šŸ“” Cam Robinson and Hootie Jones arrested

In the same vein of planomateo's post, I wanted to push back a bit on all the fan backlash against these two players. Now assuming, for the moment, that they are guilty, I can't help but think that most everyone on this board, and Bama fans in general, probably identify as political conservatives and/or strong supporters of the 2nd amendment. So why not criticize gun laws instead of reflexively attacking the players? And with significant international reforms on drug prohibition and decriminalization on the horizon, the taboo of "drug" use is disappearing. Also out in the open is an increasing recognition that college football players are not getting their fair share of the wealth they create as "amateurs." Mentioning this might appear as a tangent, but the risky behavior exhibited by players would easily be tamed if they were being compensated appropriately.

In short, I find it problematic that so many criticize college players, and even their coaches (as if they are responsible), without even considering the option of criticizing stupid and oppressive laws instead, be it by the government or NCAA.
 
Not gonna beat the righteous indignation drum.

CNS will do what he thinks is best. As far as the gun felony, I got popped @ 19 yo with a pistol stashed behind the seat of my truck. It was a felony charge but thanks to a cop friend who also knew the presiding judge it was dropped. Many times in my teens I rolled around town with a dime bag, or more, in the vehicle. One stop at the wrong time and I would have been in the same situation.

I am 48 yo with a family and a successful career, Cam nor Hootie deserve to have their lives ruined anymore than I did at that point in my life. I was lucky in that I never got caught with weed and when I did get caught with a gun the good-ole-boy network bailed me out.
 
In the same vein of planomateo's post, I wanted to push back a bit on all the fan backlash against these two players. Now assuming, for the moment, that they are guilty, I can't help but think that most everyone on this board, and Bama fans in general, probably identify as political conservatives and/or strong supporters of the 2nd amendment. So why not criticize gun laws instead of reflexively attacking the players? And with significant international reforms on drug prohibition and decriminalization on the horizon, the taboo of "drug" use is disappearing. Also out in the open is an increasing recognition that college football players are not getting their fair share of the wealth they create as "amateurs." Mentioning this might appear as a tangent, but the risky behavior exhibited by players would easily be tamed if they were being compensated appropriately.

In short, I find it problematic that so many criticize college players, and even their coaches (as if they are responsible), without even considering the option of criticizing stupid and oppressive laws instead, be it by the government or NCAA.

I'm sorry, but just because drug use is more prevalent, that does not mean you get lax on your beliefs and policy. As far as gun ownership goes, I don't think the issue is with ownership, I think it's more of a question of why they have them and why these guys would be dumb enough to even be questioned having them. Drugs and guns together usually mean nothing good. Now if you caught OJ Howard or Jake Coker with a rifle after a speeding ticket, you're more inclined to think they were hunting. Two guys smoking dope with hand guns, one stolen, at 2AM in the morning, yeah, not doing something productive. Call it being judgemental all you want, but stereotypes aren't created out of hate, but out of experiences. Atleast that's my two cents on the matter.
 
In the same vein of planomateo's post, I wanted to push back a bit on all the fan backlash against these two players. Now assuming, for the moment, that they are guilty, I can't help but think that most everyone on this board, and Bama fans in general, probably identify as political conservatives and/or strong supporters of the 2nd amendment. So why not criticize gun laws instead of reflexively attacking the players? And with significant international reforms on drug prohibition and decriminalization on the horizon, the taboo of "drug" use is disappearing. Also out in the open is an increasing recognition that college football players are not getting their fair share of the wealth they create as "amateurs." Mentioning this might appear as a tangent, but the risky behavior exhibited by players would easily be tamed if they were being compensated appropriately.

In short, I find it problematic that so many criticize college players, and even their coaches (as if they are responsible), without even considering the option of criticizing stupid and oppressive laws instead, be it by the government or NCAA.


It's not about gun laws. It's about two boys who have been told how to avoid trouble and given every opportunity to earn a career where they make more money in 4 hours than I will make in my entire lifetime. And those two boys, despite all the encouragement and opportunity afforded them, still went out and willfully disregarded everything they have been told and did something stupid anyway. It's willful, selfish, deliberate idiocy, and there is no excuse for it whatsoever. And lest we forget even if there were no laws restricting firearm possession, it still would be a crime because the gun was stolen. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior. It's no different than Andre Smith who signed with an agent despite knowing that it was a violation and could cost his school severe penalties. It's no different than a booster who offers cash or benefits to a player despite his absolute certainty that there will be severe repercussions of he is caught. Bottom line: it's wrong. Full stop. End of story.
 
I'm disappointed in the decision they made, but who am I to judge. I've had my fair share of self inflicted issues, they are alot smaller now that I'm older, but boy did I make some really boneheaded decisions in my late teens.

They'll have to pay the piper and the coaches will do what they feel is best based on knowing more details about the situation and knowing more details about the players in question.
 
A couple of thoughts and I'm done. I'm no angel and I've done my share of boneheaded shit in my late teens and even early 20's, most dealing with alcohol. I'm not going to judge these kids and say "kick them off". I DON'T envy the job CNS has, NOT ONE BIT! I have had to kick kids off of teams I have coached during my time in the HS ranks. It is never fun. I never dealt with things of this nature though. It SUCKS ASS!! You hope to have a roster full of kids that come from two parent, upper middle class homes, all honor students, strong as an ox, and fast as a deer. Problem is, those kids are few and far between. They may have a few of those qualities, but not all of them. CNS will do what he feels is best for these kids. Much like Coach Stallings got for keeping David Palmer, CNS is going to catch flak from opposing fans and media unless they are drawn and quartered. CNS and his staff know these kids, they wouldn't be at UA if he thought this was the norm, they give them all of the education needed about making proper choices. Problem is, he can't babysit them 24/7 and he can't choose their friends back home. It is hard for a 18-20 year old kid to be removed from a tough environment for a period of time and given structure, rules, etc. and then watch them to go home and expect them to disassociate from that crowd. Rolando McClain and the Decatur boys is a prime example.

The problem is this; currently, marijuana is illegal in the state of Louisiana. Possessing a stolen weapon is illegal in ANY state. The law is the law! These are among the few things that have been pounded into the heads of these guys since they arrived on campus their first year. I imagine the charges will be reduced or dropped, dropped for sure if Cam and Hootie give a name or two. CNS will delve out punishment as he sees fit. 6 am "reminders", loss of PT due to suspension,etc. Now if the charges aren't reduced, CNS won't have a choice to make, the legal system will make the choice for him.
 
Ah, good point. I think LA is 17 for both. Not sure how I forgot about, it's a bit ironic that you can put your life on the line for the country serving in the military but I'll be damned if you can't carry a pistol/drink until you're 21.


17 to posses any gun - Louisiana State Legislature

18 to purchase any gun (well technically not illegal to purchase but illegal to sell to anyone under 18) - Louisiana State Legislature
 
In the same vein of planomateo's post, I wanted to push back a bit on all the fan backlash against these two players. Now assuming, for the moment, that they are guilty, I can't help but think that most everyone on this board, and Bama fans in general, probably identify as political conservatives and/or strong supporters of the 2nd amendment. So why not criticize gun laws instead of reflexively attacking the players? And with significant international reforms on drug prohibition and decriminalization on the horizon, the taboo of "drug" use is disappearing. Also out in the open is an increasing recognition that college football players are not getting their fair share of the wealth they create as "amateurs." Mentioning this might appear as a tangent, but the risky behavior exhibited by players would easily be tamed if they were being compensated appropriately.

In short, I find it problematic that so many criticize college players, and even their coaches (as if they are responsible), without even considering the option of criticizing stupid and oppressive laws instead, be it by the government or NCAA.

Violating the law is not how you change the law. Both players know that weed is illegal. I'm betting that both players knew that they shouldn't have a gun in the car, especially if they didn't have a valid license. Current compensation has nothing to do with it. If they were compensated, they would just have more weed and more/bigger guns.

I'm glad that players are now getting a stipend to help with college student expenses. I am not in favor of paying players as if they were professionals. That type of structure will be the downfall of college athletics as the rich will be the only ones who can continue to play. Very few college athletic programs are profitable. Adding that expense to the situation will just cause some schools to eliminate their sports programs.
 
Technically (speaking Alabama law) it is illegal for a kid under the age of 16 to hunt by himself until he/she is 16. (licensed hunter)

Now days, all kids have to have a hunter safety education course in order to get a hunting license, and that is pretty much all 50 states.

All in all this is one of those gray areas of the law that a kid with a gun is not really considered to be doing anything illegal if they are out hunting.

Also a license is only really mandated for hand guns...ie conceal carry. Really hard to conceal long guns/rifles, however I'm sure there are laws and regulations that a good lawyer could make stick and a good lawyer could get thrown out. There is always an argument for/against transporting a long guns.
 
Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, MLK, Suu Kyi, Ghandi and many others knowingly went beyond what their society would tolerate as civil disobedience and broke laws (accepted societal norms) to gain support against unjust laws and affect change.

Even the declaration of independence was an act of treason.

Any number of social and revolutionary movements have begun with breaking laws.

