Also don't forget that they only had to serve 6 months so they weren't charged with a very serious crime. If they prosecutor agreed to only 6 months, he/she must not have felt very strong about their case. Maybe there's more to it than we know.

Perhaps, but the cause of death wasn't his intoxication. The inability to avoid his death may have been on him, but again, he didn't set his room ablaze.

 

 

And again, I think that Bradley did the right thing. I'm not opposing that these kids can't continue their education, only saying that Bradley shouldn't be where it continues IMO.

Perhaps, but the cause of death wasn't his intoxication. The inability to avoid his death may have been on him, but again, he didn't set his room ablaze.

 

 

And again, I think that Bradley did the right thing. I'm not opposing that these kids can't continue their education, only saying that Bradley shouldn't be where it continues IMO.

 

These kids paid their dues. They made a mistake. Who hasn't?

I agree with the school's decision.

 

I can't believe anyone thinks otherwise, or that the kid who was killed was somehow at fault. He had a reasonable expectation to be in his room alone, without intrusion.

 

What an incredibly stupid idea to shoot bottle rockets under a door! Even if he had been awake, he could have been seriously injured! Not only that, if the bottle rocket hit a pile of clothes, let's say, it could have smoldered unnoticed even if the victim had only been asleep, and not passed out. There is a reason that such devices have warnings...they're dangerous. To say otherwise is silly.

 

Maybe some could mark it down as a prank gone bad, but to me, it's like firing a gun under a door, not knowing what the bullet will hit.

I agree with the school's decision.

 

I can't believe anyone thinks otherwise, or that the kid who was killed was somehow at fault. He had a reasonable expectation to be in his room alone, without intrusion.

 

What an incredibly stupid idea to shoot bottle rockets under a door! Even if he had been awake, he could have been seriously injured! Not only that, if the bottle rocket hit a pile of clothes, let's say, it could have smoldered unnoticed even if the victim had only been asleep, and not passed out. There is a reason that such devices have warnings...they're dangerous. To say otherwise is silly.

 

Maybe some could mark it down as a prank gone bad, but to me, it's like firing a gun under a door, not knowing what the bullet will hit.

 

So what would you say if the prosecutor had decided to not charge these guys? Does it change your mind?

Well me and my friends being stupid have shot bottle rockets at one another, I had one friend who passed out by a camp fire with a bunch of bottle Rockets in his pockets, and some out they caught fire and it was HILARIOUS. I don't think they are any where near as dangerous as putting a gun under the door. Prank gone wrong IMO. Bradley can do what they want, maybe its best for all parties involved to close this chapter and go there seperate ways. Having these guys there will only keep the wounds fresh.

I thought I heard that the crime they pleaded out to was still a felony. I could be wrong but that's what I remember sportscenter saying at 2:30 in the morning.

Good students. Made a mistake. Paid their fines and did their time.

 

Why not let them come back and turn their lives around?

 

They set a school building on fire and in the process contributed to the death of a student. The school would have been completely in the right in expelling them even if no one was injured in the event. Bradley isn't denying them the ability to continue their execution but they do not owe them the opportunity to continue it on their campus.

They set a school building on fire and in the process contributed to the death of a student. The school would have been completely in the right in expelling them even if no one was injured in the event. Bradley isn't denying them the ability to continue their execution but they do not owe them the opportunity to continue it on their campus.

 

So you're saying if a kid is repentent, shows he is still a serious student, makes sacrifices in order to show how serious he is that he doesn't deserve the chance to come back? Even if his initial charge was reduced? Obviously, the prosecutor didn't have enough on him to warrant a more serious charge. That has to account for something, right?

So you're saying if a kid is repentent, shows he is still a serious student, makes sacrifices in order to show how serious he is that he doesn't deserve the chance to come back? Even if his initial charge was reduced?

 

It is as simple as this: If you come into my house and through your own stupidity set it on fire and do major damage and contribute to the death of my son then no, you aren't ever going to be welcome back. I might forgive you and if I feel that it was truly accidental and you are truly contrite then I probably wouldn't try to do anything to prevent your release but you're not coming back in my house. My answer would be the same even if no one dies in the scenario. Sure lots of kids make mistakes but most of them don't directly contribute to a classmates death.

Edited July 7, 200818 yr by AverageJoesGym

They've served their sentences, and I hope they finish their educations and live productive lives. However, I do think it would be inappropriate for them to return to that school.

So what would you say if the prosecutor had decided to not charge these guys? Does it change your mind?

 

No, it doesn't.

 

Clyde, I'm not sure it was you, but I think it was you who was arguing that a football player shouldn't be allowed a second chance because he did something criminal in his past. Was that you?

No, it doesn't.

 

Clyde, I'm not sure it was you, but I think it was you who was arguing that a football player shouldn't be allowed a second chance because he did something criminal in his past. Was that you?

 

:thumb:It was indeed but these guys are really, really sorry that someone died so it isn't as bad as the other situation.

 

For the record I don't think that UC should have gotten involved with the other kid either.

To be fair, I argued for the football player. But this scenario is different.

 

First, UC was to be that player's second chance.

Second, these kids contributed to a students death.

Thirdly, they can still have a second chance, just not at Bradley.

No, it doesn't.

 

Clyde, I'm not sure it was you, but I think it was you who was arguing that a football player shouldn't be allowed a second chance because he did something criminal in his past. Was that you?

 

Thank you for participating in my test.

 

No one in heck these kids deserve to come back to BU. However, I'm curious as to how you, RM, differentiate between this case and the UC case. Is it simply because of the legal proceedings and you discount the actual act?

 

Every one of the excuses I used in this thread were those thrown at me when I said that the kid at UC did not deserve the chance to play football at UC. Regardless of what the final charge was against the kid, he committed an act that was so egregious that he forfeited any chance of playing football at any university I was running.

 

This is the same thing.

To be fair, I argued for the football player. But this scenario is different.

 

First, UC was to be that player's second chance.

Second, these kids contributed to a students death.

Thirdly, they can still have a second chance, just not at Bradley.

 

Obviously, RM, I completely disagree with the rationale used above.

 

Why does it matter WHERE the 2nd chance is given? Does that somehow lessen the terrible act? I don't follow that logic at all.

 

Obviously , death is terrible. However, using that logic would tell me that you don't believe rape is as serious as murder. We can debate that from a legal standpoint but there should be no debate when we're talking about granting a young man the "right" to play college athleteics. Egregious is egregious.