It depends on the situation.
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
This is the correct answer: In the Hyde situation, IF (and I stress if, because way too many people forgot the word "allegedly" yesterday) the allegations of striking a woman are true, and if they were at all even remotely intentional or fueled by alcohol, then he should get the boot.
IF, however, the story is more like some rumors have suggested, and the contact was completely incidental, etc., then that is a different case entirely. Hopefully the alleged video will clear that up.
The Roby case, however, is why I agree that "it depends." Roby getting in a scuffle with a bouncer - while cause for loss of privileges, a visit to Coach Mick's House of Pain, etc. - should not be cause for dismissal, because it should be a teaching experience, not a zero-tolerance type of episode.
I voted "No" because it should be dependent on the situation.
The events of this past weekend are a perfect example of how different situations should be handled differently.
The first man gets the ((((Oyster)))), the second man gets the shell.
This is exactly the reason I answered No to the poll question.
There needs to be some area for allowing the coaching staff/university staff to make a decision based on the circumstances of the case.
this is the same vote and reason from me. Right is right and wrong is wrong, but context is like HiDef to analog bare facts
"What is our aim, I can tell you in one word. Victory" Winston Churchill
The way this poll question is written should make it an easy, rhetorical one to answer. Key phrase: "found guilty".
Don't text while driving.
That's kinda the way I read it. But of the 83 who have answered so far, a few have differing opinions on that, which I am guessing they would look at the circumstances surrounding the incident.
May you R.I.P. Otsego, but know this. Gaylord Rocks!
I wouldn't look "at the circumstances" because that's what the judge does. If it was minor then it usually gets reduced, etc. I'm OK with guilty = gone.
Remember Chris Carter? If you have enough talent it isn't necessarily the end of the world to get booted from the team.
If it said felony battery I would agree with you. But misdemeanor battery is so basic. Its the unlawful application of force to the victim. That could be pushing somebody out of the way. I dont think misdemeanor battery is good cause to remove a person from a team. Felony battery? No doubt.
"Who cares? Go Bucks." - Aaron Untch
That's why I voted yes as well. If the person was afforded due process and guilt guilty by jury of their peers than it seems pretty cut and dry to me.
But it's not always cut and dry.
Which part? The question was: If found guilty of battery should a player be immediately dismissed from the team?
That's not suspected of or charged with but found guilty. Meaning that the player in question has had his day in court.
Battery is defined in most jurisdictions as willful physical contact with the intent to cause bodily harm. That's where I draw the line. Misdemeanors are one thing and in my opinion don't always need to result in dismissal. My issue is that it's an offense involving violence towards another individual. That's the deciding factor for me.
If found guilty, how can you keep a player on a team?
That's my question.
If they are found guilty then yes they should be off kicked off the team.
But they should also have the opportunity to come back too. Take away their scholarship and make them pay for everything. Make them break their backs to earn back everything.
"assault" encompasses a wide range of actions, (Assault can be; intentional physical contact with another person without their consent (no actual harm needs to occur)....sound like something you have ever done at some point??) so even if convicted, I'm not sure a dismissal is always necessary. That being said, the player would/should be suspended from the arrest through trial, and that could be a few months, timed wrong, a season.....
This was what I commented on one of the articles yesterday. If he's suspended through a trial, his season/career is done @ Ohio State. Even if he is exonerated. That could take months to resolve.
My understanding is battery can be a broad term, but I don't believe serious physical harm has to be done to be convicted of battery. It is just unwanted touching. It could be a as simple as somebody throwing a ball somewhere they shouldn't be and hitting another person accidentally. Now I'm not totally sure of my understanding of the law, but I just can't say they should be dismissed no questions asked.
Battery requires intent to cause physical contact (by proxy, e.g., by throwing a ball at somebody, counts too). So if someone is trying to throw a ball at his neighbor's garage and accidentally hits his neighbor instead, not battery. On the other hand, if someone tries to throw a ball at his neighbor and accidentally hits his neighbor's wife, that's still battery (the intent to hit the neighbor is deemed transferred to the wife).
"A guy from Ohio can make it in life if he works hard enough." - Wayne Woodrow Hayes
It depends on the type we're talking about. Battery has some loose definitions varying by area. Shoving someone and then walking away can be battery. In the same context, struggling with a bouncer can be battery even with no punches thrown. Would I demand someone be booted from the team for that? No.
I would, depending on the circumstances, want that person suspended or booted. It really is in the details for me.
In the context of Roby, I don't know. Too early for me to pass judgement but based on what I've read so far (if accurate), no I don't believe he should be dismissed.
There really isn't enough information presented. If you're at a bar with your gf (or mom, or whoever), and some random, drunken jerk comes up to you unprovoked and calls her a whore, many otherwise reasonable men would respond by punching the jerk in the face. This act alone could result in a misdemeanor battery charge. (Yes, I know that many criminal codes fold "battery" into the definition of "assault," but I have no idea how the Indiana criminal code is set up). I may be in the minority here, and I am not saying that punching the jerk is the mature, appropriate response, but no, I do not believe that being found guilty of battery given this fact pattern merits immediate dismissal from the team. Multigame suspension? Sure. Additional community service requirement imposed by the team? Sure. But being found guilty of battery could encompass a broad array of actions, many of which are far less severe and far less deplorable than hitting a girl in the face outside of Sugar Bar.
I have a misdemeanor assault. It was 5 yrs ago I got it. I punched a ex friend, who trashed my car, in the face. He went to cops. I went to jail. I lost. He won. I would not say I wouldn't do it again. I'm just saying at the time , before cops are involved, it is a lose lose. Because of what I did I was not permitted to coach my kids this year. For the first time in 6 yrs. So for my opinion, they should take it case by case. I don't know a single person who has never broken the law. But if you hurt some else and it wasn't self defense you need to be taught a lesson. If being kicked off or being suspended is our coaches issued punishment, then I am ok with THEIR decision.
Bury me in my away jersey, with my buckeye blanket. A diehard who died young. Rip dad.
Thanks for being honest and sharing that, bro. But I'm still scratching my head at your comment "I would not say I wouldn't do it again."
I would hope that if anyone did that to your car again, let the police handle it. I mean that. It's just an object. Sooner or later we're all going to be dead, and the only thing left is the relationships we build. I hope I am not coming across as pompous or self-righteous, because I have done many things that I regret. Although I've never been arrested. Anyway, peace brotha. :)
No sir. I don't take you as pompous or self righteous. I don't know why I worded it that way. Maybe because it did teach me about things I was previously blind to. My own self control being the number one thing. The anger management classes were a giant help to me. I didn't sit in a class. The teacher felt that one on one would be better for me. I think he was right. The way the court system worked was another thing I learned. What it was like in jail was another thing I learned.
With that all said if I had a do over, but I had the knowledge I have now, I would not hit him again. I do not hold regrets. Life is all about learning. I am not proud of my actions that day. I am proud what I gained from it. I don't think I would be where I am had I not went through my past. I hope this makes sense. I don't want any head scratching. Lol
Like many have alluded too the question is too vague to give a yes/no answer. It all depends on the situation.
If the Hyde situation turns out that he purposely struck a girl in the face, then yes he should be kicked off the team no questions asked. That is absolutely inexcusable.
The Roby situation is a lot different. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for 2 reasons. One reason is he has had no previous history of misbehavior/lack of effort, let alone any criminal activity. Hyde on the other hand had academic problems before enrolling as well as his twitter explosion about his lack of PT. Before the most recent incident though, it seemed that he turned the corner and was a dedicated Buckeye. As for Roby, as far as we know anyway, he was never in the doghouse, let alone arrested. Reason number two is that scuffles like these tend to happen, especially with bouncers. I am not advocating what Roby did, it was wrong, but striking a bouncer in the chest doesn't come close to warrant a dismissal from the team, like the poll question suggest. I think a 2-game suspension and revoke his captain status is more than fair.
Double post, having some internet connection problems. My apologies.
For me the Hyde situation will just have to play out. Not enough data.
With the Roby incident, though, If the bouncers put their hands on him, THAT is assault. The way I see it, he acted in self-defense. They assaulted him, then when he retaliated, he got the blame. Sounds like a setup to me. Any reasonable attorney should be able to get this tossed out.
Side Note: When you are two weeks from starting the Chase, you should be resting - not at a bar.
A bouncer has the legal right to physically prevent you from entering the establishment once they have informed you that you can't enter the premises. Continuing to enter after that point makes you a trespasser.
There are of course limits. A bouncer can't pick you up and throw you into the pavement in the street but they are legally able to use reasonable force.
I'm not sure that is accurate. A bouncer is just a normal citizen. They do not have the right to do anything "physically" to anyone. They have the "right" to contact the police to handle the situation, assist with breaking up fights, protect other guests and to defend themselves.
In the Roby case, according to reports (Dispatch), Roby "was asked to leave a bar after a disturbance, refused, and was subdued by bouncers at the bar before being taken into custody."
Didn't anyone else see "Rising Sun" with Sean Connery? :-)
Hmmm, I think you're right in that bouncers are still private citizens with no special rights, but I think the situation is complicated by the fact that the bar/club is private property. I can see how that can make a little of things a little more grey than black and white.
Customers have no right to be on the property.
Still see your point though. Not sure how that plays out in court. Interesting.
A bouncer is representative as a employee of said establishment. They are there to enforce the rights of any business to allow or refuse entry/re-entry to a patron. They also have the right to kick someone out, the same as any property owner.
I'm fairly certain the report I read stated that Roby was removed. When he attempted to get back in to get to his friends he was told no, then the altercation ensued.
Even as a 'regular citizen' I have the right to refuse entry to my property. Bouncers have that right as representatives of the property owner. The only issue is use of force. Doesn't seem like there was anything close to excessive by any outlet.
Doesn't seem like there was anything close to excessive by any outlet.
It doesn't have to be excessive - it just has to be intentional physical contact. I believe they have the right to "ask you to leave", not to "kick you out". That responsibility falls on you (as the guest being asked to leave), or if you won't leave, on the police.
I will agree with you that while inside a private property in general, removal can be murky. In this instance though, from what I've seen, this is a mute issue. Roby was already outside the establishment attempting to get back in. He had no right to re-enter once told he couldn't.
It gets extremely complicated when dealing with this. There are differing standards based off jurisdiction, security personnel & potential certifications/permits, etc. The only point I'm trying to make here is that after Roby was outside and told no entry permitted, any action to enter afterwards, permits the bouncer(s) to use reasonable force to stop him.
How he was initially removed or told to? I don't know know. Don't know if he voluntarily left or was picked up and taken outside. Like I said, it can get pretty murky/convoluted. Some sites out there that just state blatantly "No, they can't" aren't exactly encompassing everything involved.
any action to enter afterwards, permits the bouncer(s) to use reasonable force to stop him.
Again, this isn't a private residence (even then, you can only physically touch someone if you feel/are threatened) - The bouncer is permitted to block the entry to "protect the guests and the establishment" - but not permitted to so much as put a hand on someone's chest to refuse entry. They cannot grab an arm. Both of those are assault. (granted, you'd have to be quite the wuss if you are a professional amateur athlete and whined that someone grabbed your arm - Though the same goes for the bouncer filing charges because he took one to the chest).
The only truly correct answer to any of this is "call the police and protect your guests".
Sorry for taking this beyond the context of this specific incident. But like with most things, prior actions (being removed from the bar) can directly influence what happens after. And may have legal ramifications. Another bit of information we are missing is what was said.
For example, if the bouncers said anything threatening to him, that may be grounds for self defense.
All-in-all we have absolutely no idea what took place, and we may never know - but isn't speculation what makes college football so entertaining? :-)
Hmm, going to give a friend a call (phone a friend) and ask him on this. Was a bouncer through law school and a criminal defense atty now.
Enjoyed the convo ;)
Same here! Criminal Defense attorneys know all of the loopholes. That's how a burglar can sue the homeowner if they trip over something while robbing their house :-)
Have a great day - Go Bucks!
One last bit (and seriously, I'm not being contentious, just enjoying the conversation)...
Continuing to enter after that point makes you a trespasser.
I'm pretty sure that in a public (though privately owned) establishment you are not legally "trespassing" unless you have been issued a writ of trespass from the police. Kind of like a restraining order for a location.
I don't think you're being contentious at all? Enjoying the conversation as well!
Kinda- I do know you can be guilty of trespassing without a writ of trespass.
A writ of trespass is issued when the business (or other property owner) has forbid future entry. Very much like the restraining order you state. If the police issue a writ of trespass and you return, you are violation.
The writ of trespass, however, is separate an distinct from simple trespass. If I enter your property and you or your representative ask me to leave (or if I've entered in violation of a sign you posted) and I do not, I am guilty of trespass. I am not guilty, however, until ASKED to leave.
Generally the penalty for violating a writ of trespass if much much higher than the penalty for being asked to leave and refusing.
Trespass laws are pretty important in Virginia where I live, as those are actually the laws that govern concealed carry on private property.
I think where it gets nebulous is in what happens after the property asks me to leave. If I refuse, what actions can they take? Only calling the police? What if I'm belligerent? What if I push them? That is where bouncers fall- that large grey area.
What if I push them?
If you push them, then they are acting in self-defense which is within any citizen's rights. If you are belligerent, that does not warrant physical contact unless you are making threats (which would be a different set of laws, altogether).
If they ask you to leave and you do not, they should contact the police.
If the victim is a female or a child, yes, you should be kicked off the team. Otherwise, depends on the situation.
Class of 2010.
Always depends on the situation. What if the "child" was 16 and harming someone else. What if the female (insert circumstance here). I agree with your general notion though. Dudes that hit chics should be dealt with harshly.
Entirely depends on two factors A. the circumstances and B. the player. Certainly there are a few instances that IMO would warrant it, i.e. hitting a female or otherwise cold cocking a guy from behind when you don't appear to be a part of the scuffle to begin with (see. the video of the LSU Running Back).
As to the point B. if its player who made one mistake and got in an argument at a bar with some bouncers who has never been in trouble for no you don't dismiss him.
I voted Undecided because like many have said, it is a very vague term. Ex: Roby's situation doesn't sound very serious to me (while it is still stupid). However, I'm sure there's definitely situations that would suggest a dismissal was appropriate.
Don't give up... Don't ever give up.
Yes, with shades of grey. Every situation is different, circumstances should determine length/permanence of punishment.
At the end of the day, discipline has exist. These young men are privileged, not entitled, and should be held to standard.
I voted yes in the context of what Hyde allegedly did. If he is found guilty (after being arrested which hasn't happened yet), then yes he is off the team.
Each situation is different; what Roby allegedly did does not constitute a dismissal (suspension yes, dismissal no).
Columbus to Pasadena: 35 hours. We're on a road trip through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine... and Rose Bowl wins!
Battery could be a simple wrestling match. You could push a drunk person at a concert and that could be battery. You could be defending your girlfriend or sibling and that could be battery. Battery is way too complex to simply kick someone off of the team. It isn't robbery or murder or something like that where the crime "is what it is"
In the most basic context - Felony assault: Yes - Misdemeanor assault: No.
Battery is too open ended to just say, yay or nay. You could intentionally poke someone and solely because it's unwanted or permissible contact, you can be charged with "assault".
...I too dream in color and in rhyme
So I guess I'm one of a kind in a full house
Cause whenever I open my heart, my soul or my mouth
A touch of God rains out...
i might be alone on this issue the only times you should lay a hand on a woman (outside of well you know) is if your life is in danger. if she comes at you with a knife or some sort of weapon. other than that NO just NO.
Most of us probably wouldn't disagree with that basic assessment, but the survey question wasn't specifically referring to the Hyde allegations, which are still pretty murky at this point.
The only thing I'll say is that for those of us who are fortunate enough to have never been involved with allegations of such "he said, she said" allegations, it may not be as black and white/clear cut as we might like or assume.
All batteries or assaults are not the same. Sometimes punching someone might be the right thing to do. Situations vary.
Sometimes force is the only way to put an end to certain situations.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
The question needs more detail. There are many levels of battery. You can shove someone and they don't fall down, have any injuries or loss of blood etc and still be arrested, tried and convicted of battery. So in that case I would say no. But if you beat someone up or cause them some bodily harm where they can't work or have to be in a hospital etc. then yes!
Because they wouldn't let me go for 3!
Woody Hayes 1913-1987
No one has the right to put their hands on another person. I actually have a problem with people coming within arms reach, if they're confrontational. Defending yourself or someone else from physical harm is one thing, an altercation with a willing party is another, but punching or beating someone "just because", is it's own animal. Being found guilty in a court of law of assault or battery is the deciding factor for me. You've got to go.
Hopefully some of you crazies out there understand the difference between Assault and Battery. If you don't know someone that has experienced it, you are lucky. Ignorant, but lucky. (Don't get your panties in a bunch since i said you were ignorant either, it only means you do not know)
Basking in the wake of mediocrity.....
Violence against women is never acceptable. Fortunately (for the alleged victim and our Bucks) it looks like that was not what happened in this situation.