Question that probably no one can answer honestly: if Phil Nelson was NOT a former Gopher QB, and people on this board did NOT have positive feelings about Nelson from his playing career, would we view this incident differently. If I show you video of some guy you don't know, and have no prior opinion about - and the video shows this guy running over and kicking a man in the head, while the other man is laying on the ground and unable to defend himself, would you defend him or propose mitigating circumstances the way people here are doing for Nelson?
Again, I don't expect anyone to change their opinion on this case - but just wanted to point out that some people's opinions may be colored by their previous good feelings about Nelson - whether they admit it or not - or whether they're even aware they may have a conscious or unconscious bias in favor of Nelson.
Hey, I rooted for Nelson when he was the Gopher QB, and I still think what he did is inexcusable.
I see just the opposite actually. The Leidner vs Nelson debate went beyond a normal debate for some and created a genuine animosity towards Nelson from many fans. When he left the program it was happy days for those fans, because they'd gotten rid of the guy they loved to hate. It also furthered their cause because now he was a quitter, a bad teammate, a bad leader and generally a bad apple. They made it very personal. Back when this thread began (or was it the original one?) there were several posts mentioning Kill probably knew something like this was going to happen, that clearly Nelson had character issues & this was just further proof. etc. Again, it felt personal. Further evidence is how the anti-Nelson crowd raced to judgement when this story broke. It was and has been quite clear that They WANTED Nelson to be guilty.
They're the extremists. The ones who say Nelson started it, it's his fault, Kohlstad was ok to retaliate, that it was just a shove, etc. On the other hand, you don't see anyone claiming it was ok for Nelson to kick Kohlstad. Or that it was just a tap.
On a scale of 1-10, I see Nelson and Kohlstad as a 5-5 on the guilt scale relative to one another. Maybe Nelson 6-4? Those of us who think Nelson shouldn't be in Stillwater aren't Nelson "supporters". We're not apologists or excusing his actions. The general sentiment is that it takes two-to-tango and Kohlstad was happy to tango that night.
If the older, bigger, high school rival Kohlstad doesn't approach the agitated Nelson to "wish him good luck at Rutgers" (wink-wink), doesn't immediately get into it with Nelson, doesn't start insulting Nelson's girlfriend, doesn't stop Nelson from leaving before things got out of control, if he doesn't sucker punch Nelson...he'd have slept in his own bed that night. People need to admit that Kohlstad had a hand in the escalation of events.
It doesn't mean he deserved to get hurt, it doesn't mean Nelson didn't need to be held accountable for his actions, it just means I'm not going to nod my head when people here pretend Kohlstad/Nelson was a 0-10 guilt assignment that night.
Not sure how saying they both share blame leads you to suggest it's because of some sort of football allegiance to Nelson? Were the judge, the prosecution, the prosecutions expert witnesses all swayed by their football allegiances too? Seems to me the people who're saying these two share blame are perfectly in-line with the law and the anti-Nelson guys are barking at the moon because logic overruled emotion.
