like_that;957880 wrote:I am not even arguing whether you are right or wrong. I am just brining attention to your douche bag style of debating topics.

I know I am hard headed. Have been my whole life.

It's helped in many ways and also hurt at times. Wouldn't change it though.

Little Danny;957697 wrote:My response about the Brutus/OU Mascot siutation was in response to Tiernan's post stating punishment would be administered "on the field."

If you recall LD - none of the Buckeye players even saw this cowardly mugging when it happened. Believe me when that pussy UC Bearcat comes to the 'Shoe in 2014 Brutus will be ready to rip him a new one.

Tiernan;957885 wrote:If you recall LD - none of the Buckeye players even saw this cowardly mugging when it happened. Believe me when that **** UC Bearcat comes to the 'Shoe in 2014 Brutus will be ready to rip him a new one.

Brutus wants no part of the Bearcat. He's a bad arse. Remember, he's served time in jail for throwing snowballs and resisting arrest.

Fly4Fun;957343 wrote:First... as far as the assault. Everyone trying to defeat that because it wasn't intentional would be wrong. It doesn't have to be intentional. But whether it was or not surely is debatable.

I'm pretty sure there has to be intent for assault and/or battery. At least in a criminal sense.

[h=2]Simple Assault – Laws & Penalties[/h]Assault, also referred to as simple assault, is considered a misdemeanor in most circumstances. Assault can be committed by:

• Knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm to another or to another’s unborn.
• Recklessly causing serious physical harm to another or to another’s unborn.

Does this mean I can be charged with assault for something that happened on accident?
Yes. If you acted recklessly and it led to serious physical harm of someone then you can be charged and potentially found guilty of this offense. For instance, if you are drinking and at a party when you decide to juggle knives, your actions could be considered reckless, particularly if you do not know how to juggle. If your juggling leads to the injury of someone, even unintentional, you can be charged with assault.

Mulva;957937 wrote:I'm pretty sure there has to be intent for assault and/or battery. At least in a criminal sense.

I'm pretty sure I received an A in my Criminal Law class in law school. (I might know a thing or two, just maybe.)

Fly4Fun;958538 wrote:I'm pretty sure I received an A in my Criminal Law class in law school. (I might know a thing or two, just maybe.)

But maybe not.

And if drums of war is correct, there still would need to be intent. Unless you want to argue that he was acting recklessly by running onto the football field as a football player with his football teammates prior to a football game, and that the band member was seriously injured.

Mulva;958640 wrote:But maybe not.

And if drums of war is correct, there still would need to be intent. Unless you want to argue that he was acting recklessly by running onto the football field as a football player with his football teammates prior to a football game, and that the band member was seriously injured.

Hypothetically...

One could actually argue a different set of facts... such as the jumping with no ability to control himself (as some people here defending him have said) around while wearing essentially what is armor and not paying attention if there are people in front while there are clearly band members not wearing the gear. This would be a substantial and unjustifiable rik that he was aware of. One could point to his fellow teammates paying attention and clearly making efforts to avoid the band members to contrast the behavior. But of course in the alternative one could also argue intentional as in he did have control of his actions and purposefully or knowingly jumped. Purposefully it would have been his conscious object (this would be hard to show) and would just need to argue the circumstances. However, knowingly just means he was aware that such a result is practically certain. In the way he was jumping in that gear towards a person with not gear, it could be argued he would know it's practically certain he would hit the person. To the extent of the damage he might cause, that's irrelevant.

Also, some jurisdictions do have negligent assault. I just did a brief search and found out that Ohio does. But I don't believe it would pertain to this situation as it seemingly requires a deadly weapon or a dangerous ordinance.

But all of that is besides the point. I was merely trying to point out that what some people are saying here as "intentional" as in his conscious objective as most people take the word to mean is not the only mental state required for assault. I'm not saying this would work. I'm just saying there is possibly more than one way to get it to work.

LJ;957567 wrote:It's all one event. That is up to the home venue. To say that the team can run through the band because they are there to play football is ridiculous. The home venue has determined that the band's pregame performance is important enough to give them time on the field. It's all one event. If the venue deems it important enough, then it is part of the event. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have it.

I like how you make things up. Where did I say the team can run through the band because they are there to play football? I stated that what the team did is wrong, but I also pointed out that I don't think his intent was to hit the girl. He certainly didn't make much of an effort to avoid her, but I don't think his plan was to hit her.

Do you argue just for the sake of argument? Serious question...

dwccrew;958801 wrote:Do you argue just for the sake of argument? Serious question...

Do you really have to ask at this point?

karen lotz;958843 wrote:Do you really have to ask at this point?

This.

dwccrew;958801 wrote:I like how you make things up. Where did I say the team can run through the band because they are there to play football? I stated that what the team did is wrong, but I also pointed out that I don't think his intent was to hit the girl. He certainly didn't make much of an effort to avoid her, but I don't think his plan was to hit her.

Do you argue just for the sake of argument? Serious question...

I never said you said that. I said to say that is ridiculous. You responded to a response of mine to Enginmaxx.

Are you not understanding the flow of someone else's conversation that you decide to jump in just to try to egg someone on? Serious question....


BTW, Indiana had no problem whatsoever going around OSU's band twice yesterday.

LJ;957567 wrote:

dwccrew;957559 wrote:So why do people say they are going to the football game and not the band's performance event? The event is most certainly the game. That's what they sell the tickets for, not the performances surrounding the game, that is just filler time.

It's all one event. That is up to the home venue. To say that the team can run through the band because they are there to play football is ridiculous. The home venue has determined that the band's pregame performance is important enough to give them time on the field. It's all one event. If the venue deems it important enough, then it is part of the event. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have it.

LJ;960383 wrote:I never said you said that. I said to say that is ridiculous. You responded to a response of mine to Enginmaxx.

Are you not understanding the flow of someone else's conversation that you decide to jump in just to try to egg someone on? Serious question....


BTW, Indiana had no problem whatsoever going around OSU's band twice yesterday.

I assumed since you had quoted my post, you were responding to me. I understand the flow of your conversation just fine, I just don't understand your logic. I am not debating whether it was wrong or not of the team to run onto the field while the band was out there, I am saying it didn't look like the player in question intentionally meant to hit the girl. What are you not understanding? You keep debating a point with me that I don't disagree with you on.

Why bring up what the Indiana team did yesterday when I am not arguing with you about whether the team was in the wrong for running onto the field?

dwccrew;960404 wrote:I assumed since you had quoted my post, you were responding to me. I understand the flow of your conversation just fine, I just don't understand your logic. I am not debating whether it was wrong or not of the team to run onto the field while the band was out there, I am saying it didn't look like the player in question intentionally meant to hit the girl. What are you not understanding? You keep debating a point with me that I don't disagree with you on.

You responded to a a response of mine on a post where Enginmaxx doesn't think the band should get to share the field with the football team. Why don't you quote what you had originally responded to? You are obviously having problems understanding the flow of the conversation, seeing as how that is what I and Enginmaxx were debating, and his argument was that the band should GTFO because they are there for the football team and that with no football team there is no band. I responded that it is all one event, then you jumped in and disagreed with me. The whole conversation was about whether or not the band should get to be on the field. If you are going to jump in try to follow along, ok? I never said you said they don't belong on the field, but don't jump into a conversation about that and not expect me to address it.

Why bring up what the Indiana team did yesterday when I am not arguing with you about whether the team was in the wrong for running onto the field?

I was not addressing you with that statement.

LJ;960436 wrote:You responded to a a response of mine on a post where Enginmaxx doesn't think the band should get to share the field with the football team. Why don't you quote what you had originally responded to? You are obviously having problems understanding the flow of the conversation, seeing as how that is what I and Enginmaxx were debating, and his argument was that the band should GTFO because they are there for the football team and that with no football team there is no band. I responded that it is all one event, then you jumped in and disagreed with me. The whole conversation was about whether or not the band should get to be on the field. If you are going to jump in try to follow along, ok? I never said you said they don't belong on the field, but don't jump into a conversation about that and not expect me to address it.

I was not addressing you with that statement.

I didn't say the band should never be on the field. I said they should plan better around the game (including the teams' pre-game activities) to keep their own people safe. Whether that is going on at a different time or taking a different route off the field. I didn't and don't blame the band for this particular incident - player made a poor decision, intentional or not. It is still a fact that when you put yourself at the mercy of other people's decision-making, you lessen the control over your own risk. It seems you are caught up in thinking I'm doing this picking on the band, the world should get out of my way routine. I'm not. It is a simple matter of controlling your own safety. I have never said that the player wasn't responsible for his own actions.

enigmaax;960467 wrote:I didn't say the band should never be on the field. I said they should plan better around the game (including the teams' pre-game activities) to keep their own people safe. Whether that is going on at a different time or taking a different route off the field. I didn't and don't blame the band for this particular incident - player made a poor decision, intentional or not. It is still a fact that when you put yourself at the mercy of other people's decision-making, you lessen the control over your own risk. It seems you are caught up in thinking I'm doing this picking on the band, the world should get out of my way routine. I'm not. It is a simple matter of controlling your own safety. I have never said that the player wasn't responsible for his own actions.

This is how I understood it. It seems as if LJ didn't understand his own conversation. From what I understood from your conversation, you were saying that the event is the game (which I agree with) the band is there to perform at the event, but that the event is the football game.

enigmaax;960467 wrote:I didn't say the band should never be on the field. I said they should plan better around the game (including the teams' pre-game activities) to keep their own people safe. Whether that is going on at a different time or taking a different route off the field. I didn't and don't blame the band for this particular incident - player made a poor decision, intentional or not. It is still a fact that when you put yourself at the mercy of other people's decision-making, you lessen the control over your own risk. It seems you are caught up in thinking I'm doing this picking on the band, the world should get out of my way routine. I'm not. It is a simple matter of controlling your own safety. I have never said that the player wasn't responsible for his own actions.

First off, I never claimed that you said the band should "never" be on the field.

Secondly, did you post these things?

enigmaax;956562 wrote:1. Get off the field.

enigmaax;956690 wrote:1. Disagree. It is a privilege for them to be on the field, not a right. As someone has already mentioned, it is a football field for a football game. Perhaps some better time and/or logistics management by the band is in order - the football team has its pre-game routine which never includes staying in the locker room until the exact moment of kick-off. The band works around the team.

Don't confuse the fact that I said stay off the field for placing blame. The fact is that these things can happen when you have two large groups of people with different agendas. Protect your band - get them off the field before the teams come out.....or risk their safety. I don't give a shit, but the incident could have been prevented.

Why did the coaching staff allow this to happen?

LJ;960804 wrote:First off, I never claimed that you said the band should "never" be on the field.

Secondly, did you post these things?

Yes, what is your point?

I believe the band should work it's routine around the football team. It seems as though you believe the band should give a big "f.u." to the football team and do whatever the hell it pleases.
I say that puts them in position to take unnecessary risks. You seem to think they shouldn't care because if anything happens it wouldn't be their fault because they are "entitled" to share the field.
I say that blaming the responsible party doesn't fix whatever potential injury could (has) occur, which makes your (interpreted) attitude a poor one. You seem to think somehow that makes me the "entitled" one.

Fair summary?

The OHSAA requires that teams be off the field 15 minutes before game time to accommodate those "irritating" marching bands. Does the NCAA have any similar requirements? That would may a difference in the arguments offered here.

enigmaax;961681 wrote:Yes, what is your point?

I believe the band should work it's routine around the football team. It seems as though you believe the band should give a big "f.u." to the football team and do whatever the hell it pleases.
I say that puts them in position to take unnecessary risks. You seem to think they shouldn't care because if anything happens it wouldn't be their fault because they are "entitled" to share the field.
I say that blaming the responsible party doesn't fix whatever potential injury could (has) occur, which makes your (interpreted) attitude a poor one. You seem to think somehow that makes me the "entitled" one.

Fair summary?

You think that the HOME band, in the HOME venue, in an event put on by the HOME school should completely change their routine for the AWAY school.

I still don't see how that could make any sense whatsoever. No schools do that. This can be avoided by the team not being assholes and runinng though the band.