This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. 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!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. 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!
    Dismiss Notice

NCAA punishes USC - Reggie Bush, OJ Mayo, Dwayne Jarrett, Joe McKnight investigation

Discussion in 'College Football' started by CleveBucks, Apr 23, 2006.

  1. matcar

    matcar Mostly banned

    That was a lie by folks protecting McKnight... Shells found inside the dudes vehicle. So how was he standing over him in the road when the shells were inside his vehicle. Those protecting McKnight not being honest.
  2. muffler dragon

    muffler dragon Bien. Bien chiludo.

    Sounds like it may be Castle Doctrine then with the shells in the car. I know in NC the Castle Doctrine covers homes, cars, tents, (anything with a roof)...
  3. Jake

    Jake 2020 Champions ‘17 The Deuce Champ '18 The Deuce Champ Fantasy Baseball Champ

    Apparently this guy has had road rage issues in the past, only he didn't kill anyone then.

    Joe McKnight’s Killer Charged With Manslaughter
  4. zincfinger

    zincfinger Gert Frobe-approved

    No, all Self Defense law, Stand Your Ground or not, requires that you reasonably believe yourself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. "Reasonably" in that context means that your personal, subjective fear is irrelevant; the fear of imminent harm must be objectively reasonable.

    Some jurisdictions ("Retreat jurisdictions", i.e. non-Stand Your Ground jurisdictions) say that if you reasonably believe you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, you must first try to retreat if that is a safe and plausible option. Stand Your Ground laws say that, in that circumstance where you reasonably believe yourself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, you do not have an obligation to retreat if plausible, but can stand your ground and defend yourself. The rationale is that it puts an undue burden on the person who is being threatened to make a split-second, survival-and-legal determination whether he can plausibly and safely retreat.

    To put it in narrative terms, suppose some guy runs toward you swinging an axe, under circumstances where you reasonably believe he can, and intends to, kill you. In a Stand Your Ground jurisdiction, you can legally shoot him. In a Retreat jurisdiction, you have to make an immediate determination whether you can safely retreat. If you guess wrong, you may be be dead or jailed.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2016
  5. ORD_Buckeye

    ORD_Buckeye Wrong glass, Sir.

    So was McKnight armed in any way? Gun, knife, machete, ball-peen hammer. If not, I don't see where stand your ground comes into play? Unless being black is seen as being life threatening.
    jakenick06 likes this.
  6. zincfinger

    zincfinger Gert Frobe-approved

    Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with threat level, or perceptions thereof. It only relates to what your obligations are once you objectively, reasonably perceive a threat to your life.
  7. MaxBuck

    MaxBuck 2014 National Champions!

    Seems like a pretty serious flaw, to me.
  8. ORD_Buckeye

    ORD_Buckeye Wrong glass, Sir.

    That's contradictory. The very basis of perceiving a threat to your life is grounded in the level of threat and one's perception of it. If I get into a fender bender and the other guy approaches my car with a Glock in his hand rather than an insurance card, that changes how I perceive the threat to my life.
  9. zincfinger

    zincfinger Gert Frobe-approved

    I'm not clear on why you would regard that as a flaw. Stand Your Ground doesn't deal with threat level because that is already dealt with in the underlying Self Defense law. It is difficult to envision how Stand Your Ground law could separately define it.
    Yes, of course it does; but I don't see what contradiction you believe you are illustrating. If some guy approaches you pointing a gun at your head, that would constitute a reasonable threat, regardless whether the Self Defense law included a Stand Your Ground provision. If some guy approached you holding out his insurance card, that would not constitute a reasonable threat, regardless whether the Self Defense law included a Stand Your Ground provision. As above, Stand Your Ground provisions do not deal with threat level/perception because that is already dealt with in the underlying Self Defense law.
  10. MaxBuck

    MaxBuck 2014 National Champions!

    As I understand your comment, the ability to flee effectively from a threatening encounter, as opposed to using deadly force, is immaterial in assessing the legality of that deadly force use. And that's a serious problem to me.
  11. ScriptOhio

    ScriptOhio Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.

    Judge rules NCAA's show-cause penalty violates California law

    A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has ruled that show-cause order provisions in the NCAA bylaws violate California law.

    Judge Frederick Shaller's decision, delivered Tuesday, confirmed a tentative decision he issued in August and comes after the NCAA was provided a written objection. The show-cause provisions, Shaller wrote, "are void in California as they constitute an unlawful restraint on engaging in a lawful profession."

    It is unclear what immediate impact this will have on NCAA schools based in California.

    As part of the NCAA's objection to Shaller's tentative decision, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott provided a written declaration that expressed concern that schools located in California would be unable to belong to the NCAA if show-cause provisions were deemed unlawful in the state.

    "If California law prevents institutions in that state from honoring such commitments, it is hard to see how the Pac-12's Member Universities in California could continue to meet the requirements of NCAA membership," Scott wrote. "Thus, the Court's tentative ruling would place at risk the competitive and scholarship opportunities that flow from NCAA participation for the Pac-12's California Member Universities."

    The Pac-12 is not a party to the case, and Scott was under no legal obligation to insert his views into the litigation.

    "It is unclear how the Pac-12 could function with a third of its members unable to meet all requirements of NCAA membership," Scott wrote.

    A Pac-12 spokesman declined comment Tuesday, citing a policy that the conference doesn't comment on ongoing litigation, but said the case will be appealed.

    A declaration from Big West commissioner Dennis Farrell was also included as an exhibit in the NCAA's objection.

    Shaller shot down both Scott and Farrell's testimony, calling it "speculative at best."

    An email to an NCAA spokeswoman seeking comment was not immediately returned.

    Last month, the NCAA issued a statement saying it was premature to comment on the issue because Shaller's ruling was only tentative.

    "We look forward to the opportunity to provide our objections to the court per California trial rules," the statement said.

    The ruling came as part of the latest filing in former USC football assistant Todd McNair's civil lawsuit versus the NCAA. In May, a jury in Los Angeles voted 9-3 in favor of the NCAA following a three-week defamation trial stemming from McNair's involvement in the Reggie Bush extra benefits scandal. Two of the four other allegations in McNair's suit have been dropped, leaving just the declaratory relief allegation to be resolved.

    Entire artcle:

Share This Page