Change Ad Consent
Do not sell my daa
Reply to thread | Syracusefan.com
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Media
Daily Orange Sports
ACC Network Channel Numbers
Syracuse.com Sports
Cuse.com
Pages
Football Pages
7th Annual Cali Award Predictions
2024 Roster / Depth Chart [Updated 8/26/24]
Syracuse University Football/TV Schedules
Syracuse University Football Commits
Syracuse University Football Recruiting Database
Syracuse Football Eligibility Chart
Basketball Pages
SU Men's Basketball Schedule
Syracuse Men's Basketball Recruiting Database
Syracuse University Basketball Commits
2024/25 Men's Basketball Roster
NIL
SyraCRUZ Tailgate NIL
Military Appreciation Syracruz Donation
ORANGE UNITED NIL
SyraCRUZ kickoff challenge
Special VIP Opportunity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Syracuse Athletics
Syracuse Football Board
LeQuint Allen is Back
.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="sabach, post: 4696227, member: 866"] I've now read through all the legal papers. LaQunit has a tough case for an Article 78 proceeding. He is claiming that at the first two levels of the SU judicial system, (before one student and then before the student board) he was told that self defense could not be raised or considered. Even if he is right there, the final SU appeal before the adults did discuss self defense and rejected it. One may disagree with their conclusion but there is a big legal difference with addressing a defense and rejecting it and never addressing an available defense in the first place. Only the latter is usually able to be successfully legally challenged. LaQuint's argument is that if the first two levels considered self defense, they may have not given him a two semester suspension. A court will generally not make that type of assumption, especially if the last level of internal appeal did uphold the suspension and did address self defense. Even so, a one semester fall 2023 suspension would take him off the football team this season anyway. He is also arguing in effect that the punishment does not fit the crime. SU suspended him for a year with the opportunity to be reinstated again to finish his degree after a year and presumably play football again. I doubt a court will consider that as a result that "shocks the senses". We may disagree but a court usually is very careful not to interject itself into discretionary decisions that were made at lower levels unless there is a huge miscarriage of justice. I would suspect that SU can show that they have suspended many students in the past who got into a fight with another student so as to show that LaQunit is not unique. He punched another student in the face and allegedly caused a tooth to come out and head injuries. I probably would have done the same thing if I was LaQuint under the circumstances. But it would be very hard for a trial court judge to reverse the decision of a private college on the suspension of a student who admitted to punching another student in the face even without those injuries unless there were massive procedural missteps which now that I have read all the papers, I just don't see. Article 78 proceedings are not easy. I hope for the sake of the season that I am wrong. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?
Post reply
Forums
Syracuse Athletics
Syracuse Football Board
LeQuint Allen is Back
Top
Bottom