OT: Things Somehow Get Worse at Alabama

[huskiesouth]

Well if what his lawyer says is accurate, he never touched the gun, didn’t know about and may not have even made the connection. Oats needed to stop it, but I get why the kids may not have thought it through.

Quite to the contrary, it appears there is a text from Miles to Miller asking that Miller bring Miles his gun because there was a confrontation beginning to develope.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Well if what his lawyer says is accurate, he never touched the gun, didn’t know about and may not have even made the connection. Oats needed to stop it, but I get why the kids may not have thought it through.

The NFL ditched Chris Carter as part of their rookie symposium when Carter discussed the need for a fall guy within the group.

BTW, Carter wasn't wrong. Everyone will take the heat to keep Miller clean and give him all the alibis he needs to not get charged. And, in 6 months, those decisions will be rewarded financially.

 

[Chin Diesel]

All very nicely packaged by his attorney but eventually a jury will decide

By this point in time, some of this video should have been released/leaked to prove a storyline.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Quite to the contrary, it appears there is a text from Miles to Miller asking that Miller bring Miles his gun because there was a confrontation beginning to develope.

Yes, and the lawyer says Miller was already on the way over to pick him up and didn’t see the text. Didn’t know Miles left a gun in the backseat. Who knows? I don’t know. You don’t know. Nobody has released all the video footage. All I could find is a doorbell cam with just audio. But none of that relates to connecting the pat down to this incident, since they started doing it before this happened.

 

[Bonehead]

They've done it all year...many teams do it. It was a boneheaded, cringey error from the walk-on and Miller. There's nothing to see here. This mistake is harmless compared to the last one.

If it was our playerd I'd say the same thing "oof, not so bright man." And move on.

The level of outrage I'm seeing over this online is out of line. Stupid mistake. Move on.

Hey!!

 

[pj]

Well if what his lawyer says is accurate, he never touched the gun, didn’t know about and may not have even made the connection. Oats needed to stop it, but I get why the kids may not have thought it through.

Yes, and what if he just courteously wanted to reassure the opposing team that he hadn't brought his loaded gun to the basketball court?

 

[Mr. French]

Didn’t miller them block in the woman so she could more assuredly be killed? What do you think about that aspect of what happened?

And we are talking about bringing a murder device to a murder. Not a car to a robbery.

Good lawyering though lol

Not using rumors and unverified facts is part of good lawyering. “Didn’t this happen? I’m not sure, but I have a definite opinion”

No need to get pissy, bud

You attack him on something you know nothing about, then say he doesn’t need to get pissy because he answered your crap.

 

[husky429]

Not using rumors and unverified facts is part of good lawyering. “Didn’t this happen? I’m not sure, but I have a definite opinion”


You attack him on something you know nothing about, then say he doesn’t need to get pissy because he answered your crap.

My wife teaches 2 law school classes and a bunch of undergrad philosophy and pre-law classes that are all based around critical thinking about the law. Like her intro ethics course is all about the law and how ethical/unethical it is, how it compares to historical thinkers, blah blah blah.

She is insistent that some people--even smart people--genuinely don't have the cognitive capability to grasp legal thinking. Taking your emotion and opinion out of things and simply going by-the-book is something some folks just don't get. I wonder if that's what's going on here.

 

[HuskyHawk]

My wife teaches 2 law school classes and a bunch of undergrad philosophy and pre-law classes that are all based around critical thinking about the law. Like her intro ethics course is all about the law and how ethical/unethical it is, how it compares to historical thinkers, blah blah blah.

She is insistent that some people--even smart people--genuinely don't have the cognitive capability to grasp legal thinking. Taking your emotion and opinion out of things and simply going by-the-book is something some folks just don't get. I wonder if that's what's going on here.

It is. It's a common mistake. The law is really not about coming up with the right outcome, especially appellate cases. The process matters more than the result, even if you hate the result.

 

[MDHuskFan]

Do I think Miller brought him his gun intentionally, yes.

That being said, you can’t take your gun into a club. I take my gun, hat, etc & leave it in the car of my ride cause I can’t bring them inside the club. My ride doesn’t come in & leaves & when I leave the club I ask him to bring my stuff back. Not an impossible situation to imagine.

Gun “culture” in the south is a little wild and hard to understand, but it definitely exists.

 

[husky429]

It is. It's a common mistake. The law is really not about coming up with the right outcome, especially appellate cases. The process matters more than the result, even if you hate the result.

My wife doesn't practice law as a full-time job since she primarily researches and teaches now... but she does labor discrimination law and occasionally takes on some work with her old firm still if it's in her kind of narrow wheelhouse. One of my favorite memories is when we were working in the same room during Covid, and she was talking to her boss and a prospective client, and she was explaining to the person in as polite and legal terms as possible that, "yes, your boss can fire you for crapping on the bathroom floor."

And they say being a lawyer is boring, lol.

 

[husky429]

Gun “culture” in the south is a little wild and hard to understand, but it definitely exists.

My father-in-law sells used cars down south. They literally have promotions that if you buy a truck, you get a complimentary AK-47. It's a heck of a place down there.

 

[superjohn]

Yes, and the lawyer says Miller was already on the way over to pick him up and didn’t see the text. Didn’t know Miles left a gun in the backseat. Who knows? I don’t know. You don’t know. Nobody has released all the video footage. All I could find is a doorbell cam with just audio. But none of that relates to connecting the pat down to this incident, since they started doing it before this happened.

The lawyer and Alabama want everyone to believe Miller knew nothing about the gun. The lawyer says Miller didn't know about the gun in the car, the gun was concealed by clothing, Miller never handled the gun, Miller was already on his way over...it seems as if the lawyer is careful not to say that "Miller never read the text/texts."

Does the lawyer actually ever say that Miller never read the texts/texts? Reading an article again with quotes from the attorney and I don't see that.

Regardless, the pat down is terribly insensitive and Miller knew the walk-on was going to do the pat down with him. It's clear they were continuing their routine.

 

[Rocktheworld]

Excellent point. I should just accept you being pissy, and attacking my post for saying nothing like what you thought I was saying, without thinking it’s appropriate to defend my original post by pointing out you misread it. My bad.

You took that as me being pissy? Lmaooo I was literally just asking questions regarding facts that you yourself said you didn’t know of, then making a point that maybe your analogy was a little off, then a ribbing lawyer joke.

You’re quite the fragile one.

 

[Rocktheworld]

Not using rumors and unverified facts is part of good lawyering. “Didn’t this happen? I’m not sure, but I have a definite opinion”


You attack him on something you know nothing about, then say he doesn’t need to get pissy because he answered your crap.

What was the “attack”?

Man it’s like it’s perpetually day one on the internet for some of you

 

[Rocktheworld]

This is a statement from Miller's lawyer. It clearly lays out what, at the very least, their story is. He also claims that Miller was not blocking the victim's car from the road and that he actually parked his car first, and then the victim pulled up on his car. He also says that is clearly shown on surveillance video.

If that last sentence is true, then I understand why Alabama isn't suspending him. Not to defend Miller, because I wouldn't be surprised if he knew more than what his attorney is letting on, but how can you kick him off the team if it's reasonable to believe he didn't know? It's pretty common for kids that grew up in tough neighborhoods to carry around a gun for protection, so even if he knew he was bringing Miles his gun it's reasonable to think it was just for protection.

There's no way of knowing for sure how much he knew that night, so for that reason I get why he's still on the team. That said, if I were an NBA team I would hire a handful of the best PIs I could get to look into his history, because I would be very leery about drafting him.

Guess it all comes down to the surveillance and how it is interpreted.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The lawyer and Alabama want everyone to believe Miller knew nothing about the gun. The lawyer says Miller didn't know about the gun in the car, the gun was concealed by clothing, Miller never handled the gun, Miller was already on his way over...it seems as if the lawyer is careful not to say that "Miller never read the text/texts."

Does the lawyer actually ever say that Miller never read the texts/texts? Reading an article again with quotes from the attorney and I don't see that.

Regardless, the pat down is terribly insensitive and Miller knew the walk-on was going to do the pat down with him. It's clear they were continuing their routine.

I agree with the pat down. It's honestly dumb even outside of this context and is just a bad idea. As for Miller, I don't know, you don't know, none of us knows what he knew or expected would happen.

 

[CL82]

Seriously? If you lend a friend a car because his is in the shop, and he drives it to a 7-11 and robs the cash register, you think that makes you an accessory? Wouldn’t you think that you had to have either knowledge or at least reason to know he was going to take your car and commit a crime to be an accessory?

It depends. Did he mention that he was going to rob a 7-Eleven? Did he send you a text indicating to make sure that someone leaves a gun in the car? Were you actually there at the time of the robbery? And did you park the car in such a way as to impede law-enforcement getting to the 7-Eleven?

 

[UCSouth]

What was the “attack”?

Man it’s like it’s perpetually day one on the internet for some of you

Because it's the Internet, we all have to put up with idiots and keyboard warriors like you? I learn something new everyday on the BY....thanks.

 

[CL82]

The NFL ditched Chris Carter as part of their rookie symposium when Carter discussed the need for a fall guy within the group.

BTW, Carter wasn't wrong. Everyone will take the heat to keep Miller clean and give him all the alibis he needs to not get charged. And, in 6 months, those decisions will be rewarded financially.

You, sir, are a cynical man. It doesn’t make you wrong though.

 

[Jay-Bone]

The way this thread is going you'd think Rocktheworld patted down Miller.

 

[Dogdeacon]

I understood the point completely. If anyone is missing the point, it's you. Of course better judgment should have been used. I dare you to find a single post on here where I said it WASN'T stupid thing to do.

The person I responded to when I said this claimed that a pregame patdown is "insane" under normal circumstances. That was a stupid take.

Did you bother to read what I was responding to? Because what you're saying is equally as stupid.

Seriously question: Why argue incessantly over a clearly subjective pre-game ritual if you are worried about distracting from the main issue?
My answer for intolerance for the pre-game ritual:
A. It is clearly normalizing gun-culture AT SCHOOLS and
B. Arguably it is flaunting the ability to commit a crime without consequence. We see this at all levels of the world these days, part of 'privileged' crime is smiling thru the half-hearted denials and ultimately flaunting one's ability to get away with it. I don't know that this definitely was that, but it serves that purpose.

That's why object to the ritual. The fact that anyone subjectively thinks it is or is not appropriate in any circumstance isn't relevant.

Nevertheless, we agree on the bigger picture that Miller should not be playing (suspended from team and/or kicked out of school) and his tone-deaf, irresponsible coach deserves to be penalized as well. N.Oats IS actually and probably purposefully providing a distraction from the crime which is substantially a bigger deal than our inane internet posts!

 

[MuchoDogYears]

I've got to hand it to Miller though, even if he truly didn't know about the gun, scoring 40 first game after being involved in a murder is some true ice water in one's veins.

Step back and think about that. Ice water in his veins.

Scores 41 points, clutch points at the end to win it. How could Miller be so emotionally unaffected a few nights after being at a violent killing of a young mother for which he delivered the murder weapon and watched while his friends carried out the assassination? Cold blooded.

 

[Huskyforlife]

The fact that Oats didn’t give him even a temporary suspension still blows my mind.

 

[Mr. French]

What was the “attack”?

Man it’s like it’s perpetually day one on the internet for some of you

Brother, I don't care about these stupid back and forths, but you wrote a bunch of hypotheticals then said to him sarcastically "good lawyering."

He then answered normally your dumb hypotheticals to prove he did actually know "how to lawyer" and YOU said to HIM "no need to get pissy."

Now you're going after me with side fights about what constitutes an "attack." You're being annoying at best. No biggie, just pointing it out to you.

 

[mussels]

My wife doesn't practice law as a full-time job since she primarily researches and teaches now... but she does labor discrimination law and occasionally takes on some work with her old firm still if it's in her kind of narrow wheelhouse. One of my favorite memories is when we were working in the same room during Covid, and she was talking to her boss and a prospective client, and she was explaining to the person in as polite and legal terms as possible that, "yes, your boss can fire you for crapping on the bathroom floor."

And they say being a lawyer is boring, lol.

As my expert witnesses will testify, this was clearly an unfortunate accident caused by my client’s medical condition. The employer should immediately reinstate my client with back pay, and going forward provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

 

[Madmannsucks]

Funny, some of the same people who were disgusted with Bouknight getting ejected from the sidelines are taking the boys wil be boys approach to mocking a shooting resulting in the death of a 23 yr old woman.

 

[Platt81]

I have not followed the case at all and have no knowledge of what Miller was alleged to do, much less whether he was guilty of a crime. I was simply discussing W’s hypothetical as to whether one was an accessory because your property was used in a crime. Maybe you should look up what a hypothetical is.

If you haven’t followed the case why comment with such certainty? He was texted to deliver a gun to someone, texted that it was hot, and then blocked the victims car from leaving. Your 7-11 analogy is not in the same universe as what happened in this case. Sometimes it’s ok to just not comment..

 

[UCSouth]

If you haven’t followed the case why comment with such certainty? He was texted to deliver a gun to someone, texted that it was hot, and then blocked the victims car from leaving. Your 7-11 analogy is not in the same universe as what happened in this case. Sometimes it’s ok to just not comment..

You should try reading the post that @businesslawyer was responding to before deciding to comment, or even better, maybe you should take your own advice and not comment. Also, in reference to your knowledge of the case...an allegedly or 2 may have been in order for your description of the events.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If you haven’t followed the case why comment with such certainty? He was texted to deliver a gun to someone, texted that it was hot, and then blocked the victims car from leaving. Your 7-11 analogy is not in the same universe as what happened in this case. Sometimes it’s ok to just not comment..

There is no evidence that he read the texts before arriving and the blocking thing is clearly disputed and the lawyer says video footage shows it did not happen. That was nothing but an opinion without facts. Miller never got out of his car, and his car took fire. Does that suggest someone who knew what was about to happen? It seems to me that you’re the one assuming the worst without evidence. We don’t know what he knew. We won’t ever know.