forums

Tears Gator Tears

TRick72 said:
Let’s look past the comedy of the Jerry Springer like cat fight between the Gaytors and “*** Bang”, why are the players associating with a known area gambler?

If this was the Canes, you best believe the NCAA, ESPN and everyone else would automatically assume there was some gambling irregularities going on.
Click to expand...

My sentiments also. While I agree that probably nothing will happen, there are lots of red flags here for the NCAA and maybe even the FBI (illegal gambling).
 
Advertisement
Rivals ranking coaches.

I hope he means that he’s going to crash that Ferrari (more like a Ford Focus) and that’s why we’re watching out.
 

Attachments

  • 38B0C108-7785-49C8-B37C-8953140F3857.jpeg
    38B0C108-7785-49C8-B37C-8953140F3857.jpeg
    561.4 KB · Views: 198
Cookie917 said:
Not sure what crime they could be charged with. I do however find this part of the story particularly entertaining...

"The football players began to confront the group, but left in vehicles, the report states. As the group left, they could be heard yelling, “We coming back strapped,” the report states. "....

"the group had a baseball bat, a red laser being pointed at another player’s chest .... While searching for evidence, police didn’t find any bullets. However they did find a frying pan that, according to the report, was seen on camera being used by one of the athletes during the confrontation....holding and pointing what appears to be assault rifles (later determined to be airsoft rifles)... and some others were [holding] rocks."

So they came back "strapped" with a red laser pointer, a frying pan, a bat, rocks, and a bunch of airsoft guns....
Click to expand...



As for crimes they could be charged with, let's start out with assault. Let's add in the "lying to police" angle. Put some pressure on these kids, who have a game in a month. Get them to talk about everything, including "the gambler".

Here's the thing, a lot of times, people just look at the initial incident, and neglect to think about the pressure that can be applied after the incident. Trump's lawyer didn't leak a tape on Day 1, that happened after a lot of pressure was applied.

Take the Gaytors out of it, and let's think about the basic incident. A known gambler is lying in wait, on a college campus, for amateur athletes. JUST INQUIRE ABOUT THAT ONE SCENARIO. Start there, use the leverage that the players' eligibility might come into question, and let them start to tell the truth.

I know that people forget these things sometimes, but Marlin Barnes was murdered, on the UM campus, by a non-student who waited for him to return to his apartment. Now, the motivation was different (he thought that his ex-girlfriend was seeing Marlin), but the potential for these situations to escalate is profound. UM now has more perimeter security around campus than it once had.

Again, not to be an alarmist, but the UF situation could have easily escalated into serious violence. We live in a world where college and HS campuses are regularly beset with active shooter situations. I understand the temptation for UF to "let this slide" because it involves football players, but the known-gambler-coming-to-campus-to-harass-athletes angle is EXACTLY why UF needs to go above and beyond in dealing with this.

Just being honest. I hate the Gaytor fans and all, but this is some next-level stuff that needs to be addressed by someone at UF a bit tougher than Dan "Suspend Watkins" Mullet.

And, for the record, I am an alum of both UM and UF.



.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
As for crimes they could be charged with, let's start out with assault. Let's add in the "lying to police" angle. Put some pressure on these kids, who have a game in a month. Get them to talk about everything, including "the gambler".

Here's the thing, a lot of times, people just look at the initial incident, and neglect to think about the pressure that can be applied after the incident. Trump's lawyer didn't leak a tape on Day 1, that happened after a lot of pressure was applied.

Take the Gaytors out of it, and let's think about the basic incident. A known gambler is lying in wait, on a college campus, for amateur athletes. JUST INQUIRE ABOUT THAT ONE SCENARIO. Start there, use the leverage that the players' eligibility might come into question, and let them start to tell the truth.

I know that people forget these things sometimes, but Marlin Barnes was murdered, on the UM campus, by a non-student who waited for him to return to his apartment. Now, the motivation was different (he thought that his ex-girlfriend was seeing Marlin), but the potential for these situations to escalate is profound. UM now has more perimeter security around campus than it once had.

Again, not to be an alarmist, but the UF situation could have easily escalated into serious violence. We live in a world where college and HS campuses are regularly beset with active shooter situations. I understand the temptation for UF to "let this slide" because it involves football players, but the known-gambler-coming-to-campus-to-harass-athletes angle is EXACTLY why UF needs to go above and beyond in dealing with this.

Just being honest. I hate the Gaytor fans and all, but this is some next-level stuff that needs to be addressed by someone at UF a bit tougher than Dan "Suspend Watkins" Mullet.

And, for the record, I am an alum of both UM and UF.



.
Click to expand...

In order to show assault you have to show the "victim" had a well founded fear that harm was imminent, you said yourself this guy went to campus to wait on them, there is no victim. It simply does not meet the elements. "lying to police" is different than filing a false police report so I am not sure there is a crime there. How many "witnesses" to a crime have said they didn't see anything yet video surveillance, and other witness testimony say differently? Those are not crimes. UF can now do something, just like I was on probation plenty at UM for things that were not "illegal" but against student code, and I can tell you very little comes from that.

The "gambler" was also given a trespass warning. There is nothing left legally to do.
 
Advertisement
Cookie917 said:
In order to show assault you have to show the "victim" had a well founded fear that harm was imminent, you said yourself this guy went to campus to wait on them, there is no victim. It simply does not meet the elements. "lying to police" is different than filing a false police report so I am not sure there is a crime there. How many "witnesses" to a crime have said they didn't see anything yet video surveillance, and other witness testimony say differently? Those are not crimes. UF can now do something, just like I was on probation plenty at UM for things that were not "illegal" but against student code, and I can tell you very little comes from that.

The "gambler" was also given a trespass warning. There is nothing left legally to do.
Click to expand...


You are wrong.

"The football players began to confront the group, but left in vehicles, the report states. As the group left, they could be heard yelling, “We coming back strapped,” the report states.

The other group returned and a confrontation ensued. One player reported the group had a baseball bat, a red laser being pointed at another player’s chest and another individual threatening “Come any closer, I’ll spray you.”"


Elements established. Intentional unlawful threat made. Apparent ability to carry out threat. Creation of a well-founded fear that violence is imminent. All elements established. The football players left and came back armed. It doesn't matter if, eventually, someone learns it is an Airsoft rifle, the orange tip was painted over, thus there is EASILY an APPARENT ability to carry out the threat AND the creation of a well-founded fear that violence is imminent. It doesn't matter if the gambler was the first to arrive, the football players escalated the situation by (a) specific verbal threats, and (b) leaving and returning with weapons.

File the criminal charges.




Allow me to add this:

The Definition of Assault

The assault statute in Florida, Section 784.011(1), defines the crime of assault as follows: An assault is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

The statute requires proof of three elements:

  1. an intentional, unlawful threat;
  2. an apparent ability to carry out the threat; and
  3. creation of a well-founded fear that the violence is imminent.
So proof of the crime of assault requires not just proof of a threat, but also proof of some physical act directed toward the victim. Several courts in Florida have reversed a conviction when only threatening words were used without any overt act of violence to accompany those words. Other cases have been reversed because the alleged victim testifies that he or she was not really in fear. In other cases, the defense in the case centers around whether the act was intentional or merely an accident.




.
 
Last edited:
TheOriginalCane said:
You are wrong.

"The football players began to confront the group, but left in vehicles, the report states. As the group left, they could be heard yelling, “We coming back strapped,” the report states.

The other group returned and a confrontation ensued. One player reported the group had a baseball bat, a red laser being pointed at another player’s chest and another individual threatening “Come any closer, I’ll spray you.”"


Elements established. Intentional unlawful threat made. Apparent ability to carry out threat. Creation of a well-founded fear that violence is imminent. All elements established. The football players left and came back armed. It doesn't matter if, eventually, someone learns it is an Airsoft rifle, the orange tip was painted over, thus there is EASILY an APPARENT ability to carry out the threat AND the creation of a well-founded fear that violence is imminent. It doesn't matter if the gambler was the first to arrive, the football players escalated the situation by (a) specific verbal threats, and (b) leaving and returning with weapons.

File the criminal charges.




Allow me to add this:

The Definition of Assault

The assault statute in Florida, Section 784.011(1), defines the crime of assault as follows: An assault is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

The statute requires proof of three elements:

  1. an intentional, unlawful threat;
  2. an apparent ability to carry out the threat; and
  3. creation of a well-founded fear that the violence is imminent.
So proof of the crime of assault requires not just proof of a threat, but also proof of some physical act directed toward the victim. Several courts in Florida have reversed a conviction when only threatening words were used without any overt act of violence to accompany those words. Other cases have been reversed because the alleged victim testifies that he or she was not really in fear. In other cases, the defense in the case centers around whether the act was intentional or merely an accident.




.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.... let me break this down. The elements for assault as you stated:
1. Defendant intentionally and unlawfully threatened, either by word or act, to do violence to the victim. (this element is likely met)
2. At the time, defendant appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat. (This element is likely met)
3.The act of defendant created in the mind of victim a well-founded fear that the violence was about to take place.

As you said, it is reversible if the victim testifies that he/she was not in fear. No one in the above-case is going to admit they were afraid.

Also poor reporting because read your quoted excerpt closely.... "the football players began to confront the group but left in vehicles." Ok so the football players got in their cars left.

Then the report says "as the group left... they said we are coming back strapped" now we don't know what group the report is referring, but in the first sentence the "group" was who the players confronted, because the first part says the players were leaving we tend to assume the group is the players so the players said the "strapped" comment.

Then it says the other group returned. Unsure who that group is but as you continue reading it says one PLAYER reported the "group" (because the PLAYER is talking about the "group", I doubt he is snitching on his own teammates, but more so talking about the gambler's group) had a baseball bat, red laser being pointed and another individual threatening with the I'll spray you comment. SO it very well could have been the gambler making this comment. This however is all MOOT for assault purposes if everyone admits they weren't scared violence was about to take place.
 
Advertisement
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
L

O

L

A frying pan.

That’s a jealous woman weapon. The kind guys run around from laughing their asses off when their gf goes after them with it.

