UVA Lacrosse Tragedy

[Reilly]

But the point you make at the end seems like the heart of the matter--getting blackout drunk is a widely accepted part of college social life these days...

Both VT and UVa have had a female student killed this school year in a case garnering wide attention. Alcohol seems to have played some (though perhaps not the predominant) part in both horrible outcomes. Given the wide acceptance of alcohol abuse noted, I'm sort of amazed that there's not even more death on college campuses caused, at least in part, by alcohol. There's already enough; just surprised it's not even higher.

[cato]

Errr the Merger Doctrine is that you can't get someone for felony murder if the underlying felony is an element of the crime of murder. So what the underlying felony is really does matter.

So for example, if the felony is assault and battery...you can't make that into felony murder, because that's part of the crime of murder.

So in essence, if they can't use the felony murder rule to get around the intent requirement of 1st degree murder.

Your response confuses me.

First, my memory of the common law merger doctrine in criminal law is that you cannot convict someone of lesser included offenses in addition to the primary offense. So, for example, you couldn't convict someone of both murder and the assualt that resulted in the murder. The lesser included offense (assault) would merge into the primary offense (murder).

Second, I seem to recall that many states have done away with the merger doctrine completely. I wonder if VA has done so.

Third, even if the merger doctrine has been adopted into state law, the modern practice of codifying disparate elements of the crime into separate crimes seems to have significantly undermined its practical effect.

Finally, my question was not about felony murder (I am pretty sure that murder is a felony in every state), but felony homicide, as defined in Virginia Code s. 18.2-33:

§ 18.2-33. Felony homicide defined; punishment.

The killing of one accidentally, contrary to the intention of the parties, while in the prosecution of some felonious act other than those specified in §§ 18.2-31 and 18.2-32, is murder of the second degree and is punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five years nor more than forty years.

§§ 18.2-31 and 18.2-32 are the sections for capital murder, first degree murder and second degree murder. So, the underyling felony for felony homicide must be a felony other than murder.

My original question was whether another felony may have been committed. You are suggesting that if the underlying crime is an element of the crime of murder murder, it is not sufficient to support felony homicide. Is that correct?

[tommy]

If they want to use the residential burglary (entering with intent to commit any felony) as the felony supporting the felony-murder rule, that would work. There is no merger there, as it is not necessary to commit the burglary in order to commit the murder. Not sure if in Virginia felony-murder with res burg is first or second degree, but it's still murder.

Also, another poster stated that he or she believed it was very unlikely or impossible (I forget the exact words) that there could be evidence first degree, premeditated murder here. Not true. What if there are messages on her voicemail or emails from him in the minutes preceding the crime, to the effect of "I've had enough of you. I'm going to come over there and kill you." That would obviously be enough for premeditation, and in fact, proof of premeditation often consists of much less than that.

[loran16]

Your response confuses me.

First, my memory of the common law merger doctrine in criminal law is that you cannot convict someone of lesser included offenses in addition to the primary offense. So, for example, you couldn't convict someone of both murder and the assualt that resulted in the murder. The lesser included offense (assault) would merge into the primary offense (murder).

Second, I seem to recall that many states have done away with the merger doctrine completely. I wonder if VA has done so.

Third, even if the merger doctrine has been adopted into state law, the modern practice of codifying disparate elements of the crime into separate crimes seems to have significantly undermined its practical effect.

Finally, my question was not about felony murder (I am pretty sure that murder is a felony in every state), but felony homicide, as defined in Virginia Code s. 18.2-33:



§§ 18.2-31 and 18.2-32 are the sections for capital murder, first degree murder and second degree murder. So, the underyling felony for felony homicide must be a felony other than murder.

My original question was whether another felony may have been committed. You are suggesting that if the underlying crime is an element of the crime of murder murder, it is not sufficient to support felony homicide. Is that correct?

That's the "merger doctrine" as i was just taught three weeks ago. It isn't that you can't convict someone of assault and murder, it's that assault as a felony can't be the felony-basis for a conviction of felony murder (Because Felony Murder doesn't require proving of intent, this would allow for every murder case the prosecution to not have to prove intent to find someone guilty of murder (claiming assault as the underlying felony).

That said, I don't think they really need to go for a felony murder conviction here and can just go for 1st or 2nd degree murder (depending on how VA treats premeditation...i have no idea on this, depends on the state) here....as A. Intent to do serious harm to the victim usually suffices for at least 2nd degree murder and B. I doubt any jury is going to believe the lack of intent.



But as stated below, Burglary might work (though it's if the underlying felony for Burglary itself is assault, this seems backwards...though it would depend upon Virginia's case law).

More importantly, as stated before by

[MarkD83]

Given the latest round of messages in this thread and in other threads I have read here, there are quite a few lawyers contributing to this board. While I commend you for trying to dissect this tragedy in an analytical fashion, those of us in VA are still quite shocked by everything. Please keep in mind that the grieving process for many in Charlottesville, Virginia and Maryland is still going on so tread lightly.

Everything that has been posted so far is fine, but some may feel that this type of analysis this close to the tragedy may be a bit insensitive.

Just be careful.

[CrazieDUMB]

Not odd at all. The Bureau of Justice statistics only include processed cases. This is not a national, random scientific sample seeking all abusive acts. Instead,there is self-inclusion here (recall the 9 to 1 ratio of female calls to the police).


Here is the way the BoJ collects data (remember,only processed cases): "Examines the processing of domestic violence (DV) and non-domestic violence (non-DV) cases filed in 15 large urban counties."

Best regards--Blueprofessor

This is all very interesting. One of the things I love about these boards is that aside from bickering over starting lineups I also tend to learn some things as well. I reread the article that framed my opinion before (http://www.doublex.com/section/news-...ctive?page=0,0), and you're right, most of the studies they cite re: domestic violence are of the self-reporting nature. As a former Duke stat student, I should have caught that.

One of the problems with speaking up about this kind of stuff is that it's hard to mention this stuff without sounding like one is defending men who abuse women. I happen to disagree with most of the article linked above, but in respect to keeping this thread from getting too political I'll leave it at that.

[weezie]

Everything that has been posted so far is fine, but some may feel that this type of analysis this close to the tragedy may be a bit insensitive.

Just be careful.

I'm sorry that you are suffering MarkD83. DBR is a fairly calm and educated group of posters, you need not issue any warnings to the lawyers here. Everyone is keenly aware of the level of pain at uva.
No reason for you to see a threat when there is nothing but the utmost consideration for your situation. Your school/teams have decided to play on, proper respects are being shown towards the tragically deceased woman, and the State of Virginia is proceeding apace.

[Merlindevildog91]

Given the latest round of messages in this thread and in other threads I have read here, there are quite a few lawyers contributing to this board. While I commend you for trying to dissect this tragedy in an analytical fashion, those of us in VA are still quite shocked by everything. Please keep in mind that the grieving process for many in Charlottesville, Virginia and Maryland is still going on so tread lightly.

Everything that has been posted so far is fine, but some may feel that this type of analysis this close to the tragedy may be a bit insensitive.

Just be careful.

MarkD, there isn't an attorney on this forum who is not sympathetic to the family of Ms. Love and to what the students of UVa are going through.

What I was trying to do, as a Virginia prosecutor, is to clear up some misconceptions about the law as it applies in this case. I have read comments on ESPN.com, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and the (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot (Pilotonline.com), and have been stunned at the total lack of empathy toward anyone in the case, as well as the utter lack of understanding of Virginia law. While I have no desire to try to straighten up the bigoted misconceptions and utter hatred evinced by some of those readers, I did want my friends on this board to fell that they had some understanding of what the prosecutors and police were dealing with.

Please understand that no one here wishes to cause more grief; we just are attempting to make sense of the only part of the situation that we can.

[MarkD83]

Thank you Weezie and Merlindevildog for your kind thoughts.

I do not have a personal connection to Ms. Love but living in Richmond I have many friends whose sons and daughters go to UVA. What happened at UVA does hit home if you start to think about the fact that your child could be affected by the events.

I know that everyone on this board has the best intentions and that can be seen in many different ways. That is what makes DBR special.

[blueprofessor]

He compares the UVA lacrosse player's alleged murderer to the Duke lacrosse "sex scandal."

Time for intelligence tests for prospective CNN employees?
Ummm.
You will not believe this loser's take on the tragedy.

Link:http://www.mediaite.com/online/cnns-...e-sex-scandal/

Pray for CNN.

Best--Blueprofessor

[coldriver10]

The statistics you cite are from a DOJ report published in 2000, based on statistics from the late 1990s. The statistics from the 2010 version of that Special Report reflect what appears to be a dramatic improvement in the situation:

"The rate of intimate partner violence against females declined 53% between 1993 and 2008, from 9.4 victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older to 4.3 per 1,000. Against males, the rate declined 54%, from 1.8 victimizations per 1,000 males age 12 or older to 0.8 per 1,000."

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=971

Just out of curiosity, what is the source of your statement that "1/3 of women are abused at some point in their lifetimes and 1/3-1/5 of all women are sexually assaulted at some point," and how do you (or the source) define "abuse"? I understand and appreciate the problem of what might be characterized broadly as "relationship abuse," but those figures certainly seem higher than common experience--and the DOJ statistics--would support.

Oh definitely, dramatic improvement indeed. My point was simply that abuse against males and females is not equivalent, which I believe is what BlueProf was saying (my apologies if I read that incorrectly, Professor!).

As for the other stats, the 1/3 of females are abused apparently comes from the same paper I cited. I say apparently because I read a different article that cited this paper having said that. As for the 1/3-1/5 are sexually assaulted, this is a really popular stat (I'm sure a google search will provide a bunch of articles saying this), and I put a range because I've heard anywhere between 1/3 to 1/5 of women are sexually assaulted as some point in their lifetimes. By assault they don't necessarily mean rape but anything that could constitute an assault.

You're absolutely correct that the terms are vague and open to interpretation. But to be honest, I can think of more women who downplay the abuse in their relationship (e.g. if it's not physical, it's not abuse) rather than exaggerate it.

[greybeard]

The Washington Post, once a great newspaper, has begun again the blood-libel against lax players with a headline and article that implies that alcohol abuse among UVa lacrosse players is out of the norm as compared to the general UVa student population, of course without a scintilla of evidence to support that proposition.

Like the war of drugs, which we have oh so badly lost at enormous expense in national treasure and ruined lives, the 21-year old drinking age is wrong-headed and honored only in the breach, among high school students on up.

No amount of statistics about deaths as a consequence of drunk driving will convince a teenager or young adult that the law is anything but an intrusive and impertinent "I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.," that is to be ignored.

It is and it will be a wrong-headed law, no matter what punishment the press forces sports coaches like this yum yuk at UVa, who I have no use for (more in a minute), to impose upon his players for being regular college students and doing what other students do.

At least 18 presidents of major universities have called for the repeal of this insane 21-age-drinking law which they believe serves only to encourage binge drinking and make hypocrites of everyone in authority as far as the young adults who attend their institutions are concerned. These people are the future leaders of this nation and cannot be treated in the way that the 21-age drinking law seeks to, which is like children.

The UVa coach, I have to say, is a crass hypocrite. When the national media practically demanded the cancellation of the Duke LAX season even though DNA evidence just weeks after the scandal hit provided PROOF POSITIVE that the accusations WERE A SHAME, the NCAA moved to help redress the wrong done, the slander done to every kid on that team, by taking the unusual step of granting all of them an extra year of eligibility. Most every LAX coach of any prominence applauded it, understanding that the media had tried to bury the entire sport under a blood libel against the supposed culture of white privilege that the press insisted surrounds their game. We hear the same blood-libel again, even while unfortunate incidents like this happen all the time in and out of university communities among young people with broken hearts--sometimes, way to often, it is self-murder, as in suicide, among young males, who are the most at-risk class in the country for suicide, but that is another story.

I say nearly every major LAX coach because this genuis at UVa was outspokenly up in arms about the NCAA ruling, railing about how it gave Duke an unfair advantage in its quest for a national championship, which the UVa wanted for his ownself. Oh, by the way, the guy did recruit and play a member of that Duke team who graduated Duke after four years of eligibility and played at UVa for his 5th season. I got no use for the guy myself. Do you?

Sorry for the rant, but I think it has some bearing on how this tragedy at UVa is handled.

[cato]

Everything that has been posted so far is fine, but some may feel that this type of analysis this close to the tragedy may be a bit insensitive.

Just be careful.

Thank you for the reminder Mark. And I agree completely. This is just my response to my anger when I hear defense counsel at a press conference claiming that everything was a mistake.

The press tends to be really bad at covering legal issues, so I have no hope that a newspaper or news show (let alone ESPN) will properly outline the standards at play for whether the attacker will be convicted of murder or some lesser offense. I hoped to get input from lawyers on the board with practical experience in VA criminal law, and got just that. Thanks to all who helped us understand what is at play.

[MCFinARL]

The Washington Post, once a great newspaper, has begun again the blood-libel against lax players with a headline and article that implies that alcohol abuse among UVa lacrosse players is out of the norm as compared to the general UVa student population, of course without a scintilla of evidence to support that proposition.

...

I say nearly every major LAX coach because this genuis at UVa was outspokenly up in arms about the NCAA ruling, railing about how it gave Duke an unfair advantage in its quest for a national championship, which the UVa wanted for his ownself. Oh, by the way, the guy did recruit and play a member of that Duke team who graduated Duke after four years of eligibility and played at UVa for his 5th season. I got no use for the guy myself. Do you?

Sorry for the rant, but I think it has some bearing on how this tragedy at UVa is handled.

Two things: first, re Starsia--not only did he play a Duke fifth year (although I'm not sure how much recruiting he had to do, since the player was headed to UVA for grad school and his brother had played at UVA), but he was happy to siphon off a key Duke recruit from the 2006 high school class when Duke released the incoming class from their commitments--so he benefited twice from that situation [not even counting the national championship UVA won when they went undefeated in 2006]. That being said, there were a lot of people who were pretty astonished by, and probably unhappy with, the NCAA ruling--they just didn't all talk as openly about it.

Second, re the Washington Post article: I have to agree it was much ado about very little--after making a big deal about how 8 of 41 players faced alcohol-related charges, they added that the charges were dismissed against 2 of them, so it's really only 6. And they offered absolutely no context in terms of, for example, whether these were all unrelated incidents (imagine the police come to a party and cite 25 people for underage drinking, 5 or 6 of whom are lacrosse players--that seems like much less of a concern than if there are 6 separate incidents), or as you point out, how this rate compares to the rates of other athletes at UVA or other students at UVA.

I was happy to see that a Duke law prof they quoted made that very point. Although noting that this level of alcohol-related charges represented a concern, he refused to take the bait and target UVA lacrosse without comparative data.

As for the drinking age, you are right--the decision to re-raise the drinking age to 21, which did apparently result in a reduction in drunk driving accidents (which was its primary goal), at least at first (haven't checked on this lately) has in most other ways been a disaster. That's not to say, though, that there isn't a problem with college kids drinking--far too much of the drinking that goes on-- maybe because it can't be done legally-- is wildly excessive and potentially dangerous. But I don't see this as a lacrosse problem--it's an American problem.

[allenmurray]

The Washington Post, once a great newspaper, has begun again the blood-libel against lax players with a headline and article that implies that alcohol abuse among UVa lacrosse players is out of the norm as compared to the general UVa student population, of course without a scintilla of evidence to support that proposition.

Like the war of drugs, which we have oh so badly lost at enormous expense in national treasure and ruined lives, the 21-year old drinking age is wrong-headed and honored only in the breach, among high school students on up.

No amount of statistics about deaths as a consequence of drunk driving will convince a teenager or young adult that the law is anything but an intrusive and impertinent "I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.," that is to be ignored.

It is and it will be a wrong-headed law, no matter what punishment the press forces sports coaches like this yum yuk at UVa, who I have no use for (more in a minute), to impose upon his players for being regular college students and doing what other students do.

At least 18 presidents of major universities have called for the repeal of this insane 21-age-drinking law which they believe serves only to encourage binge drinking and make hypocrites of everyone in authority as far as the young adults who attend their institutions are concerned. These people are the future leaders of this nation and cannot be treated in the way that the 21-age drinking law seeks to, which is like children.

The UVa coach, I have to say, is a crass hypocrite. When the national media practically demanded the cancellation of the Duke LAX season even though DNA evidence just weeks after the scandal hit provided PROOF POSITIVE that the accusations WERE A SHAME, the NCAA moved to help redress the wrong done, the slander done to every kid on that team, by taking the unusual step of granting all of them an extra year of eligibility. Most every LAX coach of any prominence applauded it, understanding that the media had tried to bury the entire sport under a blood libel against the supposed culture of white privilege that the press insisted surrounds their game. We hear the same blood-libel again, even while unfortunate incidents like this happen all the time in and out of university communities among young people with broken hearts--sometimes, way to often, it is self-murder, as in suicide, among young males, who are the most at-risk class in the country for suicide, but that is another story.

I say nearly every major LAX coach because this genuis at UVa was outspokenly up in arms about the NCAA ruling, railing about how it gave Duke an unfair advantage in its quest for a national championship, which the UVa wanted for his ownself. Oh, by the way, the guy did recruit and play a member of that Duke team who graduated Duke after four years of eligibility and played at UVa for his 5th season. I got no use for the guy myself. Do you?

Sorry for the rant, but I think it has some bearing on how this tragedy at UVa is handled.

The relationship between a man beating a woman to death with his bare hands after kicking her door in, and the wisdom (or lack thereof) of raising the drinking age to 21 seems to be tenuous at best. To use the murder of this young woman as a launching pad for a rant about the drinking age seems callous. Ms. Love deserves better.

[greybeard]

The relationship between a man beating a woman to death with his bare hands after kicking her door in, and the wisdom (or lack thereof) of raising the drinking age to 21 seems to be tenuous at best. To use the murder of this young woman as a launching pad for a rant about the drinking age seems callous. Ms. Love deserves better.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me--that that is what the Washington Post did by writing an article creating a false portrait of alcohol use among the UVa male lax players--or rathre are criticizing me.

If the latter, sorry I'm not buying it. The fact that this crime has already morphed into a sports story and now into an assault on lax culture is a code word, I believe, for a resurrection of the good old days when ranting about the Duke lax team and the party-hearty atmosphere surrounding it sold papers, or did you forget. The press, I believe, created that scandal out of whole cloth, when responsible journalism would have burried Nifong for continuing with the hoax of a possible crime once the DNA report came out COMPLETELY EXONERATING EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE DUKE LAX TEAM. That remains a low point in American journalism.

Personally, I think that linkage between the Virginia lacrosse programs and this crime and tragedy is completely gratuitous by the press, and that the Post's trying to make a story about a so-called alcoholism issue involving the UVa lax team is salacious and irresponsible.

Why this thread is on the Main Board I am not quite sure.

To the extent it belongs here, one would presume has to do more with the media and the vestiges of the Duke lax hoax than anything else. It seems to me that the Washington Post, or as Mr. T likes to call it, "The Wall Street Post," in trying to raise a false attack on the lax culture at UVa seems only to happy to chart a path that, make no mistake about it, runs smack through Durham, at least in my opinion.

As far as sports goes, that's the story. It's happening again unless people are vigilant, in my opinion.

[greybeard]

"Roughing up", as my friend put it, doesn't have to mean "beating". It may have been just forcefulness in public, some pushing or leading around by the arm. It could have pertained to the type of language he used toward her. Who knows. I think everyone jumped to the most extreme conclusion about what this could mean when I wrote it. I haven't gone back to my friend for clarification because he's in a bad state about it. Maybe someday I'll ask him to clarify.

I think it's unfair to suggest that friends are somehow morally questionable for not reporting anything. These situations are very complex and have to get pretty extreme before the people that know you best decide to intervene, especially in something as serious as a domestic abuse charge. Who knows, maybe they did try to talk to him about it and he just didn't listen. I bet most people figured they could just get through this semester and after graduation, go their separate ways.

Admittedly my generalizations about sports are too broad. I basically said so when I typed them. I'm not going to go around profiling lacrosse players or football players. I was a (terrible) football player. Some of the lacrosse players I met at Duke were/are nice. Some were nice my freshman year and by senior year, had become completely unrecognizable to me, in a bad way. Who you are friends with matters a lot, at all ages.

I do suspect that the more violent the sport, the more likely the players who participate in it are prone to violence, in general. Can't cite any facts or stats, so it remains complete conjecture. It's not something I act on, but if I had to guess, based on the stories about NCAA football and the NFL every year, I'd bet that it's likely true to some extent. Basketball has its issues as well. Maybe it's not sports but the sense of entitlement that society bestows on sports figures?

And there are probably certain programs that have worse cultures than others. I don't think it's unfair to say that lacrosse should examine the cultures of its top programs following two high profile cases like this.

As for greek culture, yes. There is some deplorable activity going on there, too. Duke seems to be trying to deal with that. But they also seemed to turn a blind eye to really bad behavior by the lacrosse team when I was there. So...there was a double standard if you were an athlete. No surprise, I guess, but it's still disappointing.

Also when I said this kid was "out of control", no one really jumped on that statement. To me, this clearly meant that he was abusing alcohol. The news today confirms this. His friends should have intervened to stop him from getting violently drunk, but no one mentioned that. This may be the biggest ingredient of all in the tragedy. But who intervenes with a senior in college when he has an alcohol problem? No one. It's an endemic problem. I and my friends are as guilty as anyone when it comes to this. Saw some kids go Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde on lots of alcohol and didn't do much to stop it. Still don't, when I see it. Am I morally culpable if something bad happens to this guy down the road? Slippery slope.

I have real trouble with this, I mean big time. You think that fraternities or sports teams foster a culture of violence, check out the drug scene that infuses every campus. Then you'll see you some violence. Check out the radical elements on some campuses, and the stuff that they support abroad and at home. Violence in a frat house, please.

No one knows what went on between the two as of yet but money says that she dumped him and that he could not handle it. No, I don't mean that he could not accept it, or did not like it, I mean he could not emotionally handle it. Guys his age are the most at risk of killing themselves as against any other group in the population. Football or lax or fraternities have something to do with that. Please. And, I'm just guessing here, only because great literature is filled with such stories, by a young man who has known the love of a woman and has that taken away, often does violence, to themselves or to their beloveds. At least, that's the way all the great novels read, many trashy ones too.

So, only at Duke would we jump from an apparent crime of passion due to a breakup of a love affair and make it into a commentary on culture surrounding a sport, or social organizations.

This has all the earmarks of a crime that was as up close and personal as it gets. Like I've said already, what this is doing on the main board bets me.

The speculation about culturals surrounding various sports and whether they are a good or bad influence on participants seems oh so ridiculous to me. This is a story of two former lovers, who were fighting as a consequence of an apparent breakup, and one of them killed the other instead of himself. They write novels about such things, make movies about them. They are profoundly sad for all involved.

Anyone who knows of souls who were lost as a consequence of such affairs of the heart has to feel for both sides in this tragedy. Two lives lost, one to death and another to a living hell that was for all appearances born so completely of love, or at least the passion often associated with it.

The sports pages, go figure!

[Indoor66]

I have real trouble with this, I mean big time. You think that fraternities or sports teams foster a culture of violence, check out the drug scene that infuses every campus. Then you'll see you some violence. Check out the radical elements on some campuses, and the stuff that they support abroad and at home. Violence in a frat house, please.

No one knows what went on between the two as of yet but money says that she dumped him and that he could not handle it. No, I don't mean that he could not accept it, or did not like it, I mean he could not emotionally handle it. Guys his age are the most at risk of killing themselves as against any other group in the population. Football or lax or fraternities have something to do with that. Please. And, I'm just guessing here, only because great literature is filled with such stories, by a young man who has known the love of a woman and has that taken away, often does violence, to themselves or to their beloveds. At least, that's the way all the great novels read, many trashy ones too.

So, only at Duke would we jump from an apparent crime of passion due to a breakup of a love affair and make it into a commentary on culture surrounding a sport, or social organizations.

This has all the earmarks of a crime that was as up close and personal as it gets. Like I've said already, what this is doing on the main board bets me.

The speculation about culturals surrounding various sports and whether they are a good or bad influence on participants seems oh so ridiculous to me. This is a story of two former lovers, who were fighting as a consequence of an apparent breakup, and one of them killed the other instead of himself. They write novels about such things, make movies about them. They are profoundly sad for all involved.

Anyone who knows of souls who were lost as a consequence of such affairs of the heart has to feel for both sides in this tragedy. Two lives lost, one to death and another to a living hell that was for all appearances born so completely of love, or at least the passion often associated with it.

The sports pages, go figure!

I agree with you, Bearded one. Sometimes the analysis on this board is so arcane as to be foolish. I also agree that the question of why this thread is not on the off topic board is beyond understanding.

[slower]

The press, I believe, created that scandal out of whole cloth, when responsible journalism would have burried Nifong for continuing with the hoax of a possible crime once the DNA report came out COMPLETELY EXONERATING EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE DUKE LAX TEAM. That remains a low point in American journalism.

Seriously, man, get a sense of perspective. "A low point in American journalism"? Really? This may be a big thing in the Duke community, but NOT in the totality of American journalism.

[Lid]

...another to a living hell that was for all appearances born so completely of love, or at least the passion often associated with it.

I have problems with many things that you wrote; however, I will chalk most of our disagreements up to what I will assume is a deep difference in cultures, norms in our communities, etc. People can come at the same situation from different perspectives, yet still both be well-meaning.

However, IMO someone needs to point out the problem with your statement above. There is no love involved, or "passion associated with love", when someone commits violence against another person. There is no love in violence. This man created his own "living hell," which was born from his lack of control, or drinking problem, or ego, or need for power, or some other situation we can't know about; it was NOT born of love.