Change which opinion? If he never saw the text, then I don’t think he did anything wrong legally or ethically/morally. Regardless of his knowledge, either he should have been suspended at some point due to withholding the information about the text from the school or the coach/AD should face significant repercussions for conducting a sham investigation.
This is a good lawyer’s statement that could lead a person to believe that Miller had no knowledge. All it actually says is that Miller had no idea that Miles was serious about intending to have the gun shoot a person.
I don't think you can credibly make the statement that Miller "had no knowledge of any intent to use any weapon" if Miller also had a full understanding of the history of the parties, the previous exchanges between the parties, and the building conflict.
without me knowing everything they know it’s impossible for me to hold them to some account. Maybe you should’ve been an AD. You are convinced you know how it should be handled. You missed your calling
Miller could think that Miles just wanted to scare the guy or maybe use it for protection, for example. (I think both of those excuses still result in blame for Miller).
I think it’s real easy to sit back and say they should’ve done this or done that, but without knowing all the details of what they knew, and what they didn’t, whose to say they made the right or wrong decision?
I don't think any of us are missing that it seems really irresponsible. But I do question how irresponsible it actually is. There is no doubt that the University didn't know all of the facts at the time the decision was made to continue to play Miller. But here are the facts they did know for certain: There had been a shooting which led to a homicide just off campus in which some of our basketball team members were involved to varying degrees. The police had conducted multiple interviews and reviewed multiple videos of the incident. The police had Miles admitting to providing the gun to Davis who undoubtedly pulled the trigger on the shot that killed the deceased. The police had interviewed Brandon Miller and he had cooperated by turning over his dashcam footage. The police had decided to arrest Miles and Davis for murder charges. The police decided not to arrest Miller and instead considered him a cooperating witness. Here are the facts they did not know for certain: That Miles had sent the text messages to Miller. To me that suggests that the University was aware of what I believe is the most important fact of Miller's involvement, that Miller had transported the gun that had been used in the shooting. That knowledge is certainly enough to discuss discipline of both Miles and Miller. Which I believe they did in good faith. Now, I am not going to defend the wisdom of simply having the basketball team rules be the student code of conduct, but it seems that is what Oats has done, at least towards guns and gun related incidents. Because of that, I went back and read the UA code of conduct and also the UA dangerous weapons and firearms policies, in addition to the student conduct discipline process. In my reading of them, I believe UA took interim measures to discipline Miles, as there had not been enough time to have the required formal disciplinary hearing which allows for due process of code of conduct violations before he had been "removed from campus" and became "no longer a member of the Alabama men's basketball team", as UA announced on 1-17. Spoiler Interim Measures: Measures/Restrictions that are applied prior to a student’s hearing before the Conduct Body or a student’s acceptance of responsibility. Interim measures may only be imposed: to ensure the safety and well-being of members of the University community or preservation of University property; to ensure a student’s own physical or emotional safety and/or well-being; or if a student poses a definite threat of disruption of or interference with normal operations of the University. Interim measures may include, but are not limited to: a student being prohibited from living in any University residence hall or housing facility; a student being prohibited from having access to any university facility or campus grounds; a student being prohibited from attending classes or participating in any University functions or activities; the suspension of a student’s ACTion card privileges Though Interim Measures may be immediately applied upon the report of an alleged violation, alleged students will be afforded due process and rights of review as outlined by the Code of Student Conduct. It appears to me that because the shooting did not happen on campus, the jurisdiction for UA to discipline Miles and/or Mller under the code of conduct came from the fact UA can discipline students for "conduct that adversely affects or is detrimental to the University community and/or the pursuit of its objectives" at its discretion, no matter where it occurs. Spoiler "Generally, unless otherwise modified by another University policy, University jurisdiction and discipline shall be limited to conduct that occurs on University premises or conduct that adversely affects or is detrimental to the University community and/or the pursuit of its objectives, which can occur anywhere. A student will be subject to the Code of Student Conduct for any action that violates this Code that occurs on University premises, relates to a University program, or, in the University’s sole discretion, affects or is detrimental to the University community and/or the pursuit of University objectives." As to conduct worthy of discipline, it can violate federal, state, or local laws or it can violate the school student conduct policy, or both. Additionally, neither conviction nor even charges are necessary to discipline. Spoiler If a student is cited only with an off-campus violation of federal, state, or local laws, but not with any other violation of the Code, disciplinary action may be taken and sanctions imposed for misconduct that is detrimental to or demonstrates disregard for the University community and/or its pursuit of University objectives. University disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against a student cited for a violation of a law that is also a violation of this Student Code if both violations result from the same factual situation, without regard to pending civil litigation in court or criminal arrest and prosecution. Proceedings under this Student Code may be carried out prior to, simultaneously with, or following civil or criminal proceedings off-campus. An individual whose conduct violates a federal, state, or local law, as established by a preponderance of the evidence as outlined herein, need not be criminally charged or convicted for their conduct to be deemed a violation of the Code of Student Conduct. When a student is cited by federal, state, or local authorities with a violation of law, the University will not request or agree to special consideration for that individual because of their status as a student. If the alleged offense is also the subject of a proceeding under the Student Code, however, the University may advise off-campus authorities of the existence of the Student Code and of how such matters will be handled internally within the University community. The University will cooperate fully with law enforcement and other agencies in the enforcement of the law and in the conditions imposed by courts for the rehabilitation of student violators. On Miles' conduct, I believe there are a few points in the code of conduct where UA could have decided to discipline him based on what they had been told by the police after his arrest. First, though he did eventually cooperate with the police, he had originally misled them which could easily be determined to violate the following sections of the conduct policy on Offenses against the University Community: Spoiler: Art. III Sec A.1.a Article III: Proscribed Conduct Any student found to have committed one or more of the following acts of misconduct is subject to the disciplinary sanctions outlined in Article V: A. Offenses against the University Community 1. Acts of dishonesty, including, but not limited to, the following: a. Furnishing false or misleading information to any University official or office. b. Forgery, alteration, or misuse of any University document, record, or instrument of identification. c. Tampering or interfering with campus, local, state, or federal elections or an individual’s right to vote in the same, including, but not limited to, asking or requiring someone to provide evidence of voting or evidence of voting for a particular candidate or issue, coercing or using valuable incentives (e.g., organization participation points, food, beverages, etc.) to induce an individual to vote in an election or for a particular candidate or issue, or taking detrimental actions against an individual who refuses to vote or provide evidence of voting for a particular candidate or issue. d. Bribery and acceptance of bribes. Spoiler: Art. III Sec. A.3 3. Failure to comply with directions of University officials or law enforcement officers acting in performance of their duties and/or failure to identify oneself to these persons when requested to do so. Also, there is a potential he violated the Dangerous Weapons and Firearms Policy, though I am less convinced of that since this wasn't on campus. Spoiler: Art. III Sec. A.4 4.Violation of published University policies, rules, requirements or regulations, including, but not limited to, the University’s Drug Free Campus & Workplace Policy, Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy, Hazing Policy, Equal Opportunity and Discriminatory Harassment Policy, Title IX & Sexual Misconduct Policy, Dangerous Weapons and Firearms Policy, Social Event Guidelines, Facility and Grounds Use Policy, Community Living Standards, Office of Information Technology policies, parking and traffic regulations, plans/requirements related to health and safety, etc. And, then he could also have violated the following section on Offenses against Persons: Spoiler: Art. III Sec. B.1.a B. Offenses against Persons 1. Physical abuse a. Intentionally or recklessly causing physical harm or endangering the health or safety of any person, including, but not limited to, simple assault and aggravated assault. Finally, Miles could have violated the following section on Offenses Disrupting Order or Disregarding Health and Safety. Spoiler: Art. III Sec. D.11 D. Spoiler: Art. III Sec. D.11 Offenses Disrupting Order or Disregarding Health and Safety 11. Violation of federal, state, or local law off University premises and not related to University sponsored or supervised activities that adversely affects or is detrimental to the University community and/or the pursuit of its objectives. The decision to pursue disciplinary action under this provision is that of the Conduct Administrator. Now, in my opinion, based on what I believe the university knew at the time of Miles' discipline, it was more than reasonable for UA to use interim measures to discipline Miles before a formal disciplinary hearing could happen with all of these potential violations, not to mention he had actually been arrested and charged with accessory to murder. But, the question on whether it is reasonable to have used interim measures on Miller on what they knew at the time is different in my opinion. Even though being charged with a crime is not necessary for discipline, not only had Miller not been charged, UA had been told that he had cooperated fully by being interviewed and by turning over his dashcam, and had been determined a witness and not a suspect. I do think that makes it reasonable to suggest that any discipline against Miller should not be done through interim measures unless he clearly violated multiple sections of the code of conduct like Miles did. But I don't think any potential violation is clear. For one, he could have potentially violated the Dangerous Weapons and Firearms Policy prohibition on possessing or transporting a firearm on campus and therefore violated the same Art. III Sec. 4 from above. But, imo, that would be a stretch. Streets not owned, leased, or controlled by UA or its affiliated foundations/ health care entities are not considered a part of "campus" as it is defined in the policy I linked way above. Knowing the area, Miller did not necessarily have to travel on streets that run through campus to get to the Strip from Miles' apartment, nor could he have traveled on campus streets from the Strip to downtown, which also is not on "campus". And even if he did travel on any streets that run through campus unless UA owns, leases, or controls those streets, which I do not believe they actually do, then it is not considered campus and the Dangerous Weapons and Firearms Policy doesn't apply. Next, he could have potentially violated the same Art. III Sec B.1 as above. But, again, I think that based on what UA knew at the time, it was not clear that Miller himself acted intentionally or recklessly just because Miles had gotten the gun out of Miller's car. Again, at least not enough to trigger interim measures for discipline before a formal hearing. Finally, the only other section I think he could have been found to violate is the following section concerning Offenses Disrupting Order or Disregarding Health and Safety Spoiler: Art. III Sec. D.15 15. Being present during any violation of University policy or the Code of Student Conduct in such a way as to condone, support, or encourage that violation. Students who anticipate or observe such a violation are expected, if possible, to report any potential violation before it occurs or report details of the violation after its occurrence. However, his violation here is also a stretch, imo. Any argument he was present and supported Miles' violation is lessened by the fact he cooperated with the police and they determined not to charge him with any crime. After considering all of this, I think based on what UA knew at the time it decided to use interim measures to discipline Miles, it was reasonable for them not to use interim measures to discipline Miller. Now, I would fully understand someone arguing that Miller should face potential discipline through a formal disciplinary hearing. I won't argue with that other than to say it seems that until Miles' case goes to trial, none of us, including UA will know all of the facts of what happened that night. And, it seems reasonable to suggest that in order for Miller to have due process in a formal hearing, all facts must be known. As such, it seems reasonable to say that he can't have a formal disciplinary hearing until after the trial. So, it seems reasonable that if you can't use interim measures and you really should wait for a formal hearing, that it was reasonable that UA decided not to discipline him for a violation of the student code of conduct at the university level. Now, again, I am not defending the wisdom of not having a more stringent gun policy for the team than that in the student code of conduct. But I do believe it is reasonable to say that because Oats had not implemented a more stringent gun policy prior to the event, it would not necessarily be appropriate to implement one ex post facto just to hold Miller "more accountable", especially considering what the university knew at the time. Because of this very long explanation, I do not think it was necessarily irresponsible to not sit him despite how it looks.
I didn’t state that I did and I don’t presume to. But your own outline asserts that Alabama also didn’t know when they decided that there would be no impact to Miller’s continuing representation of the university as a member of its basketball team. Do they even know now?
I edited it to say insinuate before your response, just like you edited yours to include the "Do they even know now?" snarky comment. But I am not going to spend more time with you on this as you clearly believe the "why" is something more than Miller driving to the Strip to pick up his friend, despite your claim of not presuming to know. I have said my peace and know I am not going to convince you of anything.
If the university suspends Miller, even though there is nothing in place that Miller outright disobeyed, and it costs him future income opportunity could a case be made against the university? If Miller technically did nothing illegal and broke no student conduct rules or team rules and you suspend him and it costs him real money could he sue the university for damages?
Not playing in basketball games because you delivered a murder weapon isn't having your life ruined. There were a bunch of people's lives ruined because their mother, sister, daughter, friend was murdered.
Ah, the old “I have no answer that supports what I want to be true so I’ll just go ahead and attack you instead” response.
Imagine if auburn were in the same situation and jabari smith did something like this… These clowns would be besides themselves.
Nah, yall are way more invested in what happens with us than vice versa. It’s a symptom of little brother syndrome.
Now go back in your hole and don't come out till I or dblplay1212 tell you. Speaking of dbl, you earned my respect by your handling of this whole situation, good look m8.