Charges aren't convictions, the latter requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the former does not even require probable cause (pre-preliminary hearing). That is the fact people are ignoring here. Charges are little more than a negotiation ploy. There is no plead deal if the prosecutor/police start with disorderly conduct. You plead guilt or go to trial. Felony assault pled to disorderly, everyone goes home happy. The prosecutor gets a conviction, the accused gets a hell of a legal deal.
Help me out why so much hysteria about basically fist fights ?
- Thread starter PINGDUDE4
- Start date
Charges aren't convictions, the latter requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the former does not even require probable cause (pre-preliminary hearing). That is the fact people are ignoring here. Charges are little more than a negotiation ploy. There is no plead deal if the prosecutor/police start with disorderly conduct. You plead guilt or go to trial. Felony assault pled to disorderly, everyone goes home happy. The prosecutor gets a conviction, the accused gets a hell of a legal deal.
Practicalities vs. Theory. I swing a baseball bat at you, but only graze you --I have committed attempted felony assault at a minimum. But I am not likely to be prosecuted. I stupidly swing a baseball bat in a crowded room "accidentally" caving your head in, leaving you a vegetable. I may not have committed a crime (were my actions recklessly different?), but the prosecutor going to be after me.
Good point on the Code of Conduct but my point is, 1) what evidence of misconduct is there and 2)Does it matter if there are extenuating circumstances? It isn't about the law, you say. So rumor is worthy of expulsion? What if there were racial slurs, pushing and shoving, "don't want your kind here"... cripes, I've seen someone piss all over a dude that was passed out. The "pisser" was summarily beaten up. (I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED AT ALL. JUST USING THIS AS A FIGURATIVE ILLUSTRATION)… I mean those are all extreme circumstances but what do we really know regarding any detail on these specific instances? I'd wager this expulsion was so quick, this board certainly doesn't know all these kinds of facts. Waiting to find facts is not a bad thing. And since it isn't about law, waiting to find both sides of the story, or dare I say it facts, might be a good thing.
Regarding the definition of a fight. We are just on 2 different pages. I get what you are saying, you just aren't willing or wanting to see/understand/acknowledge what I'm trying to say. It is very complicated, that is why it should be a case by case basis. But felony is a pretty steep curve. That will literally ruin any convicted person's life. Will a broken nose or jaw ruin the other persons? Strongly doubt it… unless there is an element of wussification. THAT is my point. I love the overall concept of "punitive" damages. You hit me, I'll hit you twice. This seems to follow that. "A punch isn't a big deal but we want to make sure you never do it again, so we'll charge you with Felony Assault." kind of thing. But this is so strong handed, it's incredible to me. Have our Constitutional Rights become so "ho hum" in peoples minds that taking them away from others is THIS easy? Over a black eye?
Everyone can bring up instances in our imaginations that would ruin someones life if they got a broken jaw or that "golden punch" as someone brought up before. But that isn't what we are specifically talking about, with these specific incidents. The "what-if" game doesn't apply. We are talking about specific altercations.
As I said, you can come with numerous potential scenarios, with gray areas between the ends of the spectrum of possibilities.
What I am talking about is this specific case. One punch, maybe two (according to most accounts) No broken jaw, no FELONY charges.
So 95....if the frat boys you speak of--say they were on the football team. Say they drugged a female and had sex with the female. But the details are murky. Should they be kicked off the team if there is an accusation of date rape? How about school?
Now, what if there was partial video and eye witnesses?
You don't think between July 25th and September 10th the board couldn't look at the reports, do a little investigation and come to a determination?
I believe the report was a punch, then a kick to the jaw while on the ground.
Certainly a pretty big difference if that kick is factual.
Just glanced at this code of conduct that you attached and now curious as to why the promoters of the frat party were not held to this standard and also reprimanded by the school ( expelled) ?
Alcohol.
Use, possession, manufacture, or distribution of alcoholic beverages (except as expressly permitted by university regulations, and federal, state, and local laws), or public intoxication. Alcoholic beverages may not, in any circumstance, be used by, possessed by, or distributed to any person not of legal age.
Yup. If the guy was kicked in the face when down, it would probably change things in many folks' eyes.
I haven't followed every detail of the case in the last few weeks so this is news to me. I have been going on what has been discussed up until about the start of the season. At that point, what I had read and heard didn't include any stomping/face kicking.
I haven't tried to bury my head in the sand, or anything. But, there's only so much craxp a guy can take with the start of the season being so dismal - poor team play, losses, multiple players accused of mayhem (not speaking in the legal definition sense of the word, so don't any of you attys get your panties in a bunch), etc, etc.
So, I have mostly stayed away from message boards, as a rule. Going to all the games has gotten me riled up enough without the piling on that occurs by outraged fans (and the media).
Don't know anything other than what I have read. Not talking about the charges but the school's action. If they are going to expel the player which may or may not be correct. Why are they are not also looking into whether there was alcohol served at the frat party to minors where the brawl took place ? Here again the school not the criminal matter. Maybe there was not any alcohol involved or no minors. I am just reading the code of conduct.
Usually a brawl like the one in the video is fueled by alcohol, maybe in this case it was too many cookies and cupcakes. Who knows.
There have been some pictures shared showing some kegs and other evidence of booze at that frat party.
I'm not 95, but NO, I don't think they can. However, I may be completely full of it.
Here are the questions I want answered about this kangaroo court (because that's what it appears to be, to me): does the accused get to face his accuser? yes is he afforded the right to legal representation? yes is he afforded all the evidence presented against him before the proceedings? uncertain, but appears no Is there an appeal process? procedural only
I mean, the DA can't decide on whether or not to even press charges, but a panel of students can decide that because he was involved in a physical altercation that he is expelled? Did he admit to kicking the kid on the ground? Or that he was even the kid in the video? Are they held to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or can they rule on what their gut tells them? I get the impression that its the latter.
***** EDIT ***** some of my questions answered here. I'm still not thrilled with the format or the fact that a students academic career can be decided in "an hour or two."
Last edited:
Good input, Bleed. I didn't see Ed's post so thanks for bringing it up. EDIT: And to the initial question, I strongly doubt they have access to police records prior to any court hearing. That would break, at least a couple laws, as I understand them. So IMHO, I don't see how they have any true facts, from the police. They may be interviewing but I don't think they have any real authority so there is no way to know if anyone is lying.
And here's my thing about these kind of "committee's"… They do not necessarily have a "standard". Do they have the "Conduct" thingy? Sure. But everything else, seems to be very loose. Ping brings up the alcohol at the frat. They will let that slide, most likely as evidence over the past 100 years of parties at WSU and all the fights that have been involved in them without a football player.
They are the police, they are the DA, they are the jury, they are the judge. That, by procedure, seems very wrong.
Just for discussion here are the standards any University must meet for expulsion or suspension of a student >
"Public colleges and universities are governmental institutions, their disciplinary proceedings are legally constrained in certain ways. Specifically, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution promise that the government will not deprive any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This means that campus disciplinary proceedings must be handled in a standardized, consistent manner—that is, not in an arbitrary manner chosen for this or that particular case—and must include procedural safeguards that match the seriousness of the potential punishment."
The reason I asked about the alcohol deal is that any decent attorney worth his degree should be able to argue that this expulsion was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.
Probably unknown to this committee is that recently several students are winning civil cases right and left against universities for unlawful expulsion. These cases are actually in more serious matters than this one, and the Universities are losing because of the not meeting the due process standard . The PC climate may have invaded college campuses and clouded certain faculty members minds, but fortunately we still are a nation of constitutional law.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...against-colleges-punished-them-sexual-assault
"Public colleges and universities are governmental institutions, their disciplinary proceedings are legally constrained in certain ways. Specifically, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution promise that the government will not deprive any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This means that campus disciplinary proceedings must be handled in a standardized, consistent manner—that is, not in an arbitrary manner chosen for this or that particular case—and must include procedural safeguards that match the seriousness of the potential punishment."
The reason I asked about the alcohol deal is that any decent attorney worth his degree should be able to argue that this expulsion was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.
Probably unknown to this committee is that recently several students are winning civil cases right and left against universities for unlawful expulsion. These cases are actually in more serious matters than this one, and the Universities are losing because of the not meeting the due process standard . The PC climate may have invaded college campuses and clouded certain faculty members minds, but fortunately we still are a nation of constitutional law.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...against-colleges-punished-them-sexual-assault
And being thrown out of a club deprives you of what basic right? Stop conflating rights afforded those who might be subject to incarceration, with being denied the privilege of taking Chem 105 at WSU or playing the back 9. Think Tom Brady not Nelson Mandela. Brady's "case" got laughed out of court ... eventually.
Tom Brady's salary wasn't being paid for by tax payer dollars. Neither is the NFL funded (outside of owners extorting municipalities for stadiums...) from the public coffers.
And the article Ping links speaks directly to the arbitrary nature of the "judicial" process amongst these councils on college campuses.
I would pose one more question: how many students have come before the council for fighting, and how many of them have been expelled? They have a duty to rule evenly and fairly, because WSU isn't a private club, its a publicly funded institution.
I am guessing they saw the video. As to the rest of your questions I can take a shot at it. I am sure he was present at the hearing/board/panel/meeting. I would guess he was asked to answer some questions. For example, "is this you in the video?" Yes. "Is this you continuing to beat the kid up once he is on the ground"? Yes. "Did you feel threatened by the guy who is a buck 85"? No. "What was the altercation about"? They asked us to leave.
Was legal representation present? Doubt it. And clearly there is an appeals process.
See, this really isn't a problem if he leaves. Clearly he and other people who are getting money to play football have a bunch to lose, especially when his peers say his behavior is unacceptable.
So you think he stood in front of the board with the explicit knowledge he could easily be expelled and he answered whatever questions openly in HOPES that they would take mercy on him? You're crystal ball is much clearer than mine. You know how to make crap up, with the best of them.
If this boy stomped on someone, that's a pretty big deal. I'm not defending THAT. IMO, that is a step beyond a good ol fashion fight. That goes a bit more to intent. You stomp and you are trying to do more damage. The problem I have is how this ethics board, or whatever, is structured and seemingly conducted. The same way they would probably say that they aren't "targeting" football players, "They are just in the spotlight a bit and it's that light that brings these actions to their attention." OK, but that cuts both ways then. When you deal with a football player, you also bring that same spotlight onto the board. So you better be fair, solid in procedure and unbiassed. If he is guilty and worthy of taking his education away, so be it. But it should be done properly and this board doesn't pass the sniff test, IMHO.
I almost wonder, if we take Ed's pretend scenario as a possibility… He was humble enough to take credit for his actions. Even by Ed's description, he sounds humble. And they still expel him? Is there precedent on this? I ask because if there isn't precedent, doesn't this sound a lot like they wanted to make an example of him? So he could have been crying in front of the board, standing there bearing his emotion on his sleeve, humble, with character witness's present, etc. etc. but they wanted to send a message to the football program… Does this sound proper to anyone?
This thread made me think of the ending of "A Few Good Men". At the end of the movie, they are found not guilty of the murder charges but still dismissed from the Marine Corps. The young kid just can't understand why he's getting booted. At some point, when it comes down to "conduct unbecoming", it's less about the legal definitions of assault or other crimes and it just comes down to whether or not they should have known better. So far, Barber and the other guys that have gotten in trouble are all definitely guilty of that. It might be unfair and capricious, and at the end of the day, he might have a legal case if he cared to pursue, but Barber should have known better than getting involved in a fight with a bunch of people that he had no business fighting. It's hard to feel too much sympathy for blatant stupidity.
Whether or not he did it is a strawman.
The question is whether his misdeeds merit expulsion and whether other or not other students have been expelled for similar offenses.
Are any of you aware of other violent altercations involving non-athletic students? If so, what was their punishment if any?
I would still wonder if there is a double standard operating here?The student board s composition has never been made public. One wonders if athletes and Greeks are represented equally? The scenario presented is a lop sided one, Perhaps Barber feels that he was provoked and responded in kind and didn t stop to think that a small person like Ed was standing in front of him?Barber may not think that he should be apologetic but is more PO d because he was unfairly targeted?
There probably is a double standard here where Barber is being punished more than a non-athlete would be. What so many of you are failing to understand is that is probably appropriate to some degree. Barber was granted a "free" education at WSU, elite status amongst his peers, free food, free lodging and "work" experience that might lead to a life changing opportunity in the NFL. Being a student athlete at a university makes you one of the most noticeable representatives of who and what makes up Washington State University. With all of the privileges that he gets as a student athlete, he also gained the burden of being more likely to get punished harshly if he screwed up.
I see all the racist sh!t that some of my friends post on Facebook and shake my head. I have a co-worker who embodies every negative stereotype of the overly religious, far-right, gun-toting, racist-as-hell, mid-western, arch-conservative a-hole that you might envision coming from a red state. He's so far to the right that I look like a democrat compared to him. He puts up posts that make me cringe on a daily basis. If he had any type of real standing in the community where anyone of real importance noticed him, he would probably get fired at least once a week. Instead, he's just one of millions of faceless a$$holes that are a part of the problem in our country.
How many "celebrities" have damaged/destroyed their careers with a short rant that millions of others have made without harm? Should they get away with saying or doing terrible things because my co-worker gets away with it?
I won't speak for anyone else but I'm not nearly as concerned about a "higher standard" (not a double standard) for the players. I get that. And I wouldn't doubt it if this specific issue gets him booted. But my issue is the board and how they are structured and how decisions are made and HOW the issues come before this board. I don't care if its the frat boys, the football player or a no-name person with a 2.8 GPA. With this incident, the light is on the board as much as Barber, IMHO. And I don't like how they are judging people. To me, this isn't about Barber anymore. He's just the example that potentially shows the bias, the unfairness, etc. etc. that could be affecting more than just a football player.
EDIT: and to that end, it just dawned on me, everyone is talking about how the football program has had all these issues… Is Barber the only one that has come before the board? To me, if this is true, shows yet another red flag. Legally, felony charges and that DOESN'T warrant a visit before the board?
Last edited:
I don't understand how it's a strawman.
And I have no idea if other students have been expelled for fighting. I would assume they have to have some sort of precedent to expel a student like that.
We just keeping coming up with theories about how this process must be tainted in some way. I'm merely pointing out it's entirely plausible (and all bias aside, more likely "probable") that Barber just beat some dude up for no good reason.
No, I don't think admitted to anything. What I don't believe is 7 people behind closed doors had a double secret meeting with no evidence, just one persons word that Barber was involved in a fight. Hey rumor had it Barber misbehaved...off with his head.
I think cell phones were brought in, I think a few eye witnesses came in and said beat the kid while he was down. And his peers good or bad are the people on the board. Life isn't fair.
And he like Luani will play the entire season. At least Luani had to sit a game for not getting out of Dominos when he should have.
Of course there's the possibility/probability that he just plain "did it".
But saying "the police found enough evidence to arrest him" and the "student conduct board found enough to expel him" in NO WAY means he is/was guilty as charged.
I honestly have great respect and support for most of those who are part of the legal system, from the street cops, all the way up the chain. Because I have no background in law, policing, or anything similar, I am probably the last one who should be pointing out the obvious - that 1) they system is, at times, totally fallible and that 2) there's supposed to be a presumption of innocence in this country.
One only has to look at the headlines of current times to see that the police do "eff up" sometimes.
I have no idea what so ever how the student conduct board operates - what their standard of evidence is, what evidence they even look at, what sort of "defense" is available for someone in front of said board, what sort of "impartiality or bias" exists among board members, who those board members are and what sort of background they bring to the proceedings, etc..
So I have a hard time commenting on their "findings". Maybe the expulsion was totally justified? That's certainly a possibility. Maybe it was a rush to judgement, based on the arrest itself, a couple of eyewitness reports (by possibly biased "observers"?) and a poor quality cell phone video (I have not seen any video, so I really don't know?) I honestly think that's a possibility, as well.
Part of the problem I have had with any of these situations is that the players involved have seemingly been tried and convicted in the media, and the court of public opinion, before the actual legal system has had a chance to really operate. And, no, I don't really have a great deal of faith in "student conduct boards", without knowing a whole damn lot more about who makes up the board, how capable they really are of making a "just determination", and what the process they use entails.
But you left out the most important point: WHERE was outside??? You walk outside with a .22 (LR has to do with the round not the pistol) in Tuscaloosa and you get laughed at....you do it in NYC you go away....etc., etc
Heh - shame on Flatland. .22 shorts are the bullet of preference for in-town shooting. At least for varmints - don't think they would bring down a raging DE unless you got an eye shot.
That said, can this thread end? Please?
A 22 cal hand gun is a very dangerous weapon. One a head shot can kill and a 22 cal bullet bouncing around inside a rib cage will kill any size of man or do tremendous damage to internal organs.A larger cal bullet will go right through a person. I saw a 6'3 270 pd man shot with a 22 pistol and he went down and was lucky to survive.
Similar threads
