The University of Alabama Hates Women

[WhosYourDawggy]

Well, I think it's telling they are saying there is nothing in the law that allows them to charge Miller but we all know they could definitely charge him as an accessory per the law.

Note they aren't saying we are reviewing the incident to see if there is enough evidence to support an accessory charge, they are saying they CAN'T charge him because the law doesn't allow it.

That does not pass the smell test.

1. You know about 10% of what they all know, so your opinion isn't worth much, especially with your hate of all things Bama.

2. My initial reaction was that he seemed to have some culpability. With all the clarifications that have come out, I certainly don't think "we all know" he could be charged. If he could be charged, he would have been. When they say the law doesn't allow it, they mean the facts applied to the law means there is nothing he is guilty of.

3. The investigation is ongoing ... perhaps he will be charged. But for now he hasn't been. Now, that doesn't mean that Bama shouldn't discipline him, and they are taking some heat for not doing so.

 

[BandwagonBo2]

Owned? No. But it was in Miller's possession. And he knew he was bringing it to a dangerous scene.

He lied to police about knowing it was in his car. That bit can never really be reconciled.

He did? The fact he was asked about knowing it was in the car prior to getting the text has been established? I am asking you legit questions here. Everything I have read said he knew it was in the car once he was texted about it, but nothing has been said about whether he knew it was in the car prior to that or not. And my question to you earlier about do you know if he had read the text prior to coming to the club that night? I cannot seem to find where he has said he knew about it before he read the text message.

If you got into a car with me would you know if I had a gun on me or not if I didn't tell you? Its a hypothetical question maybe you can answer. I rode Motorcycles one day with a friend of mine, went in a couple of bars and stopped at some Bike shops along the way(poker run) on the last stop we decided since we were not far from home to have a beer. He offered to pay, pulled out some money and a small gun from his pocket. Until that moment I had no idea he had a gun on him. He never saw the one I had either, so he never did know. Simply getting a text after the fact or during the night does not speak to if Miller knew or not. Unless you read the text, would you know or not if not told by the person leaving it in your car?

 

[BandwagonBo2]

1. You know about 10% of what they all know, so your opinion isn't worth much, especially with your hate of all things Bama.

2. My initial reaction was that he seemed to have some culpability. With all the clarifications that have come out, I certainly don't think "we all know" he could be charged. If he could be charged, he would have been. When they say the law doesn't allow it, they mean the facts applied to the law means there is nothing he is guilty of.

3. The investigation is ongoing ... perhaps he will be charged. But for now he hasn't been. Now, that doesn't mean that Bama shouldn't discipline him, and they are taking some heat for not doing so.

I am like you, I know enough to be able to speak to some facts(not all because we all dont know all the facts), but I know that WT is a long time Bama hater and I suspect his earlier in the thread post that had the alleged information from a long time Alabama DA was from an Auburn email group, which lends to less credible info all the time.

My initial reaction to this was Miller could face some adversity from this and might be culpable in some way, but the more a I read I became for certain he was simply put in a bad position at a bad time and might not have made a good choice. Poor judgement does not show intention to him wanting a murder to take place, nor even a gun shootout.

I also feel like maybe this isnt over, but at this point I dont know if the University should do anything to him or not. If he is doing all that is asked of him and is cooperating, how can you deny him a chance to play when he has not been shown to be guilty of anything.

 

[Mofo]

He did? The fact he was asked about knowing it was in the car prior to getting the text has been established? I am asking you legit questions here. Everything I have read said he knew it was in the car once he was texted about it, but nothing has been said about whether he knew it was in the car prior to that or not. And my question to you earlier about do you know if he had read the text prior to coming to the club that night? I cannot seem to find where he has said he knew about it before he read the text message.

Why would it only matter knowing about the gun, prior to getting the text? It's not like he's powerless to refuse to deliver a gun to a crime scene at that point, or even remain ignorant of its existence.

And he obviously read the text, because he didn't just circle back to club's entrance at a predetermined time; he was directed to a particular street corner -- so that Miles and Davis could get in and get ready to shoot someone.

If you got into a car with me would you know if I had a gun on me or not if I didn't tell you? Its a hypothetical question maybe you can answer. I rode Motorcycles one day with a friend of mine, went in a couple of bars and stopped at some Bike shops along the way(poker run) on the last stop we decided since we were not far from home to have a beer. He offered to pay, pulled out some money and a small gun from his pocket. Until that moment I had no idea he had a gun on him. He never saw the one I had either, so he never did know. Simply getting a text after the fact or during the night does not speak to if Miller knew or not. Unless you read the text, would you know or not if not told by the person leaving it in your car?

Your hypothetical is not analogous.

1. This is not about a concealed weapon on someone's person; Miles left the gun in Miller's car.
2. Miller knew the gun was in his car, at the very least, when he was told to bring it to Miles.

It doesn't even matter if the story is true that Miller didn't know that Miles had stashed the gun in his car. He knew about it, after the text was received. We know he received the text because he went to the requested location. Pleading ignorance involves citing behavior being oblivious of key events around him. What's most likely is that Miller is really, really stupid -- which certainly seems plausible, given his choice of friends.

