MUTigerFan Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Not to mention, Who the f#*k goes to a bar with a short skirt and no underwear? Wtf? Put some f'ing clothes on. 1. I believe she testified that she had underwear on. 2. Don't even TRY to shift the blame onto her. That is all. If he was found not guilty of fondling her, can't we at least blame her for making a false accusation of sexual assault? Sure, he was still a total a**hole for the other things he did, but seems like she maybe took it one step further by accusing him of something he didn't do. And yes, I understand there is a very big difference between being not guilty and innocent, but still.... Not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it or that she made a false accusation. It means a jury couldn't convict without some doubt. It came down to a "he said / she said". Not enough evidence. Quote Link to comment
melscott62 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 People are freakin' out about this. It's not like AC is going to come back and suddenly Nebraska is going to move up to number one in the polls. In fact, we probably won't even notice any change in how the offensive line plays once he comes back. Did he make a huge mistake? Yes. Do I think he did it? Eh...not really sure. I wasn't there. Do I think Pelini made the right choice? Not really sure. I don't know all the facts; I just know what the media has told me and I take what the media tells me with a grain of salt. I dont know if I agree with that. he was a pretty decent lineman, and our line looks terrible right now. I think he will help Quote Link to comment
melscott62 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Not to mention, Who the f#*k goes to a bar with a short skirt and no underwear? Wtf? Put some f'ing clothes on. 1. I believe she testified that she had underwear on. 2. Don't even TRY to shift the blame onto her. That is all. If he was found not guilty of fondling her, can't we at least blame her for making a false accusation of sexual assault? Sure, he was still a total a**hole for the other things he did, but seems like she maybe took it one step further by accusing him of something he didn't do. And yes, I understand there is a very big difference between being not guilty and innocent, but still.... Not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it or that she made a false accusation. It means a jury couldn't convict without some doubt. It came down to a "he said / she said". Not enough evidence. again... we dont know that Quote Link to comment
captain obvious Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Not to mention, Who the f#*k goes to a bar with a short skirt and no underwear? Wtf? Put some f'ing clothes on. 1. I believe she testified that she had underwear on. 2. Don't even TRY to shift the blame onto her. That is all. If he was found not guilty of fondling her, can't we at least blame her for making a false accusation of sexual assault? Sure, he was still a total a**hole for the other things he did, but seems like she maybe took it one step further by accusing him of something he didn't do. And yes, I understand there is a very big difference between being not guilty and innocent, but still.... Not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it or that she made a false accusation. It means a jury couldn't convict without some doubt. It came down to a "he said / she said". Not enough evidence. again... we dont know that No, we pretty much know all of that. She made an accusation, which none of us have the right to judge her for. The jury determined that she did not provide enough evidence to support a conviction, though. Quote Link to comment
melscott62 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Not to mention, Who the f#*k goes to a bar with a short skirt and no underwear? Wtf? Put some f'ing clothes on. 1. I believe she testified that she had underwear on. 2. Don't even TRY to shift the blame onto her. That is all. If he was found not guilty of fondling her, can't we at least blame her for making a false accusation of sexual assault? Sure, he was still a total a**hole for the other things he did, but seems like she maybe took it one step further by accusing him of something he didn't do. And yes, I understand there is a very big difference between being not guilty and innocent, but still.... Not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it or that she made a false accusation. It means a jury couldn't convict without some doubt. It came down to a "he said / she said". Not enough evidence. again... we dont know that No, we pretty much know all of that. She made an accusation, which none of us have the right to judge her for. The jury determined that she did not provide enough evidence to support a conviction, though. we dont know that andy didnt have overwhelming eveidence... he's making him sound like OJ. Quote Link to comment
Pedro Guerrero Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 According to some around here he will have to be untaught everything the previous staff coached. So basically he won’t be any good until at least his third game back. Look out Texas Tech! As far as him coming back I don’t care, I did at first but there isn’t anything I can do about it so I moved on. I do know this Bo will have a lot of explaining to do if he screws up again. But like others have mentioned, I would like to know what did Dixon do that was worse then Hunter getting a second DUI (twice the legal limit this time) or Christianson’s ordeal. Maybe will never know but it just seems weird to me. Quote Link to comment
trouble Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 According to some around here he will have to be untaught everything the previous staff coached. So basically he won’t be any good until at least his third game back. Look out Texas Tech! As far as him coming back I don’t care, I did at first but there isn’t anything I can do about it so I moved on. I do know this Bo will have a lot of explaining to do if he screws up again. But like others have mentioned, I would like to know what did Dixon do that was worse then Hunter getting a second DUI (twice the legal limit this time) or Christianson’s ordeal. Maybe will never know but it just seems weird to me. As another person said. Dixon was probably told he would be have random drug tests conducted and he then proceeded to fail one of these, therefore he got the boot. Which in my opinion is the right thing to do. Quote Link to comment
coyeote Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Not to mention, Who the f#*k goes to a bar with a short skirt and no underwear? Wtf? Put some f'ing clothes on. 1. I believe she testified that she had underwear on. 2. Don't even TRY to shift the blame onto her. That is all. If he was found not guilty of fondling her, can't we at least blame her for making a false accusation of sexual assault? Sure, he was still a total a**hole for the other things he did, but seems like she maybe took it one step further by accusing him of something he didn't do. And yes, I understand there is a very big difference between being not guilty and innocent, but still.... Not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it or that she made a false accusation. It means a jury couldn't convict without some doubt. It came down to a "he said / she said". Not enough evidence. again... we dont know that No, we pretty much know all of that. She made an accusation, which none of us have the right to judge her for. The jury determined that she did not provide enough evidence to support a conviction, though. we dont know that andy didnt have overwhelming eveidence... he's making him sound like OJ. They interviewed one of the jurers on the news and basically he said something to the effect that given the conditions in the bar at the time the jury did not feel that there was any way she or anyone else could be sure who did what to whom. Pont being that if they felt she could not be sure and we've not been told there was any other evidence he walks. In other words my take on it was drunk gal gets felt up, drunk dude amongst many drug dudes and chicks gets blamed. As we all know all drunk dudes and drunk chicks are completely rathional thinkers making for expert witnesses and testamony. Bo's the coach. He knows the entire incident much better than any of us here from what I can tell in reading the posts and I'll go with Bo knows bad apples from good Quote Link to comment
Igetbored216 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I dont know if I agree with that. he was a pretty decent lineman, and our line looks terrible right now. I think he will help One average lineman, who has trouble keeping healthy, will not make much of an overall impact on how the line plays as a whole. Quote Link to comment
HuskerExpat Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Not to mention, Who the f#*k goes to a bar with a short skirt and no underwear? Wtf? Put some f'ing clothes on. 1. I believe she testified that she had underwear on. 2. Don't even TRY to shift the blame onto her. That is all. If he was found not guilty of fondling her, can't we at least blame her for making a false accusation of sexual assault? Sure, he was still a total a**hole for the other things he did, but seems like she maybe took it one step further by accusing him of something he didn't do. And yes, I understand there is a very big difference between being not guilty and innocent, but still.... Not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it or that she made a false accusation. It means a jury couldn't convict without some doubt. It came down to a "he said / she said". Not enough evidence. I guess you didn't read my post. I clearly stated that there is a difference between not guilty and false accusation, but as far as we know, false accusation is just as likely an explanation as not enough evidence. Why are you assuming it was a "not enough evidence" explanation instead of a "false accusation?" Is it because it is a Nebraska football player? Quote Link to comment
ssfranny Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 In all honesty, NOBODY knows exactly what happened as there was many people in the bar and they were all drunk. Do all of you believe 100% that AC actually did it? or are you just going by what the media says? Were you there? If not, I would suggest to just sit down and shut up. I'm not saying he for sure didn't do it or that he for sure did it, but he was found not guilty and thats good enough for me. You people need to lighten to the f#*k up and not act like you all are perfect angels. Not to mention, Who the f#*k goes to a bar with a short skirt and no underwear? Wtf? Put some f'ing clothes on. Actually more than a few girls (short skirt not panties) but I don't think they're looking for some drunken player to use their kitty as a bowling ball. Same thing TO did with Phillips and Abdul Muhammed....Husker players have to basically murder or rape someone to get kicked off the team. Quote Link to comment
ssfranny Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Not to mention, Who the f#*k goes to a bar with a short skirt and no underwear? Wtf? Put some f'ing clothes on. 1. I believe she testified that she had underwear on. 2. Don't even TRY to shift the blame onto her. That is all. If he was found not guilty of fondling her, can't we at least blame her for making a false accusation of sexual assault? Sure, he was still a total a**hole for the other things he did, but seems like she maybe took it one step further by accusing him of something he didn't do. And yes, I understand there is a very big difference between being not guilty and innocent, but still.... Not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it or that she made a false accusation. It means a jury couldn't convict without some doubt. It came down to a "he said / she said". Not enough evidence. again... we dont know that No, we pretty much know all of that. She made an accusation, which none of us have the right to judge her for. The jury determined that she did not provide enough evidence to support a conviction, though. Translation: some rich donor bought her off. Quote Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Everyone clap there's an abusive, arrogant athlete with mental and alcohol problems back on the team. Congrats on bringing back character too the program. Never been so proud! Harsh? Hell yes, can't find it in me to graciously allow a guy like this back. Excuse me if I don't bend over backwards to $&*# *^$ @%#* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just curious how you felt when Peter and Phillips were allowed to play in the salad days...... Quote Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 God thats disturbing. It is isn't it What's even worse is eating your lunch while scrolling huskerboard and coming across that picture. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.