Ruby suspended indefinitely

#51
#51
GUNTERSVOL said:
Why were both wrongs not addressed by the Police. Need that clarification.
Click to expand...
The other party had a plausible cover story. In the heat of the moment, she grabbed the wrong phone. They cops had video evidence of Ruby kicking in a front door and then kicking in a bedroom door (in legal terms, that is called kicking down two doors) while chasing after and verbally threatening the other party.

I am not naive about how police treat African-Americans but in this case, the preponderance of on-site evidence is clearly against Ruby.The phone is a she said-she said deal but the busted doors, bedroom mirror and video evidence is a little more concrete.

Seriously, if Ruby played for another team would you be taking this stance?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wpcadetdad, KJLRN, Trixietrouble and 1 other person
#52
#52
GUNTERSVOL said:
If and when it is open minded speculation, there may be some value add, but if it leans toward a singular direction it needs some factual basis.

Too many statements and not enough questions in search of a more complete truth before applying judgement is not a strong character move and open to challenge. Additional facts could prove out Ruby’s status was the result of admins review of expanded facts, until then just arrogantly deducing that is also character challenging. Pl
Click to expand...

If you can kindly point out where I was arrogant, "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities, conveying superiority and disregard for others", you will get my apology. I do not think of myself as superior to *almost anyone here.

(*almost only excludes abusive posters or those that leave and come back with new handles)
 
#53
#53
madtownvol said:
The other party had a plausible cover story. In the heat of the moment, she grabbed the wrong phone. They cops had video evidence of Ruby kicking in a front door and then kicking in a bedroom door (in legal terms, that is called kicking down two doors) while chasing after and verbally threatening the other party.

I am not naive about how police treat African-Americans but in this case, the preponderance of on-site evidence is clearly against Ruby.The phone is a she said-she said deal but the busted doors, bedroom mirror and video evidence is a little more concrete.

Seriously, if Ruby played for another team would you be taking this stance?
Click to expand...
Bull, guess she mistook Ruby’s passport too. What is the turnaround time for a passport nowadays? Were the phones identical? Home Screen not give it away?

Did she steal both out of Ruby’s car? Real question. Thought I read that up this thread. If true plausibility is OUT. They could still file charges.

Not justifying Ruby’s acts, need the cops to justify lack of charges against the thief. Maybe they have one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HerdLVol
#56
#56
HypeVol2020 said:
Ready to move on from all of this. Hopefully her charges are dropped or reduced with these witnesses. Hoping she is just suspended for some of non conference and uses it to ball out and fuel a deep run in SEC and the tourneys. Also I hope she has learned her lesson, and gets some help mentally.
Click to expand...
I want her to get a second chance mainly for her not that it hurts us that much if it goes wrong. She needs the opportunity to learn from it and move forward with what could be a professional career. If for any reason she can't play for us we have the players that can get the job done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: th2421, brittannica, knoxvol52 and 1 other person
#57
#57
Too many on here are expecting a judicial resolution by, or on, September 5th. That date is for a preliminary hearing in General Sessions Court. The only way these issues are resolved by that date is if there is an agreement to lesser (misdemeanor) charges or a dismissal of the charges. Please note, I am not saying there will not be an agreement. In fact, given the she said/she said aspect to this case, as already discussed, and the fact that the police report apparently confirmed no physical injury to either party, I would not be surprised to see the charges dismissed with Ms Whitehead agreeing to pay for the property damage. The possibility of some anger management classes and/or community service is also possible, but I really don't see this proceeding on felony charges based upon what I have read so far. I highly doubt it will result in Ms Whitehead's dismissal from the team or university, unless there are aggravating facts that have not been revealed at this point.
Indefinite suspension simply means no fixed date for lifting the suspension and return to team activities. It does not equate to dismissal.

Let the case play out, folks.

Jim
 
  • Like
Reactions: ruvol, krichunaka, BruisedOrange and 7 others
#58
#58
CannonVol80 said:
Too many on here are expecting a judicial resolution by, or on, September 5th. That date is for a preliminary hearing in General Sessions Court. The only way these issues are resolved by that date is if there is an agreement to lesser (misdemeanor) charges or a dismissal of the charges. Please note, I am not saying there will not be an agreement. In fact, given the she said/she said aspect to this case, as already discussed, and the fact that the police report apparently confirmed no physical injury to either party, I would not be surprised to see the charges dismissed with Ms Whitehead agreeing to pay for the property damage. The possibility of some anger management classes and/or community service is also possible, but I really don't see this proceeding on felony charges based upon what I have read so far. I highly doubt it will result in Ms Whitehead's dismissal from the team or university, unless there are aggravating facts that have not been revealed at this point.
Indefinite suspension simply means no fixed date for lifting the suspension and return to team activities. It does not equate to dismissal.

Let the case play out, folks.

Jim
Click to expand...
What are the chances this gets reset again? I would assume Ruby and the administration want to get this behind them. I guess the plaintiff also for that matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka
#59
#59
well we all knew something would happen given this is the lady vol basketball brand. i don't know what this really means but i imagine being suspended indefinitely could mean this is her punishment by the lady vols OR that she has conditions to meet before her return to the team is even a possibility. i guess this could mean the lady vols have booted her from the team but the language would have been stronger in my opinion anyway. i could be as wrong as two left feet. deerpark will probably enlighten us in some way. i just pray for her and everyone involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka and chuckiepoo
#61
#61
chuckiepoo said:
What are the chances this gets reset again? I would assume Ruby and the administration want to get this behind them. I guess the plaintiff also for that matter.
Click to expand...
If no agreement has been reached, I would expect the case to be reset. But, Greg Isaacs is, I am sure, well aware of the advisability of a quick resolution. Without having talked to Greg, I can assure you that he is in contact with the DA, and I would not be surprised by a successful resolution by September 5th.

Jim
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickster, krichunaka, mcannon1 and 3 others
#62
#62
37620VOL said:
If you can kindly point out where I was arrogant, "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities, conveying superiority and disregard for others", you will get my apology. I do not think of myself as superior to *almost anyone here.

(*almost only excludes abusive posters or those that leave and come back with new handles)
Click to expand...
You felt compelled to present the school suspended her after review of facts! Dismissing that it is required by policy when the police leveled the felony charge REGARDLESS of the facts. Dismissal at this juncture could MAYBE indicate that. Does lack of dismissal provide her cover? NOPE. Gotta let it play out.
 
#63
#63
GUNTERSVOL said:
You felt compelled to present the school suspended her after review of facts! Dismissing that it is required by policy when the police leveled the felony charge REGARDLESS of the facts. Dismissal at this juncture could MAYBE indicate that. Does lack of dismissal provide her cover? NOPE. Gotta let it play out.
Click to expand...

I was operating under the fact pattern that the university used in the Jaylen McCollough saga. I was happy to be corrected by DP. I am still confused as to why we backed Tank wholeheartedly while he was charged with a felony (and later pleaded guilty) but we are not backing Ruby. Was it a special case for Tank? Was it the timing of everything, and it happening in-season?

Tank did miss the Bama game and UT-Martin, but I don't think he was formally suspended.
 
#65
#65
HypeVol2020 said:
Ready to move on from all of this. Hopefully her charges are dropped or reduced with these witnesses. Hoping she is just suspended for some of non conference and uses it to ball out and fuel a deep run in SEC and the tourneys. Also I hope she has learned her lesson, and gets some help mentally.
Click to expand...
A good reminder for all of us:
1755899202073.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSanon, 1morevol, lvocd and 2 others
#71
#71
CannonVol80 said:
If no agreement has been reached, I would expect the case to be reset. But, Greg Isaacs is, I am sure, well aware of the advisability of a quick resolution. Without having talked to Greg, I can assure you that he is in contact with the DA, and I would not be surprised by a successful resolution by September 5th.

Jim
Click to expand...
This is the correct answer. If not September 5, then it will be reset on that day and placed on the docket when a resolution is reached shortly thereafter.

I’d imagine she will miss the first game, possibly two, to show that we took this seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickster, Rons1989, GUNTERSVOL and 4 others
#72
#72
DeerPark12 said:
This is the correct answer. If not September 5, then it will be reset on that day and placed on the docket when a resolution is reached shortly thereafter.

I’d imagine she will miss the first game, possibly two, to show that we took this seriously.
Click to expand...
🤔
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka, BruisedOrange, knoxvol52 and 1 other person
#73
#73
37620VOL said:
I was operating under the fact pattern that the university used in the Jaylen McCollough saga. I was happy to be corrected by DP. I am still confused as to why we backed Tank wholeheartedly while he was charged with a felony (and later pleaded guilty) but we are not backing Ruby. Was it a special case for Tank? Was it the timing of everything, and it happening in-season?

Tank did miss the Bama game and UT-Martin, but I don't think he was formally suspended.
Click to expand...

Just review the fact of the cases.

In the McCollough case, there was no question that a drunken intruder "mistook" Tank's apartment for his own and then got belligerent when ask to leave. The legal point of contention was where the actual altercation happened-- at the apartment door entrance or away from the apartment near a flight of stairs, In the former case, McCollough was defending himself and in the later case he would have been assaulting the interloper who was trying to leave the premises. That was the point of legal dispute. McCollough had a plausible defense that he was the actual victim and that the accuser was lying about where things escalated. I am a bit surprised that there was a plea deal, given the circumstances, but we don't know everything about the case. But, the University's presumption of innocence until proven guilty made sense here.

