vulnerable position when it comes to hooking up with random girls, especially if "evidence" is on her clothing. That's magnified exponentially when alcohol is involved. To me the issue isn't even between what happened between Jameis and the girl behind a closed door, it's if the authorities/university handled the case the same they would have if it didn't involve "Star QB Prospect Jameis Winston" and instead involved some random freshman guy. From my understanding of the situation, it's really difficult to claim it was given due process.
NoSaint Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) When I was in college there were posters plastered all over campus that clearly stated an intoxicated girl could not legally consent. That was 10 years ago, but I clearly remember that being mentioned/posted several times. We can argue the merit of that stance, but the truth of the matter is guys can be in a very vulnerable position when it comes to hooking up with random girls, especially if "evidence" is on her clothing. That's magnified exponentially when alcohol is involved. To me the issue isn't even between what happened between Jameis and the girl behind a closed door, it's if the authorities/university handled the case the same they would have if it didn't involve "Star QB Prospect Jameis Winston" and instead involved some random freshman guy. From my understanding of the situation, it's really difficult to claim it was given due process. yup - if you want to wade into testing the waters of which strange girl you met at the bar is a little buzzed, vs which is DRUNK, you are opening yourself up to a risk. whether you like it or not, things can get blurry and blurry can be ugly. and to the second point.... its tough. depends on the school and situation. universities are notorious for skewing sexual assualt statistics downward (among any other negative stats that they can) Edited April 22, 2015 by NoSaint
KollegeStudnet Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 After watching the Warren Sapp video, Winston will make a great Buccaneer
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 yup - if you want to wade into testing the waters of which strange girl you met at the bar is a little buzzed, vs which is DRUNK, you are opening yourself up to a risk. whether you like it or not, things can get blurry and blurry can be ugly. and to the second point.... its tough. depends on the school and situation. universities are notorious for skewing sexual assualt statistics downward (among any other negative stats that they can) In a Sexual Abuse class I had to take, no one can give consent when they are intoxicated. After reading an article on Sharper, as you said, it becomes tough to prosecute because of the intoxication factor. Either way, Winston just seems slimy. Maybe he will be a great QB but not really a guy I would love rooting for. But that's just me.
Chuck Wagon Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 In a Sexual Abuse class I had to take, no one can give consent when they are intoxicated. After reading an article on Sharper, as you said, it becomes tough to prosecute because of the intoxication factor. Either way, Winston just seems slimy. Maybe he will be a great QB but not really a guy I would love rooting for. But that's just me. Your second point is where I am with him. I honestly don't know if he's soo dumb that he simply believes he did nothing wrong or if he knows exactly what he's doing and either thinks the rules don't apply to him or knows his talent will allow him more leeway than most others. Any way you slice it, it's really tough for me to feel comfortable with him. He reminds me a lot of Roethlisberger, having friends who were at Miami the same time as Big Ben gave me a bit of insight that he was (is) a guy who thought he was bigger than everyone around him and untouchable, so he did what he wanted. Jameis gives that same vibe. It may be completely irrelevant and he may be a great NFL QB (it didn't derail Ben), all I know is if I were the team to take him #1 overall I would be frequently waking up in the middle of the night to check his twitter or do google news searches on him.
Mr. WEO Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 The claimant's civil case is going to be more focused on the way the case was handled by the school and the police than by what what happened between Winston and the girl, which is under dispute. That is where the real liability is. No one is suggesting that Winston is a sterling character because obviously he is not. What is most outrageous about this episode has more to do with a contaminated/biased process by the authorities (school and police) that was designed to protect a prominent athlete and a football program at the expense of a potential victim. I agree with that statement. In my view the corrupt process is more of a serious and central issue than the incident. That's not correct. She is suing the school separately. He cannot be held liable for the behavior of FSU, so she can't sue him for that. She is suing him for damages of a sexual assault. People either don't know or don't remember that there is a witness to this alleged attack. One of Winston's team mates was there. She says this person heard her say "no". She says this person told Winston, essentially, to stop. This person also then wrote on Facebook about what a bad thing he had just seen. He later removed the post. The event was also videtaped on a phone, which was subsequently erased. All of these people will be subpoenaed and likely deposed. So will the cop who investigated and all of the FSU employees who she reported to as well as the hospital employees and all of her friends who she discussed this with right after the alleged attack. So far Winston has faced no questioning of any kind ever. Not by the cops, not by the DA, not by anyone at FSU. Yet despite not actually saying anything, this redneck ex-judge at the school hearing concluded that his "story" and hers were both as likely to be as true or untrue. To get FSU to their semifinal humiliation beatdown by Oregon, many individuals in postions of authority and presumed high regard had to completely surrender their integrity (assuming they still had some) at multiple points along the past 2 years--from the cops to the gigling DA to the highest level of school administration to the ex judge.
