ADVERTISEMENT

not negotiable ... anything to do with guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
As long as he quotes the court's documentation consisting of affidavits submitted under oath, depositions taken under oath, and transcripts of 9-1-1 tapes that all show that Gary Lacey's claim that the gun was hidden was so much BS asserted by a DA who was still pissed that TO refused to support his political goals, well that would be an interesting book. I also assume that it would include Lacey's later admission that he was wrong about TO being involved in any way, that it was actually Steele who was involved. An admission that Sports illustrated somehow didn't see fit to print, at least to the best of my knowledge.
Your political claims are unfounded and unnecessary. TO himself admitted that they had it. Not the issue. You should read his admissions in the rest of the article, including overstepping his bounds and confronting victims. That is completely out of line. If this had happened anywhere else, then Husker fans would be pissing themselves. As evidence by trying to crucify the current coach because they had their feelings hurt that Pope Tom's hire got his comeuppance.

But stick with you "court records and documents" defense. I am sure in no way was the case skewed or bullied to go a certain way. That must be why a solid gun-felony case turned into a "misdemeanor assault"
 
Your political claims are unfounded and unnecessary. TO himself admitted that they had it. Not the issue. You should read his admissions in the rest of the article, including overstepping his bounds and confronting victims. That is completely out of line. If this had happened anywhere else, then Husker fans would be pissing themselves. As evidence by trying to crucify the current coach because they had their feelings hurt that Pope Tom's hire got his comeuppance.

But stick with you "court records and documents" defense. I am sure in no way was the case skewed or bullied to go a certain way. That must be why a solid gun-felony case turned into a "misdemeanor assault"

It's obvious from reading your posts that you would rather have splinters shoved up your fingernails than admit you were wrong, but you are wrong here. You rely on nothing more than a vague SI article, full of erroneous statements. For example, the article states that Damon Benning was cited for assault for "allegedly beating" his ex-girlfriend. That's an utter falsehood. It was the ex-girlfriend who was cited for criminal mischief for vandalizing Benning's car and apartment.

Nowhere in the article does TO "admit" that he overstepped his bounds or confronted victims. There are plenty of alleged quotes from Gary Lacey arguing, somewhat obtusely, to that effect, but nothing like what appears to be your vague recollection.

As for your gun felony/misdemeanor assault issue, you are batting 100%. TW was charged with 2 felonies. After his request to have the fact-finder consider a self-defense claim was rejected by the trial court and his argument that the 2 statutes under which he was charged unconstitutionally overlapped was rejected by the trial court and appellate court (there's ol' TO skewing and bullying the courts into rejecting two of TW's potential defenses) the matter was plea-bargained. A completely standard plea-bargain was reached, where TW pled no-contest to a misdemeanor assault charge and the felony discharging a gun charge; 2 felonies plea-bargained to 1 felony and a mid-level misdemeanor. But that's when GL's fingers apparently got in the pie. TW was sentenced to 6 months in jail, which was completely unexpected. The standard for someone with a clean record like TW is minimal jail time, like 7-30 days, all suspended, and probation. Even the ADA stated that she was "completely shocked" at the sentence. The Packers assigned an attorney to the case to look out for their interests and according to him, he researched 5 years of relevant sentencing and didn't find a single instance where a defendant was jailed for an analogous conviction with an otherwise clean criminal record. Once again, TO bullying and skewing the judge into giving TW a unprecedentedly harsh sentence.

As for your argument that the political claims are unfounded and unnecessary, they are relevant to understand why GL stated things that were later proven to be untrue. In addition, they were well-known to those in the legal profession in Lincoln at the time. In fact, even several of the attorneys and paralegals I know who worked in the DA's office knew quite well that GL hated TO. It was hardly a secret. At the time, no one that I talked to knew why, or at least was willing to tell me why. It was only after GL retired a while back that someone fairly high up in the NE AG's office who knows GL told me it was because of strong political disagreement between TO and GL, leading to a curtailment of GL's political ambitions. Which makes sense, given that GL made it clear early on that he had his sights set on the governorship, at least, yet was stuck as the Lancaster County DA for his entire political career.

