ADVERTISEMENT

Football Max Melton & Chris Long Suspended

If the 3 victims didn’t report it, Chris and Max would likely have continued this type of activity until someone incurred a serious injury ( lose an eye). So figure the appropriate punishment and get back to business. Use it as a teaching point to every other RU sporting team. Turn it into a positive.

They 100% deserved to get caught no matter what the motivation was. That said, let’s clarify that nobody on this board right now has any idea what the motivation was behind this. Maybe they just decided to go out and buy paint ball guns and do this for “the sheer fun of it”. Another possibility could be they were peer pressured into doing it (are scholarship kids at RU allowed to pledge fraternities?). That wouldn’t make the offense any “better”, but would change the observation you make that this would’ve likely been a repeat offense.
 
They 100% deserved to get caught no matter what the motivation was. That said, let’s clarify that nobody on this board right now has any idea what the motivation was behind this. Maybe they just decided to go out and buy paint ball guns and do this for “the sheer fun of it”. Another possibility could be they were peer pressured into doing it (are scholarship kids at RU allowed to pledge fraternities?). That wouldn’t make the offense any “better”, but would change the observation you make that this would’ve likely been a repeat offense.
Sincerely unlikely a fraternity stunt. Just dumb use of common sense. These are not bad kids from what we know but what transpired the other evening was wrong.Needs to be highlighted but also proper use of punishment. The “ it’s a felony crowd” needs to call it for what it is . Stupidity to the umpteenth degree. The state has released and hand slapped much more severe “ felons” over the past two years. PTI seems appropriate along with restitution and community service . Suspension from team for a period is justifiable. Separation from team is a team decision however their overall history is important.
 
Sincerely unlikely a fraternity stunt. Just dumb use of common sense. These are not bad kids from what we know but what transpired the other evening was wrong.Needs to be highlighted but also proper use of punishment. The “ it’s a felony crowd” needs to call it for what it is . Stupidity to the umpteenth degree. The state has released and hand slapped much more severe “ felons” over the past two years. PTI seems appropriate along with restitution and community service . Suspension from team for a period is justifiable. Separation from team is a team decision however their overall history is important.
Yeah - They do not have a history of bad behavior which is why I wonder if it was a dare of some sort where they were pressured by someone to do this rather than them randomly cooking up a plan to go out and buy paint ball guns and go out on a week night and start firing them at people for fun. We may never find out the back story. It will be interesting to see how GS handles this though.
 
Yeah - They do not have a history of bad behavior which is why I wonder if it was a dare of some sort where they were pressured by someone to do this rather than them randomly cooking up a plan to go out and buy paint ball guns and go out on a week night and start firing them at people for fun. We may never find out the back story. It will be interesting to see how GS handles this though.
kids do stupid things.

it doesn't have to make logical sense.

we can all clearly see that this was a bad idea that could only have bad results. but at that time, it must have seemed like a funny idea.

wasn't there social media "challenges" to eat Tide Pods? milk crate "challenge" which has no doubt resulted in stolen milk crates and injuries.. and Rutgers just had the Scarlet Knight do it.,. there is also a rash of bathrooms being vandalized because of a tiktok challenge.

who knows where kids and young adults get these crazy ideas... after seeing some punishment for this perhaps these kids/young adults will think about things differently in the future.
 
The simple summary is they could have injured someone worse, tarnished their own reputation and maybe even their family’s reputation, and let down all their teammates on the eve of the biggest game of the season so far. Idiots may be too weak a word to define their behavior, but this is where we are at. On to Michigan without them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotInRHouse
kids do stupid things.

it doesn't have to make logical sense.

we can all clearly see that this was a bad idea that could only have bad results. but at that time, it must have seemed like a funny idea.

wasn't there social media "challenges" to eat Tide Pods? milk crate "challenge" which has no doubt resulted in stolen milk crates and injuries.. and Rutgers just had the Scarlet Knight do it.,. there is also a rash of bathrooms being vandalized because of a tiktok challenge.

who knows where kids and young adults get these crazy ideas... after seeing some punishment for this perhaps these kids/young adults will think about things differently in the future.
I thought Twitter is where brains went to die, but clearly that Chinese piece of garbage tiktok has taken over that title!
 
Pretty much everybody in here is saying it's a crime. The debate is, based on what we know (which is limited), is kicking them out of the university an appropriate punishment, and is it appropriate to apply the classification of "felon" to their names? Nobody has said to let them walk, either. It's a matter of degrees, not absolutes. The art of nuanced discussion is lost when folks throw red herrings, straw men, and all-or-nothing statements out there.

I'll defer to RU on the former and a judge on the latter.

But I definitely see people playing it down or saying GS should look past it. It's a serious matter to make another human being bleed IMO, whatever a court says.
 
No, I will continue to for Rutgers to step up and start competing and beating OSU and Penn State. What great teams have we beaten on a consistent basis? We beat Louisville 15 years ago, I get it. Have we beaten OSU, Wisconsin, Penn State? How many BE championships have we won outright, how many B1G championships have we won, how many New Year's Day bowls have we been to, how many conference championship games have we played? Let's not forget we had players commit rapes, robberies. assaults, etc., we haven't escaped without any incidents ourselves. These kids made a mistake, if they can help us win let's get them back on the field ASAP and let's beat OSU and Penn State and win the East.

Yeah. this is not the difference between a championship and not. And you know that well. Are you seriously suggesting that had we been less ethical maybe Townsend catches that pass against WVU?

Stanford was in the Rose Bowl and a NC contender with a team full of engineers. Not that we have to do that, but the idea that you need to be unethical to win is unproven.
 
Sometimes people do dumb shit.

Sometimes that dumb shit is actually illegal and dangerous to others and can result in harm to others.

Sometimes that harm to others occurs, despite that not being the intent of the perpetrators of the dumb shit.

Clearly paintball guns are nowhere near as dangerous as real guns (despite the low but non-zero probability of blinding someone), so to me it's pretty clear the players were not trying to hurt anyone (there are far more effective ways to hurt someone and the actual harm here was minimal) - it was a dumb shit prank that went awry and it's doubtful they knew this could constitute aggravated assault.

One of the unwritten tenets of our legal system is that we strive for outcomes that achieve the greatest societal good. IMO, assuming this was a dumb shit prank gone awry, the greatest societal good would likely be something like a significant, but not football career/college-threatening outcome, like significant community service, including some public service component to try to educate the public about the potential risks of paintball guns, but nothing more severe than that, as it does no good to seriously damage the ability of two young men, with no prior criminal histories (I'm assuming here - not 100% sure) to pursue their athletic and academic dreams. It also does society no good to take this through a long protracted legal battle in the court system, taking time/resources away from far more important legal matters for the State and society - this is what pre-trial intervention was invented for.

In addition, should the above happen quickly, as hoped, a 2 game suspension seems about right. Enough to highlight how close these guys came to throwing away their educational and athletic dreams and hopefully discouraging their teammates from doing any other dumb shit, but not so much to seriously damage their ability to continue being strong contributors to the team. That's my two cents on this.
 
Do kids even still play paintball?

Remember it was big in the 90s ...kinda. Was the type of thing you did for like a year or two in Jr high or HS, then moved on. I don't remember a single person having stuff around their college dorm or apt.

That's what I don't get. It's weird as a prank. Water gun, sure. Nerf gun, OK.

Everyone did things in their youth that pushed boundaries and even broke the law (drinking before 21 would probably be 99% of the student body alone) but this isn't that. The police say it was close range to the point 2 of 3 bled. That's not a funny prank.
 
That's what I don't get. It's weird as a prank. Water gun, sure. Nerf gun, OK.

Everyone did things in their youth that pushed boundaries and even broke the law (drinking before 21 would probably be 99% of the student body alone) but this isn't that. The police say it was close range to the point 2 of 3 bled. That's not a funny prank.