Peter Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 I did not like the kid before yesterday, but I thought he did not come across well at all with Harbaugh -- and Harbaugh was giving him a big time pass. What he did not bring up (the alleged sexual assault and the crab legs), laughing at his high school coach, and how he talked about the few things that he did discuss made me question the kid even more. I know some of you are in love with this kid, but if you were an owner or a GM, how many of you would actually pick this kid knowing what you know about him . . . not to mention the QBASE analysis from yesterday indicating there are big questions about whether he is even that good an NFL prospect: http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2015/insider/story/_/id/12715733/football-outsiders-projection-system-thinks-jameis-winston-bust-2015-nfl-draft He may end up being everything his proponents claim he will be, but is he worth the risk/reward ratio? Once he has millions of dollars in his pocket is he more or less likely to feel entitled and that he can do whatever he wants. I want nothing to do with this kid. If he ends up being a model citizen and great QB, good for him. I just don't see it.
NoSaint Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 In a Sexual Abuse class I had to take, no one can give consent when they are intoxicated. After reading an article on Sharper, as you said, it becomes tough to prosecute because of the intoxication factor. Either way, Winston just seems slimy. Maybe he will be a great QB but not really a guy I would love rooting for. But that's just me. he just seems dumb as bricks, and entitled to top it off. hard for anyone to get excited for that.
K-9 Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 I hope Winston falls to the Jest. I'd much rather they take him than Beasley, who's gonna wreak havoc, imo. GO BILLS!!!
Chuck Wagon Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 I did not like the kid before yesterday, but I thought he did not come across well at all with Harbaugh -- and Harbaugh was giving him a big time pass. What he did not bring up (the alleged sexual assault and the crab legs), laughing at his high school coach, and how he talked about the few things that he did discuss made me question the kid even more. I know some of you are in love with this kid, but if you were an owner or a GM, how many of you would actually pick this kid knowing what you know about him . . . not to mention the QBASE analysis from yesterday indicating there are big questions about whether he is even that good an NFL prospect: http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2015/insider/story/_/id/12715733/football-outsiders-projection-system-thinks-jameis-winston-bust-2015-nfl-draft He may end up being everything his proponents claim he will be, but is he worth the risk/reward ratio? Once he has millions of dollars in his pocket is he more or less likely to feel entitled and that he can do whatever he wants. I want nothing to do with this kid. If he ends up being a model citizen and great QB, good for him. I just don't see it. You sumed up my thoughts exactly. Frankly I'm a bit shocked so many people are on his side, nothing about this kid seems remotely likeable. Best case, the media randomly chose him as a target and is ignoring when people like Luck or Maroita do similar things. Given I find that extremely unlikely, the realistic best case is he's either an idiot or entitled and thinks the rules don't apply. Had FSU shut him down until they completed a full investigation into the alleged assault, I'd feel a bit better that perhaps he learned something. Instead they did a sham investigation that was tossed together once it became a national headline. He missed one game for the table incident, his only real punishment he faced, and he still went on the field in full uniform to warm up and had to get chewed out by Jimbo. Guys like Paul Finebaum have said several times about how Jimbo basically stressed every day about Jameis costing him his job before he left for the NFL. I'm not saying the kid doesn't deserve a chance in the NFL. But if I'm Tampa and Mariota is close to him in my assessment, I'll take Marcus and focus on making him a pro QB over a guy who could use a professional babysitter.
Recommended Posts