But all you have to do is look at the Riley Washington case to know that GL was after NU players and, through them, TO. The videotape evidence, ballistic evidence, and disinterested witness evidence all established that RW was not the shooter. The ballistic evidence and disinterested witness evidence all suggested that the shot came from the vicinity of a dumpster a number of yards north and a little west of where the victim and RW were standing. Coincidently, that is where the victim's 2 buddies admitted they were hiding. Throw in the facts that between the victim and his two witness buddies they had 4 misdemeanor and 1 felony conviction for filing false police reports against NU athletes, and the victim couldn't ID RW in 3 photo line-ups, and not surprisingly everyone in GL's office told GL to wait, if you take it to trial now you'll get creamed. But GL ordered an ADA to take it to trial and she got creamed. Now GL is a very astute attorney and smart political animal. To force a case to trial that was a guaranteed loser makes no sense unless there was some sort of hidden agenda.
 
It's obvious from reading your posts that you would rather have splinters shoved up your fingernails than admit you were wrong, but you are wrong here. You rely on nothing more than a vague SI article, full of erroneous statements. For example, the article states that Damon Benning was cited for assault for "allegedly beating" his ex-girlfriend. That's an utter falsehood. It was the ex-girlfriend who was cited for criminal mischief for vandalizing Benning's car and apartment.

Nowhere in the article does TO "admit" that he overstepped his bounds or confronted victims. There are plenty of alleged quotes from Gary Lacey arguing, somewhat obtusely, to that effect, but nothing like what appears to be your vague recollection.

As for your gun felony/misdemeanor assault issue, you are batting 100%. TW was charged with 2 felonies. After his request to have the fact-finder consider a self-defense claim was rejected by the trial court and his argument that the 2 statutes under which he was charged unconstitutionally overlapped was rejected by the trial court and appellate court (there's ol' TO skewing and bullying the courts into rejecting two of TW's potential defenses) the matter was plea-bargained. A completely standard plea-bargain was reached, where TW pled no-contest to a misdemeanor assault charge and the felony discharging a gun charge; 2 felonies plea-bargained to 1 felony and a mid-level misdemeanor. But that's when GL's fingers apparently got in the pie. TW was sentenced to 6 months in jail, which was completely unexpected. The standard for someone with a clean record like TW is minimal jail time, like 7-30 days, all suspended, and probation. Even the ADA stated that she was "completely shocked" at the sentence. The Packers assigned an attorney to the case to look out for their interests and according to him, he researched 5 years of relevant sentencing and didn't find a single instance where a defendant was jailed for an analogous conviction with an otherwise clean criminal record. Once again, TO bullying and skewing the judge into giving TW a unprecedentedly harsh sentence.

As for your argument that the political claims are unfounded and unnecessary, they are relevant to understand why GL stated things that were later proven to be untrue. In addition, they were well-known to those in the legal profession in Lincoln at the time. In fact, even several of the attorneys and paralegals I know who worked in the DA's office knew quite well that GL hated TO. It was hardly a secret. At the time, no one that I talked to knew why, or at least was willing to tell me why. It was only after GL retired a while back that someone fairly high up in the NE AG's office who knows GL told me it was because of strong political disagreement between TO and GL, leading to a curtailment of GL's political ambitions. Which makes sense, given that GL made it clear early on that he had his sights set on the governorship, at least, yet was stuck as the Lancaster County DA for his entire political career.

But all you have to do is look at the Riley Washington case to know that GL was after NU players and, through them, TO. The videotape evidence, ballistic evidence, and disinterested witness evidence all established that RW was not the shooter. The ballistic evidence and disinterested witness evidence all suggested that the shot came from the vicinity of a dumpster a number of yards north and a little west of where the victim and RW were standing. Coincidently, that is where the victim's 2 buddies admitted they were hiding. Throw in the facts that between the victim and his two witness buddies they had 4 misdemeanor and 1 felony conviction for filing false police reports against NU athletes, and the victim couldn't ID RW in 3 photo line-ups, and not surprisingly everyone in GL's office told GL to wait, if you take it to trial now you'll get creamed. But GL ordered an ADA to take it to trial and she got creamed. Now GL is a very astute attorney and smart political animal. To force a case to trial that was a guaranteed loser makes no sense unless there was some sort of hidden agenda.
All totally believable. Osborne and all the players were patsies.
 
