Question for lawyer types regarding BT.

#1
V

Vfl2407

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
10,255
Likes
18,171
#1
So, My understanding was that Thompson was reinstated to the team by being allowed to practice.
That must mean that he was either reinstated to school or was never suspended from school.
So, this must mean that he is eligible to play in games, right?
If that’s true, why didn’t he play against UTC?
And, will he still be held out of games until after his 9/23 court date?
Is this totally a school decision? A Fulmer or Pruitt decision?

I’ll hang up and listen.
 
#2
#2
Curious also, I would bet it means he has been before any student boards and administrators already but who knows!
 
#3
#3
I think they are allowing him to practice to stay in shape until the court date. I would be surprised if he played before court but who knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4
#4
Orange_Vol1321 said:
I think they are allowing him to practice to stay in shape until the court date. I would be surprised if he played before court but who knows.
Click to expand...

Why? Is there a legal reason or is it for appearances and public relations reasons?
If he’s in playing shape physically, would sure be nice to have him in Gainesville.
 
#6
#6
peerless98 said:
IMO, the student judicial board must have "cleared" him, and the legal charges are not expected to impact his playing status considering he was only charged with a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...
So why not play arguably one of our best players right now vs Florida.
So what if we take another public relations hit. It’s worth it if he helps us win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 08Vol, VolForLife83 and OrangeWayOfLife
#7
#7
Vfl2407 said:
So, My understanding was that Thompson was reinstated to the team by being allowed to practice.
That must mean that he was either reinstated to school or was never suspended from school.
So, this must mean that he is eligible to play in games, right?
If that’s true, why didn’t he play against UTC?
And, will he still be held out of games until after his 9/23 court date?
Is this totally a school decision? A Fulmer or Pruitt decision?

I’ll hang up and listen.
Click to expand...

I'm not pushing coaches to play anyone , but in this democracy a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The # ME Too movement has changed
all that now you have prove you didn't do what you were accused of. I don't mean to be political this is a sports forum, there have been cases example AJ Johnson
where an accuser didn't prove allegations and should be required pay this man...…………...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, govols10302bb, jackvolsfan1 and 5 others
#8
#8
lynnh said:
I'm not pushing coaches to play anyone , but in this democracy a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The # ME Too movement has changed
all that now you have prove you didn't do what you were accused of. I don't mean to be political this is a sports forum, there have been cases example AJ Johnson
where an accuser didn't prove allegations and should be required pay this man...…………...
Click to expand...
So once again, I ask, whose decision is it to not play him until after 9/23?
 
#11
#11
He wont play until after his court date imo. He was reinstated to practice only. This is why he hasn’t played.

After talking with my lawyer friend, If he is acquitted, he will be immediately eligible to play, assuming UT/ Fulmer/ Pruitt are satisfied with whatever their internal agreement is.

If he is found guilty of domestic assault, he will face punishment, probably fines, community service, and probation. The judge can also require counseling, like anger management classes. Sounds like he needs them. Since there was no actual physical contact charge (that’s domestic violence), he doesn’t expect much else in the way of punishment.

BUT, if he does it again there will surely be serious consequences....... Probably jail time, definitely kicked out of school and off the team.

JMO
 
#12
#12
There was a story in the 2000’s, I think, a guy at Ga Tech got busted with a car trunk full of weed. He got a court injunction saying he had to be kept on the team and played his regular amount until he was proven guilty at his court date. I might not be clear on all the details, but I remember thinking that the coaches couldn’t just have him remain on the team, but were court ordered to play him. Seems like common sense is thrown out the window in some of these instances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and lynnh
#13
#13
Thompson was never suspended from school. If I had to guess he has seen the office of student conduct student/administrator board and they have decided not to suspend or expel him. He still has a legal court case for a misdemeanor but that wouldnt impact his standing with the university if he doesnt go to jail because they are too separate things.

For him not playing I think it has mostly been handling things as good as possible from a pr perspective. He was suspended from team activities for however many weeks and missed two games. They brought him back to start practice but also get the story about him returning to go away during the game week of Chattanooga. With him not playing Saturday they didnt have to talk about him. Now if he returns to Florida the story of him returning to team activities is already a week and a half old and kind of old news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna, Neyland Law Vol, lynnh and 1 other person
#14
#14
I agree with peerless98, he has seemingly been cleared by a student hearing of some sort and the charges will most likely be dropped with some sort of community service and possibly anger management classes. I expect him to play against Florida. I think he didn't play this week as he only practiced like 2 or 3 times. I assumed he would be given some more practice time to knock off rust. It's not like an injured situation where he is still around the team and maybe lightly going through reps or seeing the game plan. He was completely out of the loop for 3 weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbones0711
#16
#16
VolInDayton said:
Thompson was never suspended from school. If I had to guess he has seen the office of student conduct student/administrator board and they have decided not to suspend or expel him. He still has a legal court case for a misdemeanor but that wouldnt impact his standing with the university if he doesnt go to jail because they are too separate things.

For him not playing I think it has mostly been handling things as good as possible from a pr perspective. He was suspended from team activities for however many weeks and missed two games. They brought him back to start practice but also get the story about him returning to go away during the game week of Chattanooga. With him not playing Saturday they didnt have to talk about him. Now if he returns to Florida the story of him returning to team activities is already a week and a half old and kind of old news.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! Bravo.
 
#17
#17
rdk4121 said:
I agree with peerless98, he has seemingly been cleared by a student hearing of some sort and the charges will most likely be dropped with some sort of community service and possibly anger management classes. I expect him to play against Florida. I think he didn't play this week as he only practiced like 2 or 3 times. I assumed he would be given some more practice time to knock off rust. It's not like an injured situation where he is still around the team and maybe lightly going through reps or seeing the game plan. He was completely out of the loop for 3 weeks.
Click to expand...
It all depends on the judge but i feel like most judges care about making sure people get better. If BT is in good standing with the university and he lays out the steps he is taking to make a change the judge will not make a ruling which will cause him to be removed from his support system.
 
#18
#18
Vfl2407 said:
So why not play arguably one of our best players right now vs Florida.
So what if we take another public relations hit. It’s worth it if he helps us win.
Click to expand...

It's more than PR, brother.

We're still less than a year away from paying out a multi-million dollar Title IX settlement.

The admin will roll out this hand as carefully as possible, as well they should.

I suspect he's back at practice after the GC caught wind of a favorable charging decision and plea offer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 08Vol
#20
#20
VolInDayton said:
It all depends on the judge but i feel like most judges care about making sure people get better. If BT is in good standing with the university and he lays out the steps he is taking to make a change the judge will not make a ruling which will cause him to be removed from his support system.
Click to expand...
That's why I said the charges will probably be dropped contingent on some light punishment like community service or anger management classes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolInDayton
#22
#22
Courts have nothing to do with school policy. It's up to school. But if he hasnt been practicing he probably shouldnt play. If I where coach, I would play a player that didnt commit crimes over one that did right after being reinstated.
 
#23
#23
I'll take a stab at this but I want to state up front that this is general info. I am not a Title IX lawyer.

The threat against the school is something that is easily cleared as a hyperbolic statement made in the heat of the moment. The other stuff touches on Title IX and how the school responds to that incident can have significant bearing on future enforcement action and a potential lawsuit. Very generally, the school has a responsibility under Title IX to take corrective action that makes people feel safe from gender-based harassment/attack. Often, corrective action includes keeping the accuser/accused separated whether by suspension/expulsion of the accused or an administrative version of a restraining order whereby the accused has to stay away from the accuser. Title IX is a different animal than criminal law. You almost have to look at it as a guilty until proven innocent situation from the school's perspective because anything the school does or doesn't do that prevents the accuser, and maybe others, from having equal access to a non-threatening educational environment can expose the school to litigation. Letting a player practice with the team, which is a relatively isolated activity, is probably not going to be perceived as a failure to correct the effects of the alleged conduct on the victim. Letting an accused take the field in a game could be viewed as detrimental to the accuser because the school may be perceived as supporting the accused by allowing participation and it could re-expose the accuser to the accused.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#24
#24
I think he probably gets some kind of anger management counseling, community service, and pays for damages when he goes to court. I think he probably plays at Florida.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sccshortstop
#25
#25
Vfl2407 said:
So, My understanding was that Thompson was reinstated to the team by being allowed to practice.
That must mean that he was either reinstated to school or was never suspended from school.
So, this must mean that he is eligible to play in games, right?
If that’s true, why didn’t he play against UTC?
And, will he still be held out of games until after his 9/23 court date?
Is this totally a school decision? A Fulmer or Pruitt decision?

I’ll hang up and listen.
Click to expand...
Never suspended from school. Continued to go to class. Not ready to play become he wasn’t with the team for three weeks and not in game shape. Probably won’t play until after the court date. This was all covered last week in Pruitt’s press conferences
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and RollerVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top