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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Donate To GopherHole
GophersInIowa said:
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...

I bowed out of this thread a while back. This statement sums up why. I couldn't agree with GophersInIowa more.
 

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...

You bring up a good point.

I don’t dispute that this is an honorable or moral thing to do. Morals thoughts and acts are easy when typing at a computer. When you get punched, when not expecting it; base instinct takes over your body. That is a physiological fact.

That is why society allows for the concept of self-defense; we recognize it is a necessary evil, to allow for some “flight or fight” response. Otherwise, society understands that the ultimate punishment could be levied on the original victim. No man is immune to Fight or Flight.

Where I come from, a lot of what went down is wrong; hitting a man with a back to you is wrong. Knocking a man down from behind is signaling that “it’s on.” Neither side would want the other to suffer lasting injuries, nor would anyone involve the law.

Kicking someone in the head is wrong too. However, like I said earlier, if it’s attached to the fight or flight response. It sucks, but it’s understood that you didn't have time, or your wits about you, to apply effective moral reasoning. You get a brief period to defend yourself that is dependent on the circumstances. How long that is, I don’t know; it’s the type of thing that’s clear when you see it. I’ll personally reserve judgment.

I think judging men without first understanding mankind is sophomoric. Frankly, it’s uncivilized. Not recognizing the emotions impact on the prefrontal cortex is a serious error in thinking.

For an example, refer to the posts between mine and yours. Look at the anger in them. People didn't respond directly to my post, with a clear head. They obviously responded charged with emotion. Your post is the first I came across worth addressing. You engaged a mature discussion topic; it’s instructive to note that humans have trouble controlling their emotional responses when they have time to think, i.e. posting online….
 

I think we'd have a lot more room in our prisons if everyone thought along the lines you have written about, and are now "doubling down" on.

To make a long story short... I don't agree with you and as others have said, there are over 40 pages worth of material here of which much of the content is responses to opinions like yours. Check 'em out.
 

What's the latest on Kolstad? Stopped following the story. Is he going to make it?
 

atsgopher said:
You bring...

For an example, refer to the posts between mine and yours. Look at the anger in them. People didn't respond directly to my post, with a clear head. They obviously responded charged with emotion. Your post is the first I came across worth addressing. You engaged a mature discussion topic; it’s instructive to note that humans have trouble controlling their emotional responses when they have time to think, i.e. posting online….
Click to expand...

The problems of the internet are two-fold. Here, we communicate (to some degree) anonymously. And here, we imagine the person we are addressing (their countenance, their tone, their life they've lead). These are the reasons why the great majority of comments everywhere are narcissistic, inflammatory, misrepresented, and misunderstood. As much as I dislike it, the internet will always be the platform where people want to show how they're right (and you're wrong), the platform where people don't have to treat others like people.
 


Schnauzer said:
I think we'd have a lot more room in our prisons if everyone thought along the lines you have written about, and are now "doubling down" on.

To make a long story short... I don't agree with you and as others have said, there are over 40 pages worth of material here of which much of the content is responses to opinions like yours. Check 'em out.
Click to expand...

Fair enough; I don't mind disagreement one bit. That's how I check my own self, to see if my logic and reasoning was clear and effective. Heck, I even appreciate the response the way you put it. If that's where a 40 page thread followed, then If I'm interested I can go back and read.

What is kind of weird, is that I post, State "Hey I'm late to the game, What's the scoop" and it takes two pages for someone to write this without adding a bunch of immature derision. That signals to me that people formed an opinion, and then clung to it, no matter what, most likely on both sides.
When in reality, I am sure two sides have equally good and effective insight to add from collective experience.

As for doubling down... I don't know, I put up a contingent opinion. I see room for nuance. I see 2 people, and possibly a third, that made bad choices. I'm curious to know how other people assign blame. Clearly, if there are truly 40 pages of discussion and people are still angry, then nothing was ever settled, and My instincts are right to probe where society draws the line. Clearly, there are strong feelings.

So far, I can only judge from the responses, that people want to crucify someone. It feels a lot like mob mentality. Doesn't appear civilized. But then again, maybe as you say, if I'm interested to know, I'll go look further. I didn't punch, kick, or hit anyone. Nonetheless, don't you find it Ironic, that a contingent opinion, is attacked with as much vitriol, for one that is supposed to be originating from a moral high ground?
 

Attn: SS... Kolstad's condition...

It sounds like Kolstad will most likely survive, however, he is still in a coma. I believe he is breathing on his own now. It sounds like a long recovery. For an up to date report on his condition check out his Caring Bridge site. Between the Caring Bridge site and a fundraiser at Fastenal (his employer), I believe they have raised around $100 K for Isaac and his family.
 

kisarazu said:
The problems of the internet are two-fold. Here, we communicate (to some degree) anonymously. And here, we imagine the person we are addressing (their countenance, their tone, their life they've lead). These are the reasons why the great majority of comments everywhere are narcissistic, inflammatory, misrepresented, and misunderstood. As much as I dislike it, the internet will always be the platform where people want to show how they're right (and you're wrong), the platform where people don't have to treat others like people.
Click to expand...

+1, I should have probably "posted I can possibly see 2 sides to this story, is that true?" Instead, I tried to quickly explain the more nuanced side, and then... we digress.
 

kisarazu said:
The problems of the internet are two-fold. Here, we communicate (to some degree) anonymously. And here, we imagine the person we are addressing (their countenance, their tone, their life they've lead). These are the reasons why the great majority of comments everywhere are narcissistic, inflammatory, misrepresented, and misunderstood. As much as I dislike it, the internet will always be the platform where people want to show how they're right (and you're wrong), the platform where people don't have to treat others like people.
Click to expand...

+201
Best post I've seen in a while. Kudos.
 



atsgopher said:
That is why society allows for the concept of self-defense; we recognize it is a necessary evil, to allow for some “flight or fight” response. Otherwise, society understands that the ultimate punishment could be levied on the original victim. No man is immune to Fight or Flight.
Click to expand...

Self-defense is not around to allow for "fight or flight" response. Self-defense is a well established legal doctrine that allows you to, well, defend yourself with necessary force. Mr. Nelson went beyond defending himself, plain and simple. Is the legal definition of self defense more nuanced than I am stating, yes. May it allow for leniency/acquittal, perhaps. However, self-defense does not simply allow you to be provoked, get angry, and fight without repercussion.

Morally, all three men made poor decisions. Legally, two of them are in trouble. One person's life is in the balance. Over 15 seconds of stupidity. Each escalation was unnecessary, and I have zero sympathy for kicking someone in the head who is unconscious. I 'understand' how it could happen, but it doesn't make it right.
 

row19gopher said:
It sounds like Kolstad will most likely survive, however, he is still in a coma. I believe he is breathing on his own now. It sounds like a long recovery. For an up to date report on his condition check out his Caring Bridge site. Between the Caring Bridge site and a fundraiser at Fastenal (his employer), I believe they have raised around $100 K for Isaac and his family.
Click to expand...

I'm a dollars and cents kind of a guy - people put their money into areas that they really believe in. Here's the score:
.
Kolstad Medical Bills - $100,000
Nelson Defense Fund - $0
.
This says it all.
 

row19gopher said:
It sounds like Kolstad will most likely survive, however, he is still in a coma. I believe he is breathing on his own now. It sounds like a long recovery. For an up to date report on his condition check out his Caring Bridge site. Between the Caring Bridge site and a fundraiser at Fastenal (his employer), I believe they have raised around $100 K for Isaac and his family.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 

Rescooter said:
I'm a dollars and cents kind of a guy - people put their money into areas that they really believe in. Here's the score:
.
Kolstad Medical Bills - $100,000
Nelson Defense Fund - $0
.
This says it all.
Click to expand...

What nonsense. If someone donated $100,001 to Nelson's defense fund (which to my knowledge doesn't exist), it wouldn't prove anything. Kolstad is receiving money because he's in need of medical attention & people are raising money for him. It's a good cause, I hope much more is raised, but certainly doesn't "say it all".
 



atsgopher said:
You bring up a good point.

I don’t dispute that this is an honorable or moral thing to do. Morals thoughts and acts are easy when typing at a computer. When you get punched, when not expecting it; base instinct takes over your body. That is a physiological fact.

That is why society allows for the concept of self-defense; we recognize it is a necessary evil, to allow for some “flight or fight” response. Otherwise, society understands that the ultimate punishment could be levied on the original victim. No man is immune to Fight or Flight.

Where I come from, a lot of what went down is wrong; hitting a man with a back to you is wrong. Knocking a man down from behind is signaling that “it’s on.” Neither side would want the other to suffer lasting injuries, nor would anyone involve the law.

Kicking someone in the head is wrong too. However, like I said earlier, if it’s attached to the fight or flight response. It sucks, but it’s understood that you didn't have time, or your wits about you, to apply effective moral reasoning. You get a brief period to defend yourself that is dependent on the circumstances. How long that is, I don’t know; it’s the type of thing that’s clear when you see it. I’ll personally reserve judgment.

I think judging men without first understanding mankind is sophomoric. Frankly, it’s uncivilized. Not recognizing the emotions impact on the prefrontal cortex is a serious error in thinking.

For an example, refer to the posts between mine and yours. Look at the anger in them. People didn't respond directly to my post, with a clear head. They obviously responded charged with emotion. Your post is the first I came across worth addressing. You engaged a mature discussion topic; it’s instructive to note that humans have trouble controlling their emotional responses when they have time to think, i.e. posting online….
Click to expand...

The law does not recognize any of this in self-defense in Minnesota. None of the "fight or flight" stuff may be argued in court. Being drunk may not be argued as a defense in court for assault, although it can for other crimes.

Nelson had a duty to retreat if safely possible at any point, and he could only respond with force of what a reasonably prudent person would do in similar circumstances.

What you suggest violates both the duty to retreat and what a reasonably prudent person would do.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
The law does not recognize any of this in self-defense in Minnesota. None of the "fight or flight" stuff may be argued in court. Being drunk may not be argued as a defense in court for assault, although it can for other crimes.

Nelson had a duty to retreat if safely possible at any point, and he could only respond with force of what a reasonably prudent person would do in similar circumstances.

What you suggest violates both the duty to retreat and what a reasonably prudent person would do.
Click to expand...

Ah yes the cardinal virtue of prudence. For the rest of you the other three cardinal virtues are temperance (definitely missing in action), justice and fortitude. Too bad virtuous behavior is so uncommon. Any of those four cardinal virtues would have saved the day.
 

Thank God for juries. There is nothing in this world as straight forward as the ambiguities of the law.
 

Let me venture a thought: I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why some people are defending Nelson, or looking for mitigating factors, has to do with the fact that people liked him as a QB and as a person.

He always came off as a well-spoken, decent guy in interviews. It's hard to reconcile the All-american Boy, football hero image, with the image of a (possibly) drunken, angry guy getting into a street fight and (allegedly) kicking a man in the head. It seems so out of character with his public image.

In short, I think some people just don't want this to be true, and they're looking for a way to justify their emotional response to the situation.

Me, I'm a cynic at heart. We all have a dark side, and given the right provocation, I think most people could find themselves doing things that seem out of character. Plus, when you add alcohol into the mix, it greatly increases the odds of people doing things they will later regret.
 

atsgopher said:
Fair enough; I don't mind disagreement one bit. That's how I check my own self, to see if my logic and reasoning was clear and effective. Heck, I even appreciate the response the way you put it. If that's where a 40 page thread followed, then If I'm interested I can go back and read.

What is kind of weird, is that I post, State "Hey I'm late to the game, What's the scoop" and it takes two pages for someone to write this without adding a bunch of immature derision. That signals to me that people formed an opinion, and then clung to it, no matter what, most likely on both sides.
When in reality, I am sure two sides have equally good and effective insight to add from collective experience.

As for doubling down... I don't know, I put up a contingent opinion. I see room for nuance. I see 2 people, and possibly a third, that made bad choices. I'm curious to know how other people assign blame. Clearly, if there are truly 40 pages of discussion and people are still angry, then nothing was ever settled, and My instincts are right to probe where society draws the line. Clearly, there are strong feelings.

So far, I can only judge from the responses, that people want to crucify someone. It feels a lot like mob mentality. Doesn't appear civilized. But then again, maybe as you say, if I'm interested to know, I'll go look further. I didn't punch, kick, or hit anyone. Nonetheless, don't you find it Ironic, that a contingent opinion, is attacked with as much vitriol, for one that is supposed to be originating from a moral high ground?
Click to expand...

You had a reasonable, well-thought out first post on the subject, along with reasonable subsequent posts vacant of vitriol. Would seem clear to me that you didn't deserve the vitriol you received, and that it certainly wasn't you making emotionally-based posts.

There are a lot of situations where people don't want to think, they just want to rely on macho internet tough-guy slogans - "well I NEVER would do that" or "I would ALWAYS do that," totally ignoring their own reactionary fragility; perhaps confirming that fragility by not realizing that it exists in them, too. They have "moral" superiority over those who might dare to suggest that reactions of people in excessively-emotional situations are not rational. I've dealt with that in various internet-based conversations, such as Gopher fan responses to anything Penn State-related since the Sandusky scandal, and all I can tell you is that it's best to ignore those that don't want to continue a rational discussion, and communicate with those that do.

Others have told you to just look back at this thread, it contains all the information you need. Yeah, maybe...if you can wade through all the petty emotional arguments and inane posts on this, such a serious topic. You're better off looking elsewhere for information on this case if you're trying to be efficient.

Good luck!
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Let me venture a thought: I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why some people are defending Nelson, or looking for mitigating factors, has to do with the fact that people liked him as a QB and as a person.

He always came off as a well-spoken, decent guy in interviews. It's hard to reconcile the All-american Boy, football hero image, with the image of a (possibly) drunken, angry guy getting into a street fight and (allegedly) kicking a man in the head. It seems so out of character with his public image.

In short, I think some people just don't want this to be true, and they're looking for a way to justify their emotional response to the situation.

Me, I'm a cynic at heart. We all have a dark side, and given the right provocation, I think most people could find themselves doing things that seem out of character. Plus, when you add alcohol into the mix, it greatly increases the odds of people doing things they will later regret.
Click to expand...

Could be part that (your first 3 paragraphs). Your last paragraph seems more applicable.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Let me venture a thought: I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why some people are defending Nelson, or looking for mitigating factors, has to do with the fact that people liked him as a QB and as a person.

He always came off as a well-spoken, decent guy in interviews. It's hard to reconcile the All-american Boy, football hero image, with the image of a (possibly) drunken, angry guy getting into a street fight and (allegedly) kicking a man in the head. It seems so out of character with his public image.

In short, I think some people just don't want this to be true, and they're looking for a way to justify their emotional response to the situation.

Me, I'm a cynic at heart. We all have a dark side, and given the right provocation, I think most people could find themselves doing things that seem out of character. Plus, when you add alcohol into the mix, it greatly increases the odds of people doing things they will later regret.
Click to expand...

Or, maybe some people never liked Nelson & preferred Leidner. Maybe they think joining the lynch mob somehow validates their opinions?
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Let me venture a thought: I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why some people are defending Nelson, or looking for mitigating factors, has to do with the fact that people liked him as a QB and as a person.

He always came off as a well-spoken, decent guy in interviews. It's hard to reconcile the All-american Boy, football hero image, with the image of a (possibly) drunken, angry guy getting into a street fight and (allegedly) kicking a man in the head. It seems so out of character with his public image.

In short, I think some people just don't want this to be true, and they're looking for a way to justify their emotional response to the situation.

Me, I'm a cynic at heart. We all have a dark side, and given the right provocation, I think most people could find themselves doing things that seem out of character. Plus, when you add alcohol into the mix, it greatly increases the odds of people doing things they will later regret.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 


short ornery norwegian said:
Let me venture a thought: I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why some people are defending Nelson, or looking for mitigating factors, has to do with the fact that people liked him as a QB and as a person.

He always came off as a well-spoken, decent guy in interviews. It's hard to reconcile the All-american Boy, football hero image, with the image of a (possibly) drunken, angry guy getting into a street fight and (allegedly) kicking a man in the head. It seems so out of character with his public image.

In short, I think some people just don't want this to be true, and they're looking for a way to justify their emotional response to the situation.

Me, I'm a cynic at heart. We all have a dark side, and given the right provocation, I think most people could find themselves doing things that seem out of character. Plus, when you add alcohol into the mix, it greatly increases the odds of people doing things they will later regret.
Click to expand...

Some people, at least me, can empathize with Phill because like many, we were young and dumb in our youth and can see ourselves in that situation. We may or may not have kicked someone in the head or anywhere else, but to see something that happens so many times to many different people without such tragic consequences and now this, I can't help but feel horrible not just for one, but both party's involved.
 





1gophergnu said:
Does anyone have an idea when the trial will start?
Click to expand...

Maybe 9 to 18 months, closer to the latter depending on his victim's recovery and what high-buck attorney the Nelson's hire.
 

highwayman said:
Maybe 9 to 18 months, closer to the latter depending on his victim's recovery and what high-buck attorney the Nelson's hire.
Click to expand...
A general rule of thumb ,in brain injury cases, is that it takes a year to be establish how much recovery is possible. I would doubt that the prosecutors would go forward with a case, until then, even if they were ready.
 

Thought I would pass this along. Below is a post from Issac Kolstad's Caringbridge site tonight:

"Isaac has been diagnosed with a deep vein thrombosis or DVT. DVT’s occur when individuals, such as Isaac, are bed ridden for some time and the blood does not flow properly creating a clot. Isaac has been on medications to prevent DVT’s, but in his case they were not effective. The danger of DVT’s is that they can dislodge and become embedded in the heart and/or lungs causing a Pulmonary Embolism, which is potentially fatal. We ask for you to pray and keep thinking of Isaac- he has come such a long way with your help and support, we won’t let this hurdle get in the way!"

http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/isaackolstad/journal/view/id/538e88624db9211d54fdaaa8
 

Status
Not open for further replies.



Top Bottom