Jaylen McCollough arrested

[CNCVol88]

You just don't need the distraction right now, not now, of all times. Best to suspend him for the game, put it aside, prepare for the game, and then address it next week or even later.

Agree with this.

 

[top5vols]

That is contract law; a person with dementia and anyone under 18 can't buy a car either.

So you're saying if a girl is drunk and gets raped, the police won't take her statement? You're saying I can go out and rob drunk people outside bars and police won't take their report?
Come on

I stated normally. Drunk rape statements are normally taken a day later.

 

[top5vols]

Lololololol. What planet are you living on?

Judgement is impaired when drunk.

 

[Wireless1]

Nicky has everyone bought off in Ala.

But he doesn't buy players

 

[VFL-82-JP]

And, yeah, I'm just the teensiest bit proud that I managed to learn that lesson without beating the ever-lovin' snot out of someone (no matter how deservedly) and ending up putting my freedom and financial future at risk.

I read a good book about people who take chances in the wild, and come to entirely false conclusions about the level of risk involved.

Remember that guy, Jon Krakauer, who wrote Into Thin Air about the doomed 1996 Everest climbing season? And another book called Into the Wild about some young man who killed himself by walking out into the Alaska wilderness completely unprepared and untrained?

Well, he wrote other books as well, and one of them--I don't remember the title--was all about these unknowing risk-takers. And usually how they died, at least some of each group.

One of the groups was a bunch of middle-age fellas who liked to go out to this one spot in Colorado or Wyoming or somewhere like that, and ride their snowmobiles around for a few days each winter. The kicker is, the place they always went had clearly posted warning signs about the avalanche risk.

So the first time they went, on the recommendation of one of the fellas who had been there before, they were cautious. The second time, a little less so, because nothing happened bad the first time. The third trip, even more carefree. And I think it was their sixth or seventh trip to this spot that the avalanche killed most of them. Or maybe just half of them. It has been a while since I read that book.

You're the teensiest bit proud of yourself for learning absolutely the wrong lesson from your one scrape with a home invader. Now you're even more likely not to defend yourself other than locking the door and dialing 911. And maybe the second time it'll be a drunken mistake again. But the third time it might be some meth-heads who want to snatch & grab valuables they can pawn, and who aren't deterred by a simple locked door when there are glass windows all around. And you might pay a big price for learning that lesson you're proud of.

Hopefully you'll never get hit by an avalanche. But you're definitely drawing the wrong conclusions from a very limited data set.

Go Vols!

 

[37620VOL]

I stated normally. Drunk rape statements are normally taken a day later.

And give the offender 12 hours to flee or get his story straight. Sounds like Sullivan Co police procedure. Maybe that is policy in some jurisdictions, but hopefully not all.

 

[Old Geezer]

Dude enters McCullogh apartment, but McCullogh doesn't know his intentions, so he want's to get to the bottom of why this dude is helping himself to McCullogh's apartment, so McCoullough gets upset and follows dude outside where he is technically not defending his home anymore. They exchange words and the situation escalates to punches thrown, Police get involved to compound the damages.

 

[DD4ME]

Why are we trying to convict or acquit with little to no info. This sucks he was charged and will likely miss the game. He was a strong contributor at LSU and will be missed. Whether he returns is a bigger question, but hate this has happened for both parties.

 

[DynaLo]

Again: if I'm in a situation where brandishing a weapon is the best option, what comes after is not at that point a significant concern.

Stay alive, protect your family and unit; work out the details later.

You get that, right?

What I get is that I’m fairly well versed in firearm laws and if I feel enough of a physical threat exists to result in serious bodily injury or death to myself or my immediate family member I’m pulling my weapon as a permanent threat eliminator not merely as a prop for intimidation which may just escalate the situation in unforeseen ways.
Otherwise my hand is merely resting on my hip while I attempt to verbally diffuse the situation enough that all involved parties walk away.

Don’t draw a weapon you don’t intend to use and never point it at something you don’t intend to destroy.

 

[DaddyChad]

I read a good book about people who take chances in the wild, and come to entirely false conclusions about the level of risk involved.

Remember that guy, Jon Krakauer, who wrote Into Thin Air about the doomed 1996 Everest climbing season? And another book called Into the Wild about some young man who killed himself by walking out into the Alaska wilderness completely unprepared and untrained?

Well, he wrote other books as well, and one of them--I don't remember the title--was all about these unknowing risk-takers. And usually how they died, at least some of each group.

One of the groups was a bunch of middle-age fellas who liked to go out to this one spot in Colorado or Wyoming or somewhere like that, and ride their snowmobiles around for a few days each winter. The kicker is, the place they always went had clearly posted warning signs about the avalanche risk.

So the first time they went, on the recommendation of one of the fellas who had been there before, they were cautious. The second time, a little less so, because nothing happened bad the first time. The third trip, even more carefree. And I think it was their sixth or seventh trip to this spot that the avalanche killed most of them. Or maybe just half of them. It has been a while since I read that book.

You're the teensiest bit proud of yourself for learning absolutely the wrong lesson from your one scrape with a home invader. Now you're even more likely not to defend yourself other than locking the door and dialing 911. And maybe the second time it'll be a drunken mistake again. But the third time it might be some meth-heads who want to snatch & grab valuables they can pawn. And you might pay a big price for learning that lesson you're proud of.

Hopefully you'll never get hit by an avalanche. But you're definitely drawing the wrong conclusions from a very limited data set.

Go Vols!

Damn JP where TF you live? Drunks and meth head often come calling?

 

[imbubbaspitcup]

The cop & the drunk were probably Bama Fans!!!!!!

 

[Halph66]

The argument that the apartment door should have been locked, is the similar to argument, no wonder she got attached, look how she was dressed. IMO.

 

[turbovol]

I read a good book about people who take chances in the wild, and come to entirely false conclusions about the level of risk involved.

Remember that guy, Jon Krakauer, who wrote Into Thin Air about the doomed 1996 Everest climbing season? And another book called Into the Wild about some young man who killed himself by walking out into the Alaska wilderness completely unprepared and untrained?

Well, he wrote other books as well, and one of them--I don't remember the title--was all about these unknowing risk-takers. And usually how they died, at least some of each group.

One of the groups was a bunch of middle-age fellas who liked to go out to this one spot in Colorado or Wyoming or somewhere like that, and ride their snowmobiles around for a few days each winter. The kicker is, the place they always went had clearly posted warning signs about the avalanche risk.

So the first time they went, on the recommendation of one of the fellas who had been there before, they were cautious. The second time, a little less so, because nothing happened bad the first time. The third trip, even more carefree. And I think it was their sixth or seventh trip to this spot that the avalanche killed most of them. Or maybe just half of them. It has been a while since I read that book.

You're the teensiest bit proud of yourself for learning absolutely the wrong lesson from your one scrape with a home invader. Now you're even more likely not to defend yourself other than locking the door and dialing 911. And maybe the second time it'll be a drunken mistake again. But the third time it might be some meth-heads who want to snatch & grab valuables they can pawn. And you might pay a big price for learning that lesson you're proud of.

Hopefully you'll never get hit by an avalanche. But you're definitely drawing the wrong conclusions from a very limited data set.

Go Vols!

What in the world is your point here? The only salient point is that our safety was an idiot last night--did something very stupid, in that way of so many college football players--and he's probably going to cost the team going into the biggest game in many years. Your screed about risk-taking is not in any way relevant to this incident.

 

[DaddyChad]

Judgement is impaired when drunk.

Again you know your job and set of rules you go by. Just going by what I’ve seen in the past usually the police want to get statements in some domestic abuse cases when it’s fresh on the victim’s mind. Sometimes neither party is exactly sober. Now whether they do follow up questioning the next day or not idk.

 

[GhostVol]

Again why are you relying on the statement of the drunk guy? You’re wanting to pass judgment on the actions of a kid without waiting to hear his side of it. This drunk guy already looks fairly suspect if either of us are being honest. Could it have been handled better? Maybe hell neither of us know but you’re applying rational behavior in an irrational time.

If someone comes into you’re house and they’re drunk and confused and talking crazy are you not very very on edge? You don’t have time to think about the right thing to do. Again maybe McCullough could’ve done something better but in this day and age I do not blame him for his actions. If I stumble into another persons house drunk, I fully expect I could get my ass whipped, I expect that possibility to increase if I open my mouth and say something stupid.

So the beating took place inside McCullough's residence? No problem with it, at all.... he's allowed that

But the second it starts happening outside there are gonna be some tough questions to answer. And I'm given to understand at least some of it occurred outside....

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Damn JP where TF you live? Drunks and meth head often come calling?

Lol no, thankfully.

My brother-in-law (much younger than me) was a cop in Metro Nashville PD for a while, though, and brought home some real stories about life in the rougher parts of town. That, combined with my overseas experience in some real garden spots, has made me super aware of the risks around us that most of us never even see. Thank God.

Go Vols!

 

[Wireless1]

https://www.outkick.com/wp-content/uploads/Jaylen-McCollough-Arrest-Report.pdf

Jalen did one thing right, didn't say a word, we'll hear all his statements from his counsel.

 

[DC_Vol]

I read a good book about people who take chances in the wild, and come to entirely false conclusions about the level of risk involved.

Remember that guy, Jon Krakauer, who wrote Into Thin Air about the doomed 1996 Everest climbing season? And another book called Into the Wild about some young man who killed himself by walking out into the Alaska wilderness completely unprepared and untrained?

Well, he wrote other books as well, and one of them--I don't remember the title--was all about these unknowing risk-takers. And usually how they died, at least some of each group.

One of the groups was a bunch of middle-age fellas who liked to go out to this one spot in Colorado or Wyoming or somewhere like that, and ride their snowmobiles around for a few days each winter. The kicker is, the place they always went had clearly posted warning signs about the avalanche risk.

So the first time they went, on the recommendation of one of the fellas who had been there before, they were cautious. The second time, a little less so, because nothing happened bad the first time. The third trip, even more carefree. And I think it was their sixth or seventh trip to this spot that the avalanche killed most of them. Or maybe just half of them. It has been a while since I read that book.

You're the teensiest bit proud of yourself for learning absolutely the wrong lesson from your one scrape with a home invader. Now you're even more likely not to defend yourself other than locking the door and dialing 911. And maybe the second time it'll be a drunken mistake again. But the third time it might be some meth-heads who want to snatch & grab valuables they can pawn, and who aren't deterred by a simple locked door when there are glass windows all around. And you might pay a big price for learning that lesson you're proud of.

Hopefully you'll never get hit by an avalanche. But you're definitely drawing the wrong conclusions from a very limited data set.

Go Vols!

Into Thin Air is a fantastic book. Highly recommend to anyone who likes to read non fiction.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

What in the world is your point here? The only salient point is that our safety was an idiot last night--did something very stupid, in that way of so many college football players--and he's probably going to cost the team going into the biggest game in many years. Your screed about risk-taking is not in any way relevant to this incident.

I think the main salient point in YOUR post is that you've already decided McCollough did something wrong, when none of us have even heard the other half of the story.

And my second salient conclusion is that you don't think much of college football players in general. You're probably better than them, though, right?

So who is making less sense at this point?

 

[GhostVol]

I read a good book about people who take chances in the wild, and come to entirely false conclusions about the level of risk involved.

Remember that guy, Jon Krakauer, who wrote Into Thin Air about the doomed 1996 Everest climbing season? And another book called Into the Wild about some young man who killed himself by walking out into the Alaska wilderness completely unprepared and untrained?

Well, he wrote other books as well, and one of them--I don't remember the title--was all about these unknowing risk-takers. And usually how they died, at least some of each group.

One of the groups was a bunch of middle-age fellas who liked to go out to this one spot in Colorado or Wyoming or somewhere like that, and ride their snowmobiles around for a few days each winter. The kicker is, the place they always went had clearly posted warning signs about the avalanche risk.

So the first time they went, on the recommendation of one of the fellas who had been there before, they were cautious. The second time, a little less so, because nothing happened bad the first time. The third trip, even more carefree. And I think it was their sixth or seventh trip to this spot that the avalanche killed most of them. Or maybe just half of them. It has been a while since I read that book.

You're the teensiest bit proud of yourself for learning absolutely the wrong lesson from your one scrape with a home invader. Now you're even more likely not to defend yourself other than locking the door and dialing 911. And maybe the second time it'll be a drunken mistake again. But the third time it might be some meth-heads who want to snatch & grab valuables they can pawn, and who aren't deterred by a simple locked door when there are glass windows all around. And you might pay a big price for learning that lesson you're proud of.

Hopefully you'll never get hit by an avalanche. But you're definitely drawing the wrong conclusions from a very limited data set.

Go Vols!

You completely missed my point (perhaps I wasn't as clear about it as I could've been) so here it is as plainly as I can state it

In learning my lesson I learned to keep my gates and doors locked at all times. Now, no one CAN walk into my house unannounced.

Kinda sucks having to do that but..... it's a LOT better than the alternative.

And before you point it out, yes there are other means of ingress that some "meth-head" may try to take advantage of, but at that point I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person means me harm. And THAT's when said "meth-head" is going to have a very bad day....

 

[VFL-82-JP]

You completely missed my point (perhaps I wasn't as clear about it as I could've been) so here it is as plainly as I can state it

In learning my lesson I learned to keep my gates and doors locked at all times. Now, no one CAN walk into my house unannounced.

Kinda sucks having to do that but..... it's a LOT better than the alternative.

And before you point it out, yes there are other means of ingress that some "meth-head" may try to take advantage of, but at that point I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person means me harm. And THAT's when said "meth-head" is going to have a very bad day....

Ah, my apologies, I did misunderstand you. And agree. Keeping your doors locked is always a good idea.

 

[DaddyChad]

So the beating took place inside McCullough's residence? No problem with it, at all.... he's allowed that

But the second it starts happening outside there are gonna be some tough questions to answer. And I'm given to understand at least some of it occurred outside....

Again you could be entirely right, you could be entirely wrong. Last I heard we haven’t got a statement from McCullough yet. I just do not want to see a kid have his life ruined unless we have concrete evidence that he was in the wrong. Just too many missing pieces of info right now to know how this all went down.

This isn’t some kid that went out looking for trouble, this isn’t some kid that was in the wrong place and trouble found him. This guy was in his house when everything started, escalated at some point, and everything blew up. What exactly escalated it we don’t know whether it was verbal, physical, etc. Where the physical altercation started we also do not know. I think you can agree that with this particular case of player conduct it’s not as cut and dry as some instances.

 

[top5vols]

Again you know your job and set of rules you go by. Just going by what I’ve seen in the past usually the police want to get statements in some domestic abuse cases when it’s fresh on the victim’s mind. Sometimes neither party is exactly sober. Now whether they do follow up questioning the next day or not idk.

Domestic abuse cases are different. If either party is injured, it’s get in the car.

 

[CNCVol88]

Dude enters McCullogh apartment, but McCullogh doesn't know his intentions, so he want's to get to the bottom of why this dude is helping himself to McCullogh's apartment, so McCoullough gets upset and follows dude outside where he is technically not defending his home anymore. They exchange words and the situation escalates to punches thrown, Police get involved to compound the damages.

Even more likely scenario

Door is unlocked because he’s expecting his GF. dude walks in instead and startles jaylen. Jaylen punches him at the door, drunk dude stumbles out and falls down the stairs. Jalen justified. Feared for his safety.

 

[PlanetVolunteer]

The pearl clutchers sitting in their holier than thought thrones giddy at trying to attribute as much guilt to Jaylen as possible are literally the worst type of people on the planet.

Judgmental pieces of utter trash. Glad you're perfect.

It's not that what he did was right, but you people are always the first to cast a stone.

I mean you all get triggered by someone saying "well we don't know all the facts yet" so you WANT the person to be as guilty as possible. I think you people need therapy.