Jump to content
HurricaneWrestling2

College Wrestler Dies from Heatstroke

Recommended Posts

Just now, MSU158 said:

Reading comprehension, yet again.  I am actually starting to get embarrassed for some of you.  I posted MULTIPLE TIMES, that I only see enough evidence to pursue civil and hope, if there is in fact reason to charge criminally, that the civil case brings that information to light, so that a prosecutor could pursue charges.  

So, you are boldly calling for a civil trial, but you don't want criminal proceedings. Just like I said. Are you drunk already? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheHeel said:

It was when he wrote: "I actually ENDORSED a civil one and I simply said we don't have all the info necessary to say a criminal one should happen"

 

why don't you go for a jog or do some pushups? you have some work to do.

Wow, this is comical.  In NO WAY does that mean I personally do not want criminal charges.  Saying I don't see enough to do so doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be warranted if the civil proceedings push hard enough to give the evidence to do so.

Again, I believe in our legal system enough that a prosecutor doesn't simply avoid indicting a murderer, UNLESS he STRONGLY believes he simply doesn't have the evidence to do so.  Shame on me for that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheHeel said:

So, you are boldly calling for a civil trial, but you don't want criminal proceedings. Just like I said. Are you drunk already? 

Do you understand the difference?  Hell, even OJ was convicted of civil charges, but exonerated criminally.  There is a difference. Actually READ and find out what those are before calling someone drunk...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MSU158 said:

Wow, this is comical.  In NO WAY does that mean I personally do not want criminal charges.  Saying I don't see enough to do so doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be warranted if the civil proceedings push hard enough to give the evidence to do so.

Again, I believe in our legal system enough that a prosecutor doesn't simply avoid indicting a murderer, UNLESS he STRONGLY believes he simply doesn't have the evidence to do so.  Shame on me for that...

So you finally admit you want to see criminal charges? Thank for growing an ethical barometer during this debate. Its good to know that Mike and myself were able to help you see the flaw in your original position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

Do you understand the difference?  Hell, even OJ was convicted of civil charges, but exonerated criminally.  There is a difference. Actually READ and find out what those are before calling someone drunk...

Reading comprehension is your friend. I didn't call you drunk. I asked if you were drunk. Huge difference. Don't be intellectually dishonest. Its unbecoming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheHeel said:

Reading comprehension is your friend. I didn't call you drunk. I asked if you were drunk. Huge difference. Don't be intellectually dishonest. Its unbecoming. 

Agreed, you inferred.  I recant and instead say, "Do not question drunkenness, when you can't even accurately determine what my stance actually is!"  Fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you two yahoo's won't understand this because it contains logic but here is the breakdown

Mike and Lurk = admittedly don't know all the facts but want a criminal conviction no matter what because they read a news article about the case. 

dman and MSU = Understand that there is probably a ton of facts that are not known so chose to not make any sort of judgmental comments about the case.  Both agree that if there is sufficient evidence then the coaches should be charged to the full extent of the law both crimanally and civilly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheHeel said:

So you finally admit you want to see criminal charges? Thank for growing an ethical barometer during this debate. Its good to know that Mike and myself were able to help you see the flaw in your original position. 

Again, not what I said.  I said, IF and the key word is IF, there becomes any indictable evidence, I would THEN want criminal proceedings.  That is different than saying I have to see them and it is ALSO different than saying I don't want to see them.  I don't see how I can be ANY MORE clear than that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dman115 said:

I know you two yahoo's won't understand this because it contains logic but here is the breakdown

Mike and Lurk = admittedly don't know all the facts but want a criminal conviction no matter what because they read a news article about the case. 

 

Where did I say that?
Quote me.

Edited by Mike Parrish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dman115 said:

I know you two yahoo's won't understand this because it contains logic but here is the breakdown

Mike and Lurk = admittedly don't know all the facts but want a criminal conviction no matter what because they read a news article about the case. 

dman and MSU = Understand that there is probably a ton of facts that are not known so chose to not make any sort of judgmental comments about the case.  Both agree that if there is sufficient evidence then the coaches should be charged to the full extent of the law both crimanally and civilly.

 

Do you understand the difference between being charged vs convicted or nah? Said it was wild to me they hadn’t been charged and that it makes me skeptical of the investigation. You guys proceeded to say that the fact the cops investigated with no charges means they are probably innocent, I countered by saying authorities investigated Larry nassar several times without charges, so maybe we should question their findings sometimes. MSU proceeded to suggest those people who investigated him deserve benefit of the doubt and may have done their jobs well despite the fact they were literally investigating an active sexual predator and found nothing. If an investigator investigates one of the most prolific sexual predators to ever live and fails to find anything they did an objectively ****ty job of investigating. Hard stop.

I graduated from Michigan state too by the way - it makes we want to barf seeing msu in someone’s username as they put more trust in the people who poorly investigated nassar than the victims who reported him to them. I’m sure you guys will find a way to move the goalposts, but I don’t really care to engage beyond this and likely won’t read it so feel free to save yourself the time. Maybe you can use those extra few minutes to defend the Uvalde police on Facebook or something. 

Edited by lurk_nowitzki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, lurk_nowitzki said:

Do you understand the difference between being charged vs convicted or nah? Said it was wild to me they hadn’t been charged and that it makes me skeptical of the investigation. You guys proceeded to say that the fact the cops investigated with no charges means they are probably innocent, I countered by saying authorities investigated Larry nassar several times without charges, so maybe we should question their findings sometimes. MSU proceeded to suggest those people who investigated him deserve benefit of the doubt and may have done their jobs well despite the fact they were literally investigating an active sexual predator and found nothing. If an investigator investigates one of the most prolific sexual predators to ever live and fails to find anything they did an objectively ****ty job of investigating. Hard stop.

I graduated from Michigan state too by the way - it makes we want to barf seeing msu in someone’s username as they put more trust in the people who poorly investigated nassar than the victims who reported him to them. I’m sure you guys will find a way to move the goalposts, but I don’t really care to engage beyond this and likely won’t read it so feel free to save yourself the time. Maybe you can use those extra few minutes to defend the Uvalde police on Facebook or something. 

Yet another person that puts words in my mouth.  As a result, feel free to barf and I won't feel bad for you.

To be clear, I think the situation sucks.  I feel bad for EVERY single victim.  I have said I hope Nassar rots in jail and the hereafter.  But, that doesn't mean I have the right to disparage everyone else that may or may not have been involved or known anything or investigated anything. The simple truth is you have NO IDEA if anyone else did anything wrong.  You have no idea who did their job to the very best of their abilities. Who had things going on in their life, like everyone else on the planet does, that may have influenced them not being perfect at their job, but not intentionally doing anything to mess up their job.  That doesn't even account for all the other MSU employees that almost assuredly had a difficult, time consuming work load that didn't exactly lend time to investigate someone law enforcement deemed clear of wrong doing.  Sexual assault is one of the most difficult crimes to prove.  In many cases, without dna evidence or witnesses, it is strictly a he said, she said situation.  You can be in the most suspicious mode possible.  Ask every question possible.  Leave no stone unturned, but you can't CREATE evidence.

The ONLY thing I have really been saying is NONE OF US have enough info to truly pass judgement on ANYONE but Nassar, nor are we really in a position to truly do so if we did.

Finally, that in no way means that I am "defending" anyone.  I am just not "judging" anyone when I can't possibly know enough to rightly do so.  I hope everyone guilty of wrong doing is eventually found out and punishment is/has been properly meted out in every situation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MSU158 said:

Yet another person that puts words in my mouth.  As a result, feel free to barf and I won't feel bad for you.

To be clear, I think the situation sucks.  I feel bad for EVERY single victim.  I have said I hope Nassar rots in jail and the hereafter.  But, that doesn't mean I have the right to disparage everyone else that may or may not have been involved or known anything or investigated anything. The simple truth is you have NO IDEA if anyone else did anything wrong.  You have no idea who did their job to the very best of their abilities. Who had things going on in their life, like everyone else on the planet does, that may have influenced them not being perfect at their job, but not intentionally doing anything to mess up their job.  That doesn't even account for all the other MSU employees that almost assuredly had a difficult, time consuming work load that didn't exactly lend time to investigate someone law enforcement deemed clear of wrong doing.  Sexual assault is one of the most difficult crimes to prove.  In many cases, without dna evidence or witnesses, it is strictly a he said, she said situation.  You can be in the most suspicious mode possible.  Ask every question possible.  Leave no stone unturned, but you can't CREATE evidence.

The ONLY thing I have really been saying is NONE OF US have enough info to truly pass judgement on ANYONE but Nassar, nor are we really in a position to truly do so if we did.

Finally, that in no way means that I am "defending" anyone.  I am just not "judging" anyone when I can't possibly know enough to rightly do so.  I hope everyone guilty of wrong doing is eventually found out and punishment is/has been properly meted out in every situation.  

Maybe stop telling people what they can and cannot discuss.

You're continuing to try to frame this discussion as if we need to show proof to your satisfaction.

The odds that nobody else knew what Nassar was doing after 40 years and multiple complaints is extremely unlikely.

also, maybe stop talking about sexual assault and proof as if you have some serious insight there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

Maybe stop telling people what they can and cannot discuss.

You're continuing to try to frame this discussion as if we need to show proof to your satisfaction.

The odds that nobody else knew what Nassar was doing after 40 years and multiple complaints is extremely unlikely.

also, maybe stop talking about sexual assault and proof as if you have some serious insight there.

1.)  Maybe start learning how to read.  Where did I say ANYTHING about not discussing something?  To be clear, FEEL FREE to discuss your stance on this topic.  Just because I disagree with that stance in NO WAY means I don't think you can brandish it.

2.)  I am simply giving my stance on why I think you are wrong.  As such, YEAH that kind of means I think you would need to show proof to prove I am wrong.  That is kind of how debates work.

3.)  I have said that someone probably messed up.  But, you don't know for sure who that is or to exactly what level the messed up.

4.) You have zero idea what insight I have about sexual assault and this stance is the exact reason why we are arguing over this entire topic.  Needless to say, someone very close to me went through it.  I lived it in serious detail.  So, again, you make judgement without the facts.  That is a flawed mindset.  In fact, it is a mindset that, if you were honest, you would be dismissed from any jury panel for having...

Finally, I digress.  There is no point going down this road with you any further.  You only see what you want to see.  I have gone into immense detail in every aspect of my opinion on this topic.  No point in rehashing it any further  Have a great day!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

1.)  Maybe start learning how to read.  Where did I say ANYTHING about not discussing something?  To be clear, FEEL FREE to discuss your stance on this topic.  Just because I disagree with that stance in NO WAY means I don't think you can brandish it.

2.)  I am simply giving my stance on why I think you are wrong.  As such, YEAH that kind of means I think you would need to show proof to prove I am wrong.  That is kind of how debates work.

3.)  I have said that someone probably messed up.  But, you don't know for sure who that is or to exactly what level the messed up.

4.) You have zero idea what insight I have about sexual assault and this stance is the exact reason why we are arguing over this entire topic.  Needless to say, someone very close to me went through it.  I lived it in serious detail.  So, again, you make judgement without the facts.  That is a flawed mindset.  In fact, it is a mindset that, if you were honest, you would be dismissed from any jury panel for having...

Finally, I digress.  There is no point going down this road with you any further.  You only see what you want to see.  I have gone into immense detail in every aspect of my opinion on this topic.  No point in rehashing it any further  Have a great day!

 

You keep making these long, babbling screed posts but the underlying issue is that you're trying to shut down discussion here by framing the conversation in a way that explicitly demands that anyone who wants to talk about collateral liability regarding Nassar's crimes has to bring a level of proof that you approve of.

