Yep exactly right. I’d love for this not to be reality but unfortunately it could be spot on. I can’t imagine the victims having caught the license plate though in this scenario in state of panic following the impact at 10PM in the dark. That’s what initially led me to believe they might have known the shooters.
Football Max Melton & Chris Long Suspended
- Thread starter Tango Two
- Start date
So if a player walks into Schiano's office and says: I shot the sheriff, but I did not kill the deputy, or you know, something along those lines, you want GS to let the player play until such time as they have a trial?
That ain't happening. And it shouldn't happen. Even if it IS a really good song.
I can't fathom that. If I got shot walking down the street with a paint ball gun I wouldn't give a flying **** whether it was Max Melton or Noah Vedral, I'd call the cops. And can't think of anyone I know who wouldn't do the same.
Has the U.S. legal system released them into society?
I'll let the professionals determine if someone needs to be remanded until trial.
If the legal system released them - how far should their banishment go?
Suspended from the team and the school?
Not allowed into stores or anywhere else?
House arrest until trial?
As I keep saying, and if they are innocent? Then what.
Again - stop trying to make convoluted complicated processes for every individual situation.
How is letting the U.S. Legal System be in control such a bad idea?
What should happen is that Rutgers should perform its own internal investigation and if, by the preponderance of the evidence (50.1% likelihood), the investigation determines a crime happened, then the school should suspend the players. It doesn't have to be an outside FBI guy; it can be as simple as one of the administrators interviewing the players and speaking to the cops who were involved. Punishments should be consistent across the board for the entire team and tied to the seriousness of the likely crime.
In my mind, a college kid shooting a stranger with a paintball gun in the middle of the night is not the end of the world. I would equate it to leaving a fender-bender without reporting it to the police (or other party), or a fist fight over a girl (where nobody was hurt), or an underage kid getting caught with booze in his dorm room. Technically it's battery (if they hit a person), but almost always this would be handled by the prosecutor's office as some sort of criminal mischief. Not great; not something that should go unpunished; but also not the end of the world. Absent other information, I'd say it warranted a one game suspension.
In my mind, a college kid shooting a stranger with a paintball gun in the middle of the night is not the end of the world. I would equate it to leaving a fender-bender without reporting it to the police (or other party), or a fist fight over a girl (where nobody was hurt), or an underage kid getting caught with booze in his dorm room. Technically it's battery (if they hit a person), but almost always this would be handled by the prosecutor's office as some sort of criminal mischief. Not great; not something that should go unpunished; but also not the end of the world. Absent other information, I'd say it warranted a one game suspension.
You are 1 person. I have no idea what I would do. Might make a difference if I were alone or with my family.
Not all too long ago, I wouldn't have called the cops. I would have handled it myself. But these days, for something this minor, I'd call the cops. I'm getting too old for this shit. 🙂
Would be different it was a case of me and friends pranking each other though. And I'm not sure, but has it even been established that it was the kids who were hit that called the cops? Maybe it was witnessed by bystanders. I don't really trust the media to get that sort of detail right all the time.
There's still so much we just don't know about this situation.
Good point I hadn’t thought of. Actually, the longer amount of time that goes by without a public apology from the kids or a statement from the families (especially the Meltons) the more plausible your latter scenerio becomes.
Isn't the legal system supposed to determine if a crime happened?
If the legal system says "innocent" but this internal Rutgers investigation determines "guilty" then what?
After a legal verdict, Rutgers preforms an internal audit to see if any policies and procedures were broken.
Such as player conduct or "conduct detrimental to team".
Rutgers shouldn't be determining if a "crime" occurred.
They determine their own Policies and SOPs.
Pretty sure they will have lawyers by now and will have been firmly instructed to not say a word to anybody at all about any of it. But before that happened, who knows what they said. If they confessed to the cops thinking it wasn't any big deal, then that'll be a problem.
Agree. Can’t worry about it. Whatever happens..happens.
and I’ve explained my opinion. I think anyone committed of a felony is off team. That’s it. Not hard
The legal system absolutely determines if a crime happened. However, Rutgers (just like any other business) has the right (and probably the duty) to determine if an action by any of its employees or students (who are in a quasi-associate role) can or will bring negative publicity to the school. And if it does determine that, it has the right to take a corrective action if it chooses (as long as it is permitted by law or contract).
In this instance, if the school determines it's more likely than not that a crime occurred and it chooses to suspend a player to demonstrate to the world (and its other employees and students) that the school does not tolerate that behavior, there's nothing wrong with that.
The problem is when schools (and other businesses) use zero tolerance principles ("There is an allegation, so we're not even going to investigate, we are just going to penalize and sort it all out later,") or when they use inconsistent penalties for similar behavior, or when they fire someone they don't believe did anything wrong simply because they want to escape bad publicity (ie, Mike Rice).
