Straight up thuggery

[Marc Wakeham]

Are Reg 17 and 18 the WRU documents?, or are they USAR?

What has this to do with the Welsh Rugby Union?

- - - Updated - - -

My apologies, but for argument sake, my statement is accurate:

Do you play (presently) rugby?

Have your lawsuits been settled?

My use of phrase altar boy was a general term describing a young man with traditional behaviors and beliefs.

Are you a young man? or are you mature and reasonable?

My use of former to describe the altar boy and lawsuit reference was a wisecrack directed varied attempts to indoctrinate male children by the Catholic church .

As a coach would you prefer 15 altar boys or 13 borderline hooligans? 13 only because you need 2 altar boys to fill the wing.

I think you've lost it.

 

[SimonSmith]

Really unhelpful to the discussion.

*drawspipe* Son, lemme tell you 'bout NKW...

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

FYI, sentencing completed, civil case pending


http://www.azfamily.com/story/38719...ed-u-of-a-player-sentenced-to-one-day-in-jail

 

[didds]

a day in jail?

how many days would he have got for taking the other guy's car?

didds

 

[Phil E]

a day in jail?

how many days would he have got for taking the other guy's car?

didds

None....he would have been shot.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

a day in jail?

how many days would he have got for taking the other guy's car?

didds

Auto theft in AZ

First Offense
Class 3 felony
Sentencing Range: probation with no jail to 1 year in jail
If Aggravated Circumstances: 2 to 8.75 years in prison

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

From rugby dump comments (could be fake news), but I'm just saying from rugby dump comments.


Tuber46November 30, 2017 1:55 pm

“Blatant Thuggery” What a joke. This article is extremely biased to one point of view. Those of us standing on the field that day know that Doug Neary might have deserved to be kicked twice after the racially derogatory remarks that he spouted at Jordan Crawford’s face right before he was kicked. Now kicking him in the face might not have been the absolute best way to handle this, but what other way is there these days. Telling the ref, players, and coaches that doug had “said racist things” would not have resulted in any shape or form of disciplinary action, guaranteed. Instead, to make sure that he remembers for the rest of his life that calling black people ni@@ers is wrong, he got the structure of his skull rearranged. I think this was just an ugly manifestation of the racial tensions in our world today and that one should not be so quick to judge either side.


http://www.rugbydump.com/2017/11/60...ck-during-college-rugby-match-leads-to-arrest

This from Tuber 46 has been removed from rugby dump. Just interesting as i found it a defense for the kicker.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

A civil lawsuit has been completed with this case. It appears to be seeking damages from third parties (not the actual kicker). The final judgment is against the plaintiff (kickee). He is to pay legal costs of these 3rd parties. the highest 3 amounts are $6390, 4470, 1765. The third parties were not found liable. Third parties were coaches, team admin, and Arizona board of regents.

The kicker, as far as I can tell, was served. He was not involved in this lawsuit. There does not appear to be a lawsuit against in civil case records. There are still future trial dates listed, but are not specific to any party.
No attorney is listed as representing kicker, he is "pro per" on case history. Last entry with kickers name was entered in 2018 as best as I can find.

Remember the kicker did plea to a felony 6 aggravated assault and get sentenced to one day in jail.

As much as I would like to speculate, without individual interviews from kickee and kicker it is hard to tell what actually transpired.

IMO many off the posts passed judgment on the kicker.

 

[L'irlandais]

Retaliation can be no defense. It’s possible some racist comment was passed at takle time. That would in no way justify the thuggish reaction. Since guns are not permitted in the playing enclosure (I hope) then the debate about Gun laws and Mexico’s gang problem sound a bit off topic. But then this is RRF.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Retaliation can be no defense. It’s possible some racist comment was passed at takle time. That would in no way justify the thuggish reaction. .

I think it was a downward shove post tackle as well.

The lenient plea deal, that eventually erases the felony, from the DA, and non pursuance in a civil suit sure indicate that "thuggish action" had other considerations that led to it.

The DC in Ariz. apparently did not feel these other considerations, or they did not know, had bearing on a lifetime ban (5yr petition for reinstatement) They also gave 14 days kicker 14 days to appeal. An appeal was unrealistic to an arrested defendant

The kicker was not treated fairly by public opinion, the courts probably appropriately.

 

[SimonSmith]

The fact that he wasn't pursued in a civil action does not mean there was no culpability. It means that there was no money to go after; lawyers go after the money, not the most culpable.

If you know that, you're being deliberately misleading.
If you don't know that, you have no business opining on the subject.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The fact that he wasn't pursued in a civil action does not mean there was no culpability. It means that there was no money to go after; lawyers go after the money, not the most culpable.

If you know that, you're being deliberately misleading.
If you don't know that, you have no business opining on the subject.

Yeah lawyers go after money, the kickee must not of had any. I agree. He would have future earnings, but i dont know if that is accessible or reasonable.

There were students name on the civil suit that the plaintiff lost. I doubt they would have money either. I also think they were the paintiffs teammates also.

My suggestion is the plaintiff did not want any comments directly from the field entered in to public record. i.e. racist comments or otherwise. It was an open and shut case by the video.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

If you know that, you're being deliberately misleading.
If you don't know that, you have no business opining on the subject.

Is that a false dichotomy? OB taught me about em. I'm still learning. Maybe this is 2 false dichotomi? or dichotome?

 

[Jarrod Burton]

The kicker was not treated fairly by public opinion, .

So a thuggish attack on a person not aware that it was about to occur is an acceptable reaction to alleged racism/a bit of a shove? Your matches must be a shit fight from first whistle to last. This behaviour is cowardice. Controlled violence on a rugby field is part of the game. Running headlong towards another person who is willing and prepared to place themselves in a location where intense physical contact is going to occur is accepted and encouraged. Walking up to a player who is not aware of your approach and kicking them in the face is not acceptable in any rugby community and as such, public opinion treated him as fairly as he deserved.

Act like a violent thug and you should be treated as such, including being publicly vilified and shunned.

 

[didds]

To add to Jarred's post.

Ignore it was a rugby match.

A is walking down the street.
A passes B.

B makes a racial slur at A.

Later A walks down the street. Sees B with his back to him. A attacks B forn behind.

there's the position in a nutshell. Rugby has no laws, regs etc that create a difference between the two situations in natioons such as USA, UK, NZ, Aus etc.

didds

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

To add to Jarred's post.

Ignore it was a rugby match.

A is walking down the street.
A passes B.

B makes a racial slur (perhaps, hypothetically for this example) at A.

10 seconds Later A walks down the street. Sees B with his back to him. A attacks B forn behind.

there's the position in a nutshell. Rugby has no laws, regs etc that create a difference between the two situations in natioons such as USA, UK, NZ, Aus etc.

there was also two way aggressive and expected physical contact that occurred which cannot be duplicated by walking down street. contact that can establish some level of dominance

didds

my additions in RED, we have very little and unreliable evidence of racial slur, we only know something occurred post tackle that elicited a brutal response

 

[didds]

absolutely.

I diagree that it cannot be replciated by walking down the street.

All we have (aside from it being on a rugby pitch) is that A attacked B, with an allegation that B had racially slurred A.

That's it.

didds