P.S. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Edited by Mike Parrish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

You keep making these long, babbling screed posts but the underlying issue is that you're trying to shut down discussion here by framing the conversation in a way that explicitly demands that anyone who wants to talk about collateral liability regarding Nassar's crimes has to bring a level of proof that you approve of.

P.S. The plural of anecdote is not data.

How about this:  Please continue to discuss this topic ad nauseum.  I will be completely fine if you do.  I in NO WAY want it shut down.  I am just done making my point when you are incapable of reading it.  I made it clear that I disagree with you and why.  I also made it clear I respect you having the right to have your differing opinion.  Please feel free to continue to have that opinion and make sure to post on this thread about that for as long as you like!

If that isn't clear to you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MSU158 I will always be fascinated by people who want to debate but aren't open minded to truly listen to other people's point of view.  It is one thing to say "I understand where you are coming from, but I still see it differently" like you have done.  Versus putting words in peoples mouth, accusing someone that they believe a certain way about a topic they weren't even discussing, and try and attack someone on a personal level and just argue to argue.  I'll never understand how not passing judgement because one acknowledges they don't have all the information turned into supporting a serial sexual predator, and you give people passes that may have messed up investigating the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MSU158 said:

How about this:  Please continue to discuss this topic ad nauseum.  I will be completely fine if you do.  I in NO WAY want it shut down.  I am just done making my point when you are incapable of reading it.  I made it clear that I disagree with you and why.  I also made it clear I respect you having the right to have your differing opinion.  Please feel free to continue to have that opinion and make sure to post on this thread about that for as long as you like!

If that isn't clear to you...

It's completely clear to me.

You want to control how this topic can be discussed by raising imaginary requirements to participate in it.

Everyone around Nassar knew or should have known what he was doing.
This is exemplified by the legion of successful litigation.

For example.
https://www.si.com/olympics/2022/06/08/larry-nasser-survivors-filing-lawsuit-seeking-1-billion-fbi


As laid out here in the not terrible wikipedia article, showing at least 5 people charged with felonies and the dissolution of USAG as a governing body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Gymnastics_sex_abuse_scandal


Here's a hard and fast rule for you, as a mandatory reporter, it's your DAMN JOB to believe the person who reports abuse enough to pass it on to law enforcement.
Here's another rule, when NINETY PEOPLE accuse someone of sexual abuse, it's probability 1 that they're not all lying.



On this topic, when a wrestling coach has TWO ATHLETES DIE (in 40 years of coaching, I've never had a hospitalization, let alone a death)  under their watch, it's almost a certainty that they're doing things wrong and need to be immediately removed from coaching and that they should bear the burden of proof to show that they are not a danger to athletes and children.

People who espouse opinions to the contrary are part of the damned problem of toxic wannabe toughness crap that has plagued wrestling forever.

My daughter is a senior world team member. She was never denied water. Not even once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dman115 said:

I know you two yahoo's won't understand this because it contains logic but here is the breakdown

Mike and Lurk = admittedly don't know all the facts but want a criminal conviction no matter what because they read a news article about the case.

You still owe me the quote showing where I said that.

Chop chop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

It's completely clear to me.

You want to control how this topic can be discussed by raising imaginary requirements to participate in it.

Everyone around Nassar knew or should have known what he was doing.
This is exemplified by the legion of successful litigation.

For example.
https://www.si.com/olympics/2022/06/08/larry-nasser-survivors-filing-lawsuit-seeking-1-billion-fbi


As laid out here in the not terrible wikipedia article, showing at least 5 people charged with felonies and the dissolution of USAG as a governing body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Gymnastics_sex_abuse_scandal


Here's a hard and fast rule for you, as a mandatory reporter, it's your DAMN JOB to believe the person who reports abuse enough to pass it on to law enforcement.
Here's another rule, when NINETY PEOPLE accuse someone of sexual abuse, it's probability 1 that they're not all lying.



