Mickey Joseph Arrested For Assault

Toe said:
Question: Per LPD's Twitter, MJ was arrested for "domestic assault". Does that definitely imply that the victim was a member of his household, or could it have been someone else who was at his home or something?
Click to expand...
So I looked this up because I wondered the same and I think it means having an intimate relationship with.  So obviously doesn’t have to be his wife 

 
Toe said:
Question: Per LPD's Twitter, MJ was arrested for "domestic assault". Does that definitely imply that the victim was a member of his household, or could it have been someone else who was at his home or something?
Click to expand...
Straight from the statute. 
 

(8) For purposes of this section, intimate partner means a spouse; a former spouse; persons who have a child in common whether or not they have been married or lived together at any time; and persons who are or were involved in a dating relationship. For purposes of this subsection, dating relationship means frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional or sexual involvement, but does not include a casual relationship or an ordinary association between persons in a business or social context.

 
Bad2theBONES said:
Straight from the statute. 
 

(8) For purposes of this section, intimate partner means a spouse; a former spouse; persons who have a child in common whether or not they have been married or lived together at any time; and persons who are or were involved in a dating relationship. For purposes of this subsection, dating relationship means frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional or sexual involvement, but does not include a casual relationship or an ordinary association between persons in a business or social context.
Click to expand...

28-323.



Domestic assault; penalties.


(1) A person commits the offense of domestic assault in the third degree if he or she:

(a) Intentionally and knowingly causes bodily injury to his or her intimate partner;

 
chamrocck said:
I disagree. Here you have a group of players that just had a crazy season to get through and ended on a high note with MJ. They are already dealing with changes that are a part of big time college football. Their leader and coach they were close to just had something terrible happen to him and his family. Of course it’s going to impact them.

As for Rhule, what I meant is now he is tested to rally this group together and he doesn’t know MJ like they did. If he blows it off like well I got a new guy let’s get to work I don’t think that will serve him well. I don’t expect him to do that as that would be a failed test and failed first impression. Unfortunately MJ is out and I would have liked to have seen him stay or take another role elsewhere that was right for him. This now blows both of those up. Rhule is going to have to find a new replacement and demonstrate he cares and that yes other stuff is more important than football. The players will absolutely view how he handles this first big test that nobody wanted.
Click to expand...
domestic assault and strangulation (the charges, don't necessarily indicate guilt) are "intentional torts" so the phrasing, "just had something terrible happen to him" is just inaccurate. If he is ultimately found guilty, he did that to himself and most importantly, his family. These are real people with real lives. I am not going to judge. He's in the legal system now...I hope he and his family get whatever help they need to get through this, whatever it was/is. I wish them strength.

 
JJ Husker said:
Amazing. You state this as fact but, correct me if I’m wrong, you haven’t read his actual contract and have not received legal counsel specifically about said contract.

I have no doubts that some lawyers may try to push a wrongful termination case regardless but to act like it’s a slam dunk without knowing what’s in the contract is just crazy.
Click to expand...
Crazy….right.   Common sense…Maybe?

Look up NASCAR driver Kurt Busch and his ex wife.

Firing someone based on an accusation is something that ain’t happening.  It’s not worth it.

edit:  it was a girlfriend that ended up being a space cadet.  Moral of the story, he was disciplined without an investigation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gobiggergoredder said:
An arrest based upon an accusation is not cause.  An arrest that has info like a blood alcohol level or something like leaked audio or video may be cause.

Comparing your ‘contractural employee’ experience to a six figure public university employee isn’t even apples to oranges.  It’s like apples to potatoes.  I’ve done plenty of work with employees under contract.  They are all different.  In nearly all my experiences with “contract employees” I can walk them at any point.  It’s doesn’t matter because it’s irrelevant to this discussion.

Nebraska is a right to work state.  In general, the employer (non contract) can do whatever they want.  The problem in non contract lawsuits in inconsistencies in how firings/discipline are handled.  I have been in those discussions as the result of a lawsuit multiple times.

Mickey may very well be guilty.  But no one is firing him as a result of the information that we currently have.  Lawyers would beat his door down.
Click to expand...
Did you see the victim? Did you talk to the victim? Did you document any potential injuries? Did you see the accused attacker? Did he sustain injuries from the alleged assault? How do you know this is just an 'accusation?' Do you know there's ow evidence?

For someone who likely has no idea what happened outside of what's being reported, or who I've worked for based off my intentionally generic post, you sure like to state a lot of absolutes and make quite a few assumptions. I've at no point made any guarantees. Just stating (likely) possibilities.

If whatever bizarro world you work in operates like you described in this post, it is fundamentally at odds with everything I've ever experienced in my professional career. Probably best we both drop it at this point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bad2theBONES said:
The statutes wording is the statutes wording. I can guarantee the wording isn’t what you stated above. It takes more than putting your hands around their neck.  At the end of the day it is all on what the county attorney/prosecutor in that area has communicated to Chiefs and Captains on what type of training is necessary for their officers and ehar evidence is necessary for them to prosecute the cases. More than likely this high profile of a case, it is common for a Sgt or Captain on scene to make a direct call to the county attorney and tell them the facts and they would be told right then  if they had enough to arrest or not. Current statue would indicate pressure must be applied and simply putting the hands around the neck is not enough like you claim. 
 


Assault by strangulation or suffocation; penalty; affirmative defense.


(1) A person commits the offense of assault by strangulation or suffocation if the person knowingly and intentionally:

(a) Impedes the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of another person by applying pressure on the throat or neck of the other person; or

(b) Impedes the normal breathing of another person by covering the mouth and nose of the person.
Click to expand...


So a headlock, if someone is screaming and you cover their mouth, there are so many different ways these could be achieved. Every wrestler would be guilty of  this, as written, nearly every match. 

It also does not say that the victim would need to be to the point of passing out or even lightheadedness, but the action of applying pressure is the crime.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
Did you see the victim? Did you talk to the victim? Did you document any potential injuries? Did you see the accused attacker? Did he sustain injuries from the alleged assault? How do you know this is just an 'accusation?' Do you know there's know evidence?

For someone who likely has no idea what happened outside of what's being reported, or who I've worked for based off my intentionally generic post, you sure like to state a lot of absolutes and make quite a few assumptions. I've at no point made any guarantees. Just stating (likely) possibilities.

If whatever bizarro world you work in operates like you described in this post, it is fundamentally at odds with everything I've ever experienced in my professional career. Probably best we both drop it at this point.
Click to expand...
You’re taking this where no one can answer.

You may enjoy reading what you just wrote.  You asked how I know it’s an accusation, which is hilarious alone, all while illustrating that it is in fact accusation at this point.

You alluded he should be fired.  With no investigation, evidence or follow up.  I work in America.  It’s unfortunate that “Due Process” is somehow bizarre.
 

I stand behind what I wrote.  If evidence supports he did this, then act.  Not until then.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
How do you know this is just an 'accusation?' Do you know there's know evidence?
Click to expand...
I would say by definition it’s an accusation right now. He is being accused of those crimes. Whether there is evidence or not doesn’t change the fact that this is an accusation not a conviction at this point. That’s for the courts to decide. And the other poster is correct. It is very risky to terminate a contract based on accusation. They certainly can do it but it’s not without risk and I guarantee you they will get sued should he be cleared of wrongdoing. The bizzaro world is the US court system

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Born N Bled Red said:
So a headlock, if someone is screaming and you cover their mouth, there are so many different ways these could be achieved. Every wrestler would be guilty of  this, as written, nearly every match. 
Click to expand...




Why are you bringing up wrestling? There are lots of instances where punching someone is illegal, but boxing is still a legal sport.

 
HuskerNation1 said:
I get that background checks do not catch everything, but when I have done background checks on my hires, the types of thing that Joseph did in college would have shown up.  If that was known by the athletic department, there is no reason he should have been put in such a visible role as interim HC,  just as many companies would not allow someone with a similar background obtain a senior position in that company.   When you get to these types of visible positions, the focus needs to be on brand and reputation management and ensuring the right person is in place to lead all aspects of a program, especially young men who are still being molded.

And with Frost, there had to be questions of his behavior of missing recruiting trips and likely coming to practice where others knew he had been drinking too much.  

With that said, it appears Rhule is pretty squeaky clean which is a great thing for the program at this time.
Click to expand...
Yes, because people in senior leadership roles are ALL upstanding citizens.

 
Whatever happened could have happened several years. Not sure what the statute of limitation is, but it’s likely to be several years depending on the state 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top