Sentenced on 2 charges related to the party disturbance. Judge sentenced him to 300 days, all suspended except 20 days.

Seems extreme to me.

Think that gives new definition to the word extreme. 300 days? Have to be kidding me. Wonder if he will appeal?

Brian

Damn, even the 20 days seems like a pretty heavy sentence. Course we weren't there, who knows how out of hand he may have really gotten. Or perhaps this is the latest incarnation of the local "hangin" judge that there always seems to be one of there locally.

Any sentence at all can ruin the young man's life. I don't know exactly what happened, but that seems excessive to say the least. A hefty fine and some community service would have been more appropriate.

Holy crap that's terrible. I imagine he can appeal right?

So......innocent until proven guilty....and then he's found guilty.....and we complain?

Not complaining about his guilt, complaining about 20 days in jail. Especially when his actions did not require his arrest the night it happened......at a party.......while in college....I am also sure from reading about Rayshawn, he could not afford a top notch legal team.

(05-29-2013 08:17 PM)Dukesfan71 Wrote:  Not complaining about his guilt, complaining about 20 days in jail. Especially when his actions did not require his arrest the night it happened......at a party.......while in college....I am also sure from reading about Rayshawn, he could not afford a top notch legal team.

I too wonder who was representing him in court...heaven forbid he didn't have counsel. The 20 days in the county lockup seems crazy extreme.

Did we ever hear the complete (accurate) story of that night? I'd like to read the court transcripts.

"Claybrook ordered Goins to report to jail this Friday to start his sentence."

No appeal it seems. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Real bunch of reactionaries.

It's hard to understand the need to spend 20 days in jail if there was no urgent need for arrest at the time. I have this gut feeling that Rayshawn didn't get the best representation in court.

This is extreme. He must have had terrible legal representation.

To all of you who clamored that he should play in the LIU game, and told those of us "innocent until proven guilty," I'd just like to repeat the fact that he was found guilty. And you were wrong. He should have sat.

I'll trust a cop's word over a non-cop's word every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Edit: That came off brash. I'm not happy that he was found guilty. But I also wasn't happy to read all of the anti-law enforcement comments when this story broke on the zone. And there were plenty.

Yeah, to all those saying that since they didn't arrest him that night it must have been no big deal, this is what I replied on the Zone thread:
http://boards.caazone.com/showthread.php...ost1872829

the only thing I think I posted was, "This is why we can't have nice things", I stick by that statement.

Also, I think it's okay for people to disagree with a judge's ruling in general, I don't think it's complaining to disagree.

Twenty days seems pretty harsh to me, based on the fact that people convicted of DUI's, at least the first time, get a week or less jail time, and that's way more dangerous than saying, "f the police" or "I'm gonna knock you out if you try to stop me", but then again, I don't know the full story since I wasn't there and didn't have the full transcript.

(05-30-2013 12:40 PM)TheDudeWithTheJMUTat Wrote:  To all of you who clamored that he should play in the LIU game, and told those of us "innocent until proven guilty," I'd just like to repeat the fact that he was found guilty. And you were wrong. He should have sat.

I'll trust a cop's word over a non-cop's word every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Edit: That came off brash. I'm not happy that he was found guilty. But I also wasn't happy to read all of the anti-law enforcement comments when this story broke on the zone. And there were plenty.

Reminds me of a quote I read about being a kid in the 70s. "If a teacher, coach or police officer said you did something, in the eyes of your parents you were guilty until proven innocent".

(05-30-2013 12:51 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  Yeah, to all those saying that since they didn't arrest him that night it must have been no big deal, this is what I replied on the Zone thread:
http://boards.caazone.com/showthread.php...ost1872829

Perhaps a better way to state what I'm thinking is: If they didn't see it necessary to detain him that night, it's disappointing that the result is 20 days in jail. Doesn't seem appropriate from what info I've been made aware.

ridiculous sentence.

Well said Hyper. Rational thought would suggest any "guilty" charge for a crime that comes with jail time would have required incarceration at the time of incident/arrest. I know the logic was not to incite another Harrisonburg riot, but still...

We all have lived in Harrisonburg at some point and this would not even be a topic if there weren't a history of severe policing behavior around JMU. I respect all cops, but I also recognize that sometimes authorities can go overboard. The judge in this case certainly has made it clear that Goin's actions require jail time as a part of the punishment. This smells a bit of "making an example" out of the young man/athlete.

I am not going to throw blame anywhere except Goin's decision to go out and party the week before his biggest game of his life presumably. That was plain dumb. Athletes will sometimes get off easier, and they sometimes are punished severely to prove a point.