menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: Another protest
Page: 7 of 7
mail
person
BillyTheCat
3/28/2017 8:56 AM
First of the 70 Protesters have been found innocent. Score one for liberty in the face of over reaching practices of the hierarchy of OUPD.
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/28/2017 9:49 AM
First off,the person was not found innocent,he was found not guilty.
I know its semantics,but a I deal with prosecutors and defense lawyers all the time,and I've been told repeatedly there is a difference.

From reading the article in The Post,the person in question was charged with trespassing.
That should bode well for anyone charged with trespassing alone.

What I don't know is if any of the people that were arrested were charged with other more serious crimes,like resisting arrest and/or creating a safety/fire hazard by actually blocking an entrance/exit to the building.
Last Edited: 3/28/2017 10:22:13 AM by rpbobcat
mail
person
BillyTheCat
3/28/2017 10:14 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
From reading the article in The Post,the person in question was charged with trespassing.
That should bode well for anyone charged with trespassing alone.

What I don't know is if any of the people that were arrested were charged with other more serious crimes,like resisting arrest and/or creating a safety/fire hazard by actually blocking an entrance/exit to the building.
They did NOT block any entrances and exits, OUPD simply did not want these people in the building, and when told to stand to be arrested they from all reports complied.

As for the "Trespassing", a 2014 protest was held in the same space in Baker and was allowed to continue, with the University even accommodating the protest by keeping the building open past business hours so they could continue protesting. Seems like a clear precedent was set for that space in 2014.

I love the use of Tinker v. Des Moines in attacking the chiefs fear of safety as a means to override the rights of the individual.
Last Edited: 3/28/2017 10:18:45 AM by BillyTheCat
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
3/28/2017 10:33 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
First off,the person was not found innocent,he was found not guilty.
I know its semantics,but a I deal with prosecutors and defense lawyers all the time,and I've been told repeatedly there is a difference.

What I don't know is if any of the people that were arrested were charged with other more serious crimes,like resisting arrest and/or creating a safety/fire hazard by actually blocking an entrance/exit to the building.
hmmm... in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Clearly, there was no proof of guilt of any crime. Therefore, innocent!
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/28/2017 10:38 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
From reading the article in The Post,the person in question was charged with trespassing.
That should bode well for anyone charged with trespassing alone.

What I don't know is if any of the people that were arrested were charged with other more serious crimes,like resisting arrest and/or creating a safety/fire hazard by actually blocking an entrance/exit to the building.
They did NOT block any entrances and exits, OUPD simply did not want these people in the building, and when told to stand to be arrested they from all reports complied.

As for the "Trespassing", a 2014 protest was held in the same space in Baker and was allowed to continue, with the University even accommodating the protest by keeping the building open past business hours so they could continue protesting. Seems like a clear precedent was set for that space in 2014.

I love the use of Tinker v. Des Moines in attacking the chiefs fear of safety as a means to override the rights of the individual.
Obviously I wasn't there.
But the article in today's The Post does say that "the presence of the protesters blocked entry and exit to the building and created an "unsafe" situation that would make it difficult to evacuate".

That's why I wondered what the students were charged with.
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/28/2017 10:42 AM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
First off,the person was not found innocent,he was found not guilty.
I know its semantics,but a I deal with prosecutors and defense lawyers all the time,and I've been told repeatedly there is a difference.

What I don't know is if any of the people that were arrested were charged with other more serious crimes,like resisting arrest and/or creating a safety/fire hazard by actually blocking an entrance/exit to the building.
hmmm... in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Clearly, there was no proof of guilt of any crime. Therefore, innocent!
I don't disagree with your reasoning but, as I said,you are found "not guilty" of a crime,not "innocent".
I have 2 very good friends who are judges.
I have calls into them to find out why they don't say "innocent" instead of "not guilty".
If/when I hear from them,I'll post what they said.
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
3/28/2017 10:48 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
First off,the person was not found innocent,he was found not guilty.
I know its semantics,but a I deal with prosecutors and defense lawyers all the time,and I've been told repeatedly there is a difference.

What I don't know is if any of the people that were arrested were charged with other more serious crimes,like resisting arrest and/or creating a safety/fire hazard by actually blocking an entrance/exit to the building.
hmmm... in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Clearly, there was no proof of guilt of any crime. Therefore, innocent!
I don't disagree with your reasoning but, as I said,you are found "not guilty" of a crime,not "innocent".
I have 2 very good friends who are judges.
I have calls into them to find out why they don't say "innocent" instead of "not guilty".
If/when I hear from them,I'll post what they said.
I know. I'm mostly being facetious.
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/28/2017 11:18 AM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
First off,the person was not found innocent,he was found not guilty.
I know its semantics,but a I deal with prosecutors and defense lawyers all the time,and I've been told repeatedly there is a difference.

What I don't know is if any of the people that were arrested were charged with other more serious crimes,like resisting arrest and/or creating a safety/fire hazard by actually blocking an entrance/exit to the building.
hmmm... in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Clearly, there was no proof of guilt of any crime. Therefore, innocent!
I don't disagree with your reasoning but, as I said,you are found "not guilty" of a crime,not "innocent".
I have 2 very good friends who are judges.
I have calls into them to find out why they don't say "innocent" instead of "not guilty".
If/when I hear from them,I'll post what they said.
I know. I'm mostly being facetious.
Heard back from a couple of prosecutors I work with.

Facetious or not,your reasoning is pretty much dead on.

Under the law,you're innocent until proven guilty.
Therefore,you can't be found innocent of a crime.
A finding of not guilty means you were,in the eyes of the law,innocent.

The only other thing you have to deal with is your arrest record.
I don't know about Ohio,but,in New Jersey,even if you're found "not guilty",the arrest stays on your record,unless you have it "expunged".
Last Edited: 3/28/2017 11:19:52 AM by rpbobcat
mail
person
BillyTheCat
3/28/2017 11:58 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
From reading the article in The Post,the person in question was charged with trespassing.
That should bode well for anyone charged with trespassing alone.

What I don't know is if any of the people that were arrested were charged with other more serious crimes,like resisting arrest and/or creating a safety/fire hazard by actually blocking an entrance/exit to the building.
They did NOT block any entrances and exits, OUPD simply did not want these people in the building, and when told to stand to be arrested they from all reports complied.

As for the "Trespassing", a 2014 protest was held in the same space in Baker and was allowed to continue, with the University even accommodating the protest by keeping the building open past business hours so they could continue protesting. Seems like a clear precedent was set for that space in 2014.

I love the use of Tinker v. Des Moines in attacking the chiefs fear of safety as a means to override the rights of the individual.
Obviously I wasn't there.
But the article in today's The Post does say that "the presence of the protesters blocked entry and exit to the building and created an "unsafe" situation that would make it difficult to evacuate".

That's why I wondered what the students were charged with.
Video evidence presented at trial shows people entering and exiting the building freely during the protest, including a pizza delivery. Those claims by the University Chief were completely and utterly destroyed in court.
Last Edited: 3/28/2017 11:59:12 AM by BillyTheCat
mail
person
BillyTheCat
3/30/2017 9:35 AM
Charges dropped on all 70 of the Baker protesters. So, essentially the University makes a BIG deal out of this, goes to all this trouble to only to come out with egg on their face.
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/30/2017 12:03 PM
From reading the article in The Post,it seems the decision was based on the not guilty verdict this week.

Based on the language in the Judge's Decision, there was no way any student would have been found guilty of criminal trespass.

Had the student been found guilty,I don't know if they would have dropped the charges.

According to The Post several students took plea deals.

In New Jersey,once you take a plea deal,even if the charges are dropped against the other defendants,you're stuck.
Last Edited: 3/30/2017 12:58:05 PM by rpbobcat
mail
person
BillyTheCat
3/31/2017 9:50 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
From reading the article in The Post,it seems the decision was based on the not guilty verdict this week.

Based on the language in the Judge's Decision, there was no way any student would have been found guilty of criminal trespass.

Had the student been found guilty,I don't know if they would have dropped the charges.

According to The Post several students took plea deals.

In New Jersey,once you take a plea deal,even if the charges are dropped against the other defendants,you're stuck.
The 15 who plead out will keep the deal as those are binding. But the other 70 all had charges dropped. The charges were silly and baseless to begin with.

I mean when the prosecutor promotes the dangers of limiting ingress and egress and the defense shows video of hundreds of people freely walking in and out of the building including a large pizza delivery during this extremely disruptive protest ;-)
Last Edited: 3/31/2017 9:52:08 AM by BillyTheCat
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/31/2017 11:36 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
From reading the article in The Post,it seems the decision was based on the not guilty verdict this week.

Based on the language in the Judge's Decision, there was no way any student would have been found guilty of criminal trespass.

Had the student been found guilty,I don't know if they would have dropped the charges.

According to The Post several students took plea deals.

In New Jersey,once you take a plea deal,even if the charges are dropped against the other defendants,you're stuck.
The 15 who plead out will keep the deal as those are binding. But the other 70 all had charges dropped. The charges were silly and baseless to begin with.

I mean when the prosecutor promotes the dangers of limiting ingress and egress and the defense shows video of hundreds of people freely walking in and out of the building including a large pizza delivery during this extremely disruptive protest ;-)
As I've posted before,I provide expert testimony in Civil Engineering and Land Surveying cases.

As such,I've read a number of Judge's Decisions.

This Decision was very well written, particularly since it set forth,very clearly,the basis of his verdict.

The defendant's atty. made the smart choice in having a "bench" trial.
As I've been told,a number of times,if believe you are innocent and have a what you believe to be a strong case never leave it to a jury to decide.
To many variables.
mail
person
ts1227
9/8/2017 5:24 PM
In the long run, apparently Chief Powers whined enough to get his way

http://www.thepostathens.com/article/2017/09/ohio-univers...
mail
mcbin
9/9/2017 12:14 AM
ts1227 wrote:expand_more
In the long run, apparently Chief Powers whined enough to get his way

http://www.thepostathens.com/article/2017/09/ohio-univers...
I'm no lawyer, but this seems ripe for being challenged.
mail
person
Bitchy Incognito
9/9/2017 2:42 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
The defendant's atty. made the smart choice in having a "bench" trial. [/QUOTE]Especially considering that the judge is the defendant's attorney's former law partner. ... Sigh ...... life in Athens ...

[QUOTE=mcbin]I'm no lawyer, but this seems ripe for being challenged.
Especially considering that some of the space where OU is now trying to regulate speech and assembly may actually be city right-of-way belonging to Athens.

Did anyone else follow the links and see that the OU administration listed the "paved basketball courts behind McCracken Hall" among the places to be subject to the new policy? How did nobody on this highly-placed, expert, executive committee notice that they ripped those out and turned that into a parking lot a couple of years ago?
mail
person
Alan Swank
9/10/2017 11:34 AM
Seems reasonable:

https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/page/statement-princi...
mail
OhioCatFan
9/10/2017 4:37 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Huzzah! Huzzah! Bravo for Chicago!

Robert M. Hutchins was the "boy wonder president" when my father was a student there. Dad always spoke in glowing terms of Hutchins and the way he ran the university. This policy, if you will note, is based a lot on Hutchins' philosophy, which harkens back to that of Milton. I concur completely.

A very important excerpt from the policy statement Alan linked to is below:

"As a corollary to this commitment {to freedom speech for all points of view], members of the University community must also act in conformity with this principle. Although faculty, students and staff are free to criticize, contest and condemn the views expressed on campus, they may not obstruct, disrupt, or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe."
mail
person
ts1227
10/3/2017 7:45 AM
Uh-oh... this is starting to get bad press everywhere.

The newspaper from my hometown ran an editorial slamming the proposed policy. It’s an Ogden newspaper, and typically their editorials are written at the mothership in WV and distributed to run in their 50 or so papers they own in Appalachia.

I almost never agree with Ogden editorials, as they are an insanely conservative group (owned by the Nutting family, owners of the Pittsburgh Pirates). Chief Powers is a uniter!

http://www.salemnews.net/opinion/editorials/2017/10/ou%E2... /

I still think the problem is the chief, always has a solution in search of a problem. I’m sure he’s a great guy, but his style just doesn’t work in Athens, and probably not on most college campuses.
mail
person
Ohio69
10/3/2017 8:33 AM
ts1227 wrote:expand_more
Uh-oh... this is starting to get bad press everywhere.

The newspaper from my hometown ran an editorial slamming the proposed policy. It’s an Ogden newspaper, and typically their editorials are written at the mothership in WV and distributed to run in their 50 or so papers they own in Appalachia.

I almost never agree with Ogden editorials, as they are an insanely conservative group (owned by the Nutting family, owners of the Pittsburgh Pirates). Chief Powers is a uniter!

http://www.salemnews.net/opinion/editorials/2017/10/ou%E2... /

I still think the problem is the chief, always has a solution in search of a problem. I’m sure he’s a great guy, but his style just doesn’t work in Athens, and probably not on most college campuses.

Looks like journalists up there don't realize many of the other campuses in Ohio have the same if not more restrictive policies. Too lazy I guess.

FIRE gives the new policy a green light: https://www.thefire.org/schools/ohio-university /

Interesting... no?

Here's FIRE's definitin of a green light: If a college or university’s policies do not seriously imperil speech, that college or university receives a “green light.” A green light does not indicate that a school actively supports free expression. It simply means that FIRE is not currently aware of any serious threats to students’ free speech rights in the policies on that campus.
Last Edited: 10/3/2017 8:47:00 AM by Ohio69
Showing Messages: 151 - 170 of 170
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)