This guy was using the preferred weapon of a jealous chick.
Click to expand...
And a baseball bat. No wonder they suck at football - they got the wrong equipment!
 
Cookie917 said:
You are wrong.... let me break this down. The elements for assault as you stated:
1. Defendant intentionally and unlawfully threatened, either by word or act, to do violence to the victim. (this element is likely met)
2. At the time, defendant appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat. (This element is likely met)
3.The act of defendant created in the mind of victim a well-founded fear that the violence was about to take place.

As you said, it is reversible if the victim testifies that he/she was not in fear. No one in the above-case is going to admit they were afraid.

Also poor reporting because read your quoted excerpt closely.... "the football players began to confront the group but left in vehicles." Ok so the football players got in their cars left.

Then the report says "as the group left... they said we are coming back strapped" now we don't know what group the report is referring, but in the first sentence the "group" was who the players confronted, because the first part says the players were leaving we tend to assume the group is the players so the players said the "strapped" comment.

Then it says the other group returned. Unsure who that group is but as you continue reading it says one PLAYER reported the "group" (because the PLAYER is talking about the "group", I doubt he is snitching on his own teammates, but more so talking about the gambler's group) had a baseball bat, red laser being pointed and another individual threatening with the I'll spray you comment. SO it very well could have been the gambler making this comment. This however is all MOOT for assault purposes if everyone admits they weren't scared violence was about to take place.
Click to expand...

I don't you're getting this thread , it's the fart and ***** joke of cis .... "Gator tears",intellect is not needed in this thread,

Just pointing and laughing at the Gator dumpster fire. Rinse, then repeat.
 
Advertisement
Gents while I always appreciate a good debate especially on law let's make sure to keep the focus on Gator tears. it doesn't matter who was in the right who was in the wrong what matters is once again the Gators and their players are in the headlines for all the wrong reasons
 
TheOriginalCane said:
You are wrong.

"The football players began to confront the group, but left in vehicles, the report states. As the group left, they could be heard yelling, “We coming back strapped,” the report states.

The other group returned and a confrontation ensued. One player reported the group had a baseball bat, a red laser being pointed at another player’s chest and another individual threatening “Come any closer, I’ll spray you.”"


Element established.

File the criminal charges.


.
Click to expand...
Cookie917 said:
You are wrong.... let me break this down. The elements for assault as you stated:
1. Defendant intentionally and unlawfully threatened, either by word or act, to do violence to the victim. (this element is likely met)
2. At the time, defendant appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat. (This element is likely met)
3.The act of defendant created in the mind of victim a well-founded fear that the violence was about to take place.

As you said, it is reversible if the victim testifies that he/she was not in fear. No one in the above-case is going to admit they were afraid.

Also poor reporting because read your quoted excerpt closely.... "the football players began to confront the group but left in vehicles." Ok so the football players got in their cars left.

Then the report says "as the group left... they said we are coming back strapped" now we don't know what group the report is referring, but in the first sentence the "group" was who the players confronted, because the first part says the players were leaving we tend to assume the group is the players so the players said the "strapped" comment.

Then it says the other group returned. Unsure who that group is but as you continue reading it says one PLAYER reported the "group" (because the PLAYER is talking about the "group", I doubt he is snitching on his own teammates, but more so talking about the gambler's group) had a baseball bat, red laser being pointed and another individual threatening with the I'll spray you comment. SO it very well could have been the gambler making this comment. This however is all MOOT for assault purposes if everyone admits they weren't scared violence was about to take place.
Click to expand...



You are being ridiculous, once again. The players left, the players returned with weapons. No amount of your misreading will change that.

Second, you can CHARGE the crime. This is where people such as yourself are flat-out pvssies. You are arguing over what will happen when people are on the stand. You are trying to act as if nobody will say that violence was about to take place, which is a load of crap. You are mixing and matching words like crazy. A person does not have to say "I was afraid". A person can say "violence was about to take place".

The true difference would be a person making a threat, followed by that person doing nothing to advance the concept of violence being imminent. That is completely different from guys driving away, and then returning with what appear to be guns, laser sights, rocks, etc. Sure, maybe ***-Bangs is too much of a tough guy to cry like a baby that he was "afraid", but he can easily say that the actions of the football players made it appear likely that a fight was about to break out. THAT is assault.

Stop acting like you actually know something. You don't. Go back to your Gaytor boards and stop trolling us.


.
 
Advertisement
Cookie917 said:
Not sure what crime they could be charged with. I do however find this part of the story particularly entertaining...

"The football players began to confront the group, but left in vehicles, the report states. As the group left, they could be heard yelling, “We coming back strapped,” the report states. "....

"the group had a baseball bat, a red laser being pointed at another player’s chest .... While searching for evidence, police didn’t find any bullets. However they did find a frying pan that, according to the report, was seen on camera being used by one of the athletes during the confrontation....holding and pointing what appears to be assault rifles (later determined to be airsoft rifles)... and some others were [holding] rocks."

So they came back "strapped" with a red laser pointer, a frying pan, a bat, rocks, and a bunch of airsoft guns....
Click to expand...

Thank goodness for 24/7 Wal-Mart's.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top