There is an interesting, and sad, scandal at the University of Southern California. Football star and NFL prospect Josh Shaw has been indefinitely suspended after admitting he made up a story that turned him into a national hero after he claiming to have injured both ankles jumping off a balcony to save his drowning nephew. He was heralded by the school and national media until the Los Angeles Times debunked the story in a scandal reminiscent of Manti Te’o controversy.
The school pushed the story originally of how Shaw was at a family party in Palmdale, Calif., Saturday when jumped to save his 7-year-old nephew, Carter.
According to the Trojans’ website, Shaw claimed he had jumped from a second-story balcony onto concrete before dragging himself into the pool and rescuing his nephew, who doesn’t know how to swim.
Shaw has admitted that he lied after the LA Times uncovered that there was a police account sharply contradicting his story. On the night that he claimed to have jumped from a second-floor balcony to save his nephew there was a police report of a woman screaming at an apartment complex about 60 minutes from Shaw’s family function. A woman told police that she saw a man run across a balcony and provided a description. That description was read to another woman at the complex who said “Sounds like my boyfriend, Josh Shaw.”
After going national with the hero story, the university was livid. Head coach Steve Sarkisian stated “He let us all down . . . Honesty and integrity must be at the center of our program.”
Shaw, a senior cornerback and team captain, has retained a lawyer.
The question is the appropriate sanction for such a false statement. The most serious aspect is not the false public account but lying to the university. The indefinite suspension from the program is obvious but should there be the additional suspension from the school? I think the team suspension is more than sufficient and a very sad blow at a critical point in this promising career. Not only will Shaw miss key games to show his abilities but NFL teams are leery of athletes with off-field problems though it did not bar Manti T’eo ultimately in joining the San Diego Chargers as a linebacker this year. The suspension is indefinite, which raises the possibility that he may never play again for the Trojans.
I expect that this is a nightmare for Shaw and his family. Teenagers can do and say stupid things. Most of us are not held up to the national limelight on such occasions. There is no indication of a crime here, but there is a serious violation in not just lying but claiming to be a hero. As an academic, I find such cases very difficult because we have all seen good kids (and adults) who get caught up in a lie that snowballs out of control. I would have much preferred his admitting the lie before the LA Times debunked the story but I hate to see a young man like this crash and burn over such a scandal.
What do you think?
Source: LA Times
122 thoughts on “Southern California Football Star Suspended After Hero Claim Debunked”
P.S Sorry I forgot a point. I said I’m enjoying the NCAA opening day. On the football field, there is not an iota or scintilla of Affirmative Action – complete neutrality without bias – only winners and losers – players who make the team and those who fail to make the team.
How about that?
How about that???? I watched the UGA game today. I’m now watching a baseball game. Please remind me of the year that African Americans were allowed to play baseball? Oh, yeah…1947. Why? Mainly because they had served in WWII, and it was unseemly to further ban them.
How about that??
Collectivist/liberal 101 – When losing a debate, begin name-calling.
I very much resent your accusation. Do you similarly accuse Lincoln – he has a Memorial in a National Park, you know. Do you think I should sue for defamation or libel as I sit and watch all my favorite college football teams on this opening day of NCAA Football (I’m an Alabama fan – Roll Tide). Have you seen that Jameis Winston of the “Noles”? He’s a phenomenon. Perhaps I should seek a decision from the very constitutional Justice Thomas with whom I find much agreement.
I doubt anyone would disagree that Lincoln appropriately abolished slavery and brought it to a grinding halt. He planned to compassionately repatriate freed slaves which would be what most people would desire; to go home – to flock together. Did not the Hebrews conduct the Exodus from Egypt after release from slavery? Did the Israelis want to go to their own homeland; their own country? Do you think Lincoln proposed repatriation for the benefit of the freed slaves themselves? Would the freed slaves have enjoyed a better outcome having arrived at the home of their ancestors? Lincoln had no malice. Do you deliberately miss the point?
You resorted to name-calling way back in the beginning of this discussion, and so, this is how you end it. Collectivist/liberal is a term you employ in what you hope is a put down of someone. I don’t claim to even know what your definition of a “collectivist” is, but you may call me a liberal to my face.
Do not make comparisons lightly to the “Hebrews” as they are my people, and you have no idea what the Hebrews nor the Israelis wanted. Please spare me the right wing idea of what Israelis want. I hear it in the media daily, and it is a far cry from my Israeli friends and relatives.
I never thought that Lincoln had any malice. You, however, do, and you have no problem believing that you are demeaning someone if it suits your agenda, then scream “name-calling” when it is pointed at you. Typical. I’m sorry, I just can’t waste my time on a narrow-minded, foolish person who likes to pigeon hole people to suit a purpose while screaming persecution. No one is accusing you of anything you haven’t stated yourself. Go cry yourself to sleep.
OK. I was just about to lay the fact that Vattel was a vampire on him. From one of earliest articles:
Sooo, I got to thinking, “What if the Vattle Birthers were right??? What if Emerich de Vattel was the ORIGINAL SOURCE of English common law on natural born citizenship??? Vattel would have had to be around in 1598, for there to have been three centuries of law on this in 1898 . Sooo, I double-checked wiki and LO AND BEHOLD!!!, Vattel was allegedly born on April 25 1714 and died December 28, 1767, But how could this be if he was the ORIGINAL SOURCE of English law back in 1598???
There is only one explanation- – -Emerich de Vattel was, and is, a VAMPIRE!!! He was there in 1598, an alien, residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, in England!!! Probably a judge, presiding at a Knight Court???
Now don’t laugh. I know Halloween is this month, but this explains a lot. Maybe the Vattle Birthers aren’t a CULT like I have previously stated, but instead poor, innocent victims of this centuries old VAMPIRE, who has bit them in the neck and turned them into Renfield-like zombies un-able to read and think for themselves, left scrounging through dumpsters for little tidbits of law and scraps of language upon which they subsist. Anybody who has ever debated them knows exactly what I am talking about.
This also explains all the Vattle Birther obsession with BLOOD lines and how, when you just kill a Vattle Birther WITH LOGIC, they just get back up like nothing ever happened and keep on repeating the same stuff!!!
You know, you may be on to something. Now I’m not making a comparison, and I trust you and others won’t see it that way, but it reminds me of the Nazi fascination with ancient societies such as the Vril. As far as I know, they weren’t Vampire cults, but they all seemed to hearken back to old Norse legends and superstitions. Perhaps Vattel wasn’t Swiss after all, but traced his ancestry back to Transylvania. With all the goings on back and forth within the dominions possessed by the English crown along with the attachment between the English and Germanic “races”, the vampire people could travel back and forth, between fiefdoms, and centuries, with little notice given.
Was I sleeping??? Did I miss the part where he explained Vattel’s statement about England? And Blackstone’s statement that France and England had different systems? How about him answering my question? Did I miss that?
Go back to sleep, you’re missing nothing of substance. I did hear about the inherent inferiority of the black race re: Lincoln, but no answer to your question.
Should that answer appear, it will most likely be startling enough to wake you from a deep sleep.
He thinks he won….
I’ll take that as a concession.
Thank you very much.
I must say, it was far too easy to win this debate.
Maxcat, I’m glad we agree on the greatness of Lincoln.
If that’s how you win debates, you are arguing with yourself. I simply will not entertain any more foolishness.
As for Lincoln, we agree in totally different areas.
Have your delusions. You are welcome to them. I don’t need the aggravation to argue with one whose mind is already set in cement, however wrong.
So John uses Lincoln’s words to what end? What is the purpose of pointing out Lincoln’s mistaken notions, which he obviously changed later on down the road? Is John saying that a mulato should not be President of the USA? I don’t know, I’m asking. Just what is John saying? He’s been quoting these things by Lincoln for weeks now, but fails to come right out and say what his purpose for quoting Lincoln is. Is it too awful to own up to? I’m not accusing, I’m asking.
The Law of Nations by Vattel is simply a book. The “Law of Nations” in a larger sense is how nations deal with one another on different matters, and usually by treaty.
You asked, o simplify:
Was Vattel’s requirement of “parents” for “natural born citizen” rejected?
Did Blackstone accept, reject or correct Vattel’s requirement for parents to establish natural born citizenship or an other form of citizenship in the Law of Nations.
Vattel’s requirement wasn’t his personal requirement. He was writing about the French, where the citizenship was based predominantly on parentage.
We know this because even Vattel wrote that the law was different in England, to wit:
214 of Book 1, that “there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
As far as Blackstone, he agreed that England and France had different systems, saying:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
Sooo, now you should be able to answer the question:
Do you believe that Obama is the legal POTUS?
Comments are closed.