On this topic, when a wrestling coach has TWO ATHLETES DIE (in 40 years of coaching, I've never had a hospitalization, let alone a death)  under their watch, it's almost a certainty that they're doing things wrong and need to be immediately removed from coaching and that they should bear the burden of proof to show that they are not a danger to athletes and children.

People who espouse opinions to the contrary are part of the damned problem of toxic wannabe toughness crap that has plagued wrestling forever.

My daughter is a senior world team member. She was never denied water. Not even once.

Congrats to your daughter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

You still owe me the quote showing where I said that.

Chop chop.

You literally just said so in the freaking post right before the one you just posted....SMH...how about you show us all the "facts" you have that the people investigating the coaches didn't do their job because no criminal charges were filed....or do you not need to because in a completely unrelated sexual abuse case people may have in fact dropped the ball during that investigation...so essentially your stance is, because some people screwed up in the Nassar investigation (and they should be held accountable), every single investigation from that point forward can't be trusted??

Or how about your accusation that MSU is shutting down any discussion...please show me where he, or I have done that?  Or when someone says they feel differently and can poke holes in your logic, or lack there of, that hurts your feelings and you accuse them of "shutting you down"?  Maybe take some deep breaths and try and read what MSU has written to try and truly understand what he is saying and why he has the stance he does (he says it WAY better than I do)??  You still may not agree, and that is totally fine, but maybe you won't try and accuse him of wanting to support a sexual predator, or he and I are the reason these evil people get away with it for so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2022 at 2:36 PM, MSU158 said:

Do you understand the difference?  Hell, even OJ was convicted of civil charges, but exonerated criminally.  There is a difference. Actually READ and find out what those are before calling someone drunk...

OJ was NOT "exonerated" criminally.  He was simply found "not guilty" in the criminal trail.  There is a big difference in the legal meaning of those two terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, HurricaneWrestling2 said:

OJ was NOT "exonerated" criminally.  He was simply found "not guilty" in the criminal trail.  There is a big difference in the legal meaning of those two terms.

Not really in this case.  Double jeopardy essentially does in fact exonerate him criminally. He cannot be tried again for those charges...

Edited to add:  I made sure to say exonerate criminally.  Because, you would be correct, if I just said exonerated.  Because, he still could be found guilty of wrongdoing and was civilly.  

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, HurricaneWrestling2 said:

OJ was NOT "exonerated" criminally.  He was simply found "not guilty" in the criminal trail.  There is a big difference in the legal meaning of those two terms.

 

19 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

Not really in this case.  Double jeopardy essentially does in fact exonerate him criminally. He cannot be tried again for those charges...

Edited to add:  I made sure to say exonerate criminally.  Because, you would be correct, if I just said exonerated.  Because, he still could be found guilty of wrongdoing and was civilly.  

From U Mich Law School site-
 

What does it mean if someone is exonerated?
 
 
In general, an exoneration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared after new evidence of innocence becomes available. A more precise definition follows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

Not really in this case.  Double jeopardy essentially does in fact exonerate him criminally. He cannot be tried again for those charges...

Edited to add:  I made sure to say exonerate criminally.  Because, you would be correct, if I just said exonerated.  Because, he still could be found guilty of wrongdoing and was civilly.  

No, double jeopardy doesn't essentially exonerate OJ criminally.  Double jeopardy just means he can't be tried again criminally for the same offense.   Besides, since OJ was found not guilty, any discussion of him being criminally exonerated is nonsensical. 

"Exoneration refers to the court taking back a defendant's criminal conviction, vindicating the defendant with the official absolution of a guilty verdict. Exoneration requires the reversal of a criminal conviction through a display of innocence, a flaw in the original judgment, or other legality."

https://knutsoncasey.com/what-is-exoneration/#:~:text=Exoneration refers to the court,original judgment%2C or other legality.

Edited by HurricaneWrestling2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...