 

[BandwagonBo2]

Why would it only matter knowing about the gun, prior to getting the text? It's not like he's powerless to refuse to deliver a gun to a crime scene at that point, or even remain ignorant of its existence.

And he obviously read the text, because he didn't just circle back to club's entrance at a predetermined time; he was directed to a particular street corner -- so that Miles and Davis could get in and get ready to shoot someone.

Your hypothetical is not analogous.

1. This is not about a concealed weapon on someone's person; Miles left the gun in Miller's car.
2. Miller knew the gun was in his car, at the very least, when he was told to bring it to Miles.

It doesn't even matter if the story is true that Miller didn't know that Miles had stashed the gun in his car. He knew about it, after the text was received. We know he received the text because he went to the requested location. Pleading ignorance involves citing behavior being oblivious of key events around him. What's most likely is that Miller is really, really stupid -- which certainly seems plausible, given his choice of friends.

Choice of Friends? A teammate? What I still cannot wrap my head around is how you leap to Miller being guilty of intent when you cannot show that he knew what they wanted the gun for, or what was discussed once Miles and Davis got into the car, and if Miller was onboard with them using the gun in a manner that they did. Apparently I am not the only one struggling with the intent part either, as to date no charges have been filed. As stated previously, anyone who believes they are not doing so simply because Miller is a star player is on some serious conspiracy theory shit. I will still contend that Miller is innocent of anything until proven guilty. And this from a non Basketball fan.

 

[Mofo]

My initial reaction to this was Miller could face some adversity from this and might be culpable in some way, but the more a I read I became for certain he was simply put in a bad position at a bad time and might not have made a good choice. Poor judgement does not show intention to him wanting a murder to take place, nor even a gun shootout.

Thanks, coach.

 

[BandwagonBo2]

Thanks, coach.

I saw that already. Doesnt mean anything other than he used a poor choice of words and was basing his decisions on information and facts he had at the time. Miller will likely play in this weekends game against Arkansas. This was from two hours ago.

"We've been taking it very seriously from Day 1. The first minute that I got the information, I called [AD] Greg [Byrne] and we talked about it and the severity of it," Oats said at a news conference. "Greg, I thought, did a great job addressing those comments on Wednesday, and I really don't have much to add to it.

"We feel like we've done the right thing in this case. So I'm going to leave it at that with Greg's comments."

 

[Wild Turkey]

1. You know about 10% of what they all know, so your opinion isn't worth much, especially with your hate of all things Bama.

2. My initial reaction was that he seemed to have some culpability. With all the clarifications that have come out, I certainly don't think "we all know" he could be charged. If he could be charged, he would have been. When they say the law doesn't allow it, they mean the facts applied to the law means there is nothing he is guilty of.

3. The investigation is ongoing ... perhaps he will be charged. But for now he hasn't been. Now, that doesn't mean that Bama shouldn't discipline him, and they are taking some heat for not doing so.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about because you are very much stuck in a black-and-white world and in that world if the DA could press charges then he absolutely would but that isn't the case.

Example: In LA, San Fran & NY DAs have come out and flat said we aren't going to prosecute certain crimes because they don't meet their social justice agenda. Take note that the laws were not changed, a legislative body didn't approve that position but they have CHOSEN not to pursue certain criminal charges that they ABSOLUTELY could charge but they simply don't have the desire to do so.

I will completely admit I do not know how that is possible but in the last 14 years we have seen DAs just randomly decide not to enforce the law and we have seen Presidents give executive orders not to enforce certain laws and that is on large scales and publically stated. There is no denying this is happening.

The main reasoning they all lean on for not charging is "knowledge and intent" meaning they don't believe he had knowledge that by delivering the gun it would be used in a crime and had no intent for the gun to be used for a crime. Now you are an attorney so you tell me is that a reasonable assumption? Seems to me it's pretty simple if someone at 1:30 am in the morning texts "I need a joint (slang for gun) a n****r jus got fakin" they are not hunting rabbits and have INTENT to at the very least use the firearm for intimidation purposes because if it was for defense they would simply leave.

They could charge they just don't want to and if it wasn't a start basketball player everyone would have been arrested.

 

[BandwagonBo2]

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about because you are very much stuck in a black-and-white world and in that world if the DA could press charges then he absolutely would but that isn't the case.

Example: In LA, San Fran & NY DAs have come out and flat said we aren't going to prosecute certain crimes because they don't meet their social justice agenda. Take note that the laws were not changed, a legislative body didn't approve that position but they have CHOSEN not to pursue certain criminal charges that they ABSOLUTELY could charge but they simply don't have the desire to do so.

I will completely admit I do not know how that is possible but in the last 14 years we have seen DAs just randomly decide not to enforce the law and we have seen Presidents give executive orders not to enforce certain laws and that is on large scales and publically stated. There is no denying this is happening.

The main reasoning they all lean on for not charging is "knowledge and intent" meaning they don't believe he had knowledge that by delivering the gun it would be used in a crime and had no intent for the gun to be used for a crime. Now you are an attorney so you tell me is that a reasonable assumption? Seems to me it's pretty simple if someone at 1:30 am in the morning texts "I need a joint (slang for gun) a n****r jus got fakin" they are not hunting rabbits and have INTENT to at the very least use the firearm for intimidation purposes because if it was for defense they would simply leave.

They could charge they just don't want to and if it wasn't a start basketball player everyone would have been arrested.

WT got an antennae on his so he can get the latest conspiracy theories.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about because you are very much stuck in a black-and-white world and in that world if the DA could press charges then he absolutely would but that isn't the case.

Example: In LA, San Fran & NY DAs have come out and flat said we aren't going to prosecute certain crimes because they don't meet their social justice agenda. Take note that the laws were not changed, a legislative body didn't approve that position but they have CHOSEN not to pursue certain criminal charges that they ABSOLUTELY could charge but they simply don't have the desire to do so.

I will completely admit I do not know how that is possible but in the last 14 years we have seen DAs just randomly decide not to enforce the law and we have seen Presidents give executive orders not to enforce certain laws and that is on large scales and publically stated. There is no denying this is happening.

The main reasoning they all lean on for not charging is "knowledge and intent" meaning they don't believe he had knowledge that by delivering the gun it would be used in a crime and had no intent for the gun to be used for a crime. Now you are an attorney so you tell me is that a reasonable assumption? Seems to me it's pretty simple if someone at 1:30 am in the morning texts "I need a joint (slang for gun) a n****r jus got fakin" they are not hunting rabbits and have INTENT to at the very least use the firearm for intimidation purposes because if it was for defense they would simply leave.

They could charge they just don't want to and if it wasn't a start basketball player everyone would have been arrested.

You are trying to draw me into this and it won't work. I have no idea what ALL the facts are. Unless I know that, I am not opining one way or the other.

The DAs that are choosing to apply the law more progressively are not applicable here, IMO. It's not like he is not chosing to charge people with murder. Two have been so charged in this incident. As has been stated in the press, it appears there isn't enough evidence to charge Miller. That's a totally different thing.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

That is not my decision nor is it yours. There is a code of conduct at all Universities. If he is found to have breached that, or if charges are filed, then he will be released from the University. Not sure why you cannot see that.

If that is acceptable behavior, then it reinforces everything @Wild Turkey has said.

 

[BandwagonBo2]

If that is acceptable behavior, then it reinforces everything @Wild Turkey has said.

So you are in the guilty until proven innocent camp?

 

[Handicappers]

lol @ the homer defending the accessory to murder scumbag.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

So you are in the guilty until proven innocent camp?

You have low standards for Alabama players. We get it.

 

[Knight&Day]

I haven’t really been following this story all that closely.

But hundreds of athletes have been punished for doing far less than what Miller did.

Said punishments almost always came pretty quickly and without a ton of questions being asked.

Yeah not a good look.

 

[Handicappers]

Alabama is handling this in a very scummy way.

 

[fordman84]

True. You and I and maybe even the police cannot prove either way if Miller had intent.
So he's innocent until proven guilty

You don't have to be guilty for your coach to do the right thing.

 

[fordman84]

So every player who was all of the things you mentioned has turned out to be a star player in the history of college basketball, or football, or baseball, or any sport for that matter?

I get that you need someone to blame a person for having a differing opinion to yours on a subject, and wish to ridicule someone who thinks freely for themselves. I also see you complain when others try to pigeon hole you and claim you are a camp follower and not a free thinker, whether its in sports or politics, etc. So I will forgive you for not allowing me to have an opinion on this. To think I know a ton about Basketball is a failure on anyone who thinks that. I know very little, but I do know that Brandon Miller was just starting to come on early December, into January as a major force. I have friends who are big Basketball fans and they have stated he had promise, but was not a carrying force like he has become of late. As was noted previously, not everyone that has come into college sports with credentials has panned out to be a star. Sometimes its coaching, sometimes its scouting, sometimes its the player and his desire to do what is needed for growth at the next level. So please spare me his credentials coming into the season. What Bama got was a stud horse, but one with judgement issues it seems.

"He wasn't a star" were your words. You were wrong, you were making shit up. this thread isn't going to age well for you as more facts come out, and the basketball season ends.

 

[BandwagonBo2]

"He wasn't a star" were your words. You were wrong, you were making shit up. this thread isn't going to age well for you as more facts come out, and the basketball season ends.

He wasnt a star at the time, just a rising star. He was starting to show great promise, according to the friends i hang with that are basketball fans. Like I said earlier in a post, I have only seen a couple of games including the most recent ending of the SC game.

 

[fordman84]

He wasnt a star at the time, just a rising star. He was starting to show great promise, according to the friends i hang with that are basketball fans. Like I said earlier in a post, I have only seen a couple of games including the most recent ending of the SC game.

Then he is still a rising star by that standard.