Posted on 11/16/2004 10:33:34 AM PST by onehipdad
Ooooh, a real live racial incident for the academic community to Corvallis to agitate over. Ooops, wait, wrong races involved, the special meetings are cancelled.
No hate crime here, everybody just move along, nothing to see here, just a young college kid who had a little bit too much to drink, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...
Again, an attack in Corvallis
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/11/16/news/opinion/1ed1116.txt
...
Neither incident clarifies where the notion of "live and let live" has gone, and other big questions remain: To what degree was this a hate-motivated incident, and how much of it can be attributed to that incendiary trio of attitude, alcohol and immaturity? Will Rudulph's temper and attitude ultimately cost him his scholarship?
In another time; or if there had been more time, perhaps this could have been resolved with apologies and handshakes all around. But that isn't likely now. For one thing, Sapp won't be in town when Rudulph makes his Dec. 9 court hearing on the charges.
...
I heard Lars discussing this Monday morning and he said that Coach Riley said something like "there are no innocent parties here..."
Does anyone have a link to an article that has this quote? I haven't been able to find anything on the web, did Riley really say that?
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=Joseph+Rudulph+Riley&filter=0&scoring=d
Hang 'em High!
OK everybody - this should surprise no one, but the newspapers have oversimplified and oversensationalized the events.
From a friend who was there:
The white/black taunting was going on. Evidently, one of the football players used to date the wife. Stupid, inexcusable to harrass anybody's wife for any reason. Then it died down, the football players were leaving without any punches being thrown....but a stupid white b!tch starting hollering and racheting it back up (had she kept her pie-hole shut, we probably wouldn't have heard anything about this) - so the military guy hustles outside to re-ignite the bruhaha (this is where the "no innocent parties" comes in), and he gets punched.
The fact that he is a soldier has nothing to do with the whole deal. It is thrown in by the media to ignite emotions, but as far as I can tell, he wasn't in uniform so nobody even knew he was a soldier at the time.
The other players were suspended for being there, but they are not being charged - so as far as anybody can tell, they weren't involved in the assault, which is what Rudolph is being charged with.
Riley (the coach) is not the clearest of speakers, so his comment may have even been referring to his players (nobody is innocent) and not making any comment on the actions of the husband.
Riley has taken one of his starters out of the most important game of the year (the Civil War this weekend) - for being at the scene. This kid is a fairly important part of the team, and the suspension might mean OSU loses on Saturday. Riley has acted appropriately and quickly, without an eye to the W-L column - further action will be taken, if called for, once the investigation and trial are completed.
The comments to the wife were racist, the media is not calling this a hate crime, as they would if the roles were reversed - but climbing Riley's frame, or denegrating the University for the way it's being handled, or even trashing the other 3 kids who were there without more evidence, is liberal-whacko kind of leaps without evidence or knowledge. If Rudolph was leaving, and the soldier followed him out and got decked....then the only thing anybody should hold against Rudolph is being underaged in a drinking establishment and being a loudmouthed jerk, yapping racist comments to someboy's wife.
this appears to be Rudulph's listing at Oregon State
email and ask him,.
http://directory.oregonstate.edu/?type=search&cn=Rudulph&osudepartment=&mail=&anyphone=
later
What a stupid thing to do.
You think because the kid's name is in the paper (and we all know how reliably accurate everything mentioned in the MSM is) that we have the "right" or "duty" to innundate him with innane questions from ignorant observers, informed only by the slanted reporting of the MSM?
What's wrong with you people?
Your attempt here to rationalize away Rudulph's culpability by blaming the sloppy drunk white chick's purported influence on the soldier is a perfect example of how easily the perpetrator can be made out to be the victim. The fact that Rudulph is suspended from playing in the Civil War game could be a life-changing event for him, and whether that's good or bad is entirely up to him - and entirely dependent on whether he percieves himself to be the victim or the perpetrator of his own actions at that bar.
"Doesn't THAT seem a bit strange that 75% = "minority??"
That's nothing compared to the 80% of Americans that the "handi-capable" advocates are trying to claim have a disability of some kind or another.
No, I'm not making that up.
I think we should all simply declare that we are handicapped. That way there will be no special interest group votes to buy.
I've gotten quite a bit more info on this. The soldier came outside, but it is pretty unclear if he was showing any aggression or not.
Let me put it this way - my sources (pretty good ones) tell me that the arresting officer says the news reports are not very accurate and that in his opinion they are making the football player look worse than they should.
I have never tried to rationalize Rudulph's culpability - but I do think there are too many too eager to hang him on too little information.
I think Riley was absolutely correct to suspend all four players for the Civil War. I think he is also correct (and wiser than most here and in the local news) in waiting to see the results of the university and the police investigations before deciding what Joe's future with OSU football will be.
My whole point is that this is not simply a story of 4 football players confronting a guy and his wife having a romantic dinner, hurling racial slurs and knocking the guy out. BTW - Rudulph is not being charged with a hate-crime because he wasn't making racial slurs...the kid who was making racial comments didn't throw any punches, so he can't be charged with anything either. Part of the ongoing saga of the stupidity of "hate crimes" legislation.
FYI - the "sloppy-drunk white chick(s)" (there were more than one) were friends of the wife. The soldier was there with his wife and about 6 of their friends.
So let me get this straight: The ball players approach the soldier and his wife and start making derogatory racial comments about a white guy being with a black chick.
The soldier let's it slide, so the now disinterested, underage ball players start to leave.
As they are walking outside a friend of the soldier's wife starts "ratcheting" it up (I assume talking smack but it's not clear in reference to whom or what), causing the soldier to run outside where he is knocked-out cold by the ball player who didn't make racial commments.
Oh, and somewhere in this whole thing the football player said that the soldier called him a name white folks aren't supposed to say, causing the uncontrolled action of the ball player's hand up against the soldier's head.
Sure. Makes sense to me.
I take it you live there? Get a copy of the arrest report and post it online.
Let me get it to you straighter (or you could just read what I've already posted without reaching a conclusion before reading it):
4 underage ballplayers go into a bar (they were all suspended for this part). A guy, his wife and several of their friends (at least 3 male, 3 female friends) go into a bar. It is unclear who was in the bar first. One of the ballplayers used to have a relationship with the wife. Words are exchanged - one of the players (not Rudulph) makes racial comments about a white man and a black woman being together. More words are exchanged back and forth. Things get heated. Things subside. The four ballplayers leave the bar. The four ballplayers are getting into their car. The three female friends are incensed that the husband is letting the four ball players "get away with that", egging on the husband and leaving the bar to go out and scream at the four players. (What was screamed is in dispute). The husband comes out of the bar and is spotted by Rudulph (whether Rudulph thought the guy was in pursuit or not is not known - whether the guy said anything at this point is unknown). Rudulph pops the husband (some witnesses say he cold-cocked him, some say not). Husband falls down from the blow and hits his head on the pavement, knocking him cold. In the physical melee the wife is knocked down (it is unclear if she was hit by Rudulph intentionally, accidentally or knocked over by her husband as he falls). Husband is a soldier, but is not in uniform - it is unclear if any of the ballplayers know he is serving in Iraq. The player who made racial comments did not throw a punch. Rudulph threw a punch but said nothing racial. Rudulph is charged with assault, but is not charged with a hate-crime (because he didn't make any racial comments). The player who made racial comments did not punch anybody, so he cannot be charged with assault or a hate-crime. Coach suspends all four players for the biggest game of the year. The brother of one of the suspended players is one of the most highly recruited WRs on the West Coast and has committed to OSU. After the incident and the suspension, brother recinds his commitment.
Now - exactly who is it you want to hang first? And for what?
Some corrections to some of your assumptions:
Using the term soldier - slanted. If he is out of uniform, this information is irrelevant and designed to create an emotional, not a rational response. Like saying the guy's mother was at home fighting cancer and he is paying for her treatment.
Soldier did not let it slide, he exchanged heated words with the players; like any man would.
The players were getting into their car, not merely "walking outside".
It is unknown if the soldier's wife followed the players outside, yelling at them, or if it was only her friends who did this.
The arrest record has not been made public yet - hence, fertile ground for much speculation. I repeat: The arresting officer is said to have confided that the media are blowing it all out of proportion and making the ball players look worse than they deserve.
My point has always been that it's not as cut and dried as everyone is trying to make it appear. You all are eager to jump at the say-so of the MSM (and we all KNOW how truthful they are) and make the assumptions they have lead you to make.....and you all are so easily led to make them.
This is not so much a "racial" incident as it is a man-woman-man incident. It is unlikely that anything would have happened absent the previous relationship between the wife and the player.
The coach has acted honorably, more concerned with doing the right thing than his W-L record. He has acted on information that he is sure of, and withheld further action until police and university investigations are completed.
Exactly what is it you would like done that has not been done? Do you want the coach to act beyond the information at his disposal (act on the reports of the MSM)? Do you want the four players punished without a trial? Do you want the mockery of law called "hate-crime" to be pursued, creating more stupid injustice based on the supposed knowledge of racial motivation? (of course, this would be OK because it would be directed at a black person instead of a white person - right?)
Some corrections to some of your assumptions: Using the term soldier - slanted. If he is out of uniform, this information is irrelevant and designed to create an emotional, not a rational response.
Use of the word "soldier" is relevant as this was the guy's last night out with his wife before shipping back to Iraq. It adds a human touch to the story. It's no less relevant than saying the four black guys were football players. I assume they weren't wearing their uniforms in the bar.
Of course in Oregon this is why the story got traction - because of the big game. Four black guys jumping a white guy and his black wife wouldn't rank otherwise.
This is not so much a "racial" incident as it is a man-woman-man incident.
This remains to be seen. I doubt the situation would've become as heated as it did if she was with another black guy. Why did her friends get so angry? Because they (ball players) were simply making male/female comments? They had to have been talking serious smack for everyone to get so angry.
Exactly what is it you would like done that has not been done?
I only want done what would be done if the races were reversed in this situation. Put in its simplest terms the coach is looking at:
1. His underage players were drinking
2. They got into a fight where they assaulted two people.
3. The people that were assaulted weren't charged with anything.
So there are no mitigating circumstances so far for the coach to look at.
Don't need a trial to suspend them for the season and bowl games (if any).
As far as hate crimes? Sure, charge them. The quickest way to get rid of them is for them to be enforced equally among the races. So then all can see how stupid they are.
Where is the link to this article?
I would like to send it to my friends.
He was from Sacratomato Ca.
Except in Portland our Liberal armpit the black population is not real big and not haters like down in Cali.
And before any Cali's flame me, I was raised in a prodominately black muslim wanna be hate whitey town growing up, Pittsburg California. Got my assed kicked on a regular basis, I am sure my sarcasm didn't have anything to do with it.
After MLK the climate changed were my older sibs got along with others of color visa versa the post MLK blacks were into the rioting and hating thing.
I had new the older blacks and they were not violent haters.
Victim is white, no hate or race crime here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.