Switching gears...

Is that the case here, no. But, it highlights that what the individual perceives as acceptable (morals), vs. the law (society), vs. the required ethics of the profession (in this case playing college football at Alabama for CNS) are not always in line with each other. When they are not, the individual makes a choice for how to act and choices have consequences.

Two jackasses were doing what jackasses do, which is not far off from any of the jackass things most all of us have done. But, they knew the rules of the game and made a choice. They'll have to suffer whatever that brings as any of us would.
 
Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, MLK, Suu Kyi, Ghandi and many others knowingly went beyond what their society would tolerate as civil disobedience and broke laws (accepted societal norms) to gain support against unjust laws and affect change.

Even the declaration of independence was an act of treason.

Any number of social and revolutionary movements have begun with breaking laws.

Switching gears...

Is that the case here, no. But, it highlights that what the individual perceives as acceptable (morals), vs. the law (society), vs. the required ethics of the profession (in this case playing college football at Alabama for CNS) are not always in line with each other. When they are not, the individual makes a choice for how to act and choices have consequences.

Two jackasses were doing what jackasses do, which is not far off from any of the jackass things most all of us have done. But, they knew the rules of the game and made a choice. They'll have to suffer whatever that brings as any of us would.

I hear what you're saying, but in many cases the violation of those laws didn't change it, but brought attention to it. In addition, the laws broken by the individuals mentioned were unjust laws. We can debate whether or not weed illegality is unjust or not, but possession of a stolen firearm? Neither of the two were trying to make a statement about the law.
 
Neither of the two were trying to make a statement about the law.

As stated, I agree.

I hear what you're saying, but in many cases the violation of those laws didn't change it, but brought attention to it.

But, in most of those cases, the violation of the law was intentional to draw attention to the issue and force change. So, it in fact did lead to change. Even if that change took decades in some cases.

Laws are a product of "accepted" societal norms. Just and unjust are subjective terms that must account for the context and culture of the the society that legitimizes the law. As the culture evolves (or arguably devolves), so do the laws. If the collective culture no longer legitimizes the law, it will change whether that was the intended effect of an individual action or not. See the reduction in penalties for possession in CA and/or the legalization of Marijuana in other states.
 
Just out of curiosity here... so is a 15 year old boy not allowed to have a hunting rifle deer/bear etc or shotgun for duck/turkey hunting? Does that mean he has to have an adult in the household or something?

Per the law, under 17 you can possess in a lot of situations, such as hunting, attending a firearms or hunting course, shooting at a range, travelling to and from any of those, on your own property with parental permission, carrying a written copy of parental permission off property, etc. So really you can carry under 17 in a lot of cases anyway.
 
Good lord, the Stockholm Syndrome and historical illiteracy among some people is more than I can take!

Like Che Boludo said, you can begin with the treasonous acts by the Revolutionaries to secede from the British Empire. Brave abolitionists broke the law frequently to push the public to see slavery as the evil that it was. The next occupant of the $20 bill, Harriet Tubman, readily comes to mind. The women's suffrage movement included legal obstructionists too. The same with the Civil Rights movement. MLK's advocacy of civil disobedience in the tradition of Ghandi also comes to mind.

The more you investigate the history of social change, the more you find that the legal system has usually followed, not led, public sentiment. The sacrifices of brave dissidents is ALMOST ALWAYS REQUIRED to motivate the authority-fearing, authority-trusting public to get off their lazy asses and pressure lawmakers to improve the laws. Without the personal sacrifices made by lawbreakers, positive change is seldom granted by government.

My original intent wasn’t to teach a history lesson or to make a libertarian case for ending drug prohibition. My main point was to bring to your attention your own reflexive, unconscious, Pavlovian reactions to troubled players. Look at how authoritarian you guys are, so quick to side with the punishers over the punished, despite the fact that the punished have given so much to your program! Instead of quickly responding with accusations of players being dumb, ungrateful, lazy, thugs, etc., you could have just as easily reserved your condemnations and instead offered support for the guys who win championships that you claim as your own as you sit back in your recliner drinking beer. What about a response like, "Man, I wonder what NCAA rules or government laws could be changed to help gifted players avoid trouble in the future so that their lives and careers aren't needlessly harmed, not to mention our team’s season!

Look, I have no idea what Cam did or didn’t do. But at the time of your judgmental comments, you didn’t know either. Certainly, the potential charge of theft is a problem, but is it worth a felony? Is it worth being suspended for a season or even kicked off the team? Is it a felony only because the stolen property was a firearm? If so, how is that compatible with the typical Conservative claim that society should encourage gun possession, not fear it? On the other hand, is it only a felony because he was also in possession of drugs? Is our phobia of ā€œillegalā€ drugs and our casual acceptance of the widespread consumption of legal drugs merited, or is it just the result of social/government conditioning? Was he consuming the drugs himself, say for pain management, which is common in the NFL? Besides gun theft (assuming that charge is confirmed), were there victims to his other offenses? If not, then why are victimless crimes illegal in the first place? For nonviolent crimes, can we at least consider principles of Restorative Justice rather than the punitive principles of Retributive Justice? And like I mentioned before, if we were more fairly compensating players for the product of their labor, they would be much less likely to engage in lucrative illegal activities in the first place, activities which are lucrative ONLY because of drug prohibition itself!

These are just some of numerous non-judgmental, positive, and constructive responses that were available to us as fans. But no, the players are stupid because they wasted an opportunity to give you your source of self-worth as a devout fan of a particular college athletic team! If you were a player, a key contributor to the team, who had helped your school win conference and national titles, who came from poverty and was used to a lifestyle of turning nickles into dimes for survival, would you want to play for a fan base that immediately jumps on you if you get into legal trouble? Or would you want to put your blood, sweat, and tears into a football program whose fans always respond with gratitude and support when you stumble and who advocate for common sense changes to the system (be it NCAA or government)?
 
Good lord, the Stockholm Syndrome and historical illiteracy among some people is more than I can take!

Like Che Boludo said, you can begin with the treasonous acts by the Revolutionaries to secede from the British Empire. Brave abolitionists broke the law frequently to push the public to see slavery as the evil that it was. The next occupant of the $20 bill, Harriet Tubman, readily comes to mind. The women's suffrage movement included legal obstructionists too. The same with the Civil Rights movement. MLK's advocacy of civil disobedience in the tradition of Ghandi also comes to mind.

The more you investigate the history of social change, the more you find that the legal system has usually followed, not led, public sentiment. The sacrifices of brave dissidents is ALMOST ALWAYS REQUIRED to motivate the authority-fearing, authority-trusting public to get off their lazy asses and pressure lawmakers to improve the laws. Without the personal sacrifices made by lawbreakers, positive change is seldom granted by government.

My original intent wasn’t to teach a history lesson or to make a libertarian case for ending drug prohibition. My main point was to bring to your attention your own reflexive, unconscious, Pavlovian reactions to troubled players. Look at how authoritarian you guys are, so quick to side with the punishers over the punished, despite the fact that the punished have given so much to your program! Instead of quickly responding with accusations of players being dumb, ungrateful, lazy, thugs, etc., you could have just as easily reserved your condemnations and instead offered support for the guys who win championships that you claim as your own as you sit back in your recliner drinking beer. What about a response like, "Man, I wonder what NCAA rules or government laws could be changed to help gifted players avoid trouble in the future so that their lives and careers aren't needlessly harmed, not to mention our team’s season!

Look, I have no idea what Cam did or didn’t do. But at the time of your judgmental comments, you didn’t know either. Certainly, the potential charge of theft is a problem, but is it worth a felony? Is it worth being suspended for a season or even kicked off the team? Is it a felony only because the stolen property was a firearm? If so, how is that compatible with the typical Conservative claim that society should encourage gun possession, not fear it? On the other hand, is it only a felony because he was also in possession of drugs? Is our phobia of ā€œillegalā€ drugs and our casual acceptance of the widespread consumption of legal drugs merited, or is it just the result of social/government conditioning? Was he consuming the drugs himself, say for pain management, which is common in the NFL? Besides gun theft (assuming that charge is confirmed), were there victims to his other offenses? If not, then why are victimless crimes illegal in the first place? For nonviolent crimes, can we at least consider principles of Restorative Justice rather than the punitive principles of Retributive Justice? And like I mentioned before, if we were more fairly compensating players for the product of their labor, they would be much less likely to engage in lucrative illegal activities in the first place, activities which are lucrative ONLY because of drug prohibition itself!

These are just some of numerous non-judgmental, positive, and constructive responses that were available to us as fans. But no, the players are stupid because they wasted an opportunity to give you your source of self-worth as a devout fan of a particular college athletic team! If you were a player, a key contributor to the team, who had helped your school win conference and national titles, who came from poverty and was used to a lifestyle of turning nickles into dimes for survival, would you want to play for a fan base that immediately jumps on you if you get into legal trouble? Or would you want to put your blood, sweat, and tears into a football program whose fans always respond with gratitude and support when you stumble and who advocate for common sense changes to the system (be it NCAA or government)?

There's a guy from Mississippi waiting for you over in the Politics forum.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom