Started By
Message

re: ESPN: Ole Miss Tunsil arrested for defending his mom

Posted on 6/27/15 at 8:35 pm to
Posted by DownSouthJukin
Coaching Changes Board
Member since Jan 2014
27515 posts
Posted on 6/27/15 at 8:35 pm to
quote:

Are you fricking illiterate? Read my post. I said it was morally defensible but the cops are still going to ask why he didn't call them because the law is pretty clear on these things.


Are you fricking stupid? Have some fricking common sense. The OPD is going to know why he didn't pick up the telephone and dial 911 instead of protecting his mother.
Posted by Whiznot
Albany, GA
Member since Oct 2013
7015 posts
Posted on 6/27/15 at 8:44 pm to
If he was protecting his mom he gets a pass but we were not there to know that for sure. The step father might've said roll tide or war eagle before the punch.
Posted by randomways
North Carolina
Member since Aug 2013
12988 posts
Posted on 6/27/15 at 10:21 pm to
quote:



Are you fricking stupid? Have some fricking common sense. The OPD is going to know why he didn't pick up the telephone and dial 911 instead of protecting his mother.


Yep, illiterate. And if you're going to play Internet Tough Guy like you did in your previous post, have the balls to just write words like "pussy" and "fricking" instead of misspelling them. You sound like an idiot.


Edit: Here, I'll spell it out for you, since it's clear you don't understand how the law works. What I wrote was that Tunsil was on solid moral ground. But the detail thus far indicate he was arrested for punching his step-father in legally-uncertain circumstances. Nothing being said so far indicates that he acted in direct defense of his mother, i.e. what he did prevented her from being injured. If he did, then he's clear, not just morally but legally. If, on the other hand, he acted in retaliation, which is what everything so far indicates, he's on legally-shaky ground. Just because many of us consider him morally justified, that doesn't mean the law will give him a pass. He'd be considered guilty of simple battery. Legally, you can't simply commit a crime against someone because they committed a crime against someone. It's considered vigilantism, and is against the law. That's why the cops will be asking why he didn't call them. If his step-father chooses to press charges and Tunsil can't prove he acted in self-defense or in direct defense of his mother's person, he will likely be charged with a crime. Is that justice? Probably not. But it is how the legal situation would stand given the details we are currently privy to. There's a reason for that -- allowing people to commit crimes because other people have committed crimes is considered, and logically so, a dangerously slippery slope. You're allowed immediate self-defense (or defense of someone else.) If you can't prove that, then you're legally expected to call the police instead of attacking the other person because the police are trained to deal with criminal situations in a legal and effective fashion.

Your ignorance of the law doesn't change any of these circumstances.
This post was edited on 6/27/15 at 10:53 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter