Great.  100 comments in support of a guy that punched his girlfriend in front of her adolescent siblings (who then ran and told their mother he had killed her).

Whether or not Brian is correct, it's nauseating to see the near-unanimous agreement with everything he writes even when it contradicts what people were posting just a few hours ago.

Are you actually serious

Is this a not-even-that-elaborate-scheme to find out just how much people will lap up whatever you put out? 

If so, it's working, and if not, it's disgusting. In the case of a giant D1 defensive end carved of granite punching a woman in the face and chokeslamming her, boy howdy am I glad someone had the courage to stand up and say "hey, in the middle of all this, let's think about that poor 270 pound man." I'm really not seeing how this was worth a single electron in his defense no matter how over-the-top internet people were in villifying him. 

Also, I'm not sure how your personal anecdote is suppose to show that "hey guys, anyone can beat their pregnant girlfriend of 2 years, it doesn't mean you're literally Satan!" when it just shows that maybe your "sympathy" is indicative of your own possible issues with anger (not judging, I've sought help for anger issues in the past so I know admitting isn't easy) and drawing some seriously false equivalences. 

This is the icing on the shitcake and exhibit A in why so many longtime readers have been leaving, in case anyone was wondering. 

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go be angry (and calm myself down) elsewhere. Yet somehow I think I can manage the self-control to not savagely beat my defenseless pet hedgehog or my significant other because even at my most rage-filled worst I've never resorted to shit like that, and any excuses and sympathy are just weak. 

I guess Brian's point is to have sympathy and what not, but in my opinion this whole post walks a fine line between sympathy and excuses.  (Stay with me on this for a second) I think I understand Brian, but I’m not sure. 

I work in social work and have spent the last ten years working with juvenile sex offenders.  In my short time working with these kids, trying to understand their minds, and reshaping the way they think, I’ve always felt and believe that I should keep these kids accountable for their actions.  The kids I’ve worked with have come from all walks of life – suburban rich homes, rough poor neighborhoods, homelessness - everywhere. Each and every one of them also was a victim themselves of either sexual or physical abuse or both.  This shaped them, just like every one in the world is shaped by their experiences whether they have had a hard life or an easy life. The problem is that there are millions of people who have had a “rough” life and don’t act out.  The difference is these kids I work with made a decision.  The wrong decision. 

Frank Clark made a decision.  Was it influenced by his life experiences or whether he’s “wired” a certain way?  Yes, but it’s still his.  We walk a fine line and having sympathy is one thing, but we can’t make excuses.  Maybe Brian needs to expand more on this…that is my opinion.

How contrarian do you have to be to spend a paragraph talking about it being condescending to express sympathy for the victim and pointless moralizing to express your disgust for Clark, and then turn around and post that picture and five paragraphs sympathising for Clark and moralizing against the assholes waving bye?

And also, were any of those quotes anything other than made up?  I'm pretty sure that Frank isn't refusing to look at the camera, he is turning his head so the police can photograph of the bite mark his girlfriend left while he was pinning her to the bed.  He did look at the camera for the mugshot.

That was brilliant Brian, coming from a place of true honesty.  On this topic I could not agree more.

One thing that has been bothering me over the years is how most Americans are so increasingly sactimonious and judgemental and intolerant.

I find it incredibly hypocritical, especially with all the lip service to freedom and individuality and tolerance and due process.  Frank Clark did a bad thing.  Something society should not allow to go unpunished.  Something that makes anyone connected with Michigan feel a bit ashamed.

But unless you do/did something constructive to help the victim, they are doing little more than projecting and piling on by belaboring the obvious. Pointing out the obvious sins of others only seems like a smokescreen, a way of directing the guilt and evil within at others in cheaply justified way .

Brian, I appreciate that you said this because it brings some important points to light, but I don't agree (very much) with this. I'm going to try to choose my words carefully.

There is a place for sympathy, and Frank deserves some. It is sad that a person can get so close and fall. I feel sadness that he will likely not achieve some of his dreams. 

But from the sound of it, Frank Clark mercilessly pounded a woman (who is possibly pregrant) nearly to the edge of what a person can take.

Your post blurs some important lines together. As a lifelong hockey player, I've experienced those blind rage moments often. Even as an adult they still happen and sometimes I act on them and regret it when I do - hell, sometimes people get hurt. But that kind of blind rage and your type of blind rage, and what Frank did are continents apart in how similar they are.

What you're describing is more like Will Gholston pulling on a facemask at the bottom of the pile, or maybe like Todd Bertuzzi attacking Steve Moore as a more extreme example - but the conditions for the attack happening are so inherently different they're not similar at all. When you take the field or take the ice, you're implicitly acknowledging the potential for bodily harm because of what sport is. No, you're not expecting to be attacked, but the game provides an environment that can spawn conflict which can manifest in physical force being used. It's not always right, but it's also not unexpected. 

Frank Clark's victim had no option to opt in or out of the circumstances and was just subjected to the beating. 

It is also entirely something else to continue beating someone when they're clearly harmed. We don't know all the details in Franks case, but the fact that kids are running out of the room terrified that Frank is killing her suggests this wasn't just a "it happened so fast" kind of moment.

Not all women are physically inferior/helpless to a man's violence, but damn near all of them are going to be physically inferior to an NFL caliber DE. If Frank or me or anyone else did this to say a 5 year old child or someone equally as helpless to physical force, would we be so concerned with sympathy? I don't think so.

What Frank did was an egregious act. Utterly egregious, against humanity, even. 

Yes, we all act impulsively, sometimes despicably, sometimes just as despicably as Frank Clark - we're not different in that respect.

But when you lump those who respond angrily to Frank's action into the "he's a miserable waste of atoms camp" - it's pretty disingenuous. Do I support sending the mob out to hang him? No. People should be cognizant and responsible in what they're saying. But Frank is a representative of our university, and we should be mad at him. He failed in one of the worst ways a person can fail at that job.

Do I want Frank to pull it together and live a better life going forward? Of course. I would like that for all the people that make mistakes that cost them so dearly, not just the ones fortunate enough to star at elite athletics. But you're not going to see me lamenting Frank sleeping in the bed he made. Not right now anyway, that's exactly where he belongs right now. It's up to him what path he takes next. 

What do I do now that I realise sending my 'thoughts' out to people is condescending? 

I don't believe in a Supreme Being that has ordered the universe in such a way that He hears my prayers and they matter.  But I strongly believed that somehow my thoughts could go out from my conscious self and settle on another person in such a way that benefited them.  

...and the viceral reaction it has sparked, is a great microcosm of the challenges with issues like this.  

My short term reaction is, "Frank Clark is a horrible person who should be locked up for a very long time."  I feel a lot of people stop with that reaction and don't take the time to process what that means.  It's 100% okay to be mad as hell with Frank Clark.  It's not okay to leave it at anger and then pretend like Frank Clark no longer exists and feel like you are a good person because you get angry at big men who beat up defenseless women.  because, Frank Clark does exist, and he's probably doing this to other people.  And simply because you don't see it, and he is not associated with an institution you hold dear, doesn't make it better.  You're a good man if you say we won't accept this behavior in our society and then you're willing to invest in the programs that actually help reduce the incidences of it. 

Along with the Bo's death post and a few others this is one of the best things I've ever read on this site. 

From what I know Frank Clark deserves to pay a severe price for his actions.  But as someone dismissed from the team this far into his career he will pay a far more severe price than many would in his situation.  I'm not sure how things work with U-M, football alumni but I'm guessing that dismissed players don't automatically get included in team reunions (at least those under official auspices), and his place in U-M football history is set in stone.

Although I basically agree with Brian that Michigan made the right decision and the legal system will and should proceed.  My only thought is -- could he have been suspended for the rest of the season (his career) with the possibiility of some kind of post-graduation reinstatement well into the future if he does everything he needs to and beyond (anger management classes, sincere and consistent contrition, public service etc.) to show this was an isolated inicident.