Honest Question about Jordan Williams

[TheREALSpooner]

Wow, talk about a red herring. As far as the jury part goes, I was simply looking for an honest answer to that question and, if you noticed, he did NOT answer.

My point was simply about a specific part of a law that I think is beyond ridiculous and was created more as a money grab between MADD and Law Enforcement than a true safety measure.

For clarity, I made it clear that IF it was reasonably proven in court, again, REASONABLY PROVEN, that the person that drank NEVER intended to drive, would you still convict them of a OWI/DUI? Do you think they DESERVE one simply because they drank and were in a car that was on at some point while they were intoxicated? They should get a DUI because they MAY decide later to drive? MInd you, drinking is LEGAL.

The simple truth is this would be the exact same thing as someone legally having a gun on them and charging them with any sort of violent gun crime because they MAY shoot someone with it. Now, there are actually certain laws for having the gun on you in certain places, but it would then be a very specific law LESS than any charge would be for ACTUALLY using the gun. If you want there to be a charge specific to being inside a running car while Intoxicated, I would be fine with that. But, it should be a LESSER charge than an actual OWI/DUI. That has really ONLY been my entire point....


How about this example?

Three buddies go out for a night on the town in some type of cargo van. They all drink heavily AFTER parking the van and when the night is over they all go sleep it off in the van, while it is running. Who deserves a DUI if the cops show up? All 3? Just the owner? What if none of them own the vehicle? Again, I would hope law enforcement would see it for what it is and not charge any of them with it, but they could and that is my contention. INTENT matters to me very much in nearly all aspects of life and it ABSOLUTELY should matter when you get charged with the exact same thing as someone that intentionally did something you didn't do...

Calling out someone for a red herring after the post you made is so rich it’s sticky.

It’s beyond funny that AJ has been in trouble multiple times in just the last year, and somehow you are still claiming moral high ground. Like really…how is it you’re hanging your hat on this right now?

 

[MSU158]

Calling out someone for a red herring after the post you made is so rich it’s sticky.

It’s beyond funny that AJ has been in trouble multiple times in just the last year, and somehow you are still claiming moral high ground. Like really…how is it you’re hanging your hat on this right now?

This argument isn’t about the person. It is about the law. But, hey, thanks for the kind words!

 

[Mattski]

If I attached a pic, you'd be an accessory to murder. Mine. She's 52 but looks every bit of 38. Southern belle. Just a little crazy though, and not always in a good way.

Sounds like we married the same woman, minus the southern belle part lol.

 

[Mattski]

Calling out someone for a red herring after the post you made is so rich it’s sticky.

It’s beyond funny that AJ has been in trouble multiple times in just the last year, and somehow you are still claiming moral high ground. Like really…how is it you’re hanging your hat on this right now?

But you don't KNOW him!

 

[Mattski]

View attachment 1485115

It's always the simplest of questions you just can't seem to answer. Why is that?

 

[MSU158]

It's always the simplest of questions you just can't seem to answer. Why is that?

Considering you wrote a paragraph of pure gibberish after your question, I found the response I gave to be the most fitting answer.

However, to directly answer, an attorney would have a plethora of options depending on each situation. Mind you, you kept arguing over things I wasn’t even talking about. My argument was NEVER specific to Jordan. I even said I don’t have all the facts and he may very well deserve to be found guilty. Hell, I even gave an example of 3 guys sleeping it off in a cargo van. I would think that situation would be rather easy to prove…

 

[Mattski]

Considering you wrote a paragraph of pure gibberish after your question, I found the response I gave to be the most fitting answer.

However, to directly answer, an attorney would have a plethora of options depending on each situation. Mind you, you kept arguing over things I wasn’t even talking about. My argument was NEVER specific to Jordan. I even said I don’t have all the facts and he may very well deserve to be found guilty. Hell, I even gave an example of 3 guys sleeping it off in a cargo van. I would think that situation would be rather easy to prove…

Just bc you use plethora in a post doesn't mean you answered the question, which you still haven't.

 

[GLC1969]

I can’t tell is he Perry Mason or Matlock

 

[MSU158]

Just bc you use plethora in a post doesn't mean you answered the question, which you still haven't.

I LITERALLY gave you an example. Another was the guy that came out of his house to get a present out of his car. You don't think you can prove 3 guys sleeping in a cargo van after a night on the town INTENTIONALLY brought that cargo van to NOT drive drunk and to sleep in? You don't think all the people in the party could vouch for the guy going out to his car for a present that was actually inside the car could prove he wasn't going to drive?

Hell, even in the case of Jordan the 3 hours of the car being on WITHOUT driving could be used to strongly make that point. Again, I don't have all the info in his case so there may be factors that don't help him, but, in this case, what make and model is his vehicle? Many cars now automatically shut off after sitting idle for a while(much less than 3 hours). A lawyer could then argue that Jordan had to keep turning the car back on during those 3 hours. That could go a long ways towards showing he wasn't intending to drive.

However, that argument could be a slippery slope for an attorney. You would then have to depend on the sympathy of the jury as you would more likely be showing specific "control" of the vehicle if the jury is only interested in following the letter of the law...which is why I HATE the law as it is written. THAT has been my entire point.....

But, hey, thanks for engaging. This is fun for me, even if your arguments are contrived, lack substance and could probably be better written by a 4th grader. Still, I do like the tenacity!

 

[VonEhwegen]

Always the response of the less gifted among us. Be better is all I have for you. Sometimes the subject is not related to school colors.

Less gifted??? Be better??? For asking why a PSU guy would want to waste his time having discussions on an Iowa wrestling board? Ok bud

 

[manatree]

I can’t tell is he Perry Mason or Matlock

Lionel Hutz.

 

[Mattski]

nm

 

[Mattski]

I LITERALLY gave you an example. Another was the guy that came out of his house to get a present out of his car. You don't think you can prove 3 guys sleeping in a cargo van after a night on the town INTENTIONALLY brought that cargo van to NOT drive drunk and to sleep in? You don't think all the people in the party could vouch for the guy going out to his car for a present that was actually inside the car could prove he wasn't going to drive?

Hell, even in the case of Jordan the 3 hours of the car being on WITHOUT driving could be used to strongly make that point. Again, I don't have all the info in his case so there may be factors that don't help him, but, in this case, what make and model is his vehicle? Many cars now automatically shut off after sitting idle for a while(much less than 3 hours). A lawyer could then argue that Jordan had to keep turning the car back on during those 3 hours. That could go a long ways towards showing he wasn't intending to drive.

However, that argument could be a slippery slope for an attorney. You would then have to depend on the sympathy of the jury as you would more likely be showing specific "control" of the vehicle if the jury is only interested in following the letter of the law...which is why I HATE the law as it is written. THAT has been my entire point.....

But, hey, thanks for engaging. This is fun for me, even if your arguments are contrived, lack substance and could probably be better written by a 4th grader. Still, I do like the tenacity!

Making up a ridiculous example that isn't comparable to the situation we're discussing isn't going to prove intent in court... But you know that which is why you're doing exactly what I said earlier, blathering on and on with more nonsense in an effort to distract from your original bad take. BAU158

 

[MSU158]

Making up a ridiculous example that isn't comparable to the situation we're discussing isn't going to prove intent in court... But you know that which is why you're doing exactly what I said earlier, blathering on and on with more nonsense in an effort to distract from your original bad take. BAU158

You do realize it is actually YOU that keeps moving the goal posts of my argument, right? There has NEVER been a "the situation" I was discussing. My argument was with the law itself? Since you like to ask direct questions, here are some for you.

How many times have I posted on here that my argument is with the law itself? How many times did I even say it wasn't specific to Jordan? How many times did I say I didn't even know all the facts in his case and he may actually be more deserving of the charges than most?

Was my very first response on this thread to a post that was directly about Jordan or about interpreting the law itself? Hell, was Jordan even mentioned in the post I directly responded to?

You simply don't like that I said many on here appear to be super judgmental and clouded all that with my overall point. I simply used it as a point that my faith in people may be misplaced. If I heard a compelling case for someone sitting in a car while never trying to drive it, I simply wouldn't want to charge them with a DUI. Open Intox? Sure. Any other laws that may fit, if deserved, for being drunk in public? Sure. But an OWI/DUI for NEVER driving the vehicle? To me, that is ridiculous. But, maybe those more judgmental would want to convict someone for a DUI, EVEN IF they were truly trying to sleep it off in the car....

So, if you can't read the above and know that YOU are the one obfuscating, the problem 100% lies with YOU!......Oh, take care and have a fabulous day!

 

[Mattski]

You do realize it is actually YOU that keeps moving the goal posts of my argument, right? There has NEVER been a "the situation" I was discussing. My argument was with the law itself? Since you like to ask direct questions, here are some for you.

How many times have I posted on here that my argument is with the law itself? How many times did I even say it wasn't specific to Jordan? How many times did I say I didn't even know all the facts in his case and he may actually be more deserving of the charges than most?

Was my very first response on this thread to a post that was directly about Jordan or about interpreting the law itself? Hell, was Jordan even mentioned in the post I directly responded to?

You simply don't like that I said many on here appear to be super judgmental and clouded all that with my overall point. I simply used it as a point that my faith in people may be misplaced. If I heard a compelling case for someone sitting in a car while never trying to drive it, I simply wouldn't want to charge them with a DUI. Open Intox? Sure. Any other laws that may fit, if deserved, for being drunk in public? Sure. But an OWI/DUI for NEVER driving the vehicle? To me, that is ridiculous. But, maybe those more judgmental would want to convict someone for a DUI, EVEN IF they were truly trying to sleep it off in the car....

So, if you can't read the above and know that YOU are the one obfuscating, the problem 100% lies with YOU!......Oh, take care and have a fabulous day!

This thread is about Jordan Williams OWI situation, not some hypothetical strawman you made up to defend an earlier dumb take. You've made arguments specific to his situation as well as the ridiculous hypotheticals. You also claimed a defense attorney should be able to prove there was no intent to drive when someone is passed out drunk in a running car. And like always you've turned this into yet another thread where you just argue for the sake of arguing. That's the last of it from me. BAU158

 

[MSU158]

This thread is about Jordan Williams OWI situation, not some hypothetical strawman you made up to defend an earlier dumb take. You've made arguments specific to his situation as well as the ridiculous hypotheticals. You also claimed a defense attorney should be able to prove there was no intent to drive when someone is passed out drunk in a running car. And like always you've turned this into yet another thread where you just argue for the sake of arguing. That's the last of it from me. BAU158

I recommend you search and find the book titled; "Obfuscation at a 3rd Grade Level". You may find a lot of parallels to your posts in this thread. However, the more I think about it, you may actually be referencing that exact book when responding to me.... If so, well done!

 

[masterhawk74]

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.

This is rich!!

 

[blcoach80]

This thread is about Jordan Williams OWI situation, not some hypothetical strawman you made up to defend an earlier dumb take. You've made arguments specific to his situation as well as the ridiculous hypotheticals. You also claimed a defense attorney should be able to prove there was no intent to drive when someone is passed out drunk in a running car. And like always you've turned this into yet another thread where you just argue for the sake of arguing. That's the last of it from me. BAU158

Ok, got to ask. What is BAU short for?!

 

[Mattski]

Business As Usual

Ok, got to ask. What is BAU short for?!

Business As Usual

 

[GLC1969]

It’s amazing how this just keeps going on. The question was an about a wrestler who needs help. They asked if he was still on the team. MSU hijacjed a thread like a politician in a debate. Bottom line we dont know what his punishment will be or if there will be any. I hope Jordan gets his life straight and contributes to society. I don’t care if he can wrestle or not. He is in a bigger fight right now. So stop all the BS about what laws will or wont do. Start the GD season so we can all complain about how this guy or that guy sucks at their job. That’s more fun the reading some wanna be defense attorney try a case on the Iowa wrestling forum.

 

[TheREALSpooner]

This argument isn’t about the person. It is about the law. But, hey, thanks for the kind words!

I'm not involved in any argument about the law.

This is rich!!

Dude I'm a message board persona. LOL