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.
So in short you are saying it was drunken jealous love.