|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 18, 2009 12:52:47 GMT -8
It seems none of the Long Haters want this posted on the "Ayatollah Board", so I will post it here and on the MWC Board. Charges Dropped Against Lance Louis. I guess it wasn't enough bad info on Chuck Long to get posted over on Aztectalk. www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/sep/18/louis-will-no-longer-face-felony-charge/?uniontrib____________________________________________________ Louis will no longer face felony charge By Brent Schrotenboer Union-Tribune Staff Writer 2:00 a.m. September 18, 2009 From the archives: D.A. investigating attack that injured SDSU safety (Aug. 7, 2009) Questions abound in incident at SDSU (Aug. 14, 2009) Former San Diego State offensive lineman Lance Louis no longer is facing a possible felony battery charge but still could be charged with a misdemeanor stemming from his alleged assault on a teammate last November. The San Diego District Attorney's office reviewed the case and determined it couldn't prove a felony case beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the district attorney's office turned the case over to the San Diego City Attorney's office to consider possible misdemeanor charges. Louis, now with the NFL's Chicago Bears, was investigated for allegedly battering SDSU starting safety Nick Sandford in a team meeting room. Sandford suffered a concussion, broken eardrum and fractured cheekbone. The alleged assault happened after Sandford had poked Louis with a stick earlier that day in the locker room. The case drew the ire of Sandford's father and others because it wasn't reported to campus police for more than two weeks and because Louis apparently wasn't disciplined for it by then-head coach Chuck Long. Sandford since has recovered and is a starting defensive back for the Aztecs. ___________________________________________________ As I called it on the other board and got slammed for it.....This was nothing more than a "witch hunt" on Chuck Long. Of course many "Long Haters" said I was backing Chuck Long and not being fair on the issue. It also seems that since this was nothing more than a misdemeanor (at the most), that Chuck Long correctly punished Lance Louis by making him go to a anger management course. I find it funny that "Long Haters" wanted Coach Long to kick Louis off the team (ruining the kids chances to live his dream by getting drafted by the pros).......And they wanted Chuck Long fired on the spot (I got many e-mails during that time from angry Long Haters)....because of this "Felony".....which turns out to be nothing more than a misdemeanor. Agendas suck Long Haters. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 18, 2009 15:11:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 18, 2009 17:48:18 GMT -8
What does that article or link have to do with what I posted? =Bob...You are losing it. Love ya anyway man.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 19, 2009 7:42:16 GMT -8
Oops. Got the thugs mixed up. OTOH, claiming it was a witch hunt is crap, given the injuries inflicted.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 19, 2009 8:44:38 GMT -8
Oops. Got the thugs mixed up. OTOH, claiming it was a witch hunt is crap, given the injuries inflicted. =Bob I'm not stating a "witch hunt" on Lance Louis. I made that clear on the other board (but then again you don't read to well). It was a "witch hunt" to try and blame Chuck Long. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 19, 2009 11:06:58 GMT -8
Oops. Got the thugs mixed up. OTOH, claiming it was a witch hunt is crap, given the injuries inflicted. =Bob I'm not stating a "witch hunt" on Lance Louis. I made that clear on the other board (but then again you don't read to well). It was a "witch hunt" to try and blame Chuck Long. I can't agree with you on this one, Steve. Long lost one of his players for the remainder of the season (3 games) because another of his players cheap-shot the first guy. And then, not only did Long not suspend the perp, but he (Long) also lied about the incident when asked about Sandford's absence. Chuck Long was guilty of irresponsible behavior in this case. His integrity was the most important thing he had left after he failed to turn the program around. By not holding Louis responsible, that integrity became suspect. (Anger management is fine if someone is pushing and shoving, cursing, and throwing chairs around the locker room. But blind-siding another player so badly that the victim must miss the last three games is a whole different thing.) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 19, 2009 14:57:36 GMT -8
I'm not stating a "witch hunt" on Lance Louis. I made that clear on the other board (but then again you don't read to well). It was a "witch hunt" to try and blame Chuck Long. I can't agree with you on this one, Steve. Long lost one of his players for the remainder of the season (3 games) because another of his players cheap-shot the first guy. And then, not only did Long not suspend the perp, but he (Long) also lied about the incident when asked about Sandford's absence. Chuck Long was guilty of irresponsible behavior in this case. His integrity was the most important thing he had left after he failed to turn the program around. By not holding Louis responsible, that integrity became suspect. (Anger management is fine if someone is pushing and shoving, cursing, and throwing chairs around the locker room. But blind-siding another player so badly that the victim must miss the last three games is a whole different thing.) AzWm Why was it not a felony and ended up a misdemeanor? We must not have the entire story. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 19, 2009 16:59:48 GMT -8
I can't agree with you on this one, Steve. Long lost one of his players for the remainder of the season (3 games) because another of his players cheap-shot the first guy. And then, not only did Long not suspend the perp, but he (Long) also lied about the incident when asked about Sandford's absence. Chuck Long was guilty of irresponsible behavior in this case. His integrity was the most important thing he had left after he failed to turn the program around. By not holding Louis responsible, that integrity became suspect. (Anger management is fine if someone is pushing and shoving, cursing, and throwing chairs around the locker room. But blind-siding another player so badly that the victim must miss the last three games is a whole different thing.) AzWm Why was it not a felony and ended up a misdemeanor? We must not have the entire story. Because Dumanis decided there wasn't enough to get a conviction for a felony. That could be due to a lot of factors, but the fact remains that Sandford wound up with a concussion, broken eardrum and fractured cheekbone. That's a punch done in full rage and whether or not a felony could have been proved, Lewis should have been suspended for the rest of the season. It's also likely the straw that broke Schemmel's back and caused him to tell Weber Long had to go. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 19, 2009 18:06:32 GMT -8
Why was it not a felony and ended up a misdemeanor? We must not have the entire story. Because Dumanis decided there wasn't enough to get a conviction for a felony. That could be due to a lot of factors, but the fact remains that Sandford wound up with a concussion, broken eardrum and fractured cheekbone. That's a punch done in full rage and whether or not a felony could have been proved, Lewis should have been suspended for the rest of the season. It's also likely the straw that broke Schemmel's back and caused him to tell Weber Long had to go. =Bob If Dumanis decided there wasn't enough to get a conviction for a felony....Guess what? It wasn't a felony. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 20, 2009 9:27:13 GMT -8
Because Dumanis decided there wasn't enough to get a conviction for a felony. That could be due to a lot of factors, but the fact remains that Sandford wound up with a concussion, broken eardrum and fractured cheekbone. That's a punch done in full rage and whether or not a felony could have been proved, Lewis should have been suspended for the rest of the season. It's also likely the straw that broke Schemmel's back and caused him to tell Weber Long had to go. =Bob If Dumanis decided there wasn't enough to get a conviction for a felony....Guess what? It wasn't a felony. You're playing word games. Address the injuries caused. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 20, 2009 11:47:53 GMT -8
If Dumanis decided there wasn't enough to get a conviction for a felony....Guess what? It wasn't a felony. You're playing word games. Address the injuries caused. =Bob Chuck Long gave out proper punishment for a misdemeanor. Case closed. I don't condone anybody punching anybody else. I have never condoned that and have never said that I thought Lance Louis was a good guy. I said that Chuck Long gave out the proper punishment and wasn't at fault. ***I have some other info on this deal that formed my opinion. I don't know if the info I got from someone real close to the program was 100% correct, but enough for me to realize that there is more to the story. You have your opinion =Bob. I have mine. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 20, 2009 15:40:23 GMT -8
There may indeed be more to the story. However, it's hard to imagine anything more that would exonerate a player who comes up behind a seated person and fires away at that person's head.
Chuck Long should have suspended Louis, at the VERY minimum, for a game, if not more.
Again, taking a cheap shot at someone simply can't be condoned. Whether the DA thought the case could or should be tried as a felony does not change the facts of the case. And, let's not forget, one of those facts is that Long lied about why Sandford was not playing.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 20, 2009 15:40:56 GMT -8
You're playing word games. Address the injuries caused. =Bob Chuck Long gave out proper punishment for a misdemeanor. Case closed. I don't condone anybody punching anybody else. I have never condoned that and have never said that I thought Lance Louis was a good guy. I said that Chuck Long gave out the proper punishment and wasn't at fault. ***I have some other info on this deal that formed my opinion. I don't know if the info I got from someone real close to the program was 100% correct, but enough for me to realize that there is more to the story. You have your opinion =Bob. I have mine. It would seem that there has to be more to the story than what we have based our opinions upon. It seems that Louis got off easy and that Long was way too soft and therefore there must be mitigating information not made public. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 20, 2009 17:24:53 GMT -8
You're playing word games. Address the injuries caused. =Bob Chuck Long gave out proper punishment for a misdemeanor. Case closed. You have your opinion =Bob. I have mine. And your opinion is so tied into your desire to continue to defend Long that it's totally clouded. Figure it out, Steve. He didn't tell the campus cops about it for two weeks. He lied about the reason Sandford was playing and he continued to play Louis. Every SDSU coach that I can think of has suspended players who may have committed a felony and they remained suspended until it was determined to be a misdemeanor. Hell, where did Allyson Duffy spend her time last season? Had the crime been reported, Louis would have been busted, Long would have been forced to suspend him (unless I'm mistaken, that's school policy) and it's likely he would have missed the last 3 games while the DA was deciding whether to charge him. This has nothing to do with whether or not it was a felony or a misdemeanor, it has to do with Long trying to save his job and it's really sad that you feel this need to defend his decision. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 20, 2009 19:50:04 GMT -8
Chuck Long gave out proper punishment for a misdemeanor. Case closed. I don't condone anybody punching anybody else. I have never condoned that and have never said that I thought Lance Louis was a good guy. I said that Chuck Long gave out the proper punishment and wasn't at fault. ***I have some other info on this deal that formed my opinion. I don't know if the info I got from someone real close to the program was 100% correct, but enough for me to realize that there is more to the story. You have your opinion =Bob. I have mine. It would seem that there has to be more to the story than what we have based our opinions upon. It seems that Louis got off easy and that Long was way too soft and therefore there must be mitigating information not made public. Do we as faithful Aztec supporters and, in most cases, alumni, have a right to know the "more to the story" you suggest may exist? I understand that there is a confidentiality issue, but stakeholders of the FB program should have some standing. Our decisions regarding whether to back a given coach or even to continue financial support hinge on fully understanding unpleasant incidents such as this one. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 20, 2009 21:33:38 GMT -8
Chuck Long gave out proper punishment for a misdemeanor. Case closed. You have your opinion =Bob. I have mine. And your opinion is so tied into your desire to continue to defend Long that it's totally clouded. Figure it out, Steve. He didn't tell the campus cops about it for two weeks. He lied about the reason Sandford was playing and he continued to play Louis. Every SDSU coach that I can think of has suspended players who may have committed a felony and they remained suspended until it was determined to be a misdemeanor. Hell, where did Allyson Duffy spend her time last season? Had the crime been reported, Louis would have been busted, Long would have been forced to suspend him (unless I'm mistaken, that's school policy) and it's likely he would have missed the last 3 games while the DA was deciding whether to charge him. This has nothing to do with whether or not it was a felony or a misdemeanor, it has to do with Long trying to save his job and it's really sad that you feel this need to defend his decision. =Bob You sound like you are upset that Chuck Long wasn't hung over this? Why are you so passionette about it? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 21, 2009 8:17:11 GMT -8
And your opinion is so tied into your desire to continue to defend Long that it's totally clouded. Figure it out, Steve. He didn't tell the campus cops about it for two weeks. He lied about the reason Sandford was playing and he continued to play Louis. Every SDSU coach that I can think of has suspended players who may have committed a felony and they remained suspended until it was determined to be a misdemeanor. Hell, where did Allyson Duffy spend her time last season? Had the crime been reported, Louis would have been busted, Long would have been forced to suspend him (unless I'm mistaken, that's school policy) and it's likely he would have missed the last 3 games while the DA was deciding whether to charge him. This has nothing to do with whether or not it was a felony or a misdemeanor, it has to do with Long trying to save his job and it's really sad that you feel this need to defend his decision. =Bob You sound like you are upset that Chuck Long wasn't hung over this? Why are you so passionette about it? I think he was hung over it. It's not so much that I'm passionate about what Long did as I am with your defense of his actions. The school policy is quite clear. When a kid may have committed a crime, he is suspended. If it's determined to be a misdemeanor, the suspension is lifted but it's up to the coach to decide on the punishment. If it's a felony, the kid is gone. Long knew or certainly should have known about that policy, but he waited 2 weeks to report the assault to the campus cops, making sure that Louis would not miss any games. Who knows? Maybe he felt Louis had a shot at the NFL and didn't want to damage his chances, but in the meantime, Sandford suffered some pretty nasty injuries from that punch and Long at least appears to have shown no sympathy at all for him. If Long had been a winning coach, it might have been overlooked or he would have just received a reprimand, but on top of 3 losing seasons I think Schemmel could no longer defend him and when he found out about it, went to Weber. =Bob |
|