All totally believable. Osborne and all the players were patsies.

I'd rather rely on actually speaking with the people involved and reading the court files than your fantastic black helicopter theories. Oh and BTW, you do know that the authors of the article you don't actually remember accurately relied on local students to do much of their research, sort of like Armen Keteyain (sp) did with Big Red Confidential, paying the "researchers" a sliding scale based on the amount of dirt they could dig up. We all know how accurate that was.
 
I'd rather rely on actually speaking with the people involved and reading the court files than your fantastic black helicopter theories. Oh and BTW, you do know that the authors of the article you don't actually remember accurately relied on local students to do much of their research, sort of like Armen Keteyain (sp) did with Big Red Confidential, paying the "researchers" a sliding scale based on the amount of dirt they could dig up. We all know how accurate that was.
I am agreeing with you. These were all made up accusations and Osborne never did anything wrong.
 
Not trying to be a dick, but dont confuse recorded history with facts.
Whoa whoa whoa.. you mean bullied attorneys and victims don't make honest court and recorded "facts".... now you're just talking crazy talk!!!
 
Not trying to be a dick, but dont confuse recorded history with facts.

So what your saying is that evidence has no place in any sort of discussion? It's more logical to accept as closer to the truth something that appeared in an entertainment magazine (and that 4.6.3 doesn't even remember accurately and part of which the quoted speaker later admitted was untrue) over something that was stated under oath in criminal and civil court proceedings? Or that it's more logical to accept that someone is telling the truth when his/her statements are exposed as lies at every turn and that the statements of those opposing him/her that never waver and that are supported by every disinterested witness to speak are the lies? That kind of utter and complete illogic is the stuff of conspiracy theory. Then 4.6.3 throws out some fantasy cooked up in his febrile imagination about bullied attorneys and victims that does not have a shred of evidence to back it up, in support of his vast conspiracy theory, where the NU athletic department is on par with the Star Wars Empire. Hey, I can play the make shit up game too. A cabal of Big 8 schools, recognizing that NU was on the way to complete domination of the conference in football for the foreseeable future, found a malleable fruitcake in Kathy Redmond and an attention-whore superstar wannabe in Natalie Kuijvenhoven and a violent schizo in Kate McEwen and paid them major bucks to lie about NU players, telling them that not only would they get money from the Big 8 teams but that they could sue the University and become media darlings at the same time. While it didn't bring NU down, it did cause of lots of unwelcome attention, which was almost as good. Hey, this making stuff up is fun.

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion"- Harlan Ellison

"'Taint no shame to be stupid"- Pogo Possum
 
Last edited:
So what your saying is that evidence has no place in any sort of discussion? It's more logical to accept as closer to the truth something that appeared in an entertainment magazine (and that 4.6.3 doesn't even remember accurately and part of which the quoted speaker later admitted was untrue) over something that was stated under oath in criminal and civil court proceedings? Or that it's more logical to accept that someone is telling the truth when his/her statements are exposed as lies at every turn and that the statements of those opposing him/her that never waver and that are supported by every disinterested witness to speak are the lies? That kind of utter and complete illogic is the stuff of conspiracy theory. Then 4.6.3 throws out some fantasy cooked up in his febrile imagination about bullied attorneys and victims that does not have a shred of evidence to back it up to support his vast conspiracy theory, where the NU athletic department is on par with the Star Wars Empire. Hey, I can play the make shit up game too. A cabal of Big 8 schools, recognizing that NU was on the way to complete domination of the conference in football for the foreseeable future, found a malleable fruitcake in Kathy Redmond and an attention-whore superstar wannabe in Natalie Kuijvenhoven and a violent schizo in Kate McEwen and paid them major bucks to lie about NU players, telling them that not only would they get money from the Big 8 teams but that they could sue the University and become media darlings at the same time. While it didn't bring NU down, it did cause of lots of unwelcome attention, which was almost as good. Hey, this making stuff up is fun.

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion"- Harlan Ellison

"'Taint no shame to be stupid"- Pogo Possum
"Thou shalt have no other false Gods before me"
 
So what your saying is that evidence has no place in any sort of discussion? It's more logical to accept as closer to the truth something that appeared in an entertainment magazine (and that 4.6.3 doesn't even remember accurately and part of which the quoted speaker later admitted was untrue) over something that was stated under oath in criminal and civil court proceedings? Or that it's more logical to accept that someone is telling the truth when his/her statements are exposed as lies at every turn and that the statements of those opposing him/her that never waver and that are supported by every disinterested witness to speak are the lies? That kind of utter and complete illogic is the stuff of conspiracy theory. Then 4.6.3 throws out some fantasy cooked up in his febrile imagination about bullied attorneys and victims that does not have a shred of evidence to back it up, in support of his vast conspiracy theory, where the NU athletic department is on par with the Star Wars Empire. Hey, I can play the make shit up game too. A cabal of Big 8 schools, recognizing that NU was on the way to complete domination of the conference in football for the foreseeable future, found a malleable fruitcake in Kathy Redmond and an attention-whore superstar wannabe in Natalie Kuijvenhoven and a violent schizo in Kate McEwen and paid them major bucks to lie about NU players, telling them that not only would they get money from the Big 8 teams but that they could sue the University and become media darlings at the same time. While it didn't bring NU down, it did cause of lots of unwelcome attention, which was almost as good. Hey, this making stuff up is fun.

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion"- Harlan Ellison

"'Taint no shame to be stupid"- Pogo Possum
Uh ok. Kind of a long response. Like I said wasnt trying to be a DICK. Just pointing out what is recorded isnt always FACT.
 
Uh ok. Kind of a long response. Like I said wasnt trying to be a DICK. Just pointing out what is recorded isnt always FACT.

Yep, probably an unnecessarily long response. Excessivus keyboardus maximus is a disease of mine. My point was that if you are going to express an opinion it needs to be based on something. So which is a more logical underpinning of an opinion? An article in an entertainment magazine that 4.6.3 doesn't even remember accurately or consistent statements under oath by multiple parties saying the same thing, with nothing from the opposing party to refute those statements? Or multiple people, many disinterested, saying the same thing in response to a police investigation that completely refute the claims of the one allegedly aggrieved person?
 
Last edited:
Uh ok. Kind of a long response. Like I said wasnt trying to be a DICK. Just pointing out what is recorded isnt always FACT.

+1.

No one here in their right mind would take the Tallahassee PD at their word in an era where the wins were rolling right along.

LPD may have done everything right, but all it takes is one "situation" before you can't hand out blanket trust anymore.
 
Any player who abuse's someone or does anything breaking the law and guns are involved will be dealt with sternly.

Each coach has their own rules. I will actually show restraint on this one.

I think this is reasonable.

When I was a kid playing non-select Little League ball in Piddly South Omaha, I had a coach who won a lot of games, and told all us kids that we weren't allowed to go swimming all day on the days we had games. He didn't want us all wore out and tarnishing his record, I imagine.

No dad really batted an eye at that request, even though it seems quite odd given the general age group (young), time of year (summer), and level of competition (basically none).

I think it'd be alright for Riley to say that any legal infractions with weapons will not be tolerated on his Div 1 football team. If I'm not reading your post incorrectly, Riley DID NOT say to the team "I'm abolishing your 2nd amendment right because I'm a hipster who happens to be in charge of deciding who is toting the rock on gameday and that will effect your future earning potential".
 
No, the jury said he is not guilty, not he court. And that is a huge difference from being innocent. A basic civics class should have taught you that, but somehow I'm not surprised that you don't know the difference.

Now there's the second non sequitor to the original discussion. I'm trying to figure out who you will compare to Hitler in the next post or two.

We may have a forest/trees scenario in play. Let's see, the DA is after Osborne? Nobody was found guilty of major crimes. Now OJ gets thrown into the mix for the not-guilty connection. If the dots get any bigger nobody will need to connect them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT