Column: Why Khairi Muhammad shouldn’t be a team captain

[GreenFlag]

3 minutes ago, KRAM1 said:

Believe this happened in Oklahoma. However, Oklahoma has no state law against such activity.  I also believe that Kari simply filmed the activity of others.  While I question why he was even there in the first place, the hit piece by this opinion writer is ridiculous!

Uh yeah, Oklahoma does have a law against animal cruelty whether the animal is wild or domesticated. It’s a felony punishable up to $5000 and 7 years in prison. The raccoon still thinks it’s not a hit piece. 

[KRAM1]

29 minutes ago, greeneagle1 said:

Where are the quotes from Khari, his teammates, and/or the coaches explaining how he was chosen as captain and reflecting his side of the story. This is all one sided. For UNT that has such a good School of Journalism, this guy really needs to take some more classes on how to get both sides of the story. 

 

YOU ARE NOT SKIP BAYLESS.... 

Unfortunately, it is an opinion piece. No research or "other side" opinions or comments necessary.  Simply a hit piece against a fellow student.  And, it created a session on the 6:00pm news as well.  So, TV picked it up...I saw it.  Ridiculous to bring all that stuff back up.

[KRAM1]

1 minute ago, GreenFlag said:

Uh yeah, Oklahoma does have a law against animal cruelty whether the animal is wild or domesticated. It’s a felony punishable up to $5000 and 7 years in prison. The raccoon still thinks it’s not a hit piece. 

Really?  My bad...thought in the original reporting it was mentioned that, while the optics are bad, there is no law against such things in Oklahoma.  Perhaps Oklahoma does not consider it "animal cruelty".  Don't recall Kari being prosecuted for "animal cruelty" in Oklahoma. Was he?

[meangreenlax]

3 hours ago, peanuts104 said:

We're outraged by the outrage culture, if you will.

[peanuts104]

7 minutes ago, KRAM1 said:

Don't recall Kari being prosecuted for "animal cruelty" in Oklahoma. Was he?

He was not.  Hard to prove he did anything considering he was only holding the camera. I don't know if anyone else got into legal trouble for it.

13 minutes ago, GreenFlag said:

Uh yeah, Oklahoma does have a law against animal cruelty whether the animal is wild or domesticated. It’s a felony punishable up to $5000 and 7 years in prison.

Do you know how Oklahoma defines animal cruelty? Because if they were using this as a method to teach the dogs to hunt together, this type of activity may be permitted.  I don't have any knowledge of hunting with dogs so I could be wrong, but this seems like it could be a potential method for teaching dogs to hunt.

14 minutes ago, GreenFlag said:

The raccoon still thinks it’s not a hit piece. 

It's just a raccoon.

[peanuts104]

2 minutes ago, meangreenlax said:

"I can't come up with a counter argument, better drop a spicy meme!"

Although that is a spicy meme. Definitely saved for later.

[UNTLifer]

29 minutes ago, GreenFlag said:

The raccoon still thinks it’s not a hit piece. 

Nah, he’s dead. 

[greenminer]

14 minutes ago, peanuts104 said:

It's just a raccoon.

A dog was sicced on a raccoon.  Not a big deal

”just videod” is an automatic disqualifier from guilt and association

You seem to have a very unique opinion of these two angles.  I would talk more about them, where most people disagree with you, before splitting hairs about the state laws/legalities..

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by greenminer

[MeanGreenTexan]

26 minutes ago, KRAM1 said:

Unfortunately, it is an opinion piece. No research or "other side" opinions or comments necessary.  Simply a hit piece against a fellow student.  And, it created a session on the 6:00pm news as well.  So, TV picked it up...I saw it.  Ridiculous to bring all that stuff back up.

Wow.   With this kind of attention, the writer will undoubtedly chalk the article up as a success.   

[El Paso Eagle]

1 hour ago, greeneagle1 said:

Where are the quotes from Khari, his teammates, and/or the coaches explaining how he was chosen as captain and reflecting his side of the story. This is all one sided. For UNT that has such a good School of Journalism, this guy really needs to take some more classes on how to get both sides of the story. 

 

YOU ARE NOT SKIP BAYLESS.... 

In today's age of SJW it is not always what is legal that matters, it's whether or not the person writing has the same beliefs. If you don't believe what they believe you are not only wrong, you should be destroyed. 

[peanuts104]

3 minutes ago, greenminer said:

A dog was sicced on a raccoon.  Not a big deal

”just videod” is an automatic disqualifier from guilt and association

You seem to have a very unique opinion of these two angles.  I would talk more about them, where most people disagree with you, before splitting hairs about the state laws/legalities..

 

There's not much left to talk about on those fronts.  I've said what I think. People disagree and there isn't much room for common ground.

I'm only splitting legal hairs because someone brought it up and there is a possibility that the activity videoed was not illegal.  I'm not going to dive into Oklahoma penal code and read the definition of animal cruelty and the exceptions to it to find out either.  Just offering some counterpoints.

[GreenFlag]

38 minutes ago, peanuts104 said:

He was not.  Hard to prove he did anything considering he was only holding the camera. I don't know if anyone else got into legal trouble for it.

Do you know how Oklahoma defines animal cruelty? Because if they were using this as a method to teach the dogs to hunt together, this type of activity may be permitted.  I don't have any knowledge of hunting with dogs so I could be wrong, but this seems like it could be a potential method for teaching dogs to hunt.

It's just a raccoon.

"You can be charged with a felony in Oklahoma if you intentionally or maliciously:

• torture, mutilate, or kill an animal
• beat or injure an animal cruelly, or
• deprive an animal of needed food, water, shelter, or veterinary care to prevent suffering.

It’s also a felony to allow, instigate, or promote animal cruelty. (Okla. Rev. Stat., tit. 21, § 1685.)

Despite the animal cruelty law, farmers and ranchers are legally allowed to kill certain animals that injure or chase their livestock. (Okla. Rev. Stat., tit. 4, § 41.)"

I'm pretty sure they teach coonhounds with the scent of racoon pelts or commercially made racoon scent sticks and not live raccoons. I'm not 100% sure about that.  Yes, apparently people used to actively seek their fur and meat!

 

[Green Crazy]

[GreenFlag]

27 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Nah, he’s dead. 

Should I change my handle to "Khari's Pet Raccoon"?

[meangreenJW]

Here's the facts. 1) The young man wasn't arrested nor charged. So the police as well as the DA obviously did not think a law was broken or there was no evidence a law was broken. 2) Since he wasn't charged or convicted he isn't a felon. I agree he made a poor decision to post the video. Its unclear if he was only filming or was directly responsible for the activity. Considering law enforcement officials made the determination there was no evidence he broke the law, this would probably be considered a violation of team rules and punishment handled accordingly. And while some may not like it, they don't have a right to know if there is no legal action taken. If a kid tests positive for marijuana and is punished, do you have a right to know? No, in my opinion. It's dealt with in the manner the coaches and administrators deem appropriate. To be clear, the video makes me squeamish but those who want to see the kids career ended or for him to be punished repeatedly have their priorities wrong IMO. I love animals. Have 4 dogs and 2 cats. I value the future as well as the growth and development of a human over any of them.

[UNTLifer]

12 minutes ago, meangreenJW said:

Here's the facts. 1) The young man wasn't arrested nor charged. So the police as well as the DA obviously did not think a law was broken or there was no evidence a law was broken. 2) Since he wasn't charged or convicted he isn't a felon. I agree he made a poor decision to post the video. Its unclear if he was only filming or was directly responsible for the activity. Considering law enforcement officials made the determination there was no evidence he broke the law, this would probably be considered a violation of team rules and punishment handled accordingly. And while some may not like it, they don't have a right to know if there is no legal action taken. If a kid tests positive for marijuana and is punished, do you have a right to know? No, in my opinion. It's dealt with in the manner the coaches and administrators deem appropriate. To be clear, the video makes me squeamish but those who want to see the kids career ended or for him to be punished repeatedly have their priorities wrong IMO. I love animals. Have 4 dogs and 2 cats. I value the future as well as the growth and development of a human over any of them.

 

Well said.

[MeanGreenTexan]

1 hour ago, GreenFlag said:

Should I change my handle to "Khari's Pet Raccoon"?

[meangreenlax]

2 hours ago, peanuts104 said:

"I can't come up with a counter argument, better drop a spicy meme!"

Although that is a spicy meme. Definitely saved for later.

Yeah, there’s no such thing as outrage culture. It’s a strawman argument. You just don’t like what some people get outraged at

[peanuts104]

10 minutes ago, meangreenlax said:

Yeah, there’s no such thing as outrage culture. It’s a strawman argument. You just don’t like what some people get outraged at

Whether there's actual outrage culture is debatable and is a much broader argument.  My issue is with the article for the most part. All it does is serve at a hit piece for something that already went through the news cycle months ago.