The Shootout: Did Justin Sasso Perjure Himself?
Colorado Eagles/Wendy's Six Goal Shootout Sign
By Mike Bauman
In open court KFKA owner, Justin Sasso, testified under oath that he had never heard the term “shoot out” used in a sports context. Should his ignorance be grounds for permanent legal restrictions? Do you think he was lying?
Some images from a quick web search:
Tags: By Mike, By Mike Bauman, caption, Colorado, Colorado Eagles Wendy, images, Justin Sasso, KFKA, Mike, Mike Bauman, search, Six Goal Shootout Sign, web, Wendy, width
Trackback • Posted by Mike Bauman in General News category
Please leave a reply...
© 2010 - 2013 Northern Colorado Gazette , PO Box 6, Greeley CO 80632 • All Rights Reserved •
| Powered By Zera Communications | Follow us |  |
 |  |
Entries(RSS)
Great journalism–your boss will be impressed. That statement was completely immaterial to the proceedings, too. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
So….has the Gazette abandoned all hope of ever being considered a non-biased source? Or are you guys just accepted the inevitable–that you are just an arm to spread the voice of Brett Reese further than it should be heard.
Anyone in the broadcasting business would have to guarantine themselves from sportscasts during the football season, especially in a region where the Big 8 / Big12 conference schools are located, not to have heard the term “shootout”. In recent years the game between rivals Oklahoma University and the University of Texas has been a major event with BCS, national, and conference championship significance. A broadcaster who was ignorant of these events would likely be thought incompetent. Since the year 1900 through 2005, this annual game was referred to as “the Red River Shootout”.. It is now referred to as the Red River Rivalry. Anyone involved with this event, from watchin on TV to buyig tickets online is very familiar with this descriptive designation. To deny this knowledge would nearly be an admission to being from some other planet, or playing fast and loose with the truth!
Sorry about the two typos.
I really don’t care about Reese. However, if Sasso claimed he didn’t know what that the term “shootout” was used in sports, he’s either a moron or a liar. If he did it under oath, then he’s likely a criminal liar in my opinion.
To the poster who said it was immaterial, in what sense? If taken literally, it’s a threat. If viewed as a common figure of speech, it just an innocuous statement of competition.
What is it about having honest discussion about these things that makes people so uncomfortable?
This headline is just plain silly and dumb. I did not take Brett’s phone call to Sasso as a threat, but I could understand how Sasso could have especially given the fact that they are competitors and Sasso has a radio station where they, sadly, have to report that there are “shoot outs.” I think Chrisann stated it best in a post yesterday.
“If you are an honest one, you can’t say that I am wrong because that is what I feel and all feelings are relative to the feeler.”
Maybe Justin Sasso isn’t a sports fan. Who knows? I think the best course of measure for Brett’s newpaper would be to lay low on the subject until a judge decides.
the listener’s interpretation of the statement is irrelevant to the issues to be decided at such a hearing. But call Brett’s buddy Buck on this. I’m sure he’ll be eager to prosecute. Fools! Brett, you need another city. You’re about out of sychophants here.
Yeah, bumpkin, but the point is did Sasso lie under oath. Do you honestly think he’s never heard the term shootout in a non-firearms related manner before? There’ s just no way!
Gary-
Whether Sasso believed he was in danger or not was the sole issue in the hearing. How can you possibly ignore that fact? Also, name calling… really?
Let’s resolve this, shall we? The law (see below) does not require any consideration of the alleged fear of the protected person. The focus is solely on the restrained party.
13-14-102, CRS: If upon such examination the judge or magistrate is of the opinion that the defendant has committed acts constituting grounds for issuance of a civil protection order and that unless restrained will continue to commit such acts, the judge or magistrate shall order the temporary civil protection order to be made permanent or order a permanent civil protection order with different provisions from the temporary civil protection order.
I agree–name-calling (“sexual deviant and American-hating communist)” is a sign of intellectual weakness, right Brett?
Thanks for that, Bill. However, what you are willfully, or otherwise, choosing to ignore is the phrase “grounds for issuance”. There has to be a basis. Sasso’s testimony as to his supposed fear establishes the grounds. The misguided but largely true commentary on MLK is off topic.
Sasso’s alleged fears are likewise irrelevant. The focus is on what Brett said.
Facts, facts, facts . . . (unlike American hating communist)
Grounds for issuance under the statute:
A temporary civil protection order may be issued if the issuing judge or magistrate finds that an imminent danger exists to the person or persons seeking protection under the civil protection order. In determining whether an imminent danger exists to the life or health of one or more persons, the court shall consider when the most recent incident of abuse or threat of harm occurred as well as all other relevant evidence concerning the safety and protection of the persons seeking the protection order. However, the court shall not deny a petitioner the relief requested solely because of a lapse of time between an act of abuse or threat of harm and filing of the petition for a protection order.
(b) If the judge or magistrate finds that an imminent danger exists to the employees of a business entity, he or she may issue a civil protection order in the name of the business for the protection of the employees. An employer shall not be liable for failing to obtain a civil protection order in the name of the business for the protection of the employees and patrons
Very good. Sasso had to show he was in imminent danger. Now, how did Sasso claim he was in imminent danger? By claiming that the term “shoot out” and “shoot out over sponsors” meant a fight with firearms. There could be no other contextual meaning. For this reason, Sasso had motive to lie as to alternate contextual meanings. The question is, do we think he did.
I do.
In determining whether an imminent danger exists to the life or health of one or more persons, the court shall consider when the most recent incident of abuse or threat of harm occurred as well as all other relevant evidence concerning the safety and protection of the persons seeking the protection order
This says nothing of the subjective state of mind of the protected person.
I have a question. Brett stated the everyone in this town knows, “what and who” Justin Sasso is. WHAT is he? I don’t know the man.
Wasn’t at the proceeding, but if he doesn’t know the term I belive he would be lying as he is in advertising. It is used very often. There was nothing that should have been applied to any permanet order. Just like caarrying a gun provokes hystria from the BOE.
Bill, .In determining whether an imminent danger exists to the life or health of one or more persons, the court shall consider when the most recent incident of abuse or threat of harm occurred as well as all other relevant evidence concerning the safety and protection of the persons seeking the protection order
This says nothing of the subjective state of mind of the protected person. IS what you stated.
Well, that is B.S. Because I have a psychologist and proof of the states of mind and very real fear for two children and the court did nothing. The principal and asst. principal followed me outside of school boundaries down the street just to question every person I talked with child or otherwise regarding a petition for lunch.
PUT A SOCK IN IT. Restraining orders and the legalism is indiscriminately handed out in this county depending on who is really looking at it the law is open for interpretation like everything else when you go to court. Regardless if you have a professional mental health person or not present for the stateof mine of the protected person.
More imporantantly, every day these children are subject to those that abused them and that issuing judge who denied my motion doesn’t have to live with the continued nigthmares and psycholgoical impact that I have to address. They never do. The impersonalized fear can be afforded to be dismissed when it is real versus this cry wolf piece of work which insults those who really need the restraining orders and hear about such abuse of it.
@bumpkin-
I have no idea. I’ve never met the man either. Can’t say as I’d care to.
not a single one of those examples represents a one-on-one contest. That’s what Brett threatened. Enjoy your appeal and attorney’s fees, Brett. You will lose.
The question the Gazette is asking is whether,or not Sasso was lying when he said that he had never heard the term “shoot out” in a sports context. I don’t know if Sasso lied in court. Maybe he didn’t hear it, take it to mean, or perceive that Brett said “shoot out” in a context relative to sports. In the manner in which Brett used the words, Sasso may not be lying. He may never have heard of ‘shoot out” used in a sports context combined with a threat, a deadline to stop him from doing something, or ELSE. Brett didn’t use the term shoot out in a sportsmanlike context, or fashion. What sport’s shoot outs come with threats, a deadline and an ultimatums? None. My answer as to whether I had heard of a shoot out would be ‘no, I have never heard the term ‘shoot out’ used in a sports context in this fashion.’ According to Sherrie Peif, Chrisann told Brett his words were bad. Brett called back, not because he was cut off but to try to clarify his words.
Should Sasso’s, “ignorance be grounds for permanent legal restrictions?” That’s for a judge to decide. That’s why the judge was there to hear the case and apply the law. While I don’t feel Brett’s message was a physical threat, the judge took in other factors and situations relating to Brett carrying his gun concealed to come to a conclusion. .