A friend or a teammate? Iowa has big hopes for this year that would be dashed if the shooter was exposed.
Sam Stoll Shot! Not Life Threatening Thank Goodness
- Thread starter Wpial Bigot
- Start date
Well, it certainly would have shocked me to get a gun pulled on me during my college pranks. Imagine getting winged after pulling the old ketchup packet or baby powder under the door prank.
Maybe Brands should hold a gun buyback promotion. Is this the 3rd gun-related issue in the past few years? There was the Dweiza-Zadick poaching gate, Elmer Fudd on campus kerfluffle and now Sam Side-boob at Wounded Knee.
Actually, it's not to me a question of civil vs. criminal. It's a question of overcrimnialization vs. crimnial.
If you think that The People of Iowa are in any real danger because of this, then go ahead and prosecute. Throw the book at Stoll and throw away the key, because he's enabling someone to go around and shoot Iowans in the knee when they trespass on his property at 4 am.
But this is clearly a case of the police charging Stoll to squeeze him into giving up his friend, who is likely very little risk to society.
If it is, it's never enforced as a felony, much like someone on trial is never convicted of perjury when asked, "Did you commit the offense that evening?" Of course, they say no, as the trial would be over, and outside of the case of Bill Clinton, no one is ever charged with perjury when they do this.
The charge against Stoll will indeed read The People v Stoll so evidently prosecutors agree with me. And other charges might've added. I disagree that enough facts are known to accurately speculate about what prosecutors are trying to accomplish. To the other point above, a charge of lying to officials/obstruction does indeed get brought, even without an underlying crime. You have a right to remain silent, but if you mislead investigators some penalty should attach otherwise there's no disincentive to lying. The Iowa charge is a misdemeanor, which suggests that it's *not* being used as leverage to squeeze Stoll, because Stoll can probably plead that down to practically nothing just for otherwise cooperating. Also, he was only charged after he came forward with the supposed actual story, which would have naturally implicated his friend.
Generally if the statement in question was under oath it's a felony. And that's not uncommon either.
You're absolutely right, and it's also why lawyers and law enforcement sometimes get a bad name. Being charged with a crime for lying about a not crime ... There is still such a thing as prosecutor's discretion, right? Because once upon a time, the police and DA would've said: he did something dumb and got shot for it, that's enough punishment, and we have enough real crimes to prosecute like double parking on campus.
Regarding your point of it being a misdemeanor: again, this is why lawyers get a bad name. The lawyer does not face the prospect of 30 days in jail. In the end Stoll probably won't face that time, but he's the one being threatened with it. Being threatened with jail time -- or having a felony on your record when you're graduating and looking for a job in a year -- is the definition of getting squeezed, and the only question is for what purpose.
That I understand, but in Stoll's case, and what I was referring to, he wasn't under oath.
You won't have any problem convincing me about over-criminalization but I'm not about to put Stoll in the victim category. He deserved this charge because the police have better things to do with their time than chase his lies around. And it was over an incident where someone could have easily been accidentally killed, in which case we'd all be having a very different discussion, but for a few degrees of trajectory.
And he'll get every benefit of the doubt and won't see an hour of jail time. In fact he'll probably get a deal where he accepts a conviction that gets expunged in 6 months or 2 years or whatever on the condition he doesn't screw up during that time. I say that knowing not much about Iowa criminal law but this lower level stuff works mostly the same state to state.
You don't need to convince me about the very different discussion over a few degrees of trajectory. That perfectly describes my daily commute on I-95, and I don't say that lightly -- about 10 years ago, one of my co-workers was decapitated in an accident while driving home, victim of another driver's few degrees of trajectory.
But that point was lost on me when the article said no additional charges were expected to be filed. Now the Iowa City PD has moved past "threat to society" (i.e., no reckless endangerment or similar charges coming) and is down to "because the rules."
What you're inferring as selective prosecution and over-criminalization is precisely what I might infer as the defendant-favorable prosecutorial discretion you're suggesting wasn't present here. Just because a charge wasn't brought doesn't mean it couldn't have been brought and indeed I've seen lots more brought over a lot less. The sole lying charge is probably a gift to Stoll and anyone else involved. And there's also a possibility that the article is inaccurate around the edges--crime reporting usually is. It may be that the police were only referring to charges against Stoll when they said nothing else expected.
Except the police do not know that. All they have is a gunshot victim who has lied twice about it. They don't know who the shooter is nor how/why it happened.
The police know more about the situation than you do about gophers
This is pretty darn close to the version I’ve been told. If I were to guess, which I am, I’d guess he’s protecting a teammate.
Well, the police know "The release on June 19 said that several individuals were at the Valley Avenue residence when the incident took place" that half the Hawkeye team were there.
Do not belittle the enforcement of double parking on campus. Without parking enforcement revenue Penn State's 6 billion dollar budget would need to be cut to 4 or 5 billion.
Hell, then those 150 assistants to the assistant of the assistant of the 14th VP to the assistant of the 13th VP of the 10th, 11th and 12 minor VPs of whatever department might need to be scaled back.
In this case it's better than 83%.......
I'm with you. When lying is OK then we start entering judgement and perception which is a hole to go down. What is wrong with right vs. wrong - regardless of situation.
That knee was unarmed and it's past should not be brought up as justification for being shot. Transforming the victim into the criminal
#kneelivesmatter
That knee was unarmed and it's past should not be brought up as justification for being shot. Transforming the victim into the criminal
#kneelivesmatter
Objection your Honor. Despite some recent posts....that knee has indeed fired off a few shots that have taken down several opponents ...many to their backs.....resulting in catastrophic pinfalls. Do not be swayed by the smile-shaped scar.....it has purely evil intent. That extreme overwrap is not a knee brace but rather a holster.....containing 7 pistols and a pitcher of Captain & Coke.....with its own ice-maker. Those opponents were all victims and their loss of team points can NOT be ignored.
Can't believe I am going to say this, but for once I actually agree with Jammenz. The police now know what happened and no additional charges will be filed. Problem is they wasted a lot of time determining why and how Stoll got shot. Go to the hospital with a gunshot wound and the police are automatically notified. Generally LE keeps looking to determine why someone was shot. If Stoll was truthful up front, no charges, no time wasted. Hence the charges.
Will they yell shoot the single leg, or shoot the knee.
Ah hell, who are we kidding. We already know the answer. They will yell, "heeeeeeee's staaaaaaallllllllinnnnn"
Actually, if the police don't know who the shooter was, the police do not know what happened.
Apparently LE knows now what happened, just took multiple interviews with Stoll to get the information. Stoll wasted LE's time, hence the charge against him.
The DA said no they did not expect any other further charges. I would take that to mean that LE has the full story of what happened which would include who was involved. LE would want to know about who fired he shot, why, the weapon used and if the weapon was legally owned and obtained.
Then I must have misread the article(s). I thought the DA said that there would be no additional charges against Stoll, not that there would be no additional charges to anyone else.
I suspect at some point the charges may be dropped, but the bigger risk for Stoll (assuming the injury is minor) is if the University or Brands will take any disciplinary action. The lying to police might be as serious to the University as whatever happened with the gun and where it happened. I have no doubt the gun was legal and it was an unfortunate and simple accident.
It does makes you wonder why did he lie? Well there was no question he probably couldn't hide the fact he got shot and needed emergency medical attention, so the event couldn't be Sept under the rug. Some of the lying ''might' have been intended to protect the identity of the shooter.
Now the crazy thought, what if it was Lee, Marinelli or Warner. Gross speculation and not even a theory, just the observation this event could take down two people. I suspect the worst punishment might be something like a 3-5 match suspension so It wouldn't douse any championship speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the other shoe drop over the next month or two as this plays out.
It does makes you wonder why did he lie? Well there was no question he probably couldn't hide the fact he got shot and needed emergency medical attention, so the event couldn't be Sept under the rug. Some of the lying ''might' have been intended to protect the identity of the shooter.
Now the crazy thought, what if it was Lee, Marinelli or Warner. Gross speculation and not even a theory, just the observation this event could take down two people. I suspect the worst punishment might be something like a 3-5 match suspension so It wouldn't douse any championship speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the other shoe drop over the next month or two as this plays out.
If true (and I have no reason to think it’s not) that makes lying about it really, really dumb.
Turk as in Vince Turk. Stoll didn't want his buddy in trouble so he lied to protect a friend. It wasn't smart, but I somehow admire the loyalty and selfless motive.
