Anonymous Player Arrested For Sexual Assault
A University of Michigan football player was arrested this morning after a female student reported he sexually assaulted her.
The man has been questioned and is scheduled to be released shortly as detectives continue to investigate the 2 a.m incident in the 600 block of South State Street, Ann Arbor police Det. Dave Monroe said.
Police would not release the name of the player today.
A tipster has given me the name of this player but I'm not sure if there's some sort of legal thing that would get me pwned if I relate it. The player in question did not see the field this year but is/was expected to start next year. (No, not Justin Turner.)
Update: don't comment about the name.
Update II: I probably should have done this before I put the post up, but I eliminated the comments after they veered off into long discussions about false accusations that got ugly and political.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 PM ^
I don't think we needed to know that information, either.
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^
Because it will come out soon, the information is solid, and there's more utility in keeping fanbase panic down than obscuring a name for a matter of hours/days. I am trying to strike a balance between CYA and providing information in a timely fashion.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 PM ^
But if the "info is going to come out", why not let it? I've seen about 15 different names posted in this thread (they've been deleted as they pop up), all based on the tiny lead you gave. Maybe one of the kids that has been accused on this thread is the culprit, but what about the other kids who have nothing to do with this?
November 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 PM ^
Personal risk mitigation, and no kids have been accused on this thread for more than ten seconds.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 PM ^
Many years ago I was on student government at one of the University of Michigan's schools.
About half of the sexual assault and racial complaints back then turned out to be unfounded.
Given my experience, whether or not the accusation is true is a coin flip.
We are going to need more information and that will come with time.
However, if the event totally goes away, like a media black out was pulled, then it was a false report to start with.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:48 PM ^
Can we just get an email chain going? It seems to be the thing to do when there are rumors that shouldn't be posted on the board. (kidding, of course)
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:31 PM ^
Does this mean we're officially winning the Fulmer Cup?
These are probably the fastest few points in Cup history...
(Note: I edited this some because apparently my spelling took a break this weekend)
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:00 PM ^
Even if you're not playing in one.
As to the accusations ... I hope it's not true, and if it is I hope the guy is punished appropriately.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:09 PM ^
Anyway, I now have a better understanding of polygraphs in a court of law :^)
Other than the usual let-the-facts-come-out-first, there probably isn't too much more to say.
Don't want to speculate that a sexual assault occurred, nor would I want to say that it's a false accusation. Neither would be appropriate.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:35 PM ^
Please don't be on defense.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 PM ^
The words "future starter" made me feel like that might be a wish in vain.
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:01 PM ^
And not anyone that played this year. As far as I know, that disqualifies all but one or two defensive players.
Edit: Removed position speculation.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:51 PM ^
I am not saying this sexual harassment claim is frivolous, however, the odds are high. The majority of college sexual harassment claims are determined false. The only way to get rid of females making false claims is to give them the same punishment the male in question would get if the claim is ruled a lie/false beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the females in the Hofstra and Duke cases would have got sent to prison. This would hold women more accountable for their actions. Too many males have had their reputations ruined over false claims that something needs to be done.
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:02 PM ^
Let's make this your last post about anything related to law, k?
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 PM ^
Hey Captain Dipshit yourself - how about you point out what part of the comment you disagree with, instead of insulting the poster and running away?
There IS a huge wave of false sex accusations (what the percentage is I am not certain, but it's at least 5% or more), which are enough to make free and innocent men fear for their freedom.
The wave is no doubt aided by the fact that there is zero punishment for false accusers. Cf both Duke and Hofstra, where the false accusers are free and clear.
Usually there is some kind of excuse given by the authorities, like "she's mentally troubled so we don't want to make it any harder for her." In the Hofstra case, the prosecutor said the accuser's lack of criminal record was a factor in not charging her. WTF? This is not like a speeding ticket.
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:26 PM ^
does not mean that the claim is not true.
A HIGH percentage of actual college rapes/assualts go unpunished because the burden of proof is on the female and it becomes a he said/she said scenario. Then the defense attorneys turn the tables to make the victim the defendant. Unfortunately, this means where something did happen nothing comes of the charge.
I hope that in this case the charge is false, but the majority of them are not and nothing comes of it.
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:56 PM ^
"A HIGH percentage of actual college rapes/assualts go unpunished because the burden of proof is on the female and it becomes a he said/she said scenario. Then the defense attorneys turn the tables to make the victim the defendant. Unfortunately, this means where something did happen nothing comes of the charge."
It's disappointing when a true crime cannot be punished for lack of evidence, but the "burden of proof" is always on the prosecution in our criminal system. If you'd rather we take the accuser's word for it and worry about the facts later, I have a ticket to Cuba or China to sell you. Unfortunately, major colleges (Duke is one, Michigan is probably another) have taken on radical campus policies concerning sex crimes whereby students can be expelled with almost zero evidence.
What you call "making the victim the defendant" I call fairly examining the accuser's credibility. If the accuser was willfully intoxicated or took drugs, had a history of false accusation, was mentally unbalanced, or had a history of obsession with romantic partners, vengeful activity against exes, suitors, or people who had rejected them, then the accuser's credibility is seriously compromised.
Rape and sexual assault appear to be the only crimes where the credibility of accusers cannot be challenged (due to rape shield laws). I don't know if they get grilled at trial like on TV, but someone needs to be able to say "you have a history of bullshit." The same needs to go for the accused, their history plays into what the jury thinks they are capable of.
The assertion by feminist professors that women never lie about rape is absolutely false - therefore, there must be investigations into the accuser's credibility, especially in cases where it's entirely a battle of tesimonies, and there must be real punishments for false accusers.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 PM ^
it's OK to rape them?
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:30 PM ^
for a few weeks, collect yourself, and come back and try to achieve average intelligence in your next post.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 PM ^
it was a rhetorical question to the reply.
I hope....
November 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 PM ^
Given the fact that Topher has stated that 1) a victim who is intoxicated when raped should be viewed as less credible and 2) (in another post) that if two people are drunk, it shouldn't count as rape.
That sort of thinking is why we have shield laws.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:52 PM ^
making assumptions from TV and what you THINK Michigan does.
Do you know anyone who has been in the position?
I do and I also know what she went through and yes women do get verbally torn apart by the defense attorney even when they have a pristine background as that is defense 101 in these types of cases.
Sure some women will lie and make false claims, no one is denying that, but some men will also assault women and lie that they didn't do it. Why should an accuser who was assaulted be put through more abuse just to make sure that a crime gets punished?
Lastly, I'm not trying to say that if someone does falsify a claim that there shouldn't be retribution, there should be. But to imply that every case fits neatly into a little TV style bucket where the women is a drunk slut and the guy is choir boy or the girl is nun and the guy is a felon is a gross over simplification of the issue.
November 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 PM ^
in the Duke lacrosse rape case.
It turns out, the DA, Mike Nifong, hadn't even bothered to interview the accuser, but yet had made grandstanding comments to the newspapers to demonize the defendants based on nothing but stereotypes.
His disregard for the specifics of the case initially got him re-elected. Eventually, that disregard got him disbarred.
The specific evidence of the case is what needs to be examined, not a pre-prejudiced view that can be exploited by those in power, as was so egregiously manipulated by Mike Nifong for his own political gain.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:28 PM ^
and rather than striving to be fair and impartial, actually strikes a balance in favor of the accuser, which is precisely the opposite of what our legal system demands. The entire legal system rests on the ability of the accused to challenge the accuser, whether the accuser is the State or an individual victim. If we limit that for fear that an accuser's feelings will be hurt (which, in a legitimate case, comes on top of the pain and horror the victim feels already) then the legal system and presumption of innocence is severely limited.
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:27 PM ^
I hope the player was not involved. But please don't blame the victim because one of our players is alleged to be involved.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:54 PM ^
Here are the facts. Since RR has arrived:
1) Massive lawsuit from WVU, UM pays the legal fees
2) Mass attrition with some players citing "lack of family values,"
2a) coaches curse a lot in practice.
3) Season one under Coach Rod is one of the worst in Michigan History, miss a bowl game for the first time in 30-some-odd years.
4) Offseason NCAA violations reported about an excess of practice time, investigation ongoing.
5) After a hot 4-0 start, including a win over a now-middling 6-5 Notre Dame team, Michigan football loses 7 of its last 8, missing a bowl for the second consecutive season. These are the first consecutive losing seasons since the 50's. Michigan is in second to last place in the Big Ten, with the same amount of Big Ten wins as Indiana.
6) A player, most likely brought in by Rodriguez (pure conjecture), is arrested for sexual assault.
Those are the facts, and issues are beginning to pile up without reprieve.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:57 PM ^
adjectives like "massive" in front of everything it stops seeming like an objective viewpoint, which you seem to be trying to present with your "facts" and "no conjecture".
I believe there was one player who talked about "family values" so thats not really "some".
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:02 PM ^
2, actually. Boren and Tony Clemons.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:19 PM ^
IIRC, Clemons was talking about working too hard in practice and high expectations. I don't recall him using the words "family values".
Anyways... when it comes to family values:
1. Eliot (and Brock) Mealer
RR's and the team's support of the Mealer family in their time of need is well known. I think the actions and support for the Mealer's far outweighs angry parting words of a disgruntled ex-player.
November 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 PM ^
If that doesn't speak to RR's family values I don't know what does.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:58 PM ^
Coaches curse a lot in practice as one of your facts? Nice work.
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 PM ^
1. ONOES a contract dispute. HEEEELP
2. As with every coaching change; only one fat man talked about family values.
2a. Not worth responding to.
3. Read Misopogon.
4. Fail, nothing doing.
5. Read Misopogon, again you are a moron.
6. THATS CLEARLY RR'S FAULT AMIRITE
idiot
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:03 PM ^
It'll be awhile still (maybe), but I'm not convinced Rich Rod did an adequate job in defensive recruiting with his first full class. Even the current class is stacked towards the offense (recent recruiting notwithstanding). Misopogon might have mentioned it (or any one of the graph-loaded diary entries that came out recently), but Rich isn't necessarily blameless here.
In two years (maybe even next year), if we still have walk ons starting will it then be his fault?
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:17 PM ^
This is almost certainly the case. He should have been looking at defense more, but I can see why he didn't. He probably assumed our defense would be alright, but he just needed to get a ton of players that fit his system on offense. Put us in a jam for a while until the defensive recruits start getting here, but I think they're focusing on that side of the ball now.
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 PM ^
1) Massive lawsuit from WVU, UM pays the legal fees
This is standard operating procedure. It really means nothing.
2) Mass attrition with some players citing "lack of family values,"
2a) coaches curse a lot in practice.
The players that left with this excuse were laughed at by the players that stayed. Also, football coaches swear. Real life bosses swear. If you've never been told to get your "fucking shit together" immediately, your job probably isn't that competitive.
3) Season one under Coach Rod is one of the worst in Michigan History, miss a bowl game for the first time in 30-some-odd years.
True.
4) Offseason NCAA violations reported about an excess of practice time, investigation ongoing.
Innocent until proven guilty. Also, JIM TRESSEL defended Michigan on this.
5) After a hot 4-0 start, including a win over a now-middling 6-5 Notre Dame team, Michigan football loses 7 of its last 8, missing a bowl for the second consecutive season. These are the first consecutive losing seasons since the 50's. Michigan is in second to last place in the Big Ten, with the same amount of Big Ten wins as Indiana.
Freshman QB and walk-ons starting on defense.
6) A player, most likely brought in by Rodriguez (pure conjecture), is arrested for sexual assault.
If you're going to make a bullshit, specious point, at least use Justin Feagin as the example. Oh, and the requisite "Larry Harrison under Lloyd Carr" comment must be made.
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:22 PM ^
If the accused is guilty, it would have no reflection on Rodriguez, but on the individual who perpetrated the crime.
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:22 PM ^
Here are the facts. Before RR had arrived:
1) A player was charged with indecent exposure for flashing his body parts all over town.
2) Two players were charged with assault in a St. Patricks Day fight.
3) Converted a 3* FB to be the best MLB he could muster.
4) Michigan had gone just 6-7 against OSU, including 4 straight losses.
5) Michigan had not won a BCS bowl game since 1999.
6) Players' diets involved large pizzas.
7) Coach Carr was arguing with freshman 5* backup quarterbacks, who did not fit in with the other people on the team, on the sidelines during games.
Those are the facts, and thankfully, we took care of that issue without reprieve.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^
Were my statements not facts as much as yours were? Your statements are also facts, and it's a great counterpoint to mine, which is what I was expecting.
You can't deny, however, that what I said isn't true (ok, I used a bit of exaggeration). Yes we have no depth on defense partially as a result of lackluster end-of Carr era recruiting, yes it was a much-needed culture and regime change, and yes we were slumping before RR got there, and yes players were still arrested in the Carr-era.
I'm just playing devils advocate and presenting the situation as it would appear to a non-michigan fan (read: rest of the world outside of the Michigan-centric view of its fans). It looks bad, you can't deny that. It isn't actually that bad when given a little history lesson (not to mention a little long-view), but it looks bad. Just because you don't like to hear it doesn't mean it isn't fact and just because I may disagree doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Not to be a negative nancy, just trying to prove a point.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 PM ^
You've managed to turn a post about a woman possibly being raped into another of 7 hundred billion posts about Rodriguez's job performance - which is not, at all, related to this topic. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Maybe have this conversation on a thread in which it is relevant?
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:13 PM ^
A woman may have been raped. A young man may have made a serious and grave error. That's the point.
Anyone thinking about RR and his job needs to check their priorities.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:16 PM ^
That you can twist someone else's grave misfortunate into an opportunity to rerun your tired "Fire RichRod!" posts?
You're not a negative nancy, you're a one-note dumbass.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 PM ^
Fire Rodriguez? Whoever said anything about that. I feel quite the opposite:
http://sportsjaffe.blogspot.com/2009/11/give-rich-rod-time.html
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:35 PM ^
Your points are well taken except.....let's drop the stuff about coaches cursing in practice. It makes us all look like real wimps. I mean, haven't you ever been on a team where the coach uses some off color language when he is pissed off??
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:37 PM ^
would you just shut up?
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 PM ^
or ~40 at this point
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 PM ^
Have mercy! You are connecting an incident we still know little about with the team's performance on the field? Is this a suggestion that if the team were winning you would not have any concerns?
We won't know the facts about the arrest in the sexual assault case until tomorrow.
1. IIRC, when Beilein came from WVa. he broke a similar clause in his contract. I don't think this is a major issue unless you are a WVa. fan.
2. "Some players"- The only 1 that I know is documented for 'family values' is Boren. Who would the others be that make up this 'some'? As far as Boren is concerned, consider the source. Enough said.
4. In America, innocent until proven guilty, right? These are not violations....they are 'allegations' of violations, not actual violations at this stage of the process. I suppose for some, the fact that there are 'allegations' is enough. But time will tell the truth regarding these reports.
6. This would not be the first case of a player making a mistake in the history of M's football program. Obviously, no one wants to see that but the important part relative to your suggested line of thinking is how RR handles the incident, not that an 18 year old in his charge possible made a bad choice and committed a potential crime.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 PM ^
it's not to jump to premature conclusions about anything. We have some minimal, bare-boned facts and anything beyond that is speculation or opinion. Be patient enough to learn the real facts and smart enough to form your own opinions, and, when no one asks, it's not a bad ideal to keep your opinions to yourself.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 PM ^
Is Charlie Weis who has assaulted ND's football program for a good 5 years. I hesitate to say sexually because the thought of him naked and sodomizing Touchdown Jesus is just horrifying.
Comments