And how far does that "demonstrate to the world" get Rutgers?
What what if the employee or student is determined innocent and charges dropped or dismissed?
"Sorry. Our bad."
A more consistent and easier to enforce policy is "We trust and rely on the legal system. After they are done, we will do our own investigation."
Do you feel that way about the Deshaun Watson situation with like twenty victims who are on record?
I don't have a problem with the laws in terms of how it impacts me. I just think they are very ineffectual. The stats you mention are as much a function of the lack of interest in NJ among the general populace in owning guns as any law. In NJ, pretty much anyone that wants a gun can get one, same as any state. What does the NJ gun law do? Prevents some kids from having BB guns, and prevents people with semi-automatic rifles from having telescoping stocks and a flashlight attachment. It's meaningless.
Regarding gun death rates, 60% of gun deaths are from suicide. People with guns that want to commit suicide often use the gun. People without guns use other methods. So people committing suicide in parts of the country where guns are more prevalent are more likely to use them when they commit suicide. That right there accounts for a huge portion of the disparity in gun violence among states.
Then you have to look at socioeconomic factors. States with higher rates of gun violence tend to be poorer, more rural, and less educated. All of those are factors that are presumed to drive, and correlate with, criminality, depression, suicide....all the causes of gun deaths. The presence of guns doesn't make those places poor, or the people depressed.
So back to NJ: I want more stringent gun laws. Deeper background checks. Required training and licensing, responsibility of the owners to steward the guns so they can't be sold to criminals. But the things that are on the books now in NJ, that are theoretically more stringent, do nothing IMO. It's just window dressing. I take that back. The inability to get a silencer/suppressor does have an impact, it makes me go deaf faster.
Last edited:
The main defense of immediate suspension appears to be "they were arrested and probably guilty so Rutgers should act now in advance."
Advance of what exactly?
What's the upside to suspending immediately? A media release patting themselves on the back that nobody is going to care about anyway?
The downside of immediate suspension: Rutgers punishes players who were deemed innocent by a court of law.
I'd prefer Rutgers err on the side of not punishing innocent players than looking for an easy and fleeting media kudos.
Advance of what exactly?
What's the upside to suspending immediately? A media release patting themselves on the back that nobody is going to care about anyway?
The downside of immediate suspension: Rutgers punishes players who were deemed innocent by a court of law.
I'd prefer Rutgers err on the side of not punishing innocent players than looking for an easy and fleeting media kudos.
Yes. We have a legal system for a reason. Why does nobody want to let the legal system do it's job and rush to judgement?
Same with Kobe Bryant who wasn't suspended during his trial.
Also, not sure why Trevor Bauer is weirdly on "administrative leave" but not suspended (he's still being paid).
If MLB is punishing him, then suspend and stop paying him.
Seems like they can't really do that since he hasn't been convicted of anything.
Also, if you think the Texans are benching Watson because of any pending legal matters, I have a bridge to sell you.
There are exactly 12 people who owe the accused a presumption of innocence. They are the 12 people who will sit on the jury for their trial, if it were to come to that, which in this case it won't.
The rest of us have the right to form whatever opinions we want on the basis of whatever information is available. Except that for Schiano, it is more than a right. It is a responsibility, which he is carrying out.
To your example, the right answer depends on the specific facts and circumstances. What is the nature of your alleged crime? How public is it? How much reputational damage has the arrest caused your company? On the basis of the known information, how likely is it that you have violated company standards of behavior (even if not criminal)? Based on all of that, the company makes the best decision it can. As Schiano has done, and will continue to do as events unfold.
Last edited:
Read what I said again: I said they absolutely should be suspended until more is known, at least to those who need to know. My point is more for those saying these guys should be off the team, at least for the rest of this season:
We don't know they are guilty, even though the arrests happened quickly.
We don't know who called the police or if there is any relationship between victims and perps that could shed light on the decision making process.
We don't know what either player may have done. Did both shoot? Was one guy driving and not shoot? If so, did that guy know what was about to happen and still willingly participate (that would make him just as guilty as the trigger guy IMO)?
Both are out for Michigan. Fine. After that, let the police investigate, let the school and staff learn what happened, and then make a decision on their long-term future with the program.
Serious questions. Anyone know what the University punishment would be for a regular non-athlete student who does something like this? There should be something in writing somewhere. And if RU treats athletes differently than other students, would there be NCAA issues to deal with?
Doubtful they would be suspended from intramural soccer.
I would assume athletes are not treated "better" than other students in such circumstances due to media coverage.
School wouldn't even know about it probably if it wasn't an athlete.
Think of how many non-athletes are arrested every weekend in drinking related matters that go unnoticed and unaddressed by the school.
People need to stop conflating or confusing suspension with penalties (punishment). Punishment would mean getting kicked off the team, kicked out of school and skollies revoked. And none of that is happening now, right?
Suspensions of players functions like administrative leave for employees (being paid on admin leave is not at all unusual and is probably the norm). Suspensions/leaves are not meant as punishment, but are done generally for the safety and integrity of the whole enterprise because while the alleged bad actors may be innocent until proven guilty under the law, certain risks for the program, the players, the school are now present. By still playing, the players expose themselves to other chicanery and predatory behavior. What is to stop someone from offering to pay their attorney fees, get the charges reduced, or get the people hit by pellets to drop the charges in exchange for missing a tackle so the other team covers the spread? By having these guys still playing, that would be inviting tenfold more problems to occur. These guys and the entire program are now vulnerable in ways they weren't before they got arrested. In schools, faculty and staff are placed on admin leave all the time or have some other restriction to their employment until the administrative and legal processes wrap up for program safety and integrity.
And your argument is flawed. This isn't a job and this isn't the courts system.
Rutgers has the right to suspend anyone they want.
They will get their due process in the court system. No body is saying they won't. As for you stupid analogy just because your might be found innocent doesn't mean your innocent and if your conduct wasn't criminal it doesn't mean they can't fire you for the conduct. If you were falsely arrested you sue the company and get back pay.
Comparing a spot on a football team to a job and the court system shows your ignorance about all 3 subjects
My assumption is there is no punishment whatsoever. However, the regular non-athlete student isn't representing the school on Saturday on television. You often see it mocked that Schiano is the highest paid state employee ... well, it's because he's representing the state on television Saturday and the school President is not.
A student should be suspended for simply possessing a paintball gun on campus. I don’t buy the “boys will be boys” crap. If you don’t have common sense not to drive around shooting people with a paintball gun you don’t belong in college. Imagine if they were caught on camera - the video would be all over the national news and completely overshadow the team’s 3-0 start and Schiano’s return. Let them pull this crap after they transfer to URI we don’t need the negative attention as a team or university.
Who said they got the licence plate? You keep trying to make this a prank huh?
Yeah. I imagine if I had done something while in college to attract the attention of the police, the University would have no reaction at all. I'd have been shocked if they did anything about it or even acknowledged it. I would live or die in the legal system on my own...
Not as many times as you have kissed butt to players, coaches and their families.
Same thing. I would tell the police to drop the charges and if the DH prosecutor still went forward I would not testify. My point is I would be pissed initially and if the kids showed remorse I would want them to live a normal life.
Biggest problem here is the nanny that called the cops. Big deal, a guy shooting paintballs at pople on a college campus. Hell, I recall some potato guns shots at houses and cars when I was there.
you've got people calling the cops for not liking their neighbors for God's sake. People need to get a grip and shake stuff off.
you've got people calling the cops for not liking their neighbors for God's sake. People need to get a grip and shake stuff off.
In all, police say three people were shot and injured by Max Melton and Christopher Long, though all three declined medical attention. Police did not release the names of the victims, instead referring to them as “Victim 1,” “Victim 2,” and “Victim 3” in their complaint.
It appears the shots were fired from a moving vehicle in three separate locations: 23 Avenue E (Quad 2, House 1), 62 Road 3 (the Livingston Recreation Center) and 53 Avenue E (Tillett Hall).
According to the RUPD’s complaint, the shots fired at the first victim hit them in the right elbow and caused them to bleed, while the second victim was hit in the left arm and lower back, leaving “bruising and welts,” and the third victim was struck in the lower abdomen and bled. All three shootings were described as “at close range” in the complaint.
newbrunswicktoday.com
It appears the shots were fired from a moving vehicle in three separate locations: 23 Avenue E (Quad 2, House 1), 62 Road 3 (the Livingston Recreation Center) and 53 Avenue E (Tillett Hall).
According to the RUPD’s complaint, the shots fired at the first victim hit them in the right elbow and caused them to bleed, while the second victim was hit in the left arm and lower back, leaving “bruising and welts,” and the third victim was struck in the lower abdomen and bled. All three shootings were described as “at close range” in the complaint.
Rutgers Football Players Arrested on Charges They Shot People With Paintballs - New Brunswick Today | New Brunswick, NJ Local News
The Rutgers University Police Department arrested two athletes on the school's football team after they allegedly shot three people with paintballs while driving around Rutgers' Livingston campus on the night of September 20.
newbrunswicktoday.com
Maybe the person called the cops because he was wearing his new suit that now has paint all over it. 😀
How is it? I’m sorry that you’re so terrified of life that you need to carry a gun on you, with the only purpose of inflicting harm on someone else, but most people in this state don’t feel that way.
If you cant see the error of your statement, despite evidence that it is entirely possible and has actually happened, then yes, it will have to end in a disagreement.