In Ruby's case, she was the clear and undisputed aggressor who broke down two locked doors and chased after the person who allegedly took her phone. She has to justify why she committed the felonious act and yes, she still gets the innocent until proven guilt presumption but there is a preponderance of evidence against her and she has acknowledged engaging in breaking down doors to "get back her property" (which like it or not. does not provide a legal justification for aggravated assault). I know, for the hundredth time, you believe with heart and soul that Ruby was totaly justified and that she should be given a medal of honor but that is not how the law works. If you can accept that your feelings about the situation are not the same as the legal statutes for aggravated assault, you might just be able to comprehend the differences.

Seriously, what more do you need explained to understand that these situations present two very different legal situations and why it is impossible for the University to back Ruby for again breaking down to two locked doors and smashing a mirror in the bedroom where the accuser had fled for safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trixietrouble, Coach Jumper, chuckiepoo and 2 others
#74
#74
madtownvol said:
Just review the fact of the cases.

In the McCollough case, there was no question that a drunken intruder "mistook" Tank's apartment for his own and then got belligerent when ask to leave. The legal point of contention was where the actual altercation happened-- at the apartment door entrance or away from the apartment near a flight of stairs, In the former case, McCollough was defending himself and in the later case he would have been assaulting the interloper who was trying to leave the premises. That was the point of legal dispute. McCollough had a plausible defense that he was the actual victim and that the accuser was lying about where things escalated. I am a bit surprised that there was a plea deal, given the circumstances, but we don't know everything about the case. But, the University's presumption of innocence until proven guilty made sense here.

In Ruby's case, she was the clear and undisputed aggressor who broke down two locked doors and chased after the person who allegedly took her phone. She has to justify why she committed the felonious act and yes, she still gets the innocent until proven guilt presumption but there is a preponderance of evidence against her and she has acknowledged engaging in breaking down doors to "get back her property" (which like it or not. does not provide a legal justification for aggravated assault). I know, for the hundredth time, you believe with heart and soul that Ruby was totaly justified and that she should be given a medal of honor but that is not how the law works. If you can accept that your feelings about the situation are not the same as the legal statutes for aggravated assault, you might just be able to comprehend the differences.

Seriously, what more do you need explained to understand that these situations present two very different legal situations and why it is impossible for the University to back Ruby for again breaking down to two locked doors and smashing a mirror in the bedroom where the accuser had fled for safety.
Click to expand...
Real not rhetorical questions.

Is there any question that the other party stole these items?

Were these items taken within the residence or in or around Ruby’s vehicle?

Was Ruby attempting to de-escalate by leaving in her car and the other party actually the aggressor outside the residence?

Are there documented additional witnesses that will be part of ongoing processes?

What protections are REALLY provided to a real time fleeing thief in possession of stolen goods?

Are there documented statements in the police reports that explain why theft charges were not made that night?

Looking forward to THE REST OF THE STORY,
 
#75
#75
madtownvol said:
Just review the fact of the cases.

In the McCollough case, there was no question that a drunken intruder "mistook" Tank's apartment for his own and then got belligerent when ask to leave. The legal point of contention was where the actual altercation happened-- at the apartment door entrance or away from the apartment near a flight of stairs, In the former case, McCollough was defending himself and in the later case he would have been assaulting the interloper who was trying to leave the premises. That was the point of legal dispute. McCollough had a plausible defense that he was the actual victim and that the accuser was lying about where things escalated. I am a bit surprised that there was a plea deal, given the circumstances, but we don't know everything about the case. But, the University's presumption of innocence until proven guilty made sense here.

In Ruby's case, she was the clear and undisputed aggressor who broke down two locked doors and chased after the person who allegedly took her phone. She has to justify why she committed the felonious act and yes, she still gets the innocent until proven guilt presumption but there is a preponderance of evidence against her and she has acknowledged engaging in breaking down doors to "get back her property" (which like it or not. does not provide a legal justification for aggravated assault). I know, for the hundredth time, you believe with heart and soul that Ruby was totaly justified and that she should be given a medal of honor but that is not how the law works. If you can accept that your feelings about the situation are not the same as the legal statutes for aggravated assault, you might just be able to comprehend the differences.

Seriously, what more do you need explained to understand that these situations present two very different legal situations and why it is impossible for the University to back Ruby for again breaking down to two locked doors and smashing a mirror in the bedroom where the accuser had fled for safety.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HerdLVol, BruisedOrange, Rickster and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top