Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Rodney Woods Part II

Read the story below, then sit back, think, and wonder out loud what to do if you are Mike Bellotti and the Ducks.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/13699132.htm

The big difference between Rodney Woods and this situation, is there are charges pending, not a conviction. Maybe Jurray Casey was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe he actually pulled the trigger. Maybe the charges will be dropped. But..... if the authorities felt as if there was enough evidence to at least charge, and then keep him locked up, the involvement must be substantial.

So what do you do? Is it worth it?

10 Comments:

At 4:12 PM, Anonymous zach said...

Until there is a conviction, you cannot take away his scholarship. He is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law, so why should he be guilty in the court of scholarships? If he is proven guilty, then the scholarship should be revoked.

 
At 5:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy crap

 
At 7:52 PM, Blogger BuddyJay said...

Don't jump the gun.

Did anyone at the Fan call anybody to investigate this matter further? Seems like a lot of strong opinions without a clear story. For example, was he driving? Has he been in trouble before? Two remained under arrest, but the article said three fled the scene. What of the third?
The best quote from the article for the sake of this argument is, "Authorities would not say what role they believe the 6-foot, 2-inch, 210 pound Casey played in the shooting." He could have been driving, and legitimately did not know the guy in the back seat was gonna pop off a few rounds. Bottom line, let's cool out on the judgements before we investigate this matter further, and if you want to judge others, make sure you have the facts.

I remember high school, I got myself into some tense situations once in a while, and that was in Cowlitz County. Now picture a tense situation in LONG BEACH, California. That scholarship might be the one thing that saves this KID from his friends.

Maybe it's different than that, and this KID is a hood rat with a rap sheet that we don't want in our community, but folks, let's let the facts come out. That article was only 258 words, and only a couple sentences that pertained to the incident.

 
At 10:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What would happen if he was to be held in this fashion while he was part of the Ducks' football team (say after a year and a half of school)? That's where Bellotti and Moos have to start. Then, think about what this does to the program. Then consider what message it sends (to other players, fans, boosters, the community)if you go ahead on this guy.

Bottom line, as you guys said, everyone has choices. Those choices have consequences. Playing football is a privilege, not a right. Even if you KNOW this guy is the next Reggie Bush UO should set an example for the sports community and withold any offers until this situation is cleared up.

It's a privilege, not a right.

 
At 1:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

UO is dealing with a situation where they are choosing to give an athletic scholarship to their institution, meaning the kid will represent the UO. They must think long and hard about this, but if they choose to revoke their scholarship offer, we should separate the "innocent until proven guilty" principle (which our society holds to in the courts of law) from the question of "do we want this individual to be a part of representing our institution?". Obtaining an athletic scholarship to any institution is a privelege, not a right, and the institution has the final say. Being innocent until proven guilty is a right in America, but that doesn't mean that an institution has to grant you an athletic scholarship. Please, let's put aside the thoughts of Wins and Losses on the football field and think about rights vs. responsibilities. This kid has no rights to a UO football scholarship, but he does have rights in the court of law. The best scenario would be that the guy would be found innocent of any wrongdoing and then that the UO would give him a scholarship with some behavioral conditions in an attempt to get him away from the so-called "friends" he has in LA, and that he would make something of his life by being in a structured environment in Eugene, but that's a big "if" right now.

 
At 11:43 AM, Anonymous Jeff said...

I can't belive so many people support this kid! Bottom line, HE IS IN JAIL!!!! Very few people go to jail without at least having SOMETHING to do with the crive!

I was against Woods coming to the UofO and I'm against this kid.

I love the Ducks too much to let this tarnish a good program.

 
At 6:00 PM, Anonymous zach said...

To be held in jail a police officer only has to be 51% sure that you might have commited the crime. That is a distinct distinction from the 97% certainty a jury must have to convict someone of a crime.

A point that some of you are missing is that if he is convicted the scholarship will be revoked anyway. Why jump the gun if he is innocent? I do not have nearly enough facts on this case to make a clear argument to condemn him already, and if he is proven innocent and the Ducks did happen to revoke his scholarship, then I think there would be an even more important story on hand.

 
At 8:45 AM, Anonymous Jeff said...

Zack-

Good points, but where in the law does it say 51% and 97%? Last time i checked it was reasonable suspicion and beyond reasonable doubt.

 
At 1:19 PM, Blogger DJ said...

He's a known gang member that was under suspicion in 2004 for another gang-related shooting. He was breaking the law by driving after 10pm, driving on the freeway, and having more than one teenage passenger (limited driver's license law). The fact still remains that this kid is a member of the INsane Crips Gang. Is that who you want representing your school? Him and all the other gang-bangers should be in jail where they ALL belong!!!!

 
At 1:23 PM, Blogger DJ said...

The fact remains that this kid is a known member of the Insane Crips Gang and was recently investigated for another shooting between rival gangs. He is a teenager running the streets with a gun when his family can barely afford a one-bedroom apt. in the slums of LB! He was also breaking the restricted driving laws too (out after 10, driving the freeways, and having more than one passenger). Is this the kind of kid you want representing your school? You can take the kid out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the kid. He will fry because he is GUILTY! I'm tired of these athletes (h.s., college and pro) thinking their above the law!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home