The advent of Social Media has caused us all to year to quickly jump to conclusions and pass our own judgement publicly even quicker (both ways). Plain and simple - my guess is that most of us don't know all the facts so it's hard to determine if this was a prank or malicious. We also don't know much about these kids behind the scenes. My only comment here is that the outcome/penalty should not only be measured in terms of the legal system. If these kids (young adults) are truely good kids and this is a first time offense - that should be taken into account........much the same way that if they are the types always getting into trouble behind the scenes and have been warned with this is the final straw....then might be time to move on from them. What happened to the victims should also not be discounted. However the fact that we are edging ever closer to a "One Strike and your Out" society does not sit well with me.
 
Ignore facts all you want. I offered an nice conclusion to a disagreement. You decided to be a dick. Fu** off.

However if you like head to the range - if you've ever been to one - and ask someone to shoot you with a firearm and a paintball gun.

Let me know if you notice anything interesting.
Dick and fu** off? Very classy. You are well versed at making wrong assumptions. Note, I never said that I believed there wasnt a difference in the two. I challenged what you said and I quote "At no point did those three think they were shot at with a real gun". Which is why I jokingly asked if you interviewed them. I said it was possible people without knowledge of the two might not know the difference, especially in the heat of the moment..and gave one example where a paintball gun was mistaken for a firearm. You need more examples? I got them. Why are you so friggin uptight if someone challenges your word, especially if its backed up with real world examples?
 
Bob...you are differentiating "it's a felony" from mere "stupidity." But they are the same thing. There is no difference. That's why the aggravated assault law is written the way it is.

Robbing a bank is stupidity (with or without a weapon). Tossing bricks from highway overpasses is stupidity. Road rage shooting is stupidity. And yes, at the same time they are felonies.

It makes no sense at all to claim "your honor, i was just very stupid to shoot the victim. that doesn't make me a criminal."

Actually, it does.
 
Yeah. this is not the difference between a championship and not. And you know that well. Are you seriously suggesting that had we been less ethical maybe Townsend catches that pass against WVU?

Stanford was in the Rose Bowl and a NC contender with a team full of engineers. Not that we have to do that, but the idea that you need to be unethical to win is unproven.
The players didn't do anything unethical, perhaps illegal, but that is to be determined by court, not by a lynch mob on a sports board.
 
The players didn't do anything unethical, perhaps illegal, but that is to be determined by court, not by a lynch mob on a sports board.

OGC.35fd288cc070f14f8c68b8532d30fce3
 
Sometimes people do dumb shit.

Sometimes that dumb shit is actually illegal and dangerous to others and can result in harm to others.

Sometimes that harm to others occurs, despite that not being the intent of the perpetrators of the dumb shit.

Clearly paintball guns are nowhere near as dangerous as real guns (despite the low but non-zero probability of blinding someone), so to me it's pretty clear the players were not trying to hurt anyone (there are far more effective ways to hurt someone and the actual harm here was minimal) - it was a dumb shit prank that went awry and it's doubtful they knew this could constitute aggravated assault.

One of the unwritten tenets of our legal system is that we strive for outcomes that achieve the greatest societal good. IMO, assuming this was a dumb shit prank gone awry, the greatest societal good would likely be something like a significant, but not football career/college-threatening outcome, like significant community service, including some public service component to try to educate the public about the potential risks of paintball guns, but nothing more severe than that, as it does no good to seriously damage the ability of two young men, with no prior criminal histories (I'm assuming here - not 100% sure) to pursue their athletic and academic dreams. It also does society no good to take this through a long protracted legal battle in the court system, taking time/resources away from far more important legal matters for the State and society - this is what pre-trial intervention was invented for.

In addition, should the above happen quickly, as hoped, a 2 game suspension seems about right. Enough to highlight how close these guys came to throwing away their educational and athletic dreams and hopefully discouraging their teammates from doing any other dumb shit, but not so much to seriously damage their ability to continue being strong contributors to the team. That's my two cents on this.
A sling shot is also not as dangerous as "a real gun". But they are still dangerous and if you shoot someone who has not given prior consent, it is a crime. No one is suggesting that these players be charged as if they did a drive by with a MAC-10.

I think they deserve a second chance on the team. I don't know how long they will have to sit. I could see arguments from anywhere from one game to the rest of the season. I hope they learn something from their lack of judgement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RU-05
A sling shot is also not as dangerous as "a real gun". But they are still dangerous and if you shoot someone who has not given prior consent, it is a crime. No one is suggesting that these players be charged as if they did a drive by with a MAC-10.

I think they deserve a second chance on the team. I don't know how long they will have to sit. I could see arguments from anywhere from one game to the rest of the season. I hope they learn something from their lack of judgement.
Ya, the argument above about a paintball gun not being as dangerous as a real gun thus you shouldn't call the cops?

Eff that, if some punk shoots me with a paintball gun and drives off, I'm definitely calling the cops.

That said, it is not a gun, thus there should be some punishment from the team, someone mentioned 3 games above, that sounds about right.
 
Dick and fu** off? Very classy. You are well versed at making wrong assumptions. Note, I never said that I believed there wasnt a difference in the two. I challenged what you said and I quote "At no point did those three think they were shot at with a real gun". Which is why I jokingly asked if you interviewed them. I said it was possible people without knowledge of the two might not know the difference, especially in the heat of the moment..and gave one example where a paintball gun was mistaken for a firearm. You need more examples? I got them. Why are you so friggin uptight if someone challenges your word, especially if its backed up with real world examples?
He doesn't like to be argued with much. Which is I probably why I spend so much time on his ignore list. Although surely he'd give a different reason, probably involving my general lack of intelligence, or the fact that I possess a certain je ne douche quoi). Anyway, if we presume to argue with him, we're dicks and should fvck off. 😃

I never take it personally and, whatever he might think of me, I still like him. In no small part because his wife is so awesome and, IMO, wouldn't have married him if he were a bad person.
 
The players didn't do anything unethical, perhaps illegal, but that is to be determined by court, not by a lynch mob on a sports board.
A lynch mob lol??? Talk about an overreaction. First of all people are entitled to their own opinion and secondly they carry no bearing on what will happen with these kids. So get off your damn soapbox.
 
Where were the captains on the team to prevent this incident?
Are they only captain on the field only or captain for ensuring that players don't get into trouble?
 
Bob...you are differentiating "it's a felony" from mere "stupidity." But they are the same thing. There is no difference. That's why the aggravated assault law is written the way it is.

Robbing a bank is stupidity (with or without a weapon). Tossing bricks from highway overpasses is stupidity. Road rage shooting is stupidity. And yes, at the same time they are felonies.

It makes no sense at all to claim "your honor, i was just very stupid to shoot the victim. that doesn't make me a criminal."

Actually, it does.
Totally disagree. Was it stupid? Yes. Was it dangerous? Yes? Could someone have been hurt? Yes. Was there malicious intent, to actually harm someone. We can’t get in their heads, but I would definitely argue no. When we were kids, my brother threw a huge snowball at an approaching school bus from another high school. The snowball actually broke the windshield on the bus. It was stupid, dangerous, and someone could have been hurt. Was there intent to harm anyone? Absolutely not. It wasn’t a felony, and the police treated it accordingly. Despite what NJ law says, no way this should be a felony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUBOB72
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).
I agree, there is nothing wrong with a organization holding its’ members to a higher standard than the justice system.
 
Dick and fu** off? Very classy. You are well versed at making wrong assumptions. Note, I never said that I believed there wasnt a difference in the two. I challenged what you said and I quote "At no point did those three think they were shot at with a real gun". Which is why I jokingly asked if you interviewed them. I said it was possible people without knowledge of the two might not know the difference, especially in the heat of the moment..and gave one example where a paintball gun was mistaken for a firearm. You need more examples? I got them. Why are you so friggin uptight if someone challenges your word, especially if its backed up with real world examples?

I'll stand by my post. You have a nice day.
 
Wouldn't that depend on the timeline?
Objection, argumentative.

And of course, but the implications in the post was immediate.

Later as in revenge it's vigilantism which is what you get when the state refuses to protect the victims or enforce the state's monopoly on retribution. Do we really need to go there?
 
Totally disagree. Was it stupid? Yes. Was it dangerous? Yes? Could someone have been hurt? Yes. Was there malicious intent, to actually harm someone. We can’t get in their heads, but I would definitely argue no. When we were kids, my brother threw a huge snowball at an approaching school bus from another high school. The snowball actually broke the windshield on the bus. It was stupid, dangerous, and someone could have been hurt. Was there intent to harm anyone? Absolutely not. It wasn’t a felony, and the police treated it accordingly. Despite what NJ law says, no way this should be a felony.
What?? They shoot a paint gun at close range! They did actually harm 3 people. It was malicious intent! Paint guns are not supposed to be shot at close range!
 
I always thought it was weird that the punishment for shooting someone and they die vs shooting someone and they live, is different. It’s like you get rewarded for having bad aim. The intent is what the punishment should be for.

the people they hit were bleeding and had bruises. If they beat them up with their fists, threw rocks at them, attacked them with razor blades or shot them with paint balls from short range, it shouldn’t matter in my opinion. It’s the intent. Jail time doesn’t seem unreasonable for physical assault. In that case, yes they deserve to be kicked off the football team no doubt. Bad apples
 
  • Like
Reactions: IMARUFAN
Who is the next man up behind Max Melton? We gonna get burned there by Michigan on Saturday?

If Michigan scores a bunch of points by exploiting a low-experience corner... and we lose because of that.. the whole team is going to be super pissed at these two guys. Actually, the whole state is going to be super pissed.

I believe Michigan's great strength right now is their running game though right? So maybe we'll be ok...
 
Sometimes people do dumb shit.

Sometimes that dumb shit is actually illegal and dangerous to others and can result in harm to others.

Sometimes that harm to others occurs, despite that not being the intent of the perpetrators of the dumb shit.

Clearly paintball guns are nowhere near as dangerous as real guns (despite the low but non-zero probability of blinding someone), so to me it's pretty clear the players were not trying to hurt anyone (there are far more effective ways to hurt someone and the actual harm here was minimal) - it was a dumb shit prank that went awry and it's doubtful they knew this could constitute aggravated assault.

One of the unwritten tenets of our legal system is that we strive for outcomes that achieve the greatest societal good. IMO, assuming this was a dumb shit prank gone awry, the greatest societal good would likely be something like a significant, but not football career/college-threatening outcome, like significant community service, including some public service component to try to educate the public about the potential risks of paintball guns, but nothing more severe than that, as it does no good to seriously damage the ability of two young men, with no prior criminal histories (I'm assuming here - not 100% sure) to pursue their athletic and academic dreams. It also does society no good to take this through a long protracted legal battle in the court system, taking time/resources away from far more important legal matters for the State and society - this is what pre-trial intervention was invented for.

In addition, should the above happen quickly, as hoped, a 2 game suspension seems about right. Enough to highlight how close these guys came to throwing away their educational and athletic dreams and hopefully discouraging their teammates from doing any other dumb shit, but not so much to seriously damage their ability to continue being strong contributors to the team. That's my two cents on this.
Prank my ass, it was an attack on unsuspecting students minding their own business.
And the attack didn’t go awry, it went exactly as planned.
They inflicted pain, blood and welts on three student victims….shooting them at close range with a paintball gun from a car like cowards.
The only thing that went awry for them is their asses got caught.
Maybe shooting girls was their next plan
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT