Honest Question about Jordan Williams

[Trapper85]

State v. Wiezorek, No. 0-315/09-1415 (Iowa Ct. App. May 26, 2010), is an Iowa Court of Appeals decision addressing the meaning of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) under Iowa law. The court affirmed a conviction involving an intoxicated defendant found asleep behind the wheel of a parked vehicle with its engine running.

https://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/court-of-appeals/2010/0-315.html

Ridiculous leeway. That aside, apparently even the highest court in the land can reverse itself. That aside, Jordan needs help, hope he gets it.

 

[manatree]

State v. Wiezorek, No. 0-315/09-1415 (Iowa Ct. App. May 26, 2010), is an Iowa Court of Appeals decision addressing the meaning of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) under Iowa law. The court affirmed a conviction involving an intoxicated defendant found asleep behind the wheel of a parked vehicle with its engine running.

https://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/court-of-appeals/2010/0-315.html

This is a common interpretation in most states. Dig deep enough and it is ‘in control of the vehicle’ not just driving the vehicle. Even if the vehicle isn’t running it can depend on what seat you are ‘sleeping’ in and where the keys are. ’Sleeping‘ in the car in the driver’s seat with the keys in your pocket and you will probably still get charged. ‘Sleeping’ in the back seat with the keys in the glove compartment, maybe not. Throw in remote start keys and it gets even murkier.

 

[MSU158]

This is a common interpretation in most states. Dig deep enough and it is ‘in control of the vehicle’ not just driving the vehicle. Even if the vehicle isn’t running it can depend on what seat you are ‘sleeping’ in and where the keys are. ’Sleeping‘ in the car in the driver’s seat with the keys in your pocket and you will probably still get charged. ‘Sleeping’ in the back seat with the keys in the glove compartment, maybe not. Throw in remote start keys and it gets even murkier.

The key to it all is if you are willing to go to trial in front of a jury. I simply can't imagine 12 people convicting someone if they can reasonably show that the ENTIRE POINT was to NOT drive while drinking. Although, as mightier than though judgmental many on here seem to be, my faith in people may be entirely misplaced....

 

[Nashville_Hawk]

The key to it all is if you are willing to go to trial in front of a jury. I simply can't imagine 12 people convicting someone if they can reasonably show that the ENTIRE POINT was to NOT drive while drinking. Although, as mightier than though judgmental many on here seem to be, my faith in people may be entirely misplaced....

It’s either going to be settled out of court (plea deal) or decided by a judge; no wasting a jury trial on a DUI/OUI.

 

[cjr1310]

It’s either going to be settled out of court (plea deal) or decided by a judge; no wasting a jury trial on a DUI

By far the most likely outcome but the defendant has the right to a jury trial if they so choose, wether we consider it wasting a jury or now.

 

[Mattski]

The key to it all is if you are willing to go to trial in front of a jury. I simply can't imagine 12 people convicting someone if they can reasonably show that the ENTIRE POINT was to NOT drive while drinking. Although, as mightier than though judgmental many on here seem to be, my faith in people may be entirely misplaced....

Ahh yes, the real problem is the people who are critical of a guy who has a history of alcohol related issues making yet ANOTHER dumb alcohol related decision... not the guy who can't seem to stop drinking himself into a stupor long enough to stay on his 3rd team. Sorry but you're an idiot.

 

[Rick Honcho]

Yes, he is.

Maybe he finally grows up and becomes accountable to both himself and his team.

 

[Slim45]

Ahh yes, the real problem is the people who are critical of a guy who has a history of alcohol related issues making yet ANOTHER dumb alcohol related decision... not the guy who can't seem to stop drinking himself into a stupor long enough to stay on his 3rd team. Sorry but you're an idiot.

Pretty easy to tell his post wasn’t even about Williams and his case lol

 

[RockySmith]

The key to it all is if you are willing to go to trial in front of a jury. I simply can't imagine 12 people convicting someone if they can reasonably show that the ENTIRE POINT was to NOT drive while drinking. Although, as mightier than though judgmental many on here seem to be, my faith in people may be entirely misplaced....

I’ve been the foreman on a couple of juries. Not a lawyer.

The prosecution gives the jury the law, and the facts. In this case they would say, “If a person is behind the wheel, and the car is running, and they are sleeping, this meets the rule for OWI.” Then they have a police officer testify that the man was indeed behind the wheel, the car was running, and he was sleeping. The defense will try to claim he wasn’t drinking and driving, but the jury will likely find that’s not the law.

All this being said, it will never go to a jury, so it doesn’t matter.

 

[MSU158]

I love you guys. The entire point was simple. If they won’t plea off a DUI, your ONLY chance to not get one would be a jury. It is VERY rare that law enforcement will drop DUI’s if they feel everything procedurally was done correctly. A judge sure as hell isn’t going to side with the defendant either. It is too much of a money business.

There are some laws where INTENT shouldn’t be enough to save you. This shouldn’t be one of them…

 

[lookleftgoright]

As a side note, do we have any news on how he is doing at the U23s. He is still on the team correct?

 

[GLC1969]

Who cares about what the law does to him. He needs help. Posting stupid crap on an Iowa wrestling website is not helping the young man. MSU could argue with anyone And come back and say its relevant to helping him. The topic is honest question. Has Jordan recieved any help yet? I sure hope so because it could become a long dark path.

 

[Corby2]

As a side note, do we have any news on how he is doing at the U23s. He is still on the team correct?

He will wrestle Saturday

 

[MSU158]

Who cares about what the law does to him. He needs help. Posting stupid crap on an Iowa wrestling website is not helping the young man. MSU could argue with anyone And come back and say its relevant to helping him. The topic is honest question. Has Jordan recieved any help yet? I sure hope so because it could become a long dark path.

LMFAO. I directly responded to someone referencing the ACTUAL LAW about "controlling" the vehicle while "sleeping" inside it. Sadly, I most likely have more experience with DUI's in my lifetime than anyone here that isn't a lawyer that specializes in it...it is a topic that I feel strongly about and responded in kind. If you don't like it, TOO.....DAMN.....BAD.....

 

[el dub]

LMFAO. I directly responded to someone referencing the ACTUAL LAW about "controlling" the vehicle while "sleeping" inside it. Sadly, I most likely have more experience with DUI's in my lifetime than anyone here that isn't a lawyer that specializes in it...it is a topic that I feel strongly about and responded in kind. If you don't like it, TOO.....DAMN.....BAD.....

I’m sorry for what you’ve gone through in your life, MSU. Hopefully you got help for that problem eventually?

 

[MSU158]

I’m sorry for what you’ve gone through in your life, MSU. Hopefully you got help for that problem eventually?

Not sure if that is sincere or facetious. But, yes, there have been several Presidents in office since....

 

[Mattski]

Pretty easy to tell his post wasn’t even about Williams and his case lol

Of course it was. Go back and read the post he responded to. The situation in question isn't hypothetical, it's William's.
Anyone who thinks the problem lies with those passing judgement on a person being pass out drunk in a running car, is indeed an idiot.

 

[MSU158]

Of course it was. Go back and read the post he responded to. The situation in question isn't hypothetical, it's William's.
Anyone who thinks the problem lies with those passing judgement on a person being pass out drunk in a running car, is indeed an idiot.

Gleaning context has never been your strong suit on here. Makes perfect sense that you would so quickly resort to name calling as a result...

 

[Mattski]

Gleaning context has never been your strong suit on here. Makes perfect sense that you would so quickly resort to name calling as a result...

Lol, reread your post that I originally responded to.
I'll help you out, focus on this part of your post, "Although, as mightier than though judgmental many on here seem to be, my faith in people may be entirely misplaced...."
Not to mention "mightier than though" in place of "holier than thou" isn't really helping your case either.

 

[MSU158]

Lol, reread your post that I originally responded to.
I'll help you out, focus on this part of your post, "Although, as mightier than though judgmental many on here seem to be, my faith in people may be entirely misplaced...."

Again, C O N T E X T......There have been multiple threads in which I have had some back and forths with those on here that are EXTREMELY judgmental in any and all situations(namely Spooner).

The entire point of that line you quoted FOCUSED(since you used the word focus) on the possibility that people are now so solely judgmental that they would still convict someone even if their INTENT was to NOT drink and drive, simply because they were drinking and in a situation like sleeping it off in the car...but, AGAIN, you aren't very good at gleaning context on here...

 

[TheREALSpooner]

Again, C O N T E X T......There have been multiple threads in which I have had some back and forths with those on here that are EXTREMELY judgmental in any and all situations(namely Spooner).

I don't even know what you guys are bickering about but yeah...I'm ok being judgmental on certain subjects like assaulting women, pedophilia, being a narcissistic douche bag, etc. I'm totally good standing in judgement on such subjects.

 

[MSU158]

I don't even know what you guys are bickering about but yeah...I'm ok being judgmental on certain subjects like assaulting women, pedophilia, being a narcissistic douche bag, etc. I'm totally good standing in judgement on such subjects.

Yet, it was done without all the facts, nor actually KNOWING the person. Mind you, even I have said multiple times that I "THINK" AJ is a douchebag. But, that is different than KNOWING and therefor condemning him.

Be honest, without any more info than what you have seen online, if given the chance would you right now convict AJ of any/all of the possible charges for those things you mentioned? If you would, that proves my point...

 

[Mattski]

Again, C O N T E X T......There have been multiple threads in which I have had some back and forths with those on here that are EXTREMELY judgmental in any and all situations(namely Spooner).

The entire point of that line you quoted FOCUSED(since you used the word focus) on the possibility that people are now so solely judgmental that they would still convict someone even if their INTENT was to NOT drink and drive, simply because they were drinking and in a situation like sleeping it off in the car...but, AGAIN, you aren't very good at gleaning context on here...

And I stated you're an idiot bc you're more worked up about what random message board posters might think about JW or AJF than you are about the repeated dumb and in some cases criminal offenses they continue to make.
Your posts since are proving my point quite well.

 

[MSU158]

And I stated you're an idiot bc you're more worked up about what random message board posters might think about JW or AJF than you are about the repeated dumb and in some cases criminal offenses they continue to make.
Your posts since are proving my point quite well.

LMFAO, you are so far off point its comical....you can absolutely despise either or both and I wouldn't care one bit. My issue in this SPECIFIC thread was only about interpretation of the LAW based on INTENT and ONLY brought people on this board up as some seemed so judgmental that they may possibly convict ANYWAY regardless of the intent...

I never once mentioned any of the dumb decisions either have made, nor have I defended them. But, keeo trying...

 

[Slim45]

Of course it was. Go back and read the post he responded to. The situation in question isn't hypothetical, it's William's.
Anyone who thinks the problem lies with those passing judgement on a person being pass out drunk in a running car, is indeed an idiot.

Not sure what you read in either his, or the post he responded to, that made you think they were directly talking about Williams. They’re speaking in generalities and how the law is applied.

 

[MSU158]

Not sure what you read in either his, or the post he responded to, that made you think they were directly talking about Williams. They’re speaking in generalities and how the law is applied.

He just doesn't like me, or at least how I post, and this was a chance to come at me. Also, reading and comprehending is NOT a strength on this board, so he fits right in!

 

[Kohawks99]

He just doesn't like me, or at least how I post, and this was a chance to come at me. Also, reading and comprehending is NOT a strength on this board, so he fits right in!

Not that i disagree with anything you said here, but do you think that, maybe, if arguments keep coming at you and you are constantly having to defend yourself, that, maybe, you are the problem?????

 

[el dub]

Not sure if that is sincere or facetious. But, yes, there have been several Presidents in office since....

A little of both.

 

[Mattski]

LMFAO, you are so far off point its comical....you can absolutely despise either or both and I wouldn't care one bit. My issue in this SPECIFIC thread was only about interpretation of the LAW based on INTENT and ONLY brought people on this board up as some seemed so judgmental that they may possibly convict ANYWAY regardless of the intent...

I never once mentioned any of the dumb decisions either have made, nor have I defended them. But, keeo trying...

And you need to make things up to defend your dumb take... again.
Where did I or anyone say they "despised" JW? The harshest opinions have been that he clearly has a problem and needs help and doesn't belong on the team. Not remotely the same thing but this is your m.o. and always has been.
You clearly stated the "mightier than though" (that one is still making me chuckle btw), judgmental people on this board would convict a person for sitting in a running car while intoxicated even though as others have stated THAT IS THE LAW.

 

[Mattski]

Not sure what you read in either his, or the post he responded to, that made you think they were directly talking about Williams. They’re speaking in generalities and how the law is applied.

It's not really a generality when the situation being discussed is exactly what Williams was caught doing. And I don't really care about the take that he thinks it shouldn't be a DUI... it's the fact he's using it to take a shot at posters who've been critical of Williams in both this situation and others that is ridiculous. People have been critical of JW and AJF b/c they've made piles of dumb and in some cases criminal decisions and we don't want either of them on the team we support.

 

[Mattski]

Not that i disagree with anything you said here, but do you think that, maybe, if arguments keep coming at you and you are constantly having to defend yourself, that, maybe, you are the problem?????

I gave up on expecting that during this past season. He's incapable of self reflection.

 

[Mattski]

He just doesn't like me, or at least how I post, and this was a chance to come at me. Also, reading and comprehending is NOT a strength on this board, so he fits right in!

So you didn't use your post regarding the DUI/intent scenario to take a shot at posters you see as "mightier than thou and judgmental"?

 

[MSU158]

So you didn't use your post regarding the DUI/intent scenario to take a shot at posters you see as "mightier than thou and judgmental"?

Actually I used it as a GENERALITY to say that maybe my take on MOST PEOPLE is wrong and they wouldn't care about the intent of someone if they were sleeping it off in a car to NOT RISK harming someone by driving drunk. Basically saying he was drinking so he deserved it no matter what..

To me, if someone had the self awareness to realize they are too drunk to drive and instead slept in the car, parked specifically in a spot designed solely for it to be parked in, while NOT being used to drive, they shouldn't be charged with a crime. The ENTIRE point of a DUI is so that someone isn't operating a vehicle while impaired in a manner that could potentially harm themselves or others.

To be clear, I think social media is such a bad thing overall. People are so quick to judge and condemn people based on a short, edited video or something they read. It is so bad that if someone is charged with a crime and eventually completely exonerated, it is nearly impossible for them to ever recover. Once smeared they can never completely remove the stain.

 

[MSU158]

Not that i disagree with anything you said here, but do you think that, maybe, if arguments keep coming at you and you are constantly having to defend yourself, that, maybe, you are the problem?????

I admit I 100% intentionally post in a manner that can be very annoying to someone that disagrees with me. As such, I fully expect this type of response from some. I am trying to prove you wrong, not get you to like me! With that said, it is ONLY specific to the topic itself. I try very hard not to directly insult the person and would happily sit down and watch wrestling with just about anyone that posts here...

 

[MSU158]

A little of both.

Oxymoron?

Also, I was actually the one being facetious. I didn't expect any sincerity to be in that response...

 

[so cal hawkfan]

• LMFAO, you are so far off point its comical....you can absolutely despise either or both and I wouldn't care one bit. My issue in this SPECIFIC thread was only about interpretation of the LAW based on INTENT and ONLY brought people on this board up as some seemed so judgmental that they may possibly convict ANYWAY regardless of the intent...
  
  I never once mentioned any of the dumb decisions either have made, nor have I defended them. But, keeo trying...

• Intent to Drive Drunk is Irrelevant: You do not need to have intended to break the law, drive drunk, or cause a specific harmful result.

• In Williams case based on the info that was provided by local journalists (which could certainly be inaccurate) he was the sole occupant in a vehicle that was running for hours. He was in possession of an open container of alcohol, showed signs of impairment and failed Field Sobriety tests.

  
  Against my better judgement I’m going to point out that like most states OWI in Iowa is not a Specific Intent Crime.
  
  What the State Must Prove: The prosecution only needs to prove that you voluntarily drove a vehicle while impaired or over the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit.
• I imagine he’ll ultimately take a plea deal, but this meets the legal elements of in the state of OWI. Kid needs to get some help before he kills somebody.

 

[Stick Kitty]

Was Oklahoma State being "mightier than thou and judgmental" when they cut ties with the kid?

But now Brands is obligated to keep giving unlimited chances because he seems like a good kid with a problem therefore situational context isn't as important as what you end up being charged with to justify the enabling?

 

[MSU158]

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
  Against my better judgement I’m going to point out that like most states OWI in Iowa is not a Specific Intent Crime.
  
  What the State Must Prove: The prosecution only needs to prove that you voluntarily drove a vehicle while impaired or over the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit.
• I imagine he’ll ultimately take a plea deal, but this meets the legal elements of in the state of OWI. Kid needs to get some help before he kills somebody.

I understand that part. My point is SOLELY about what a jury would decide based on that evidence. Also, he didn't drive the vehicle, so your wording doesn't apply here. The charge is based on him "controlling" the vehicle. I would think a jury could see that he never intended to drive it and "controlling" the vehicle is vague as hell when all he may have done was turn it on so the climate was comfortable enough to sleep it off in.

Would you convict someone of a DUI if the defense clearly proved he NEVER had intent to move that car whatsoever and all he ever did was turn the AC on to sleep until he was fit to drive?

As far as help goes, I have never said he didn't need it. If he wasn't drinking he wouldn't be in this situation even if he never was going to actually drive while drinking. I guess I may actually be different than most, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to punish someone so harshly for trying to do the right thing when drinking...

 

[so cal hawkfan]

LMFAO, you are so far off point its comical....you can absolutely despise either or both and I wouldn't care one bit. My issue in this SPECIFIC thread was only about interpretation of the LAW based on INTENT and ONLY brought people on this board up as some seemed so judgmental that they may possibly convict ANYWAY regardless of the intent...

I never once mentioned any of the dumb decisions either have made, nor have I defended them. But, keeo trying...

Actually I used it as a GENERALITY to say that maybe my take on MOST PEOPLE is wrong and they wouldn't care about the intent of someone if they were sleeping it off in a car to NOT RISK harming someone by driving drunk. Basically saying he was drinking so he deserved it no matter what..

To me, if someone had the self awareness to realize they are too drunk to drive and instead slept in the car, parked specifically in a spot designed solely for it to be parked in, while NOT being used to drive, they shouldn't be charged with a crime. The ENTIRE point of a DUI is so that someone isn't operating a vehicle while impaired in a manner that could potentially harm themselves or others.

To be clear, I think social media is such a bad thing overall. People are so quick to judge and condemn people based on a short, edited video or something they read. It is so bad that if someone is charged with a crime and eventually completely exonerated, it is nearly impossible for them to ever recover. Once smeared they can never completely remove the stain.

Against my better judgment I’ll point out that like most states OWI isn’t a specific intent crime.

The state only needs to prove that you 1) operated a vehicle. 2) you were intoxicated.

The facts reported in this case is that he was 1)alone in the vehicle, 2) the vehicle was running for several hours, 3) he possessed of an open container and 4) he was intoxicated. His intent is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

Ultimately he likely takes a plea deal, but the legal elements of OWI are there.

 

[MSU158]

Was Oklahoma State being "mightier than thou and judgmental" when they cut ties with the kid?

But now Brands is obligated to keep giving unlimited chances because he seems like a good kid with a problem therefore situational context isn't as important as what you end up being charged with to justify the enabling?

Complete twist of my stance here. I have never said Iowa should even keep the kid. After what happened last season, I am actually surprised he is still on the team, let alone this latest issue. Now, that doesn't mean I have anything against the Brands trying to be his support system and DO hope they can somehow help him get through all this and he can actually succeed at Iowa, both on and off the mat...