Replies

I don't understand your comments. From the article, it seems that the key issue was one of identity; whether the defendant was the one who committed the act in question. Your comments seem to speak to whether the act was somehow excuseable because of the "annoying" behavior of the victim. Which is it?

Here are the shotguns the Ruf/Neks fire at the games. They have an expanded barrel for part of the length of the barrel to make them louder, but are fireable weapons. I saw nothing on the site to indicate that they could not fire a shell containing shot. Apparently they sometimes get pointed at people. That's just stupid. I know that I will never tolerate a person pointing any firearm at me. Never. They'd better either shoot me or they're going to get roughed up, at least.

You must have to be from this area to understand what I was saying because Rodney King had no trouble with my comments.

It was one of identity -- I was just adding my two cents that what the ruf/neks had to say following the incident defied anyone's belief around here. The kid didn't deserve to be hit by any player but they certainly are not the innocents they portrayed themselves to be following the incident either. When they said they never cross the white line, I almost gagged -- couldn't be farther from the truth.

I am just glad they found the player innocent of a felony. It should have been a misdemeanor all along IMHO. I saw it happen -- Nebraska players were being taunted as the Ruf/Neks do to all opposing lineman in that part of the stadium at every game. Surprised it hasn't happened before when they shoot off their guns.