Should Little be reinstated if found innocent (was more scholarships for 2003)

[Keith Wedinger]

Change the subject to better match the thread...

Playing basketball is a privilege and not a right and when you violate
the code of conduct acceptable for the basketball team, you jeopardize
your basketball privileges.  Little's actions put yet another bruise on
the basketball team's reputation and without reading the agreement he
had with the team, I am guessing that this was enough to justify is
removal from the team.

J. Keith Wedinger
Senior Software Developer
Sterling Commerce
address@hidden


-----Original Message-----
From: MURPHY, T. JASON [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:57 AM
To: address@hidden
Subject: RE: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for 2003?
or just the 5 ...


Brad- Regarding OJ, that is my opinion. It is not based on third hand
info or from the media but rather from having watched most of the trial.
Remember that every painstaking minute was televised including the part
where they had the Juice try on the gloves.

As far as the your comments that followed re: Donald, just remember just
because someone is eventually acquitted does not mean they are "100%
innocent" Just because someone is acquitted does not mean that UC has to
take him back. An acquittal in a court of law does not vest him with any
rights to continue playing basketball. Nobody is convicting him yet. In
fact I suggested that the crimes he is charged with are really difficult
to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, some are simply suggesting
that regardless of a conviction or acquittal, the school can and should
part ways with someone who continually brings bad press and embarassment
to the school. 
 Lastly, you say that everyone here has convicted him as a hardened
criminal already. Nobody has convicted him of the current charges yet.
But he does have a criminal record from last year which is his own
doing. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Holdheide [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:41 AM
To: 'address@hidden'
Subject: RE: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for 2003?
or just the 5 ...


	"His acquittal had everything to do with prosecutorial
incompetence and a judge who allowed Ringling Brothers and Barnum and
Bailey Circus "

Are you sure of that, or, is that just what you heard in the media or
from some source who heard it from another source.

Was anyone on this forum at the scene of the Donald Little"incident"? Is
everyone here convicting Don without even knowing the truth.  What if,
and that's a big if, Don is completely innocent.  What if he just
happened to walk into his apartment onto some criminalistic activity
taking place and his roommate decided to blame it all on Don to save his
own arse.

Don, may be 100% completely innocent, yet everyone here is convicting
him as a hardened criminal.  What if a similar scenario happened to you.
What if you happened to come home from work one day to find a murder had
been committed, and when the cops came, the actual murderer blamed it
all on you. Now, you know your innocent, but cops and the media don't,
so they print in the paper on on the news what you're charged with.
Would you want people convicting you to a lifetime in jail for something
you had absolutely nothing to do with.

Do I believe Don is completely innocent? NO !

Do I think Don should be allowed back on the UC baskeball team?  If he
is absolutely undeniably 100% innocent then yes.  But, if he is even
found guilty of jaywalking, then NO.

However, I am willing to wait until the real truth is found out until
I'll go ahead and convict him.

Just my opinoin.

I agree a forum poll needs to be started on the website.  Thank goodness
for the ineptness of Don Little or we would have nothing to talk about
on this forum.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	MURPHY, T. JASON [SMTP:address@hidden
> Sent:	Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:12 AM
> To:	address@hidden
> Subject:	RE: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for
> 2003? or just the 5 ...
>
> His acquittal had everything to do with prosecutorial incompetence and
a
> judge who allowed Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus to
set
> up in his courtroom. The evidence was there but Darden, Clark and Co. 
> could not marshall it properly and made mistakes that 1st year law 
> students would not make.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jon breiner [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 7:39 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for
2003?
> or just the 5 ...
>
>
> Don't even get me started on OJ.  Anyone with even a rudimentary 
> scientific background would disagree with the question and answer: 
> "Was it proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did? No.".  If you know

> anyone is forensics
> ask them about that case and they will tell you it was the saddest day
> in
> criminal trial history.  Essentially, it could have been OJ, his twin,
> or 1
> other person in the entire world as far as the DNA analysis goes.  His
> acquittal had more to do with Dan Dickau's marketability than anything
> else.
> :)
>
> jon b
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "MURPHY, T. JASON" <address@hidden>
> To: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:37 PM
> Subject: RE: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for
2003?
> or
> just the 5 ...
>
>
>  Take OJ.
> Did he abuse and kill his wife? Yes. Was it proven beyond reasonable 
> doubt that he did? No. Does this fact change what I think about OJ?
No.
> To me the deciding factor is not whether he is ultimately convicted or

> ot.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Holdheide [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:28 PM
> To: 'address@hidden'
> Subject: RE: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for
2003?
> or just the 5 ...
>
>
> If he is completely 100% innocent then I welcome him back.
>
> If he did ANY of the accused crimes even in the slightest, he should
not
> be
> allowed back.
>
> And frankly, I find it hard to believe that he is 100% innocent.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MURPHY, T. JASON [SMTP:address@hidden
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:21 PM
> > To: address@hidden
> > Subject: RE: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for 
> > 2003? or just the 5 ...
> >
> > I think we are all overcomplicating this issue. You guys sound like
a
> > bunch of lawyers. He may eventually be acquitted of criminal
charges,
> > assault, kidnapping, etc. But this was not a situation where the
> entire
> > story was fabricated. If the whole story had been made up there
would
> > have been no indictment, and the police would have gotten to the
> bottom
> > of it quickly. Something happened. It probably was not as bad as the

> > "victim" has alleged. But the guy did not beat himself up. That
being
> > said, Donald should be gone for good no matter if he is ultimately 
> > convicted or not. At best he is guilty of exercising horrible
> judgment.
> > They gave him a second chance and told him to stay out of trouble.
He
> > did not do that. End of story. As sad as this is I would be very 
> > disappointed if they brought him back again. At some point they have
> to
> > say enough is enough. I am all for second chances. He has had his
and
> > blew it.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Marshall [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:07 PM
> > To: address@hidden
> > Subject: RE: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for
> 2003?
> > or just the 5 ...
> >
> >
> > Ok guys...
> >
> > First...
> > Bryan... addressing your accusation of a "weak argument" ;) My point

> > is, his roommate was part of the equation when he made the 
> > agreement, he was his roommate and if at the time no one thought he
> was
> > "the wrong kind of people" how could Donald have known he was going
to
> > turn into one of "the wrong kind of people"... I would imagine, hugs
> and
> > goin knew he had a roommate etc.  I mean really, you'd think your 
> > roommate was your friend.  Basically, a friend turned on him.
> >
> > Secondly, and yes I am speculating as to the portion of the
> "agreement"
> > he broke.. but I imagine the reason he was dismissed was it looked
> like
> > he was guilty. So they dismissed him. They had to have that
response.
> > I imagine what reinforced the decision was a "hang around with the
> right
> > people, do the right thing, stay as away from trouble etc..." clause
> was
> > broken.  Again, this was probably just reinforcement on top of the 
> > original reason, he looked like he was going to jail for all those 
> > horrible things he had "allegedly done"
> >
> > What I'm saying is this...
> > IF he is acquitted on all charges... in other words he really didn't
> do
> > anything to this guy and the guy knew it would kill Donald's career
so
> > he made it all  up that Donald did the stuff. That would eliminate
the
> > "Main" reason he was dismissed. And I believe rightfully so, I mean
if
> > he was framed by some punk, it would be a shame...
> >
> > Second, if the only "wrong kind of person" he hung out with was his 
> > roommate... and at the time of the agreement it was common knowledge

> > that Donald associated with this guy... is it fair to punish him for

> > hanging out with him now?  Right Bryan?
> >
> > so BOTH reasons would be questioned, which would HAVE to cause Huggs
> and
> > going to question their decision.
> >
> > Now, Jon, as you mentioned, it has never been made "public"
knowledge,
> I
> > don't know of anything else he did wrong.. except get accused of the

> > crime, and "hung out with the wrong people"
> >
> > although the argument is a stretch, which I will give both of you,
and
> I
> > believe the odds are not in Donald's favor, I have a feeling that
this
> > discussion will come up.
> >
> > Again, this is a discussion, and a fun one, I'm not necessarily
saying
> > whether one decision is right or wrong, it's slow on here and I
think
> it
> > might come up so I figured why not talk about it now...
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jon breiner [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:42 PM
> > To: address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for
> 2003?
> > or just the 5 ...
> >
> >
> > But he already lost the argument.  Under your scenario, Huggins and
> Goin
> > will re-open the argument and decide they were wrong.  Not likely to

> > happen IMHO.
> >
> > Also, with respect to:
> >
> > "The portion of his agreement that he "broke" was he would not hang 
> > around the wrong people.."
> >
> >
> > Is that public knowledge or speculation?  I have not seen this
> publicly
> > verified.  And wouldn't some of the wrong people also be the people
he
> > was with when he alledgedly "confronted" his roommate?
> >
> > jon b
> >
> >
> > Dan Marshall wrote:
> >
> > > Ah,, however Dr Breiner...
> > >
> > > The portion of his agreement that he "broke" was he would not hang 
> > > around the wrong people... His argument could be, How can I not 
> > > hang around my current
roommate?
> > > and I didn't know that he could turn on me like he did.
> > >
> > > IF he's acquitted, that's really all he's "guilty" of, hanging
around
> > > his current roommate.
> > >
> > > I really don't think that that's that bad.  I know you guys all
want
> to
> > > crucify him, BUT, I think we better prepare for this, for some
reason
> > ;)
> > > I think it might be something we'll be discussing....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: jon breiner [mailto:address@hidden
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:33 PM
> > > To: address@hidden
> > > Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] Do we have any more scholarships for
> 2003?
> > > or just the 5 ...
> > >
> > >
> > > His career as a student is not over.  It is my understanding that
he
> is
> > > attending classes this quarter and will finish his degree either
this
> > > spring or in the fall.
> > >
> > > As to re-instatement, it will never happen.  He was not dismissed
for
> > > the alleged incident as much as he was dismissed for breaking the 
> > > agreement he had with Huggins and Goin for his previous
> reinstatement.
> > > So even if he is acquitted, he still broke his agreement.
> > >
> > > jon b
> > >
> > > address@hidden wrote:
> > >
> > > > In a message dated 5/21/2002 11:48:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> > > > address@hidden writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I know this would probably make alot of people mad, BUT, I think
> > > there's
> > >
> > > > > a chance he's in uniform next year.
> > > > I do not see this happening. His career as a UC student / athlete
is
> > > >
> > > over and
> > >
> > > > he will not be invited back IMHO.
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
> > For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *****************************************************************
> > This email has been scanned by MailMax. http://www.maximizeit.net
> > *****************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > *****************************************************************
> > This electronic message transmission contains information from the
law
> > firm of Dinsmore & Shohl which may be confidential or privileged.
The
> > information is intended to be for the use of the individual or
entity
> > named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that
any
> > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> > information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
> > transmission in error, please notify us by telephone
(1-800-934-3477)
> or
> > by electronic mail (address@hidden) immediately.
> > *****************************************************************
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
> > For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
> For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden
>
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This email has been scanned by MailMax.
> http://www.maximizeit.net
> *****************************************************************
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This electronic message transmission contains information from the law
> firm
> of Dinsmore & Shohl which may be confidential or privileged. The
> information
> is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above.
> If
> you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure,
> copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited.
> If
> you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify
> us by
> telephone (1-800-934-3477) or by electronic mail
(address@hidden)
> immediately.
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
> For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
> For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden
>
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This email has been scanned by MailMax.
> http://www.maximizeit.net
> *****************************************************************
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This electronic message transmission contains information from the law
> firm of Dinsmore & Shohl which may be confidential or privileged. The
> information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity
> named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
> transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (1-800-934-3477)
or
> by electronic mail (address@hidden) immediately.
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
> For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden

--------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden




*****************************************************************
This email has been scanned by MailMax.
http://www.maximizeit.net
*****************************************************************



*****************************************************************
This electronic message transmission contains information from the law
firm of Dinsmore & Shohl which may be confidential or privileged. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (1-800-934-3477) or
by electronic mail (address@hidden) immediately.
*****************************************************************


--------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden





--------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden