The Bobcat Nation

I thought I would place this link for discussion here due to the fact of involving a BSC athlete and having implications pertinent to athletics.

Johnson settled for $245,000 from UM according to MSN.

Do you think it was too much or too little?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/ ... li=BBnbfcL

To me it seems that it was more of an opportunity to put the past in the past and get on with life.

He's still guilty. Heard it so here.

With that said who knows? Attorneys take big chunk. Could have went to court and been awarded substantially more or nothing. Because they took it doesn't mean they felt it was great they just either didn't figure it was worth the risk or what I know of the family, just wanted to leave the mess behind them.....at least the part involving litigation with the University.

GRIZ1STCATS2ND wrote:He's still guilty. Heard it so here.

With that said who knows? Attorneys take big chunk. Could have went to court and been awarded substantially more or nothing. Because they took it doesn't mean they felt it was great they just either didn't figure it was worth the risk or what I know of the family, just wanted to leave the mess behind them.....at least the part involving litigation with the University.

Who said that here? I don't recall anyone saying "he's still guilty" on this board.

I believe the only thing that's been said regarding Johnson's guilt was that he was found not guilty. However, it was also discussed that not guilty doesn't necessarily mean innocent.

This was a good move by both parties IMO.

I'm probably on a similar budget with the Johnson family and If I was down $275,000 and had a chance to get $245,000 of it back from the house without playing my hand you can bet your ass I'd take it. Unless I was sitting on a 4 of a kind or better hand.

If I'm an administrator at UM, I'm paying $245,000 out because even if I win the case the odds are good that I'm out at least that much.

Both sides knew each other's situation. Looks like they both won, but also like they are equally dissatisfied, which is the perfect scenario in the art of the compromise.

Good point Tom. I'd add that JJ probably didn't want to have to relive all of it in a public forum again and UM didn't either because the results could compound an already crippling enrollment problem. I think JJ should have held out for more given he had that ace in his back pocket, but I'm sure he's glad it's over.

blueandgoldblitz wrote:I believe the only thing that's been said regarding Johnson's guilt was that he was found not guilty. However, it was also discussed that not guilty doesn't necessarily mean innocent.

JJ's guilt or innocence doesn't really have any bearing on this settlement - this case isn't about whether he's guilty or innocent, but about whether or not he received a fair hearing in his expulsion proceeding at UM.

On the question of guilt or innocence, though - it is true that no one here said "JJ is guilty" (at least not on the recent threads discussing the case). Someone on the other thread did point out, though, that JJ was "found guilty" (twice) at his UM hearing, which was subsequently overturned. That's not the same as saying "he's guilty," but the inference one would draw from the fact that he was "found guilty" by the UM tribunal is that, while the evidence wasn't strong enough to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it was strong enough to convince the UM tribunal of his guilt by a "preponderance of the evidence," thus casting doubt on his actual innocence.

My response to that point was to mention JJ's lawyer's assertions that the UM proceeding was conducted in a way that violated JJ's due process rights, and to suggest that if those allegations were true, then perhaps the fact that he was "found guilty" by the UM tribunal isn't as meaningful as it might otherwise be. I wasn't aware at the time we were having that discussion that this other lawsuit was ongoing, but I do think the settlement tends to suggest that JJ's allegations about the conduct of the investigation and hearing might have had some merit.

According to this article, the Johnson family received an in-person apology from Engstrom as well.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/state- ... 59fe1.html

girlz law is correct

he was not treated fairly regardless of innocence or guilt, and his right to due process was violated

he could've gotten a lot more money, IMO, if he wanted to drag all parties through the torture

I guess the attorney's cut is 40% or so, leaving him with about $147K -- not enough to cover his attorney fees for the past?

so my Dad gave me good advice when I went off to MSU on a football scholarship all those years ago, regarding how to treat girls on campus turning into women -- "just keep it in the holster and no one gets hurt"



.....
so g-law, what is your Scotch? I prefer Glenmorangie (Original 10 yr for 'every day' use, Signet for special occasions) but Oban, Highland Park, will do nicely. Just discovered a Japanese whiskey -- Suntory Hibiki Harmony, pure excellence. No -- I'm not an attorney, but I work with them so often it feels like I should be!

JDoub wrote: .....
so g-law, what is your Scotch? I prefer Glenmorangie (Original 10 yr for 'every day' use, Signet for special occasions) but Oban, Highland Park, will do nicely. Just discovered a Japanese whiskey -- Suntory Hibiki Harmony, pure excellence. No -- I'm not an attorney, but I work with them so often it feels like I should be!

Heh - my signature is a little bit dated; I actually don't drink much scotch these days.

But when I do, I like The Balvenie doublewood (12-year), Macallen (12-year usually, or I'll pick up the 18-year for special occasions), Oban, or if I'm in the mood for something on the smokier side, I'll go with Lagavulin.

you've got good taste for a griz, g-law

I have yet to sample Ron Swanson's favorite, Lagavulin, but it's on my list!

see, even talk of Scotch makes one forget about work. or thread topics. or anything, really

cheers

new signature: I work from home in Utah so I can afford good Scotch, and Scotch helps me forget I live in Utah!

Not a big deal, but just for the record the settlement $$ comes from the state...not just UM. There is a fund that both universities and other schools pay into for this type of thing. It was mentioned in the article. Maybe folks were aware of that already, but the earlier posts made it sound like UM was paying it.

Grizaddict wrote:Not a big deal, but just for the record the settlement $$ comes from the state...not just UM. There is a fund that both universities and other schools pay into for this type of thing. It was mentioned in the article. Maybe folks were aware of that already, but the earlier posts made it sound like UM was paying it.

No, we all know that each one of us living in Montana is paying for this.

HelenaCat wrote:

Grizaddict wrote:Not a big deal, but just for the record the settlement $$ comes from the state...not just UM. There is a fund that both universities and other schools pay into for this type of thing. It was mentioned in the article. Maybe folks were aware of that already, but the earlier posts made it sound like UM was paying it.

No, we all know that each one of us living in Montana is paying for this.

Not essentially. Just those of us that actually pay taxes.

GRIZ1STCATS2ND wrote:

HelenaCat wrote:

Grizaddict wrote:Not a big deal, but just for the record the settlement $$ comes from the state...not just UM. There is a fund that both universities and other schools pay into for this type of thing. It was mentioned in the article. Maybe folks were aware of that already, but the earlier posts made it sound like UM was paying it.

No, we all know that each one of us living in Montana is paying for this.

Not essentially. Just those of us that actually pay taxes.

Yep, you got that one right

To the casual observer the message that is conveyed.... "It pays to rape."

Common Cat wrote:To the casual observer the message that is conveyed.... "It pays to rape."

wow...

Common Cat wrote:To the casual observer the message that is conveyed.... "It pays to rape."

Only to the most simple-minded of casual observers...

Grizlaw wrote:

Common Cat wrote:To the casual observer the message that is conveyed.... "It pays to rape."

Only to the most simple-minded of casual observers...

Most simple-minded, and incredibly callous, of casual observers.

You'd have to have never known anything about this and then picked the paper on the day the story of the settlement came out, been of the disposition that anytime someone claims rape they're telling the truth, and therefore put no thought into it.

The worst case scenario in this case is that JJ went to the girl's apartment, became so sexually charged that despite what appear to be (and here's a good use of your word) casual protests, and raped her. Let's just say that's what happened for the sake of your comment.

Now, let's also say that he was charged $0 for attorney fees and gets a check for $245,000. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that would go through a lengthy, high-profile trial and also have to live the rest of his life with, who knows how many people, doubting him and think that it pays to rape.

Common Cat wrote:To the casual observer the message that is conveyed.... "It pays to rape."

Please elaborate.