7 Jayden de Laura

[dovecanyoncat]

Judgements, concepts, human reckoning from within moral quandary: we capture perspective through language that gives us place and fixity when we're trying to figure out where things in life should properly go. This a damn fucking good forum. Thank you, all of you, even those of you who irritate the hell out of me. It's well worth it.

Agreed. If the first sentence is a reference I didn't recognize, it's excellent; if it's all yours, then even more so and very philosophically put. No doubt there's some psychological gold to be found here as well, for those who have that interest.

We are all better for the gathering that takes place here. We are all original contributors to this weird lived thing. It's ours, warts and all. I'm especially proud of our mods who endure largely unheralded, and UAdevil, our code keeper-of-the-flame.

[BBQ wildcat]

I'm just trying to not get caught up in the whole lynch mob mentality, because I recall so many people calling for Sean Miller's head on a platter (just slight hyperbole) when the Book news broke. Yes, JDL and his teammate pled guilty, but I know from experience (definitely NOT the same situation, though) that teenagers can be totally intimidated and scared shitless when being interrogated and threatened by the cops. And they DO get threatened. I don't know if the whole truth will ever come out but, as has been said previously, we just don't know all the facts. So I'm not going to throw the whole team and Athletic Department under the bus. I'm not going to say I won't support the UA or follow the FB team because of this. The AD, I'm sure with plenty of input from the legal team, kept JDL on the team, having a whole lot more information than any of us. Because WE. JUST. DON'T. KNOW.

[Alieberman]

I don’t know how to be more clear

Most rape cases never even get reported because they are impossible to prove and the women are often shamed and blamed

If a woman (or girl) states she was forced to blow some dude against her will while being forced to have sex with another… she is telling the fucking truth

I don’t give a single fuck what the legal system has chosen to do with this

If you find it necessary to justify this so you can root for your team and Bear Down… I just hope you can sleep well at night

[ASUHATER!]

I'm just trying to not get caught up in the whole lynch mob mentality, because I recall so many people calling for Sean Miller's head on a platter (just slight hyperbole) when the Book news broke. Yes, JDL and his teammate pled guilty, but I know from experience (definitely NOT the same situation, though) that teenagers can be totally intimidated and scared shitless when being interrogated and threatened by the cops. And they DO get threatened. I don't know if the whole truth will ever come out but, as has been said previously, we just don't know all the facts. So I'm not going to throw the whole team and Athletic Department under the bus. I'm not going to say I won't support the UA or follow the FB team because of this. The AD, I'm sure with plenty of input from the legal team, kept JDL on the team, having a whole lot more information than any of us. Because WE. JUST. DON'T. KNOW.

We do know though, that's what this whole story is. Supporting the team right now is supporting rapists

[Merkin]

Let's just stick to facts as detailed in court reports.

JDL was 17 at the time of the incident.
JDL was the instigator by texting a minor girl to meet them.
JDL forcibly assisted with a rape and then raped the minor by choking her to force compliance.
JDL pleaded guilty to 2nd degree sexual assault which is a Class B felony.
JDL wrote a letter of apology to the victim.

So we have a violent rapist who was convicted by means of a guilt plea and admitted guilt in the apology.

Why is this not clear to everyone?

Can you imagine if an ASU player did this and how the UA fans would treat them?

At best, this is a huge distraction to the program. Even if they have to honor his scholarship, he should never play another down.

At worst, the UA is Rapist U.

The optics are just so incredibly bad. I have no idea why the UA AD is allowing this.

[AzCatFan2]

More facts. The prosecutor decided a plea deal as a Juvie with no detention time was appropriate punishment. The Judge agreed, and signed off on the plea agreement. We have also never heard from the victim or her family if they think the punishment was too light. Understand they wouldn't make any public statements until after a civil settlement, but they could've contacted schools privately. But they didn't contact Arizona, who only knew after JDL came forward.

Both Arizona and Wisconsin are allowing this is because this case is a Juvie case. We only know about it because of the civil case. We do know that the victim and her family had to know JDL was making headlines at WSU and Arizona, but never did contact Arizona. Ask yourself why?

I can only think of two reasons. One, the victim and her family agree with the prosecutor and judge in the case and have accepted the plea deal. Or, the family are gold diggers, and haven't said anything because they are hoping for a meal ticket from JDL's potential pro career.

If it's the latter, it seriously calls the victim's credibility into question. If it's the former, and the victim asks family think the plea punishment was acceptable, then you should ask why they do, the prosecutor and judge do, but you don't.

[GlobalCat]

More facts. The prosecutor decided a plea deal as a Juvie with no detention time was appropriate punishment. The Judge agreed, and signed off on the plea agreement. We have also never heard from the victim or her family if they think the punishment was too light. Understand they wouldn't make any public statements until after a civil settlement, but they could've contacted schools privately. But they didn't contact Arizona, who only knew after JDL came forward.

Both Arizona and Wisconsin are allowing this is because this case is a Juvie case. We only know about it because of the civil case. We do know that the victim and her family had to know JDL was making headlines at WSU and Arizona, but never did contact Arizona. Ask yourself why?

I can only think of two reasons. One, the victim and her family agree with the prosecutor and judge in the case and have accepted the plea deal. Or, the family are gold diggers, and haven't said anything because they are hoping for a meal ticket from JDL's potential pro career.

If it's the latter, it seriously calls the victim's credibility into question. If it's the former, and the victim asks family think the plea punishment was acceptable, then you should ask why they do, the prosecutor and judge do, but you don't.

Good lord, this is a horrible take. Take it past your female friends and after they recoil in horror, sit down and listen to develop some empathy for why these types of cases played out as has emerged.

[AzCatFan2]

More facts. The prosecutor decided a plea deal as a Juvie with no detention time was appropriate punishment. The Judge agreed, and signed off on the plea agreement. We have also never heard from the victim or her family if they think the punishment was too light. Understand they wouldn't make any public statements until after a civil settlement, but they could've contacted schools privately. But they didn't contact Arizona, who only knew after JDL came forward.

Both Arizona and Wisconsin are allowing this is because this case is a Juvie case. We only know about it because of the civil case. We do know that the victim and her family had to know JDL was making headlines at WSU and Arizona, but never did contact Arizona. Ask yourself why?

I can only think of two reasons. One, the victim and her family agree with the prosecutor and judge in the case and have accepted the plea deal. Or, the family are gold diggers, and haven't said anything because they are hoping for a meal ticket from JDL's potential pro career.

If it's the latter, it seriously calls the victim's credibility into question. If it's the former, and the victim asks family think the plea punishment was acceptable, then you should ask why they do, the prosecutor and judge do, but you don't.

Good lord, this is a horrible take. Take it past your female friends and after they recoil in horror, sit down and listen to develop some empathy for why these types of cases played out as has emerged.

Discussed with my wife and daughter, an incoming UA freshman. The story stinks. I don't want JDL near my daughter. But that still doesn't answer why the prosecutor and judge agreed that adjudication in Juvie court with no detention time was acceptable. Nor does it answer why the victim's family has let both Latu and JDL enjoy being athletes on full scholarships at D1 schools without telling them.

Answer these questions if you can't. Fact is, we can't. Because the legal case is sealed. We can only guess why the prosecutor and judge accepted the plea and why the victim's family didn't at least privately warn the schools.

Another fact. Math states JDL isn't the only scholarship athlete with a Juvie record. But so far, he is the only one that also had a civil case filed against him. If nobody files civil cases against the other athletes, we'll never know if they have a Juvie record, nor why. Is it fair to JDL to kick him off the team because it was revealed he has a Juvie record, when others with a record will likely never be publicized?

You can argue it's not fair to the victim. And that's a true statement. Nobody should be assaulted like she was. But despite the fact JDL and Latu could've been tried as adults, fact is, they weren't. So either we trust the judicial system that the prosecutor and judge made the right call with the plea. Or think we know more about the case than they did, and complain they got it wrong?

[CardiacCats97]

Discussed with my wife and daughter, an incoming UA freshman.

You should let them read your posts.

[AzCatFan2]

Discussed with my wife and daughter, an incoming UA freshman.

You should let them read your posts.

Done. They aren't happy. But agree that we don't know the full story. And there must be good reason why the prosecutor and judge signed off on the plea deal. We can only guess. That's because the criminal file is sealed, and will likely remain sealed.

We can speculate, but the facts remain. Latu and JDL could've been charged as adults. But not only were they not, they also didn't receive any detention time.

It's also not fair that JDL isn't the only one on the team with a Juvie record, but if he's punished, the only one who would be.

[dovecanyoncat]

You can argue it's not fair to the victim. And that's a true statement. Nobody should be assaulted like she was. But despite the fact JDL and Latu could've been tried as adults, fact is, they weren't. So either we trust the judicial system that the prosecutor and judge made the right call with the plea. Or think we know more about the case than they did, and complain they got it wrong?

This is utterly wrong. It's not a binary absolute, and rarely is life reduceable to binary absolutes. The first part of your quoted statement, among many other things you have said, should exemplify that. Yes, we have an excellent justice system but it isn't always fully comprehensive and adequate whether we're talking about the state or the people. One of the problems is that we nearly always make judgements without complete knowledge. If we waited for completeness we would hardly ever make decisions on anything. But in court and in life we judge nonetheless.

Perhaps it's true that we should judge JDL on what he has become rather than what he was. That's the thrust of your position, right? But he's not the only contingency, is he? His victim; the UofA; the common good; and the future of all of them .... are all reflected in how we judge what should come next. If we broaden the moral scope of importance then we narrow the importance of the legal conclusion of his rape case. Personally I don't think it's unreasonable to view his case in the broader moral context. Adjudication in a vacuum doesn't take into account the potential moral hazard that you're willing to overlook.

[Carcassdragger]

More facts. The prosecutor decided a plea deal as a Juvie with no detention time was appropriate punishment. The Judge agreed, and signed off on the plea agreement. We have also never heard from the victim or her family if they think the punishment was too light. Understand they wouldn't make any public statements until after a civil settlement, but they could've contacted schools privately. But they didn't contact Arizona, who only knew after JDL came forward.

Both Arizona and Wisconsin are allowing this is because this case is a Juvie case. We only know about it because of the civil case. We do know that the victim and her family had to know JDL was making headlines at WSU and Arizona, but never did contact Arizona. Ask yourself why?

I can only think of two reasons. One, the victim and her family agree with the prosecutor and judge in the case and have accepted the plea deal. Or, the family are gold diggers, and haven't said anything because they are hoping for a meal ticket from JDL's potential pro career.

If it's the latter, it seriously calls the victim's credibility into question. If it's the former, and the victim asks family think the plea punishment was acceptable, then you should ask why they do, the prosecutor and judge do, but you don't.

Good lord, this is a horrible take. Take it past your female friends and after they recoil in horror, sit down and listen to develop some empathy for why these types of cases played out as has emerged.

Discussed with my wife and daughter, an incoming UA freshman. The story stinks. I don't want JDL near my daughter. But that still doesn't answer why the prosecutor and judge agreed that adjudication in Juvie court with no detention time was acceptable. Nor does it answer why the victim's family has let both Latu and JDL enjoy being athletes on full scholarships at D1 schools without telling them.

Answer these questions if you can't. Fact is, we can't. Because the legal case is sealed. We can only guess why the prosecutor and judge accepted the plea and why the victim's family didn't at least privately warn the schools.

Another fact. Math states JDL isn't the only scholarship athlete with a Juvie record. But so far, he is the only one that also had a civil case filed against him. If nobody files civil cases against the other athletes, we'll never know if they have a Juvie record, nor why. Is it fair to JDL to kick him off the team because it was revealed he has a Juvie record, when others with a record will likely never be publicized?

You can argue it's not fair to the victim. And that's a true statement. Nobody should be assaulted like she was. But despite the fact JDL and Latu could've been tried as adults, fact is, they weren't. So either we trust the judicial system that the prosecutor and judge made the right call with the plea. Or think we know more about the case than they did, and complain they got it wrong?

This is right. The case was adjudicated years ago with input from folks who know more than any of us do. Add to the fact that JDL has, as far as we know, kept his nose relatively clean since then means we should move on.

[AzCatFan2]

You can argue it's not fair to the victim. And that's a true statement. Nobody should be assaulted like she was. But despite the fact JDL and Latu could've been tried as adults, fact is, they weren't. So either we trust the judicial system that the prosecutor and judge made the right call with the plea. Or think we know more about the case than they did, and complain they got it wrong?

This is utterly wrong. It's not a binary absolute, and rarely is life reduceable to binary absolutes. The first part of your quoted statement, among many other things you have said, should exemplify that. Yes, we have an excellent justice system but it isn't always fully comprehensive and adequate whether we're talking about the state or the people. One of the problems is that we nearly always make judgements without complete knowledge. If we waited for completeness we would hardly ever make decisions on anything. But in court and in life we judge nonetheless.

Perhaps it's true that we should judge JDL on what he has become rather than what he was. That's the thrust of your position, right? But he's not the only contingency, is he? His victim; the UofA; the common good; and the future of all of them .... are all reflected in how we judge what should come next. If we broaden the moral scope of importance then we narrow the importance of the legal conclusion of his rape case. Personally I don't think it's unreasonable to view his case in the broader moral context. Adjudication in a vacuum doesn't take into account the potential moral hazard that you're willing to overlook.

In criminal terms, it is a binary system when it comes to whom has the power to charge with a crime. That v power lies with the Prosecuting attorney's office. The c rest of us don't have that power. Fact is, the prosecutor saw fit to charge the kids as Juveniles. And the person charged with overseeing the prosecutor's decision, the judge, signed off on it. We can speculate for days why, but that's an exercise in futility. Unless the files ever get unsealed, we'll never know.

But the fact the case was tried in Juvie Court is important, and should weigh our judgment in the case. The fact is also, if there never was a civil case, we would have no knowledge of the incident. Fact is, I guarantee you there are other kids on the football team with Juvie records. Is it fair we get to judge JDL because a civil suit was filed in his case, where others may not have a civil case?

Juvie cases are sealed and Juvie records expunged for a reason. One is yes, so we can judge adults on their adult behavior. Juvie records should not be va Scarlett letter that follows a person around his or her adult life. To do so with JDL, but not with any other player is not only unfair, but goes against the central tenet of sealing Juvie records.

I believe in our justice system, and believe in the reasons why Juvie records are sealed. It does way more good than harm. Again, no idea why JDL wasn't tried as an adult, but fact is, he wasn't. He deserves a second chance as an adult to learn, grow, and not repeat his criminal actions. Just like every other kid with a Juvie record. Punish JDL, and ask why we shouldn't look into the Juvie records of not only other athletes, but everyone on campus? After all, if a QB with a Juvie assault record shouldn't be in campus, why should we let any student with the same record on campus?

[RichardCranium]

Okay, lots of emotion and opinions, but I have a question...hopefully for somebody with real legal background and specific knowledge to apply. Scholarships are renewable on an annual basis by a school. But my question is how absolute is the school's authority to rescind one versus potential legal liability? In this case, you've got somebody who has done everything the school asked and has undeniably succeeded on the field, so he's fulfilled his side of the contract. Word comes out regarding a bad event that was adjudicated years ago. Bad optics, fans are up in arms, so the school wants to cut ties. But the guy's in a "good fit" program to showcase skills potentially worth millions, he already transferred once, and whatever else some lawyer wants to throw in to claim damages. Does he have a case? Or is there some clause in the scholarship language that says any undisclosed previous legal issues are grounds for termination and so on. Wisconsin went the way they did which doesn't help anything, so I'm just curious, as discussions with lawyers might have some bearing on the delays people are complaining about.

The scholarship is the least of it. What about the NIL? Are the sponsors gonna want to continue to tip in?

As the fractured saying goes: "That train has sailed." No chance. I don't know what the options are in Tucson compared to some of the mega SEC schools. But I'd think there's a chance with 2 remaining years of eligibility as a record-breaking QB on an improving team that he might've cracked 6 figures. So he'll pay that price, anyway.

I like that simile: "As the fractured saying goes ... " Judgements, concepts, human reckoning from within moral quandary: we capture perspective through language that gives us place and fixity when we're trying to figure out where things in life should properly go. This a damn fucking good forum. Thank you, all of you, even those of you who irritate the hell out of me. It's well worth it.

One of the articles I read (maybe quoted here, I'm too lazy to look it up) said he was already on a $100,000 NIL. So cracking 6 figures was already a given.

[dovecanyoncat]

You can argue it's not fair to the victim. And that's a true statement. Nobody should be assaulted like she was. But despite the fact JDL and Latu could've been tried as adults, fact is, they weren't. So either we trust the judicial system that the prosecutor and judge made the right call with the plea. Or think we know more about the case than they did, and complain they got it wrong?

This is utterly wrong. It's not a binary absolute, and rarely is life reduceable to binary absolutes. The first part of your quoted statement, among many other things you have said, should exemplify that. Yes, we have an excellent justice system but it isn't always fully comprehensive and adequate whether we're talking about the state or the people. One of the problems is that we nearly always make judgements without complete knowledge. If we waited for completeness we would hardly ever make decisions on anything. But in court and in life we judge nonetheless.

Perhaps it's true that we should judge JDL on what he has become rather than what he was. That's the thrust of your position, right? But he's not the only contingency, is he? His victim; the UofA; the common good; and the future of all of them .... are all reflected in how we judge what should come next. If we broaden the moral scope of importance then we narrow the importance of the legal conclusion of his rape case. Personally I don't think it's unreasonable to view his case in the broader moral context. Adjudication in a vacuum doesn't take into account the potential moral hazard that you're willing to overlook.

In criminal terms, it is a binary system when it comes to whom has the power to charge with a crime.

These are not the terms in dispute, and no one has said as much. You're defending a claim no one has made because it is easier to defend than the nuanced claim the rest of us are making. Review your either/or statement.

That v power lies with the Prosecuting attorney's office. The c rest of us don't have that power. Fact is, the prosecutor saw fit to charge the kids as Juveniles. And the person charged with overseeing the prosecutor's decision, the judge, signed off on it. We can speculate for days why, but that's an exercise in futility. Unless the files ever get unsealed, we'll never know.

You needn't beat this horse any longer. We all understand well enough how the system works. None of this bears repeating.

But the fact the case was tried in Juvie Court is important, and should weigh our judgment in the case.

It has. But you refuse to catch up to that.

The fact is also, if there never was a civil case, we would have no knowledge of the incident.

A counterfactual argument: refrain from this if in good faith you want to address the moral hazard at the core of our opposition.

Fact is, I guarantee you there are other kids on the football team with Juvie records. Is it fair we get to judge JDL because a civil suit was filed in his case, where others may not have a civil case?

We get to judge JDL as we see fit based on our current understanding of fact pertinent to him. It is the only basis for judgement in any matter. That judgement does not bear at all on unrelated unknowns contrary to fact. You're reaching and doing a poor job of it.

Juvie cases are sealed and Juvie records expunged for a reason. One is yes, so we can judge adults on their adult behavior. Juvie records should not be va Scarlett letter that follows a person around his or her adult life. To do so with JDL, but not with any other player is not only unfair, but goes against the central tenet of sealing Juvie records.

Again, you're just repeating something that deflects from reckoning moral hazard back to the technicals of juvenile justice.

I believe in our justice system, and believe in the reasons why Juvie records are sealed. It does way more good than harm. Again, no idea why JDL wasn't tried as an adult, but fact is, he wasn't. He deserves a second chance as an adult to learn, grow, and not repeat his criminal actions. Just like every other kid with a Juvie record.

Booting him from the team in no way deprives him of learning, growing, and not repeating his criminal actions.

Punish JDL, and ask why we shouldn't look into the Juvie records of not only other athletes, but everyone on campus? After all, if a QB with a Juvie assault record shouldn't be in campus, why should we let any student with the same record on campus?

Now you're in a position to debate moral hazard. If we don't punish JDL what stricture obtains with respect to the UofA? What protections extend to potential future victims? What defense of the common good obtains? In answering those questions please DON'T just circle back to court structure. Look ahead to the broader considerations of a larger population subject to the moral undertaking of a wealthy and powerful entity. If you can do that you will have caught up to the rest of us, otherwise you're just talking to yourself.

I'm pretty much done with this.

[CardiacCats97]

Discussed with my wife and daughter, an incoming UA freshman.

You should let them read your posts.

Done. They aren't happy.

That should give you enormous pause.

I can see it doesn’t.

[Alieberman]

More facts. The prosecutor decided a plea deal as a Juvie with no detention time was appropriate punishment. The Judge agreed, and signed off on the plea agreement. We have also never heard from the victim or her family if they think the punishment was too light. Understand they wouldn't make any public statements until after a civil settlement, but they could've contacted schools privately. But they didn't contact Arizona, who only knew after JDL came forward.

Both Arizona and Wisconsin are allowing this is because this case is a Juvie case. We only know about it because of the civil case. We do know that the victim and her family had to know JDL was making headlines at WSU and Arizona, but never did contact Arizona. Ask yourself why?

I can only think of two reasons. One, the victim and her family agree with the prosecutor and judge in the case and have accepted the plea deal. Or, the family are gold diggers, and haven't said anything because they are hoping for a meal ticket from JDL's potential pro career.

If it's the latter, it seriously calls the victim's credibility into question. If it's the former, and the victim asks family think the plea punishment was acceptable, then you should ask why they do, the prosecutor and judge do, but you don't.

You keep referring to the justice system-

Have you ever thought about what which way the judicial system might sway if perhaps...the vast majority of lawyers and judges were all men?

What about University Presidents/ Athletic Directors?

Elliott Pitts was allowed to sit on an Arizona bench after raping a teammates sister.

Shame on me for sticking with this University's athletics this long.

[EastCoastCat]

Besides the morality position which btw I believe in 100% what should happen to JDL moving forward?

He did something deplorable and should be kicked off the team. Is he not allowed to play football anymore? Or can he play for some Div II team? Or is he outcast to some desert island where he gets stoned every day?

I get the “I don’t really care as long as he doesn’t play for us” mentality but do we really think he doesn’t deserve to play football anymore because of what he did? Does he need to serve penance for the rest of his life or is he allowed to make a living?

I’m just raising the question. What do people think he should be allowed to do at this point?

[AzCatFan2]

I posted a link before stating 1 in 3 American adults have some sort of juvenile record. Even if college students have lower percentages, with 38,000 plus students on campus, we're talking thousands of students with Juvie records on campus. Most are likely petty and non-violent. But there are some with a more violent past. It's just mathematical probability.

Punish JDL for what is a juvenile offense, then that opens the door to treat other students the same. If the starting QB has an assault juvie past and that gets him kicked off campus, shouldn't the same thing happen to the engineering major or band member with the same past? After all, they are equally dangerous.

What about other violent or potentially violent crimes? Kid with an extreme DUI that caused an accident that hurt someone. Kick him off campus? And what if he has been sober since the accident? Do you take that into account?

The rabbit hole punishing a kid for a juvenile offense is something a university doesn't want to enter. It's why both Wisconsin and Arizona made the decision they did. And it's the right one in my opinion.

It's a bad situation. And my first response was the same as my wife. A knee-jerk reaction to kick JDL off the team and hang him up by his nuts by Old Main. But then I have to trust the prosecutor and judge when they agreed to let this case remain in Juvie court. And I agree with our judicial system that states Juvie crimes are expunged and don't follow us into adulthood.

[Merkin]

I posted a link before stating 1 in 3 American adults have some sort of juvenile record.

The UA had a QB with a MIP (minor in possession of alcohol) juvenile record.

In what world is a MIP mentioned in the same sentence as a violent rape?

[Alieberman]

AZCatFan- You believe an 11 YO who got caught shoplifting should be treated the same as a 17 YO who initiated a violent gang rape?

[AzCatFan2]

Where do you draw the line between which juvenile offense gets a kid kicked off campus and which doesn't. And who gets to make this determination? Do you think a school really wants to go down that rabbit hole?

It's mostly a moot point anyway. Juvenile records are supposed to be sealed. JDL's criminal records are still sealed, and we only know about it because of the civil case.

[Alieberman]

Where do you draw the line between which juvenile offense gets a kid kicked off campus and which doesn't. And who gets to make this determination? Do you think a school really wants to go down that rabbit hole?

It's mostly a moot point anyway. Juvenile records are supposed to be sealed. JDL's criminal records are still sealed, and we only know about it because of the civil case.

I agree... it's a thin line between shoplifting and violent gang rape.

Thank you for this impressive insight

[CardiacCats97]

Let’s draw the line at rape, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, murder, and being a ridiculous dickhole who tries to excuse any of those things with straw man arguments and fake legalese.

Bye JDL and AzCatFan2

[AzCatFan2]

What level of assault? Is stalking but never escalating to touching OK? What about armed robbery? Someone gets hurt during the attempt, and charges can include attempted murder, even if there was no intent. What if the kid is the getaway driver in an attempted robbery that goes wrong and someone gets killed?

Sure, it's easy to say the kid who gets caught stealing a pack of gum is different than the kid who murders someone. But there's a ton in between. Where do you draw the line? And who gets the power to decide?

Here's just a list of Federal crimes. Most of these crimes also have different levels that come with different sentencing guidelines. Anyone care to make a list of which crimes get a pass on a Juvie record and v which don't? https://clarifacts.com/federal-crimes-list/

[CardiacCats97]

So you admit that it’s possible to have a conversation about this, or even to take it on a case-by-case basis and that allowing JDL to stay because there could be other students with similar or worse crimes is a totally specious and absurd argument?

Congrats on evolving into a human.

[Merkin]

What does Level 2 sexual assault mean?

Level 2 is a sexual assault in which the assailant threatens to use or uses a weapon, threatens the victim's family or friends, inflicts bodily harm upon the victim, or commits the assault with another person or multiple people. This level is punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

[Carcassdragger]

I was arrested three times before i was 18. Two of them were gor stupid kid stuff. The third time was a bit more serious. I admitted to committing the crime, even though I didn't do it because the real perp was over 18 and would've gone to jail. Thank goodness the court records were sealed. I went to the U of A, graduated, and have never been in trouble since.

JDL may or may not have done something real bad. Of course I have doubt, but absent more information on what actually occurred, I'll go ahead and hope that the judge and the prosecutor used good sound judgment.

There's a reason we have a court system and one of them is so we dont have witch hunts.

[AzCatFan2]

I'll ask again, if JDL was eligible to be tried as an adult with a potential maximum 14-year sentence, then why did the prosecutor offer him a Juvie deal with no time, and the judge signed off on it? Answer is, we'll never know.

But it's not the job of a University President nor AD to play judge and jury against a kid's Juvie record', especially when the President and/or AD don't, and will never have the full facts in the case.

It's one thing if someone is tried as an adult. Or the kid is a student at the university. But that's not the case here. There are likely thousands of current UArizona students, and thousands of alumni with Juvie records. Do you really think it's wise to go over everything on a case by case basis? Or create a list of what Juvie charges the school will excuse, and ones they won't?

The better blanket policy is to follow what the law follows. Juvie crimes get expunged and don't follow a person into adulthood.

[GlobalCat]

I'll ask again, if JDL was eligible to be tried as an adult with a potential maximum 14-year sentence, then why did the prosecutor offer him a Juvie deal with no time, and the judge signed off on it? Answer is, we'll never know.

But it's not the job of a University President nor AD to play judge and jury against a kid's Juvie record', especially when the President and/or AD don't, and will never have the full facts in the case.

It's one thing if someone is tried as an adult. Or the kid is a student at the university. But that's not the case here. There are likely thousands of current UArizona students, and thousands of alumni with Juvie records. Do you really think it's wise to go over everything on a case by case basis? Or create a list of what Juvie charges the school will excuse, and ones they won't?

The better blanket policy is to follow what the law follows. Juvie crimes get expunged and don't follow a person into adulthood.

1. You are picking an awful hill to kill your reputation upon
2. He was tried as a juvie because he was under 18
3. If he is acting as a representative of the program, and you learn more about past transgressions - particularly violent ones, you make the decision to cut the cord
4. Juvie crimes don't move into your adult criminal record, but the damage upon a young woman will follow her the rest of her life. The civil penalty helps her cover what could be a lifetime of therapy, counseling, and other support.

He doesn't have to be kicked out of school (like other students that might have records, some that could be violent), but he has zero need to be a public representative of the school.

[AzCatFan2]

I'll ask again, if JDL was eligible to be tried as an adult with a potential maximum 14-year sentence, then why did the prosecutor offer him a Juvie deal with no time, and the judge signed off on it? Answer is, we'll never know.

But it's not the job of a University President nor AD to play judge and jury against a kid's Juvie record', especially when the President and/or AD don't, and will never have the full facts in the case.

It's one thing if someone is tried as an adult. Or the kid is a student at the university. But that's not the case here. There are likely thousands of current UArizona students, and thousands of alumni with Juvie records. Do you really think it's wise to go over everything on a case by case basis? Or create a list of what Juvie charges the school will excuse, and ones they won't?

The better blanket policy is to follow what the law follows. Juvie crimes get expunged and don't follow a person into adulthood.

1. You are picking an awful hill to kill your reputation upon
2. He was tried as a juvie because he was under 18
3. If he is acting as a representative of the program, and you learn more about past transgressions - particularly violent ones, you make the decision to cut the cord
4. Juvie crimes don't move into your adult criminal record, but the damage upon a young woman will follow her the rest of her life. The civil penalty helps her cover what could be a lifetime of therapy, counseling, and other support.

He doesn't have to be kicked out of school (like other students that might have records, some that could be violent), but he has zero need to be a public representative of the school.

Under Hawaii law, JDL and Latu were eligible to be v tried as adults. They weren't. Why?

Speaking of the victim, she had to know JDL and Latu were full scholarship athletes at D1 schools. I understand not publicly notifying the schools, but why not privately say something? Maybe she did to Wisconsin and WAZZU, but not Arizona, as the statement said it was JDL that came forward.

We don't know the full story. We can't know the full story either, since the files are sealed. All we know is the kids could've been charged as adults, but the prosecutor agreed to a deal that charged them as Juvies, and the judge agreed to sign off on the plea.

Sorry, but I don't think a sealed Juvie record where the AD and President don't, and can't have all the facts should get a kid kicked off the team. Especially when the prosecutor has the digression to try him as an adult, but chose not to.

[Merkin]

JDL may or may not have done something real bad.

I have no idea how you could possibly state that. The evidence was testified to under oath.

You know what never happened? JDL saying he didn't do it.

You know what did happen? JDL pleading guilty to a Class B felony, a violent sexual assault. JDL writing a apology to the victim admitting guilt.

In what bizarro world would you think that wasn't bad?

Under Hawaii law, JDL and Latu were eligible to be v tried as adults. They weren't. Why?

1. The victim waited 2 months to file a criminal complaint. Like Ari mentioned above, it's very difficult for a rape victim to come forward. Rape is very easy to accuse, and very hard to convict.
2. They had just won the state championship and were football heroes. JDL was the Gatorade POY for HI.

[KillerKlown]

But you see, 1 in 3 people....

[CardiacCats97]

Besides the morality position which btw I believe in 100% what should happen to JDL moving forward?

He did something deplorable and should be kicked off the team. Is he not allowed to play football anymore? Or can he play for some Div II team? Or is he outcast to some desert island where he gets stoned every day?

I get the “I don’t really care as long as he doesn’t play for us” mentality but do we really think he doesn’t deserve to play football anymore because of what he did? Does he need to serve penance for the rest of his life or is he allowed to make a living?

I’m just raising the question. What do people think he should be allowed to do at this point?

I don’t care what he does, I just don’t want him playing for the Arizona Wildcats. Let some other school become RapeU.

If Arizona’s statement had mentioned how they were aware of the incident as they recruited him, that they spoke to him and enough other people that they were confident that he had been and continued to put in the work to make up for his crime, and that they had taken a chance on a kid who was doing all the right things to ensure he never did anything like that again, that would be one thing. But that’s not at all what happened. Instead they found out about it because of the civil suit and they’re basically throwing up their hands and saying “well, he’s already on the team…”

By no means am I saying that someone who did what he did can’t be a valued and thriving part of our society after they’ve paid whatever price the courts deem appropriate. I’m saying that I don’t have to like it that he’s a part of the university community and football team I love, and that because he is, my support for both has to be seriously looked at. In my mind, there shouldn’t be a Block A in between the R and P in “RAPIST”.

[Basketcats]

LOL this thread is tragically funny now. You people have done a complete 180 on the university, it's football coach and it's QB. I don't get any of you. It's like you live to run people out of town. Your moral compass may be pointed in the right direction but it isn't going to change anything.

[CardiacCats97]

Yes, I’ve done a 180 on the QB since I found out he’s a convicted rapist. If that’s a strange statement to you, your moral compass must be located in a landfill.

[pc in NM]

Besides the morality position which btw I believe in 100% what should happen to JDL moving forward?

He did something deplorable and should be kicked off the team. Is he not allowed to play football anymore? Or can he play for some Div II team? Or is he outcast to some desert island where he gets stoned every day?

I get the “I don’t really care as long as he doesn’t play for us” mentality but do we really think he doesn’t deserve to play football anymore because of what he did? Does he need to serve penance for the rest of his life or is he allowed to make a living?

I’m just raising the question. What do people think he should be allowed to do at this point?

I don’t care what he does, I just don’t want him playing for the Arizona Wildcats. Let some other school become RapeU.

If Arizona’s statement had mentioned how they were aware of the incident as they recruited him, that they spoke to him and enough other people that they were confident that he had been and continued to put in the work to make up for his crime, and that they had taken a chance on a kid who was doing all the right things to ensure he never did anything like that again, that would be one thing. But that’s not at all what happened. Instead they found out about it because of the civil suit and they’re basically throwing up their hands and saying “well, he’s already on the team…”

By no means am I saying that someone who did what he did can’t be a valued and thriving part of our society after they’ve paid whatever price the courts deem appropriate. I’m saying that I don’t have to like it that he’s a part of the university community and football team I love, and that because he is, my support for both has to be seriously looked at. In my mind, there shouldn’t be a Block A in between the R and P in “RAPIST”.

The question here is really about what is "justice" in this situation. And, that focus will, and should initially focus upon the perpetrator(s) of such crimes. And, while many have acknowledged that both criminal justice, and civil justice have meted out the consequences for de Laura, more is expected and demanded. How much, for how long, and how severe reasonable consequences should exist?

IMNSHO, the pursuit of "justice" in light of rape, in this particular case, and the widespread issue of violence against women in general, must be extended to a larger context - namely to the very basic operations of our society. How women are valued, regarded, respected and guaranteed safety. A major area of political dispute in the USA involves "oppression" vs "equity". Further discussion of this, of course, properly belongs on the "lower boards".

However I'll mention one aspect that anyone concerned about "justice" herein, does need to consider. Our "sports" boards have a long history of placement of scantily-dressed "babes" in discussions that, literally, have nothing whatsoever to do with "scantily-dressed 'babes'". These have been accepted, tolerated, and often celebrated here for years. They are exemplary of the reduction of females to sexual objects, and compromise how "women are valued, regarded, respected and guaranteed safety" here,

What I'm saying is, passionate defense of "justice" here is a broader concern than merely Jaden de Laura's life consequences - let's be honest, and look at what needs to change in our society, starting with THIS community.

[EastCoastCat]

Besides the morality position which btw I believe in 100% what should happen to JDL moving forward?

He did something deplorable and should be kicked off the team. Is he not allowed to play football anymore? Or can he play for some Div II team? Or is he outcast to some desert island where he gets stoned every day?

I get the “I don’t really care as long as he doesn’t play for us” mentality but do we really think he doesn’t deserve to play football anymore because of what he did? Does he need to serve penance for the rest of his life or is he allowed to make a living?

I’m just raising the question. What do people think he should be allowed to do at this point?

I don’t care what he does, I just don’t want him playing for the Arizona Wildcats. Let some other school become RapeU.

If Arizona’s statement had mentioned how they were aware of the incident as they recruited him, that they spoke to him and enough other people that they were confident that he had been and continued to put in the work to make up for his crime, and that they had taken a chance on a kid who was doing all the right things to ensure he never did anything like that again, that would be one thing. But that’s not at all what happened. Instead they found out about it because of the civil suit and they’re basically throwing up their hands and saying “well, he’s already on the team…”

By no means am I saying that someone who did what he did can’t be a valued and thriving part of our society after they’ve paid whatever price the courts deem appropriate. I’m saying that I don’t have to like it that he’s a part of the university community and football team I love, and that because he is, my support for both has to be seriously looked at. In my mind, there shouldn’t be a Block A in between the R and P in “RAPIST”.

See, the first part of your statement is interesting. So if Arizona knew and decided to put him on the team because they did a follow up background check, and he's been a model citizen since, you would be OK with it and Arizona would not have the scarlet letter RAPEU. But because they didn't know about it, and no fault to the University for not knowing since the information was sealed, and they are deciding to not release him because he hasn't been in trouble since, Arizona gets labeled for condoning Rape. See my point?

If we make this black and white like mentioned earlier - no murderer's rapists, etc..are allowed to attend UofA and/or play football then doesn't that mean:

1) any school that takes JDL automatically flunks the moral test
2) don't we then have to look for other players/representatives of the school in other sports that could be in the same situation and expel them too? We assume background checks are done, but are there any wink wink issues?

Again, I think JDL should be removed from the team once the school found out about it. But where does the second chance card for his life/football career kick in or does that not never happen?

[Basketcats]

Yes, I’ve done a 180 on the QB since I found out he’s a convicted rapist. If that’s a strange statement to you, your moral compass must be located in a landfill.

Did I say that I found it strange?

[CardiacCats97]

Yes, I’ve done a 180 on the QB since I found out he’s a convicted rapist. If that’s a strange statement to you, your moral compass must be located in a landfill.

Did I say that I found it strange?

You said “I don’t get any of you”.

Really?

[AzCatFan2]

Our justice system has decided, for better or worse, that juvenile criminal files are closed. And for the most part, expunged when someone turns 18. I happen to think this system does a lot more good than bad, and is the right decision. Students entering the University are under no obligation to reveal any and all juvenile criminal records. Nor can the University go snooping around to see if any incoming students have a Juvie record or not.

JDL's case is unique in that along with the criminal aspect, there was also a civil case. Had the civil case never been filed, no Arizona administrator, coach, or fan may have ever known about the criminal case. And again, I guarantee you there are other scholarship kids across campus that have some sort of Juvie record. Is it really fair that these kids, assuming they never face civil trials, get the protection from the law that keeps their cases closed, while JDL gets punished by losing his scholarship and being kicked off the team?

We also don't know the complete set of facts in JDL's case. All we know is Latu and JDL summoned the girl to the parking garage, some sort of assault took place that included the threat of violence, and/or actual violence, and there wasn't an investigation until after the girl's mother saw an apology text from JDL two months later. We also have Latu's lawyer making a statement that what happened was consensual. That's it.

We also know that it was possible that Latu and JDL could have been tried as adults, but that didn't happen. And because they agreed to plea out as juveniles, the facts of the case will remain sealed. It leaves us only to speculate why prosecutor believed, and the judge agreed why the juvie charge was appropriate. Were the prosecutor and judge biased because the kids were football players? Maybe. Was the victim an non-cooperating witness who didn't want the fact that the incident started out consensual and went too far, and she didn't want to admit this? Maybe...I could go on with hundreds of speculations why Latu and JDL were only charged as juveniles; none of of matters, nor changes the fact that they were charged only as juveniles. We may never know the truth, because again, juvenile criminal files are closed.

You can certainly charge Wisconsin and Arizona hiding rapists behind juvenile criminal record laws, and there may be some truth in that. But what's the alternative? And is it really fair that just about every other kid on both campuses get to hide behind the same law, but Latu and JDL cannot?

[CardiacCats97]

Besides the morality position which btw I believe in 100% what should happen to JDL moving forward?

He did something deplorable and should be kicked off the team. Is he not allowed to play football anymore? Or can he play for some Div II team? Or is he outcast to some desert island where he gets stoned every day?

I get the “I don’t really care as long as he doesn’t play for us” mentality but do we really think he doesn’t deserve to play football anymore because of what he did? Does he need to serve penance for the rest of his life or is he allowed to make a living?

I’m just raising the question. What do people think he should be allowed to do at this point?

I don’t care what he does, I just don’t want him playing for the Arizona Wildcats. Let some other school become RapeU.

If Arizona’s statement had mentioned how they were aware of the incident as they recruited him, that they spoke to him and enough other people that they were confident that he had been and continued to put in the work to make up for his crime, and that they had taken a chance on a kid who was doing all the right things to ensure he never did anything like that again, that would be one thing. But that’s not at all what happened. Instead they found out about it because of the civil suit and they’re basically throwing up their hands and saying “well, he’s already on the team…”

By no means am I saying that someone who did what he did can’t be a valued and thriving part of our society after they’ve paid whatever price the courts deem appropriate. I’m saying that I don’t have to like it that he’s a part of the university community and football team I love, and that because he is, my support for both has to be seriously looked at. In my mind, there shouldn’t be a Block A in between the R and P in “RAPIST”.

See, the first part of your statement is interesting. So if Arizona knew and decided to put him on the team because they did a follow up background check, and he's been a model citizen since, you would be OK with it and Arizona would not have the scarlet letter RAPEU. But because they didn't know about it, and no fault to the University for not knowing since the information was sealed, and they are deciding to not release him because he hasn't been in trouble since, Arizona gets labeled for condoning Rape. See my point?

I didn’t flesh out the rest of my point well enough. No, I wouldn’t be ok with it. But at least there would be the impression that the university did their due diligence and that they came to the conclusion that he deserves this second chance and UA is the place for him to get it. But I still wouldn’t be ok with it. I’m even less ok with it since they seem to just be shrugging their shoulders and hiding behind a flawed justice system because they like the way he runs the offense.

I don’t want to have a convicted rapist on the Wildcats. Having to defend that is wild to me.

[GlobalCat]

Our justice system has decided, for better or worse, that juvenile criminal files are closed. And for the most part, expunged when someone turns 18. I happen to think this system does a lot more good than bad, and is the right decision. Students entering the University are under no obligation to reveal any and all juvenile criminal records. Nor can the University go snooping around to see if any incoming students have a Juvie record or not.

JDL's case is unique in that along with the criminal aspect, there was also a civil case. Had the civil case never been filed, no Arizona administrator, coach, or fan may have ever known about the criminal case. And again, I guarantee you there are other scholarship kids across campus that have some sort of Juvie record. Is it really fair that these kids, assuming they never face civil trials, get the protection from the law that keeps their cases closed, while JDL gets punished by losing his scholarship and being kicked off the team?

We also don't know the complete set of facts in JDL's case. All we know is Latu and JDL summoned the girl to the parking garage, some sort of assault took place that included the threat of violence, and/or actual violence, and there wasn't an investigation until after the girl's mother saw an apology text from JDL two months later. We also have Latu's lawyer making a statement that what happened was consensual. That's it.

We also know that it was possible that Latu and JDL could have been tried as adults, but that didn't happen. And because they agreed to plea out as juveniles, the facts of the case will remain sealed. It leaves us only to speculate why prosecutor believed, and the judge agreed why the juvie charge was appropriate. Were the prosecutor and judge biased because the kids were football players? Maybe. Was the victim an non-cooperating witness who didn't want the fact that the incident started out consensual and went too far, and she didn't want to admit this? Maybe...I could go on with hundreds of speculations why Latu and JDL were only charged as juveniles; none of of matters, nor changes the fact that they were charged only as juveniles. We may never know the truth, because again, juvenile criminal files are closed.

You can certainly charge Wisconsin and Arizona hiding rapists behind juvenile criminal record laws, and there may be some truth in that. But what's the alternative? And is it really fair that just about every other kid on both campuses get to hide behind the same law, but Latu and JDL cannot?

Every time you waste energy writing these logically empty posts, you dig your reputation here an even deeper hole.

[EastCoastCat]

Besides the morality position which btw I believe in 100% what should happen to JDL moving forward?

He did something deplorable and should be kicked off the team. Is he not allowed to play football anymore? Or can he play for some Div II team? Or is he outcast to some desert island where he gets stoned every day?

I get the “I don’t really care as long as he doesn’t play for us” mentality but do we really think he doesn’t deserve to play football anymore because of what he did? Does he need to serve penance for the rest of his life or is he allowed to make a living?

I’m just raising the question. What do people think he should be allowed to do at this point?

I don’t care what he does, I just don’t want him playing for the Arizona Wildcats. Let some other school become RapeU.

If Arizona’s statement had mentioned how they were aware of the incident as they recruited him, that they spoke to him and enough other people that they were confident that he had been and continued to put in the work to make up for his crime, and that they had taken a chance on a kid who was doing all the right things to ensure he never did anything like that again, that would be one thing. But that’s not at all what happened. Instead they found out about it because of the civil suit and they’re basically throwing up their hands and saying “well, he’s already on the team…”

By no means am I saying that someone who did what he did can’t be a valued and thriving part of our society after they’ve paid whatever price the courts deem appropriate. I’m saying that I don’t have to like it that he’s a part of the university community and football team I love, and that because he is, my support for both has to be seriously looked at. In my mind, there shouldn’t be a Block A in between the R and P in “RAPIST”.

See, the first part of your statement is interesting. So if Arizona knew and decided to put him on the team because they did a follow up background check, and he's been a model citizen since, you would be OK with it and Arizona would not have the scarlet letter RAPEU. But because they didn't know about it, and no fault to the University for not knowing since the information was sealed, and they are deciding to not release him because he hasn't been in trouble since, Arizona gets labeled for condoning Rape. See my point?

I didn’t flesh out the rest of my point well enough. No, I wouldn’t be ok with it. But at least there would be the impression that the university did their due diligence and that they came to the conclusion that he deserves this second chance and UA is the place for him to get it. But I still wouldn’t be ok with it. I’m even less ok with it since they seem to just be shrugging their shoulders and hiding behind a flawed justice system because they like the way he runs the offense.

I don’t want to have a convicted rapist on the Wildcats. Having to defend that is wild to me.

It's not about defending. I was just trying to understand yours, and anyone else's POV on what is fair justice for JDL moving forward understanding a majority of the people (including me btw) do not want our Wildcats to have convicted rapist's or murderer's on our beloved teams.

That was my question - if you don't really care you don't need to respond. But since you did I asked for clarification because you said "hey, he can still be a thriving member of society after he's paid the price doled about by the justice system - just not on my team."

So it's not ok for our team, but ok for other teams because we don't give a shit about them. Does the moral compass oversee all of college football or just Arizona?

To not be hypocritical the statement should then read "JDL is a convicted rapist and he should no longer play for Arizona or any other college team. Because of his actions he should no longer represent college sports and will need to find a new career as while justice was served this unfortunately should hang over him for the rest of his life just as it will for the woman he raped."

[Basketcats]

Yes, I’ve done a 180 on the QB since I found out he’s a convicted rapist. If that’s a strange statement to you, your moral compass must be located in a landfill.

Did I say that I found it strange?

You said “I don’t get any of you”.

Really?

Yes, really. I said...

"I don't get any of you. It's like you live to run people out of town."

Your quote left out the part that was kind of the whole point of my comment. That point being....

Everyone seems to think their opinion is going to affect change within the UofA and get them to backtrack on their decision to stick with him instead of booting him off the team. At no time did I question where moral compasses were pointed.

[dovecanyoncat]

Apropos meted justice weighed against future moral hazard: ponder OJ Simpson. He was guilty but he was rightly freed because the state did not have clean hands. But no one from that moment forward should in their right mind say "The slate is clean, we're back to square one."

[CardiacCats97]

Besides the morality position which btw I believe in 100% what should happen to JDL moving forward?

He did something deplorable and should be kicked off the team. Is he not allowed to play football anymore? Or can he play for some Div II team? Or is he outcast to some desert island where he gets stoned every day?

I get the “I don’t really care as long as he doesn’t play for us” mentality but do we really think he doesn’t deserve to play football anymore because of what he did? Does he need to serve penance for the rest of his life or is he allowed to make a living?

I’m just raising the question. What do people think he should be allowed to do at this point?

I don’t care what he does, I just don’t want him playing for the Arizona Wildcats. Let some other school become RapeU.

If Arizona’s statement had mentioned how they were aware of the incident as they recruited him, that they spoke to him and enough other people that they were confident that he had been and continued to put in the work to make up for his crime, and that they had taken a chance on a kid who was doing all the right things to ensure he never did anything like that again, that would be one thing. But that’s not at all what happened. Instead they found out about it because of the civil suit and they’re basically throwing up their hands and saying “well, he’s already on the team…”

By no means am I saying that someone who did what he did can’t be a valued and thriving part of our society after they’ve paid whatever price the courts deem appropriate. I’m saying that I don’t have to like it that he’s a part of the university community and football team I love, and that because he is, my support for both has to be seriously looked at. In my mind, there shouldn’t be a Block A in between the R and P in “RAPIST”.

See, the first part of your statement is interesting. So if Arizona knew and decided to put him on the team because they did a follow up background check, and he's been a model citizen since, you would be OK with it and Arizona would not have the scarlet letter RAPEU. But because they didn't know about it, and no fault to the University for not knowing since the information was sealed, and they are deciding to not release him because he hasn't been in trouble since, Arizona gets labeled for condoning Rape. See my point?

I didn’t flesh out the rest of my point well enough. No, I wouldn’t be ok with it. But at least there would be the impression that the university did their due diligence and that they came to the conclusion that he deserves this second chance and UA is the place for him to get it. But I still wouldn’t be ok with it. I’m even less ok with it since they seem to just be shrugging their shoulders and hiding behind a flawed justice system because they like the way he runs the offense.

I don’t want to have a convicted rapist on the Wildcats. Having to defend that is wild to me.

It's not about defending. I was just trying to understand yours, and anyone else's POV on what is fair justice for JDL moving forward understanding a majority of the people (including me btw) do not want our Wildcats to have convicted rapist's or murderer's on our beloved teams.

That was my question - if you don't really care you don't need to respond. But since you did I asked for clarification because you said "hey, he can still be a thriving member of society after he's paid the price doled about by the justice system - just not on my team."

So it's not ok for our team, but ok for other teams because we don't give a shit about them. Does the moral compass oversee all of college football or just Arizona?

To not be hypocritical the statement should then read "JDL is a convicted rapist and he should no longer play for Arizona or any other college team. Because of his actions he should no longer represent college sports and will need to find a new career as while justice was served this unfortunately should hang over him for the rest of his life just as it will for the woman he raped."

My focus is on Arizona. If fans of other schools also don’t want him on their teams and he doesn’t have the opportunity to play college football and go to school for free, hey . . . don’t rape.

I look at it like Kyle Rittenhouse. He announced that he was accepted to Texas A&M and a lot of students and alums pitched a fit. He was a minor when he killed those people. He was also acquitted. Should he not be allowed to further his education? Seems like the message was “not here”. That’s the same message I wish we were sending to JDL. Not here. Then where? That’s up to whichever school wants to take that chance. I don’t want it to be Arizona. If that makes me a hypocrite, then I’m a hypocrite.

[CardiacCats97]

Yes, I’ve done a 180 on the QB since I found out he’s a convicted rapist. If that’s a strange statement to you, your moral compass must be located in a landfill.

Did I say that I found it strange?

You said “I don’t get any of you”.

Really?

Yes, really. I said...

"I don't get any of you. It's like you live to run people out of town."

Your quote left out the part that was kind of the whole point of my comment. That point being....

Everyone seems to think their opinion is going to affect change within the UofA and get them to backtrack on their decision to stick with him instead of booting him off the team. At no time did I question where moral compasses were pointed.

I don’t live to run people out of town. I just don’t believe in giving rapists safe harbor. And if enough people do express that opinion it should get UA to backtrack. If there is enormous pressure and they don’t backtrack we know absolutely where they fall on the rape victims vs passing touchdowns debate.

Throwing up your hands and saying “my opinion won’t change anything” is cowardly. Nothing has ever changed for the better in our society because good people stood around doing nothing.

[GlobalCat]

Yes, I’ve done a 180 on the QB since I found out he’s a convicted rapist. If that’s a strange statement to you, your moral compass must be located in a landfill.

Did I say that I found it strange?

You said “I don’t get any of you”.

Really?

Yes, really. I said...

"I don't get any of you. It's like you live to run people out of town."

Your quote left out the part that was kind of the whole point of my comment. That point being....

Everyone seems to think their opinion is going to affect change within the UofA and get them to backtrack on their decision to stick with him instead of booting him off the team. At no time did I question where moral compasses were pointed.

I don’t live to run people out of town. I just don’t believe in giving rapists safe harbor. And if enough people do express that opinion it should get UA to backtrack. If there is enormous pressure and they don’t backtrack we know absolutely where they fall on the rape victims vs passing touchdowns debate.

Throwing up your hands and saying “my opinion won’t change anything” is cowardly. Nothing has ever changed for the better in our society because good people stood around doing nothing.

The word "cowardly" came to mind for me too.

uofaad@arizona.edu, tamaraalexander@arizona.edu, rfernety@arizona.edu, football@arizona.edu

[Merkin]

UA certainly did take the cowardly way out. If there is a legal issue regarding his scholarship, keep him on it then, but there is no guarantee he has to play. Have him hold the clipboard.

In any event, I imagine the NIL money will dry up for JDL and this will raise a red flag for any NFL teams that were looking at him.

Not sure why his lawyer did not succeed in getting this settled out of court.