Ruby Whitehorn suspended (now reinstated)

#76
#76
DeerPark12 said:
While they do appear to be two very different situations, you have all of the facts on the McCullough situation because it went through the entire legal process with additional witness statements, videotape of the incident, and a full picture of what happened.

With the Whitehorn situation, all you have is the initial police report. While you attempted to break down the situation while sounding like a lawyer, I have no idea if you are one or not. But I am, and anybody who spent more than just orientation day in law school would know that the initial police report is often incorrect, reflects a 1000 foot view of the initial incident, and rarely ends up being the full truth once additional witness statements are taken. Also, in a domestic situation, the responding officers in Tennessee have to determine a primary aggressor and arrest that person, even if both parties seem equally at fault and/or who the aggressor is remains in doubt. The law, as a whole, is a good one, but it presents Issues in cases like this one. From talking to people I went to school with that are familiar with the case, the police interviewed a dozen witnesses after the initial report, and they paint the picture a little differently than what is in the initial police report, much like witnesses and a videotape did in the McCullough situation your reference above.

It’s not up to the university to “back“ a student athlete with a criminal charge. It is up to them to wait to make a decision on her permanent status until the police investigation is complete and the preliminary hearing or waiver of the preliminary hearing occurs. And again, as any lawyer would know, a preliminary hearing doesn’t even necessarily present the full case because only the prosecution is able to present witnesses. I believe in this case, witnesses have been provided to the district attorney‘s office that may dispute the initial account and result in a resolution of this case prior to it going any further in the legal process.
Click to expand...
TL / DNR 🫥 ...;)

Thank you, DeerPark, and everyone else who posted your thoughts and reasoning with the intent to just lay out the facts impartially. Getting to the truth is always hard work, and even moreso when our emotions and loyalties are involved, and when so many (outside the forum) can make a penny from spouting anything less than.
----
What has anyone heard about the players who are practicing now? How aerobically fit are they? How has the defensive install been received and executed? Etc.
 
Last edited:
#78
#78
BruisedOrange said:
TL / DNR 🫥

Thank you, DeerPark, and everyone else who posted your thoughts and reasoning with the intent to just lay out the facts impartially. Getting to the truth is always hard work, and even moreso when our emotions and loyalties are involved, and when so many (outside the forum) can make a penny from spouting anything less than.
----
What has anyone heard about the players who are practicing now? How aerobically fit are they? How has the defensive install been received and executed? Etc.
Click to expand...
One thing I have heard...Mia is ranked highest, but Mya is shooting the 3 on a high click right now

And I do know of several who have worked off-season to better their skills
 
  • Like
Reactions: LV renaissance, HeadVol77, madtownvol and 3 others
#80
#80
DeerPark12 said:
While they do appear to be two very different situations, you have all of the facts on the McCullough situation because it went through the entire legal process with additional witness statements, videotape of the incident, and a full picture of what happened.

With the Whitehorn situation, all you have is the initial police report. While you attempted to break down the situation while sounding like a lawyer, I have no idea if you are one or not. But I am, and anybody who spent more than just orientation day in law school would know that the initial police report is often incorrect, reflects a 1000 foot view of the initial incident, and rarely ends up being the full truth once additional witness statements are taken. Also, in a domestic situation, the responding officers in Tennessee have to determine a primary aggressor and arrest that person, even if both parties seem equally at fault and/or who the aggressor is remains in doubt. The law, as a whole, is a good one, but it presents Issues in cases like this one. From talking to people I went to school with that are familiar with the case, the police interviewed a dozen witnesses after the initial report, and they paint the picture a little differently than what is in the initial police report, much like witnesses and a videotape did in the McCullough situation your reference above.

It’s not up to the university to “back“ a student athlete with a criminal charge. It is up to them to wait to make a decision on her permanent status until the police investigation is complete and the preliminary hearing or waiver of the preliminary hearing occurs. And again, as any lawyer would know, a preliminary hearing doesn’t even necessarily present the full case because only the prosecution is able to present witnesses. I believe in this case, witnesses have been provided to the district attorney‘s office that may dispute the initial account and result in a resolution of this case prior to it going any further in the legal process.
Click to expand...

I feel like I have a $5000 law bill now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, chuckiepoo, BruisedOrange and 2 others
#81
#81
I see this from a different perspective as the typical observer. Having worked in the field of education on every level across K-12 schools and working in Higher Ed. at colleges, I’ve been able to consult in hearings, school related court cases, etc. and can say that every statement presented in this thread truly is Education Law 101.

The Univ. of TN placing the student athlete on indefinite suspension was a standard procedure.

It doesn’t mean she’ll serve a suspension from the university once the case is resolved or that she’s likely to face punitive charges as this process unfolds in the court system.

Wait for the evidence that is presented by both sides. I do agree it’s a serious matter and believe it’s important to be concerned for all parties involved moving forward in their lives.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, Remy, KTrain and 4 others
#82
#82
Aavoxx said:
I feel like I have a $5000 law bill now.
Click to expand...
Not to worry. I have an attorney friend who will gladly take your case.

He claims our avatars protect us from financial obligation under his (yet to be tested) principle of valid fraudulent misrepresentation.

Of course, he won't do it for free...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka and chuckiepoo
#83
#83
DeerPark12 said:
While they do appear to be two very different situations, you have all of the facts on the McCullough situation because it went through the entire legal process with additional witness statements, videotape of the incident, and a full picture of what happened.

With the Whitehorn situation, all you have is the initial police report. While you attempted to break down the situation while sounding like a lawyer, I have no idea if you are one or not. But I am, and anybody who spent more than just orientation day in law school would know that the initial police report is often incorrect, reflects a 1000 foot view of the initial incident, and rarely ends up being the full truth once additional witness statements are taken. Also, in a domestic situation, the responding officers in Tennessee have to determine a primary aggressor and arrest that person, even if both parties seem equally at fault and/or who the aggressor is remains in doubt. The law, as a whole, is a good one, but it presents Issues in cases like this one. From talking to people I went to school with that are familiar with the case, the police interviewed a dozen witnesses after the initial report, and they paint the picture a little differently than what is in the initial police report, much like witnesses and a videotape did in the McCullough situation your reference above.

It’s not up to the university to “back“ a student athlete with a criminal charge. It is up to them to wait to make a decision on her permanent status until the police investigation is complete and the preliminary hearing or waiver of the preliminary hearing occurs. And again, as any lawyer would know, a preliminary hearing doesn’t even necessarily present the full case because only the prosecution is able to present witnesses. I believe in this case, witnesses have been provided to the district attorney‘s office that may dispute the initial account and result in a resolution of this case prior to it going any further in the legal process.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are going on about. I was not adjudicating the case but responding to a specific question raised by another poster-- "why did the University not "back" Ruby the way they did Tank McCollough?: (i.e. why was Tank not suspended when also facing a felony charge).

As you know, the University made the decision to not suspend Tank before the case went to court and all "the facts" were revealed. My conjecture was that, based on the pre-trial evidence, there was a much higher degree of reasonable doubt in Tank's case than for Ruby's and hence she has been suspended pending legal resolution.

Everything you posted is a tangent to the specific question I was addressing. Specifically, I was not speculating about the preliminary hearing in any fashion.

For a lawyer, your reading of my post is shockingly poor and indeed I would say your judgment has been a bit clouded when discussing this case, such as your earlier posts suggesting that Ruby was justified in her actions, which as a non-lawyer seems like an odd stance for a lawyer to take (based on the arrest report and initial evidence).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Trixietrouble, volnationnj and Coach Jumper
#84
#84
madtownvol said:
I have no idea what you are going on about. I was not adjudicating the case but responding to a specific question raised by another poster-- "why did the University not "back" Ruby the way they did Tank McCollough?: (i.e. why was Tank not suspended when also facing a felony charge).

As you know, the University made the decision to not suspend Tank before the case went to court and all "the facts" were revealed. My conjecture was that, based on the pre-trial evidence, there was a much higher degree of reasonable doubt in Tank's case than for Ruby's and hence she has been suspended pending legal resolution.

Everything you posted is a tangent to the specific question I was addressing. Specifically, I was not speculating about the preliminary hearing in any fashion.

For a lawyer, your reading of my post is shockingly poor and indeed I would say your judgment has been a bit clouded when discussing this case, such as your earlier posts suggesting that Ruby was justified in her actions, which as a non-lawyer seems like an odd stance for a lawyer to take based on the arrest report.
Click to expand...

Tank knocked out a guy's teeth and threw him down the stairs. There are mitigating circumstances in both cases but what Tank did is worse in my eyes and he eventually plead guilty to a felony. Ruby should be downgraded to a misdemeanor at worst based on the facts currently presented. For the record, I have supported keeping both players mainly because they both have a strong reputation and there is some justification for each of their actions. It's not like either one were planning to go out and beat somebody down. In each case something happened to them that was not fair and they immediately reacted (overreacted?) to it.

I don't know why you're so flabbergasted about this? It's okay for you to have your opinion as long as it's okay for me to have mine.
 
#85
#85
madtownvol said:
I have no idea what you are going on about. I was not adjudicating the case but responding to a specific question raised by another poster-- "why did the University not "back" Ruby the way they did Tank McCollough?: (i.e. why was Tank not suspended when also facing a felony charge).

As you know, the University made the decision to not suspend Tank before the case went to court and all "the facts" were revealed. My conjecture was that, based on the pre-trial evidence, there was a much higher degree of reasonable doubt in Tank's case than for Ruby's and hence she has been suspended pending legal resolution.

Everything you posted is a tangent to the specific question I was addressing. Specifically, I was not speculating about the preliminary hearing in any fashion.

For a lawyer, your reading of my post is shockingly poor and indeed I would say your judgment has been a bit clouded when discussing this case, such as your earlier posts suggesting that Ruby was justified in her actions, which as a non-lawyer seems like an odd stance for a lawyer to take based on the arrest report.
Click to expand...
I think you are misremembering the circumstances around his case. He was, in fact, suspended by the athletics department for two games during the police investigation. He was allowed to return to action when the district attorney initially indicated that they were not going to pursue an assault case. However, the victim did later pursue the case so he could seek restitution for his injuries. McCullough ended up being formally charged with a felony almost a year later. He had to plead guilty to a misdemeanor assault and make restitution to the victim of nearly $25,000.

In that case, the similarity to this case was that if everything had stopped after the initial confrontation, they likely wouldn’t have been charges filed. But in both situations, you can understand why it did not stop that point. For McCullough, he did not feel like the man was leaving the area and he pursued him to physically make him leave, which I think you could argue both sides on whether it was right or wrong. In Ruby‘s case, she was ultimately charged because she kicked in a door to retrieve items that were stolen from her. I think a reasonable person could argue both sides depending on their lifetime experience.

I do believe that she was justified to go back and get her things from an apartment that her name is on the lease of. You’re correct, I absolutely believe that. I don’t know what a jury will think if it gets that far, which I don’t expect it to. From what I understand, witness statements will help her in this case. But until there is some further action, she cannot be a part of team activities, or athletic department policy. It’s important to know that she is still a student in good standing and is attending classes.

And, again, my professional experiences tell me that reading a police report is not an indication of knowing the facts. I do contract law, and haven’t done criminal defense since working in the legal clinic in law school, but there’s not a single criminal case I helped with where the narrative that ended up being in the indictment was the same as the narrative on the police report. The interpretation of facts changes frequently, because a police report is a snapshot of the first two hours of an investigation. It is frequently wrong. That’s not a shot at police, it’s actually a credit to them. They have to take instant action based on what they see in a moment. Then they go back and do a full and complete investigation before formal charges are brought at a preliminary hearing or in a presentment to a grand jury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, Remy, DarkPhoenix and 5 others
#86
#86
37620VOL said:
Tank knocked out a guy's teeth and threw him down the stairs. There are mitigating circumstances in both cases but what Tank did is worse in my eyes and he eventually plead guilty to a felony. Ruby should be downgraded to a misdemeanor at worst based on the facts currently presented. For the record, I have supported keeping both players mainly because they both have a strong reputation and there is some justification for each of their actions. It's not like either one were planning to go out and beat somebody down. In each case something happened to them that was not fair and they immediately reacted (overreacted?) to it.

I don't know why you're so flabbergasted about this? It's okay for you to have your opinion as long as it's okay for me to have mine.
Click to expand...
Fair enough in terms of having divergent opinions. I suppose it's just what I see as false equivalencies between two different cases.

Again, your question was why did UT not suspend Tank versus Ruby. The initial evidence was simply more damning for Ruby, as the victim in Tank's case admitted to being drunk and banging on the wrong door (and Tank had witnesses stating right then and there that the drunken guy was being aggressive and belligerent), all of which instigated the altercation. In Ruby's case, the purported "victim" denies culpability and the video and physical evidence is consistent with the claim that Ruby broke down 2 doors and chased the victim into her locked bedroom.

Again, I am not making conjectures on how this all plays out in court (if there is not plea deal) when all evidence is revealed. I am just saying right now, we can make clear sense of why the University gave one athlete the benefit of the legal doubt and in the other, suspended the accused student-athlete.

{Since we are being super legalistic here, we don't know exactly what Tank did do we? Tank denied that charge, claiming that the altercation happened at his door and that the drunken victim fell down the stars on his own. Who knows why Tank too the plea deal. Perhaps his lawyers warned that there was some risk in going to a jury trail and lets take the low risk or maybe he did accost the victim in this way but again, at the time the UT had to make a decision, there were stronger grounds for reasonable doubt in respect to Tank's charges].

PS, what I would like to see happen is that Ruby pleads down to a much lesser charge, takes a court mandated anger management course (and hopefully, the counseling is legit), pays damages, learns an important life lesson and gets reinstated with the team ASAP.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Trixietrouble
#90
#90
DeerPark12 said:
I think you are misremembering the circumstances around his case. He was, in fact, suspended by the athletics department for two games during the police investigation. He was allowed to return to action when the district attorney initially indicated that they were not going to pursue an assault case. However, the victim did later pursue the case so he could seek restitution for his injuries. McCullough ended up being formally charged with a felony almost a year later. He had to plead guilty to a misdemeanor assault and make restitution to the victim of nearly $25,000.

In that case, the similarity to this case was that if everything had stopped after the initial confrontation, they likely wouldn’t have been charges filed. But in both situations, you can understand why it did not stop that point. For McCullough, he did not feel like the man was leaving the area and he pursued him to physically make him leave, which I think you could argue both sides on whether it was right or wrong. In Ruby‘s case, she was ultimately charged because she kicked in a door to retrieve items that were stolen from her. I think a reasonable person could argue both sides depending on their lifetime experience.

I do believe that she was justified to go back and get her things from an apartment that her name is on the lease of. You’re correct, I absolutely believe that. I don’t know what a jury will think if it gets that far, which I don’t expect it to. From what I understand, witness statements will help her in this case. But until there is some further action, she cannot be a part of team activities, or athletic department policy. It’s important to know that she is still a student in good standing and is attending classes.

And, again, my professional experiences tell me that reading a police report is not an indication of knowing the facts. I do contract law, and haven’t done criminal defense since working in the legal clinic in law school, but there’s not a single criminal case I helped with where the narrative that ended up being in the indictment was the same as the narrative on the police report. The interpretation of facts changes frequently, because a police report is a snapshot of the first two hours of an investigation. It is frequently wrong. That’s not a shot at police, it’s actually a credit to them. They have to take instant action based on what they see in a moment. Then they go back and do a full and complete investigation before formal charges are brought at a preliminary hearing or in a presentment to a grand jury.
Click to expand...

Nope, McCollough was not officially suspended by the University:

While head coach Josh Heupel said that McCollough was not suspended following the incident, the senior defensive back did not play in games against Alabama and UT-Martin.

Akers said ahead of the UT-Martin game that McCollough had been cleared of violating the University’s Code of Conduct after an investigation by the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards.

Heupel said Thursday that McCollough has been with the team this week but declined to comment on his status for Saturday’s game against Kentucky.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.wkrn.com/news/tennessee...self-defense-seeks-to-dismiss-assault-charge/


While there may have been kind of unofficial punishment via the UT_Martin and Bama games (or perhaps Tank was just not mentally read to play), McCollough was deemed to have not violated UT's code of conduct. So pretty much everything you wrote after "I am misremembering the situation," is irrelevant to the decision that UT actually made in regard to McCollough's status.

So, it appears that UT has seen in these cases in a different light.

Also, your presentation of the facts regard the McCollough case is more definitive and one-sided than those reported:

According to the arrest warrant, the victim told investigators that he accidentally entered the wrong apartment, in the wrong building, after having been drinking. He claimed that McCollough followed him outside of the apartment and punched him at the top of the stairs, “approximately 30 feet from the door,” causing him to fall down the stairs.

Citing eyewitness testimony from two people, including McCollough’s roommate and fellow Tennessee football player Warren Burrell, the defense attorney asserts that it was only after the victim threatened to come back inside the apartment that McCollough punched him one time in the face.

Both McCollough and Burrell reported that the altercation occurred within two feet of their front door, nowhere near the top of the stairs. They also said the man never turned his back to them and left, which would contradict the initial report that the physical altercation began after he walked well away from the apartment.
Click to expand...
Same source as preceding quote

As for Tank's settlement, when you see the terms, it is understandable why a guy about to embark on a lucrative NFL carer would take the deal rather than the risk of a jury trial:

Under the agreement filed Feb. 7, McCollough was ordered to pay restitution of $21,968 and complete one year of unsupervised probation, court records show. After that period, he could be eligible to have the charge dismissed.

If the case had gone to trial, the 23-year-old McCollough could have faced a sentence of 3 to 15 years on a charge of felony aggravated assault from the Oct. 9, 2022, incident.
Click to expand...

Source: Tennessee football player Jaylen McCollough receives diversion in assault case

Given that, I would not interpret the plea deal as an admission of guilt so much as a risk averse act of expediency. As you know, such considerations drive a lot of plea deal settlements.
 
Last edited:
#91
#91
madtownvol said:
Nope, McCollough was not officially suspended by the University:



Source: https://www.wkrn.com/news/tennessee...self-defense-seeks-to-dismiss-assault-charge/


While it does seem like there was some kind of unofficial punishment via the UT_Martin and Bama games, McCollough was deemed to have not violated UT's code of conduct. So pretty much everything you wrote after "I am misremembering the situation," is irrelevant to the decision that UT actually made in regard to McCollough's status.

So, it appears that UT has seen in these cases in a different light.

Also, your presentation of the facts of the McCollough case differs from McCollough's narrative at least prior to the plea deal:


Same source as preceding quote

As for Tank's settlement, when you see the terms, it is understandable why a guy about to embark on a lucrative NFL carer would take the deal rather than the risk of a jury trial:



Source: Tennessee football player Jaylen McCollough receives diversion in assault case

Given that, I would not interpret the plea deal as an admission of guilt so much as a risk averse act of expediency. As you know, such considerations drive a lot of plea deal settlements.
Click to expand...
He did not practice or play for two weeks after his arrest, if you don’t think that was a suspension, I don’t know how to help you.

UT’s code of conduct came in to play in that case because both men were students at the university. The alleged victim in Ruby‘s case is not a student at the university, and never has been, so it doesn’t come in to play.

The plea deal was more based on the fact that if he pleaded guilty to the charge and paid restitution for the medical bills, the victim would not sue in civil court. If he had refused, or the charge had been dropped, or he had been found not guilty of the criminal act, the alleged victim still could have brought a civil case against him for medical bills and pain and suffering, which would’ve been a lot more than $25,000. There was also the idea to get it resolved so his NFL career could continue unimpeded.

I certainly appreciate that you looked up old news articles, but I feel comfortable with my knowledge of the people involved, considering who I was working with at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37620VOL
#93
#93
DeerPark12 said:
He did not practice or play for two weeks after his arrest, if you don’t think that was a suspension, I don’t know how to help you.
Click to expand...
That is all fine but if a statement from the University and the head coach that McCollough was NOT suspended does not provide evidence that he was not suspended, I don't know how to help you:

Jaylen McCollough will not be subjected to any University of Tennessee sanctions, the Volunteer safety’s attorney announced Friday.

McCollough was arrested earlier this month on a felony charge of aggravated assault. The school investigated the incident in relation to the university’s code of conduct.

Liz Kellar of the Knoxville News Sentinel shared the statement released by McCollough’s attorney, Chloe Akers:
“After a thorough investigation into allegations related to an incident occurring on October 9th, 2022, Jaylen McCollough has resolved this matter with the University of Tennessee’s Office of Student Conduct & Community Standards.
Click to expand...
“As part of an Alternative Resolution Agreement, there was no finding of responsibility against Mr. McCollough for any violations of the University’s Code of Conduct. He remains fully enrolled as a student without suspension or probation.”
Click to expand...

He had gone through a traumatic experience and maybe need some time off, hence the lack of availability. There could be many explanations for the two week absence.
 
#95
#95
Putbacks said:
There could still be a Civil resolution—Jaida Civil!

I am pulling for Whitehorn though. Hope this team kicks the door down to the Final Four finally…
Click to expand...
Bum Phillips Houston Oilers (Now Titans) HC
1 year ago we knocked on the door!
This year we beat on the door!
Next year we kick the SOB in!
Bum Phillips Head Coach 1980
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#97
#97
KTrain said:
Bum Phillips Houston Oilers (Now Titans) HC
1 year ago we knocked on the door!
This year we beat on the door!
Next year we kick the SOB in!
Bum Phillips Head Coach 1980
Click to expand...
Bum Philiips never coached the BESFers.

Ask him.
 
#98
#98
chuckiepoo said:
🤔
I would bet the staff and team are taking the situation seriously. A behavioral situation that threatens the best the team can be? I’m praying the situation works out for all involved but would expect some corrective action will be involved.
Click to expand...
I am anxiously waiting to see what actions Kim will take...this will be important!
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top