Former Gophers QB Phillip Nelson arrested in his hometown of Mankato for assault

Status
Not open for further replies.
Donate To GopherHole

Jury nullification is always a possibility. I would rate Nelson's chances as between slim and none, if the tape shows what I suspect it does Slim will pack his bags and leave, after it's shown to the jury. To get jury nullification, you need a sympathetic defendant and a notorious victim, I don't think it'll apply.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Winasota,

I think you missed my point. I must have not as been as clear as I strive to be. Jurors will not always understand instructions, the law, reasonable doubt, innocent until proven guilty, or just about any legal concept you want to question.

Philip is guilty per the letter of the law, from the standpoint of a reasonable person as 0723 pointed out.. Whether the jury wants to disregard the letter of the law due to a host of other reasons is a whole other ball of wax.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate your attempt at clarification, it wasn't needed. I understand your point. Its relevancy to my question, however, is what my comment was towards.

I simply was asking whether or not the judge would tell the jury that the prosecution or the defense had the duty to prove guilt/innocence. Its my understanding that in a criminal trial there is a saying or even a law that we are "innocent until proven guilty", I think that gets a little cloudy when someone commits a crime, admits to a crime and uses another law to defend said crime. Who has the duty to prove they were right. Maybe the right answer is both will be trying to prove their case rather than refute the others like you often see from defense lawyers.

Your comments about a jury not understanding those directions etc, while completely true and relevant to the overall subject, didn't answer my question.

I didn't need to be so smug so for that I'm sorry, you made a valid point
 

JoeDirt said:
No he didn't. I also read the 280lb reference several times.
Click to expand...

you read it several times from costa, correct. on here. find a single source (with link) other than costa's posts that cite 280lbs.
 

Go4 said:
you read it several times from costa, correct. on here. find a single source (with link) other than costa's posts that cite 280lbs.
Click to expand...

What are you, the cops or the newspaper? I'm not wasting my time to go back to ten days ago to find a link to prove myself truthful in your eyes. It was written, several times, in the early reports. Most of us read it.
 


This all sucks. I mean its sad every time I open the thread.
 

Winasota Gopher said:
While I appreciate your attempt at clarification, it wasn't needed. I understand your point. Its relevancy to my question, however, is what my comment was towards.

I simply was asking whether or not the judge would tell the jury that the prosecution or the defense had the duty to prove guilt/innocence. Its my understanding that in a criminal trial there is a saying or even a law that we are "innocent until proven guilty", I think that gets a little cloudy when someone commits a crime, admits to a crime and uses another law to defend said crime. Who has the duty to prove they were right. Maybe the right answer is both will be trying to prove their case rather than refute the others like you often see from defense lawyers.

Your comments about a jury not understanding those directions etc, while completely true and relevant to the overall subject, didn't answer my question.

I didn't need to be so smug so for that I'm sorry, you made a valid point
Click to expand...

Normally innocent until proven guilty is obvious to the public. The government has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt (around 90-95% confidence) that the defendant is guilty. The defense then tries to provide doubt.

In this instance, the defense will use a justification defense of self-defense. It basically admits that it committed the crime asserted; however the underlying crime is justified in defense of yourself. When asserting this defense the defense has the burden of proving it met the elements necessary for the crime to be justified, for self-defense to be asserted. This makes sense if you think about it. The defense is actually saying it had the right to assault someone for defense purposes. It only makes sense that the people saying it is ok to assault someone without punishment have to prove the assault was ok, as the default should be it isn't ok to assault people.
 

Go4 said:
you read it several times from costa, correct. on here. find a single source (with link) other than costa's posts that cite 280lbs.
Click to expand...

It was quoted in an original source - I think it was an eyewitness estimate. I don't recall the link either, off-hand. If you go to the first couple pages it may be linked somewhere in there, though I'm not certain.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Normally innocent until proven guilty is obvious to the public. The government has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt (around 90-95% confidence) that the defendant is guilty. The defense then tries to provide doubt.

In this instance, the defense will use a justification defense of self-defense. It basically admits that it committed the crime asserted; however the underlying crime is justified in defense of yourself. When asserting this defense the defense has the burden of proving it met the elements necessary for the crime to be justified, for self-defense to be asserted. This makes sense if you think about it. The defense is actually saying it had the right to assault someone for defense purposes. It only makes sense that the people saying it is ok to assault someone without punishment have to prove the assault was ok, as the default should be it isn't ok to assault people.

So you are correct. In this case, both sides are trying to prove something. The government is trying to prove am assault occurred, amd the defense is trying to prove an assault was justified.
Click to expand...

Another defense tactic would be that Nelson was on a neighborhood watch patrol when he was attacked.
 





JoeDirt said:
What are you, the cops or the newspaper? I'm not wasting my time to go back to ten days ago to find a link to prove myself truthful in your eyes. It was written, several times, in the early reports. Most of us read it.
Click to expand...

Yup, I also saw the early report via a link and I'm not going going back to find it either.
 






Some positive developments reported on Isaac's Caring Bridge site:

Day 13

By Mike Fleming — 17 hours ago
Your prayers and positive thoughts have brought Isaac good days! Yesterday he was able to tolerate being off sedation for most of the day and today he was off of his sedation medications entirely. They also did a trial of being off the life support yesterday which he tolerated for a few hours. Today he has been off the life support and breathing on his own all day! It is such a relief to see Isaac relaxed today as the struggle for him to remain stable off of the sedation medications was incredibly emotional. At this time Isaac is no longer in a medically induced coma, but remains in a coma related to his brain injuries and damage. We truly believe the community coming together this week has impacted Isaac and our family is more ways than we could ever have imagined. Some one wrote to us on here about Isaac's 'marathon'. "The marathon is nothing more than a series of lots of sprints, combined with a lot of support, determination, and hope." With your support and positive hopes, Isaac will continue to overcome those series of sprints-which may be small accomplishments and day to day, but signs of recovery for our loving, caring, amazing husband, son, brother, friend, father, and teammate: Isaac.

http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/isaackolstad/journal/view/id/53816e0da589b46d28c313b0
 

So most likely he will not pass away. Whether he'll wake up or remain in a vegetative state is the next hurdle. The extent of the brain damage has not really been described but what they described the first week gives a very guarded prognosis. Pray for a miracle.
 


I haven't kept up in this case; but if I'm reading this right, someone knocked Kolstad down with a punch strong enough to lay him flat, and render him unconscious. His head hit the ground, with an audible thud. Then he gets kicked by Phil Nelson, while lying unconscious; whom had just gotten up from being knocked down. Now, Kolstad is suffering brain injuries from the fight.

I guess my first reaction would be to wonder why people think Phil Nelson caused the brain injury; seems more likely the result from the punch and head hitting ground, combo. Especially, if he was unconscious, which helps the body mitigate injury from any kick. Moreover, if he'd been drinking the same would be true.

I guess the 2nd piece would be to wonder how much time elapsed between being knocked down, and getting up and kicking the guy. If it's a short time, then it sounds pretty much like what everyone would do when filled with adrenaline and alcohol. You'd get up, find the target, then strike them.

If someone is strong enough to knock you down with a blow, you get up and go after them. That much is natural. You definitely don't stop to assess their consciousness. Especially, if they're bigger than you. Take care of the threat or run away.... fight or flight is what everyone does. This is not a conscious decision and is mostly conducted in the hypothalamus. This is especially true if as crowd is present, because the social angle produces a stronger affect on the body, from it's own emotions.

However, if you give a man time to think, that is where the law must be entertained. Then a boot to the head is wrong and must be punished. Otherwise, a man does not posses the ability to apply reason and judgement.

Of course, I have no idea what happened from reading a few pages of a Gopher Hole thread. Probably need to hear the facts before I can say whether I think Phil was right or wrong. Hope, the Kolstad kid comes around.
 

atsgopher said:
I haven't kept up in this case; but if I'm reading this right, someone knocked Kolstad down with a punch strong enough to lay him flat, and render him unconscious. His head hit the ground, with an audible thud. Then he gets kicked by Phil Nelson, while lying unconscious; whom had just gotten up from being knocked down. Now, Kolstad is suffering brain injuries from the fight.

I guess my first reaction would be to wonder why people think Phil Nelson caused the brain injury; seems more likely the result from the punch and head hitting ground, combo. Especially, if he was unconscious, which helps the body mitigate injury from any kick. Moreover, if he'd been drinking the same would be true.

I guess the 2nd piece would be to wonder how much time elapsed between being knocked down, and getting up and kicking the guy. If it's a short time, then it sounds pretty much like what everyone would do when filled with adrenaline and alcohol. You'd get up, find the target, then strike them.

If someone is strong enough to knock you down with a blow, you get up and go after them. That much is natural. You definitely don't stop to assess their consciousness. Especially, if they're bigger than you. Take care of the threat or run away.... fight or flight is what everyone does. This is not a conscious decision and is mostly conducted in the hypothalamus. This is especially true if as crowd is present, because the social angle produces a stronger affect on the body, from it's own emotions.

However, if you give a man time to think, that is where the law must be entertained. Then a boot to the head is wrong and must be punished. Otherwise, a man does not posses the ability to apply reason and judgement.

Of course, I have no idea what happened from reading a few pages of a Gopher Hole thread. Probably need to hear the facts before I can say whether I think Phil was right or wrong. Hope, the Kolstad kid comes around.
Click to expand...

I had hoped we were done with the really ugly posts.
 

atsgopher go back and read the entire thread, the answers are there, as to why people think Nelson shares culpability. There is absolutely no reason to rehash it.
 

diehard said:
I had hoped we were done with the really ugly posts.
Click to expand...

Ya beat me to it, diehard. All ats would have to do is take a few minutes to read the thread, but oh no, don't have time to do that.
 


atsgopher said:
I haven't kept up in this case; but if I'm reading this right, someone knocked Kolstad down with a punch strong enough to lay him flat, and render him unconscious. His head hit the ground, with an audible thud. Then he gets kicked by Phil Nelson, while lying unconscious; whom had just gotten up from being knocked down. Now, Kolstad is suffering brain injuries from the fight.

I guess my first reaction would be to wonder why people think Phil Nelson caused the brain injury; seems more likely the result from the punch and head hitting ground, combo. Especially, if he was unconscious, which helps the body mitigate injury from any kick. Moreover, if he'd been drinking the same would be true.

I guess the 2nd piece would be to wonder how much time elapsed between being knocked down, and getting up and kicking the guy. If it's a short time, then it sounds pretty much like what everyone would do when filled with adrenaline and alcohol. You'd get up, find the target, then strike them.

If someone is strong enough to knock you down with a blow, you get up and go after them. That much is natural. You definitely don't stop to assess their consciousness. Especially, if they're bigger than you. Take care of the threat or run away.... fight or flight is what everyone does. This is not a conscious decision and is mostly conducted in the hypothalamus. This is especially true if as crowd is present, because the social angle produces a stronger affect on the body, from it's own emotions.

However, if you give a man time to think, that is where the law must be entertained. Then a boot to the head is wrong and must be punished. Otherwise, a man does not posses the ability to apply reason and judgement.

Of course, I have no idea what happened from reading a few pages of a Gopher Hole thread. Probably need to hear the facts before I can say whether I think Phil was right or wrong. Hope, the Kolstad kid comes around.
Click to expand...

Have you heard about the Lindbergh baby? Why don't you tell us who did it.
 

BleedGopher said:
Some positive developments reported on Isaac's Caring Bridge site:

Day 13

By Mike Fleming — 17 hours ago
Your prayers and positive thoughts have brought Isaac good days! Yesterday he was able to tolerate being off sedation for most of the day and today he was off of his sedation medications entirely. They also did a trial of being off the life support yesterday which he tolerated for a few hours. Today he has been off the life support and breathing on his own all day! It is such a relief to see Isaac relaxed today as the struggle for him to remain stable off of the sedation medications was incredibly emotional. At this time Isaac is no longer in a medically induced coma, but remains in a coma related to his brain injuries and damage. We truly believe the community coming together this week has impacted Isaac and our family is more ways than we could ever have imagined. Some one wrote to us on here about Isaac's 'marathon'. "The marathon is nothing more than a series of lots of sprints, combined with a lot of support, determination, and hope." With your support and positive hopes, Isaac will continue to overcome those series of sprints-which may be small accomplishments and day to day, but signs of recovery for our loving, caring, amazing husband, son, brother, friend, father, and teammate: Isaac.

http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/isaackolstad/journal/view/id/53816e0da589b46d28c313b0
Click to expand...

Way to fight Isaac!
 

atsgopher said:
I guess the 2nd piece would be to wonder how much time elapsed between being knocked down, and getting up and kicking the guy. If it's a short time, then it sounds pretty much like what everyone would do when filled with adrenaline and alcohol. You'd get up, find the target, then strike them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're from or what kind of crowd you've hung out with before, but kicking a man while he is down (not matter how much elapsed after he was pushed down) is not what most would do in that situation. Most would would consider that a cowardly act.

Kicking someone in the head while they are down (regardless if they are conscious or not) shows you truly want to severely injure someone, not just hurt them or "send a message".

I really don't want to get this conversation started again, I'm just shocked at how many people are acting like what Nelson allegedly did is a normal thing in a fight/altercation.
 

GophersInIowa said:
I'm not sure where you're from or what kind of crowd you've hung out with before, but kicking a man while he is down (not matter how much elapsed after he was pushed down) is not what most would do in that situation. Most would would consider that a cowardly act.

Kicking someone in the head while they are down (regardless if they are conscious or not) shows you truly want to severely injure someone, not just hurt them or "send a message".

I really don't want to get this conversation started again, I'm just shocked at how many people are acting like what Nelson allegedly did is a normal thing in a fight/altercation.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I don't want to live in a society that tolerates kicking a guy in the head when he is on the ground.
 

GophersInIowa said:
I'm not sure where you're from or what kind of crowd you've hung out with before, but kicking a man while he is down (not matter how much elapsed after he was pushed down) is not what most would do in that situation. Most would would consider that a cowardly act.

Kicking someone in the head while they are down (regardless if they are conscious or not) shows you truly want to severely injure someone, not just hurt them or "send a message".

I really don't want to get this conversation started again, I'm just shocked at how many people are acting like what Nelson allegedly did is a normal thing in a fight/altercation.
Click to expand...

But his hypothalamus made him do it.
 

Dr.Don said:
Ya beat me to it, diehard. All ats would have to do is take a few minutes to read the thread, but oh no, don't have time to do that.
Click to expand...

What we really need is for someone to come up with a way where you can almost instantly access pretty much any information you might need, that way people like atsgopher could find a link to an actual news account of the event so that he would have more details before coming in here and trying to play catch up on the story.

In other news, glad to read that Isaac is showing some signs of progress. Still seems to be a lot of questions as to the amount of damage that has been done but it at least appears on the surface like he is going to survive the attack. Hopefully when this is all said and done he will be able to return to some semblance of a "normal" life with his family and loved ones.
 

Is it appropriate to use a fighting analogy for survival of a victim. The fight got him in the hospital. Is the fight the thing that gets him out of the hospital? Really, do we need fighting analogies to inform us of the healing process underway? It seems more than incongruent and a bit callous.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.



Top Bottom