Break out Players 2021

[scott715]

BYU Football Newcomers that Could Make an Impact on Offense

https://www.si.com/college/byu/news/byu ... on-offense

[Fido]

https://www.si.com/college/byu/news/byu ... out-season

Chaz Ah You. Not sure how you can put him on this list.

I will be very disappointed in the coaching staff in Ah You sees the field in 2020. That said, whether or not he takes the field in 2020 I suspect that I'll have plenty of other opportunities to be disappointed in this coaching staff. So I guess there's that.

I thought all charges were dropped? Why would he be benched for the season? Please tell me as fans we aren't searching for reasons to prevent players from playing or the team to not succeed...

[ABYUFAN]

https://www.si.com/college/byu/news/byu ... out-season

Chaz Ah You. Not sure how you can put him on this list.

I will be very disappointed in the coaching staff in Ah You sees the field in 2020. That said, whether or not he takes the field in 2020 I suspect that I'll have plenty of other opportunities to be disappointed in this coaching staff. So I guess there's that.

I thought all charges were dropped? Why would he be benched for the season? Please tell me as fans we aren't searching for reasons to prevent players from playing or the team to not succeed...

For me it comes down to addressing the the real thing that I have a problem with - do I have a problem with him getting a criminal conviction, or is my problem with the act that lead to the potential criminal conviction?

If a player drives recklessly under the influence I would hope that he would be suspended irrespective of whether the criminal conviction takes place. I understand that there are those who have a difference of opinion, and I'm fine with that.

[Fido]

For me it comes down to addressing the the real thing that I have a problem with - do I have a problem with him getting a criminal conviction, or is my problem with the act that lead to the potential criminal conviction?

If a player drives recklessly under the influence I would hope that he would be suspended irrespective of whether the criminal conviction takes place. I understand that there are those who have a difference of opinion, and I'm fine with that.

Unless you know something I don't, how can we say he was driving recklessly under the influence? The prosecutor looked at the evidence turned over and threw it all away. All of it. Not even the wreckless driving stuck as far as I know. But if the accusation means he did it and is guilty in the minds of fans, I'm sure nothing will persuade you otherwise. I just don't get the "I have to hold them accountable for how I think they should be behaving" attitude.

[scott715]

https://www.si.com/college/byu/news/byu ... roy-warner

2 - Troy Warner

[snoscythe]

For me it comes down to addressing the the real thing that I have a problem with - do I have a problem with him getting a criminal conviction, or is my problem with the act that lead to the potential criminal conviction?

If a player drives recklessly under the influence I would hope that he would be suspended irrespective of whether the criminal conviction takes place. I understand that there are those who have a difference of opinion, and I'm fine with that.

Unless you know something I don't, how can we say he was driving recklessly under the influence? The prosecutor looked at the evidence turned over and threw it all away. All of it. Not even the wreckless driving stuck as far as I know. But if the accusation means he did it and is guilty in the minds of fans, I'm sure nothing will persuade you otherwise. I just don't get the "I have to hold them accountable for how I think they should be behaving" attitude.

Your characterization is not really what happened.

The officer made an illegitimate arrest. Because the initial arrest was illegitimate, any and all evidence found at or after that point is inadmissible in a court--it's the "fruit of the poisonous tree." This is a doctrine that protects us in our rights--the crown cannot violate our rights and then use what they discover in the aftermath of that violation to prosecute us.

After the illegitimate arrest, the officer found an open alcoholic container, THC, and took him to the jail for a breathalyzer. He was over the legal limit. However, because the predicate arrest was illegitimate, the county attorney cannot use any of that evidence in the trial, which left him with no admissible evidence upon which to prosecute.

The prosecutor did not look at the evidence and say "well, I'm not sure he really did break the law here" and let him go. He looked at the evidence, saw that there was nothing that he could use in a prosecution, and could not prosecute.



Ah You was not prosecuted because the officer who made the arrest went too far--reckless driving is not an arrestable charge, and after he messed up in administering the roadside sobriety test the most the deputy could do is give a ticket--not because Chaz didn't do anything wrong. He got off because the rookie deputy messed up, not because he was innocent in any way.

I am 100% okay with him not being prosecuted based on what happened. Policing needs to be done in the right way, and we need to be secure in our rights.

However, I also 100% believe the team should discipline him for what happened and have no problem with him being labeled a drunk driver after that incident.

[hawkwing]

Thanks for the explanation.

[scott715]

https://www.si.com/college/byu/news/ten ... out-season

No. 1 - Isaac Rex

[Fido]

Your characterization is not really what happened.

The officer made an illegitimate arrest. Because the initial arrest was illegitimate, any and all evidence found at or after that point is inadmissible in a court--it's the "fruit of the poisonous tree." This is a doctrine that protects us in our rights--the crown cannot violate our rights and then use what they discover in the aftermath of that violation to prosecute us.

After the illegitimate arrest, the officer found an open alcoholic container, THC, and took him to the jail for a breathalyzer. He was over the legal limit. However, because the predicate arrest was illegitimate, the county attorney cannot use any of that evidence in the trial, which left him with no admissible evidence upon which to prosecute.

The prosecutor did not look at the evidence and say "well, I'm not sure he really did break the law here" and let him go. He looked at the evidence, saw that there was nothing that he could use in a prosecution, and could not prosecute.



Ah You was not prosecuted because the officer who made the arrest went too far--reckless driving is not an arrestable charge, and after he messed up in administering the roadside sobriety test the most the deputy could do is give a ticket--not because Chaz didn't do anything wrong. He got off because the rookie deputy messed up, not because he was innocent in any way.

I am 100% okay with him not being prosecuted based on what happened. Policing needs to be done in the right way, and we need to be secure in our rights.

However, I also 100% believe the team should discipline him for what happened and have no problem with him being labeled a drunk driver after that incident.

So you want to label him a drunk driver--even without the evidence and without a conviction? According to the press release itself, "The Deputy's inability to articulate the facts of the traffic stop lead to the dismissal of the case..." Yet you want to take his report of what happened and judge the kid anyway? Who branded you the labeler of men? When I read speeding, following too closely, and changing lanes abruptly without using a signal, that sounds like 3/4 of the cars on my daily commute.

[snoscythe]

So you want to label him a drunk driver--even without the evidence and without a conviction? According to the press release itself, "The Deputy's inability to articulate the facts of the traffic stop lead to the dismissal of the case..." Yet you want to take his report of what happened and judge the kid anyway? Who branded you the labeler of men? When I read speeding, following too closely, and changing lanes abruptly without using a signal, that sounds like 3/4 of the cars on my daily commute.

He had an open container in the car and blew over the limit on a breathalyzer. That's enough for me to call someone a drunk driver--I'm not a jury or a judge, I'm a lay citizen free to make my own calls. I'm sure you think Casey Anthony, OJ, and Josh Powell are murderers, Michael Jackson was a child molester, and that R Kelly is pedophile without convictions. There is evidence here--I won't re-explain to you for a 3rd time the difference between "admissible" evidence and evidence. I've done that twice already. I can help people who don't understand things, but I can't do anything about willful ignorance. Suffice to say, there is sure enough evidence here, just not admissible evidence. A judge would have to throw that out, but as Joe Citizen I can give it whatever weight I want.

After living in the Midwest and seeing the true danger of drunk driving after seeing more than 10 drunk driving deaths in my graduating high school class, including a number of close friends over the past years (and most were innocent sober victims like Kevin who never touched alcohol in his life, not drunk drivers), I have no tolerance. I don't mind if you bury your head in the sand and want to whitewash what happened here. You might feel differently when an idiot like Ah You takes your friends away from you.

Yeah, the deputy messed up, but no one is saying he put the container and THC in the car or monkeyed around with the breathalyzer. He escaped a conviction on his record, but based on what has been presented, I have no problem putting the stigma of being a drunk driver on him.

I get it--mercy, forgiveness, protect the brand, innocent until proven guilty, all that jazz. I'm happy to let you take hte self-righteous moral high ground. None of that changes in my mind that the man was putting others at real risk of bodily harm or death with his stupidity. He's a drunk driver who "got off on a technicality", but still a drunk driver in my book.