In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 574
Online now 855 Record: 6507 (2/14/2012)
The place for Irish fans to engage in hardcore discussion about Notre Dame athletics
Talk with Irish fans from around the globe about college football's most storied program
The spot for anything on your mind outside of Notre Dame athletics
The place for Notre Dame fans to trade and exchange tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Hahahaha, I can see I'm wasting my time with you, as it's similar to explaining complex issues to my 7 year old. You just don't get it. You want to change your tack every time you're proved wrong. It's actually comical, because you make more unsubstantiated, and disprovable claims in each post.
Were you at the scene? I'm going to say you were NOT, because that would be the truth. Knowing that, your BS speculation about who precipitated the altercation is not something you can speak to with any certainty or intelligence.
The reason the offense was reduced, has no bearing on whether Rees was wrong in his actions, or if he was an adult. Which is what started these exchanges between us. With that being said, Rees precipitated the situation by breaking the law in the first place, then compounded the issue by running, and then resisting (in whatever form it occurred).
Sir, can you please stay on point? The point of contention I have with you, is your misunderstanding of what constitutes a legal adult. Can you try to limit your counters to things which are germane to the topic being discussed?
This post was edited by Coda 23 months ago
You are pretty ignorant of the law and its statutes,
--- but here goes one last time.
The specific statute applying to underage drinking was enacted in 1984...
--- specifically prohibiting the purchase or consumption of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21.
Therefore, under this statute, and this statute is the one in question here...anyone under 21 is considered a "MINOR"...a minor...get it?
--- not an adult.
If he was an adult, he would NOT have been cited. Don't you get it? He is a MINOR in the eyes of the court under this statute.
"The reason the offense was reduced, has no bearing on whether Rees was wrong in his actions, of if he was an adult"...gobble, gobble, gobble speak.
So, the reduction of the offense to a misdemeanor has no bearing?
--- You must be kidding me.
Visit a court room sometime.
Hahahaha, you are truly incredulous. It matters little when the statute was enacted, and it does NOT support your position regarding Rees legally. He has still reached the age of majority, in the state of Indiana. Plain and simple. There is nothing you can do, or say to refute that.
A simple google search would have shown you the exceptions to the use of the word minor in the legal sense. Not to mention, actual attorneys have said he is considered an adult.
You are correct on one point. I am ignorant to the specifics of some laws and statutes, but I am wise enough to consult an attorney, or two, which I did in this instance. As a matter of fact, they hope you come to Indiana to practice law someday. They were chuckling when they said it, infer from that what you will.
It's painfully obvious you have no desire to know facts, stick with your Perry Mason impersonation. I think this has run its course.
I hope this has run its course. You two are like two kids trying to get the last word. Back and forth, back and forth. Who gives a sh*# who's right? Time will tell. Worry about the team possibily going 7-5.
And your reason for interjecting was ...... ? I'm guessing you want it to keep this going, or maybe the pot calling the kettle black? Funny how the thread was finished, as far as I was concerned, until you decided to participate with nothing of value.
Irish Oak in Chicago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports