Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Well I was wrong about radar it seems but still just smells like BS to me. Obviously didn’t help themselves with the shenanigans after parking but I’m firmly in the “less dramatic than reported” camp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if MCSD made X wear a referee jersey during his stay in the pokey ? That'd be cruel and unusual punishment right there!

 

Since many don't pick up on my dad humor, I'm referencing the black and white stripes. See, it's a funny correlation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the officer was driving south on College - which begins at the light of the 45/46 bypass. He supposedly clocked X running 90 mph, then the cop proceeded to the crossover at the north end of the park and then pursued X.

X, meanwhile, had slowed down enough from 90 in 2-tenths of a mile to turn right on the bypass, then go 1-tenth of a mile to turn right into the Walnut Knolls apartments. To get to 2036, X would have traveled 269 feet(where he would have blown the stop sign), turned right and then left to go the last 1-tenth mile to the address.

So IF (follow me here) Xavier indeed was going 90 north on Walnut and made all the maneuvers according to the officer, how fast (and reckless) did the officer have to be traveling to catch up enough to see all of X’s supposed movements?

Either the cop was even more reckless than Johnson, OR (more likely) X wasn’t going nearly as fast as accused.

Does that mean he can’t be held accountable for driving beyond too fast, or excuse his attempts at not only trying to evade capture or switch places to avoid responsibility? Of course not.

But something with the officer’s version of events doesn’t add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Joe_hoopsier said:

I'm pretty sure they automatically record anything and calculate on coming traffic speed, vrs the speed of the cop car going in the opposite direction. Then there should also be a "lock" button to record a reading for documentation/ proof purposes. 

 

24 minutes ago, Golfman25 said:

Dashboard radars will show the speed of oncoming traffic.  

Well I had absolutely no idea that existed lol. Thanks guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

I guess I don’t get what you’re asking.  Are you asking if someone who has been disciplined prior then do the disciplining later?  I would think that if anything it would make them more qualified to do so.

I think you make a great point having a bumpier road during the maturing process would make it easier to relate to players. Although, it's probably slightly different relative to the times.

The point that was made was Knight can't be the holy one because he had questionable character, I think?

My thoughts - the overall point is carrots and sticks can be used for players to meet/exceed standards and create a culture of discipline. Negative trends need to be fixed. If I can't trust you to do things when nobody is watching you I can't trust you to run my team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

I think you make a great point having a bumpier road during the maturing process would make it easier to relate to players. Although, it's probably slightly different relative to the times.

The point that was made was Knight can't be the holy one because he had questionable character, I think?

My thoughts - the overall point is carrots and sticks can be used for players to meet/exceed standards and create a culture of discipline. Negative trends need to be fixed. If I can't trust you to do things when nobody is watching you I can't trust you to run my team.

I absolutely love your last line. That right there is a great deciding factor for Woody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tasmanian Devil said:

So the officer was driving south on College - which begins at the light of the 45/46 bypass. He supposedly clocked X running 90 mph, then the cop proceeded to the crossover at the north end of the park and then pursued X.

X, meanwhile, had slowed down enough from 90 in 2-tenths of a mile to turn right on the bypass, then go 1-tenth of a mile to turn right into the Walnut Knolls apartments. To get to 2036, X would have traveled 269 feet(where he would have blown the stop sign), turned right and then left to go the last 1-tenth mile to the address.

So IF (follow me here) Xavier indeed was going 90 north on Walnut and made all the maneuvers according to the officer, how fast (and reckless) did the officer have to be traveling to catch up enough to see all of X’s supposed movements?

Either the cop was even more reckless than Johnson, OR (more likely) X wasn’t going nearly as fast as accused.

Does that mean he can’t be held accountable for driving beyond too fast, or excuse his attempts at not only trying to evade capture or switch places to avoid responsibility? Of course not.

But something with the officer’s version of events doesn’t add up.

Could the officer had not clocked the speed prior to X arriving on W Old State Rd 37, speeding up to get to that turnaround a little quicker, and pulled out onto N Walnut at a speed slightly above the speed limit as X was slowing to turn on the bypass? X turns on the bypass while the officer is speeding up with his lights on, has visual on the Charger once on the bypass and then sees him make an immediate right? I'm certain the officer wasn't staying within the speed limit while in pursuit but I highly doubt it was as reckless as described.

Further, running emergency lights while in pursuit and probably (hopefully !!) having a little more training and experience wouldn't make it as reckless as X doing 90 in his Charger. I don't know if there is a non-pursuit law for police departments in Monroe County but I doubt it was THAT dangerous to catch up to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tasmanian Devil said:

So the officer was driving south on College - which begins at the light of the 45/46 bypass. He supposedly clocked X running 90 mph, then the cop proceeded to the crossover at the north end of the park and then pursued X.

X, meanwhile, had slowed down enough from 90 in 2-tenths of a mile to turn right on the bypass, then go 1-tenth of a mile to turn right into the Walnut Knolls apartments. To get to 2036, X would have traveled 269 feet(where he would have blown the stop sign), turned right and then left to go the last 1-tenth mile to the address.

So IF (follow me here) Xavier indeed was going 90 north on Walnut and made all the maneuvers according to the officer, how fast (and reckless) did the officer have to be traveling to catch up enough to see all of X’s supposed movements?

Either the cop was even more reckless than Johnson, OR (more likely) X wasn’t going nearly as fast as accused.

Does that mean he can’t be held accountable for driving beyond too fast, or excuse his attempts at not only trying to evade capture or switch places to avoid responsibility? Of course not.

But something with the officer’s version of events doesn’t add up.

To me this is simple.  Cop sees X coming his direction at 90 mph.  X sees cop.  X slows up from 90 mph while cop accelerates to get to turn around and get back on him.  Cop makes up the ground fairly quickly.  Cop follows X rest of way back to apartment.

I would lay money that the guys in the car saw the police car and did what most rational people at that point would do.  Slow the f down and hope the cop did not see what you were just doing.  He was probably doing the speed limit from that point on if not a little under it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that X was driving way too fast and then tried to have someone else take the fall for him.

He likely will be punished in some way but not dismissed (IMO).  My hope is that he stops making bad decisions off of the court because his on court decisions were getting better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

Bottom line is that X was driving way too fast and then tried to have someone else take the fall for him.

He likely will be punished in some way but not dismissed (IMO).  My hope is that he stops making bad decisions off of the court because his on court decisions were getting better.

Couldn't we also surmise that he has very loyal friends? It takes character to build a relationship like that !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

I can’t bring myself to give two cares about this situation. He wasn’t intoxicated, and no one was hurt. That’s what matters to me. Players at other schools do much worse without getting dismissed. It’s high time for IUBB to start protecting its players (within reason) and running with the big dogs. This is a nothing burger. 

I actually appreciate your post.   Thanks.  But....

I have kept my powder dry.   I haven't posted at all about this unfortunate situation.  Really wish it had not happened.  Feel bad for the players, for X, for the team, for Woody, for IU, and for us the fans.

It comes down to teaching.  

If one takes the perspective that winning at Indiana is the single most important thing in the world, then all is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joe_hoopsier said:

Couldn't we also surmise that he has very loyal friends? It takes character to build a relationship like that !

I think the opposite.  If his teammates were loyal, they'd create a diversion to distract us from this story.  TJD could tweet "I'm thinking about leaving, talk me out of it", or Geronimo could say "Man I'm homesick, should I transfer?"  and this story would fall into the background.  But nothing.  Silence.  Hmmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Josh said:

I think the opposite.  If his teammates were loyal, they'd create a diversion to distract us from this story.  TJD could tweet "I'm thinking about leaving, talk me out of it", or Geronimo could say "Man I'm homesick, should I transfer?"  and this story would fall into the background.  But nothing.  Silence.  Hmmmmm

Now that is a totally different twist that I could get 100% behind!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JimmerNoe said:

Well I was wrong about radar it seems but still just smells like BS to me. Obviously didn’t help themselves with the shenanigans after parking but I’m firmly in the “less dramatic than reported” camp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Less dramatic?  Dude was going 90 in a 40 with other vehicles and pedestrians present.  Then the real fun starts when the flashing lights came coming and he drove erratically to find an escape route to change seats and took out a stop sign in the process.  
This is a big deal and he was lucky no one was injured.  It could have turned out a lot different.  Whatever penalty he receives will not be enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Less dramatic?  Dude was going 90 in a 40 with other vehicles and pedestrians present.  Then the real fun starts when the flashing lights came coming and he drove erratically to find an escape route to change seats and took out a stop sign in the process.  

This is a big deal and he was lucky no one was injured.  It could have turned out a lot different.  Whatever penalty he receives will not be enough. 

Oh yes. Maybe he should pay for the stop sign he took out too.

 

Wait…he didn’t hit a stop sign… and changed seats when the car was stopped. Did it mention he drove more erratically after the lights came? Sounds like he made two quick turns over like 0.5 miles to an apartment complex? You’re right we should lock him up for good.

 

OR…. Is this Lou Marrioti and you saw all this firsthand. Because then you could clear up a lot for us and we wouldn’t need to guess anymore.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dave from Dayton said:

f one takes the perspective that winning at Indiana is the single most important thing in the world, then all is lost.

This issue has nothing to do with winning or losing. Indiana will do about the same next year whether Xavier stays or doesn't stay.

There are two relevant questions. How do the courts handle it and how does the coach handle it. Monroe County courts will not hang a felony charge around the neck of a motorist under these facts. These prosecutors will not do that. And, it has nothing do with Xavier being an IU athlete. They handle dozens of virtually identical cases every year. This case will be handled exactly like all others. Unless there was a bona fide police chase or some other aggravating circumstances, the resisting arrest charge is dropped. Then it comes down to the speeding charge. The parties will settle on some level of speeding infraction depending on how reliable the police report is deemed to be. Xavier will pay a fine of some kind. Depending on his driving record, his license could be suspended. That's how the legal case will be resolved. The legal part of it will be over relatively soon.

So then it comes down to the coach. Mike Woodson is not thinking about winning or losing when it comes to off-court behavior. He proved that with the way he handled the violation of team rules before the Northwestern game.  Xavier getting arrested during the off-season because of traffic violations has nothing to do with team rules. Woodson is thinking about the team and the individual. How can they best learn from this. Is sending Xavier on his way the best way to teach him and the team or does he think he can teach him and the team his way by keeping him on? Anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. But as has been noted, the longer it goes on without a dismissal makes a dismissal less likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×