Fryowa
Administrator
They know who it is. Scott Dochterman even alluded to it on Twitter.
Marcel Joly
- Thread starter StanziUSA
- Start date
- Status
Right, and you seem a lot like Rob's burner coming to the rescue. Last time we interacted you didn't even have a grasp on the English language or know what an absolute is.
Who's a small town Mayor?
Fryowa
Administrator
The correct grammar would be, “grasp of the English language.”
If you’re going to talk shit you should probably check your work first, Einstein.
Remind me again what you think an absolute is and then I'll provide you the correct definition. You may want to avoid looking like an idiot first, before you pull the grammar card, Einstein.
Fryowa
Administrator
Again, the correct usage would be, “play the grammar card.”
How do you “pull” a card?
I’m not really sure where you’re going with this whole telling me I don’t understand English thing, but let’s keep playing. This is easy and fun.
Now I’m not sure if you don’t understand cards or English, and yes you can pull a card from the deck.
Refer back to the last time you came to Rob’s rescue and couldn’t comprehend English or the use of the word ‘absolute’. Royal Flush.
Fryowa
Administrator
Punctuation goes inside quotation marks, Karen.
And single quotation marks are only to be used when quoting something inside another quote.
Jesus Christ, bud. How easy are you going to make this for me?
Hurry up and give me another one; this is a blast.
RobHowe
Administrator
This is my one and only account on this site. I don’t have a burner twitter or account here. I don’t need one. As you see, I speak my mind with my identity revealed. I never said those were coaches’ burner accounts.
If I said if the allegation made by Jack Kallenberger against Wallace are true, I’m not sure he can keep his job. I did not say he should be fired.
If the investigation comes back that nobody in the Iowa football program did anything wrong, I will accept it? What world you say the odds are of that happening with around 60 players saying there was mistreatment?
That’s one way to deflect. Just keep avoiding the use of big words that are hard for you to comprehend. I think you’ll do just fine.
Last edited:
I would say 95% of the players claims have been directed at Doyle who is no longer with the program. Otherwise it’s a lot of misinterpretation, which is different than mistreatment.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Suppose you are mostly right. Should Urban and Joe PA have stayed vowing change?
I would not group Jo Pa’s scenario with this, not even close. I think there’s a lot more gray area when it comes to KF than in Urban, both in their scenario’s and as people. Urban knew everything, that’s a fact, and tried covering up. He also left Florida because of so many arrests with his players and knew it was going to blow up, which it did. I honestly don’t think anything that’s happened at Iowa doesn’t happen at every other school.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
That's where you are wrong. Some of what has been said minimally is misdemeanor assault by Iowa law. Huge violations of Dept of Education regulations. There could be huge civil penalties. If KF was knowing allowing assault...
The baseline for assault in the state of Iowa is as follows:
"The crime of misdemeanor assault involves intentionally causing pain or injury to another person or placing another person in fear of offensive physical contact or injury."
I haven't seen ANY allegation against any of the Iowa staff that meets that bar.
In addition, there are stipulations for things like sports, which would more than likely include punishments for breaking team rules/etc:
"For instance, it carves out exceptions for most voluntary sports or social activities"
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
You need to dig deeper. It's there. I'm right you are wrong. That is only the base.
Lol, and as usual you can only reply with cryptic bullshit.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
The bullshit comes from fans and people who won't see things are they are. As usual. I'm not wrong. Whether the Johnson County Attorney would have guts to charge is a whole different subject. Sorry you are wrong.
Actual injury is not required for a crime to be called an assault, nor is actual physical contact.
(Iowa Code Ann. § 708.1.)
Examples of misdemeanor assault might include hitting, pointing a knife at, or threatening to hurt someone in a dark, deserted alley. The law does set certain limits on what can be considered an assault, however. For instance, it carves out exceptions for most voluntary sports or social activities, and for use of force by school employees who intervene to break up a fight or otherwise restore order.
An assault is a hate crime when committed because of the victim’s own (or due to the victim’s association with a person of a particular) religion, sex, sexual orientation, race, color, national origin, political affiliation, age, or disability. Hate crimes are punished more severely, as explained below.
Assault in Iowa will be punished as an aggravated misdemeanor when it is intended to cause serious injury, but does not actually cause serious injury, or is against a protected employee or constitutes a hate crime and causes bodily injury or mental illness. Using or displaying a dangerous weapon can also be an aggravated misdemeanor, though if the weapon is intended to be used to injure or intimidate another person, the crime is treated as a felony. Aggravated misdemeanors are punishable by up to two years in jail and a fine of $625 to $6,250.
(Iowa Code Ann. § § 708.2, 708.2C, 708.3A, 903.1.)
A serious misdemeanor assault in Iowa is punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of $315 to $1,875 when it causes bodily injury or mental illness or is against a protected employee or is a hate crime.
If no other law applies, Iowa law considers an assault to be a simple misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of $65 to $625.
708.1 Assault defined. 1. An assault as defined in this section is a general intent crime. 2. A person commits an assault when, without justification, the person does any of the following: a. Any act which is intended to cause pain or injury to, or which is intended to result in physical contact which will be insulting or offensive to another, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act. b. Any act which is intended to place another in fear of immediate physical contact which will be painful, injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act. c. Intentionally points any firearm toward another, or displays in a threatening manner any dangerous weapon toward another. 3. An act described in subsection 2 shall not be an assault under the following circumstances: a. If the person doing any of the enumerated acts, and such other person, are voluntary participants in a sport, social or other activity, not in itself criminal, and such act is a reasonably foreseeable incident of such sport or activity, and does not create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or breach of the peace. b. If the person doing any of the enumerated acts is employed by a school district or accredited nonpublic school, or is an area education agency staff member who provides services to a school or school district, and intervenes in a fight or physical struggle, or other disruptive situation, that takes place in the presence of the employee or staff member performing employment duties in a school building, on school grounds, or at an official school function regardless of the location, whether the fight or physical struggle or other disruptive situation is between students or other individuals, if the degree and the force of the intervention is reasonably necessary to restore order and to protect the safety of those assembled. [C51, §2594, 2597; R60, §4217, 4220; C73, §3875, 3878, 3879; C97, §4771, 4774, 4775; S13, §4771; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12929, 12930, 12934; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §694.1, 694.2, 694.6; C79, 81, §708.1] 95 Acts, ch 191, §49; 2002 Acts, ch 1094, §1; 2013 Acts, ch 90, §183 Referred to in §135.108, 232.52, 236.2, 282.4, 671A.2, 707.2, 708.2, 708.2A, 708.2B, 708.2C, 708.3, 708.3A, 708.3B, 709.1
And again, which alleged incident meets that bar?
Your own quote lays it out:
Any act intended to cause pain or injury
Any act intended to result in immediate physical contact intended to result in pain or injury
Any act involving a deadly weapon used to threaten the above
So, again, which allegation against the Iowa staff meets any of those requirements?
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Go on and read about racial aspects. The question is did the complainant feel threatened within reason.
I am so sorry KF isn't what you want him to be.
- Status
