Best arrest ever.
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
Will Campbell Thinks He's In Dukes Of Hazzard, Is Not
Filed under:
![Dukes-Of-Hazzard-TV-09[1]](http://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/images/Will-Campbell-Thinks-Hes-In-Dukes-Of-Haz_DDC8/Dukes-Of-Hazzard-TV-091.jpg "Dukes-Of-Hazzard-TV-09[1]")
WHICH ONE OF THESE MEN IS WILL CAMPBELL? TRICK QUESTION
He is not correct. The result:
According to Ann Arbor police, Campbell was arrested after attempting to slide across the hood of a vehicle at 2 a.m. on April 7 in the 600 block of Church Street. An officer in the area could hear the sheet metal on the hood of the car buckle under Campbell’s weight — he’s listed at 322 pounds — and arrested the senior, police stated.
Campbell was intoxicated, according to police.
I'd hope so.
He's got a felony and a misdemeanor coming, which will obviously be pled down to some community service and a fine and Brady Hoke doghouse time. Will it affect his availability for Alabama? I'd say probably not, but we'll see.
May 31st, 2012 at 3:56 PM
#2
Best arrest ever.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:25 PM
#3
Honestly
I hope this makes an EDSBS Fulmer Cupdate. This deserves points (or negative points?) for utter hilarity. Picture a drunk guy trying to slide across the hood of a car. Now picture a 330lb drunk guy doing it... and the hood breaking.
Seriously, I hope it's on video. Has anyone checked ricksline.com yet? do they have archives?
May 31st, 2012 at 3:58 PM
#4
No man that large should ever
No man that large should ever try to slide across a hood of a car.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:00 PM
#5
That's hilarious. Why is an
That's hilarious. Why is an arrest needed? He's of age, why can't they just ask him to pay to replace the hood before they arrest him. Seems like overkill.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:03 PM
#6
his birthday is July 6, 1991.
his birthday is July 6, 1991. So he's not of age
June 1st, 2012 at 9:58 PM
#7
Depends on where
he actually consumed said alcohol. If he consumed it in Canada, then he is legal.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:06 PM
#8
Technically, he'll be of age
Technically, he'll be of age in July...that said, it seems to me that he should just have to replace the hood.
Was this stupid? Undoubtedly. A crime? Come on.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:11 PM
#9
only if it's on purpose. If
only if it's on purpose. If your intention was to do something hilarious, it is not a crime.
May 31st, 2012 at 5:45 PM
#10
Actually, if you're
Actually, if you're hilariously smashing a camera (or car) you still do it on purpose. That means you had the necessary intent to commit a crime. For some reason, comedy is not a defense in our legal system. (although it totally should be).
May 31st, 2012 at 6:10 PM
#11
It's blowing my mind that you
It's blowing my mind that you can't tell I was joking
May 31st, 2012 at 6:03 PM
#12
But intent is a big part of
But intent is a big part of how crimes are charged, for example first degree murder vs manslaughter.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:11 PM
#13
Sure. You did that on
Sure. You did that on purpose, though. It sounds as though Will was trying to slide across the hood of the car. He was (predictably) not successful, but without willful intent, I don't see a crime.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:25 PM
#14
He didn't willfully intend to
He didn't willfully intend to jump onto property. His intent was to slide across it without damaging it. A better analogy for you would be that you were trying to pop the memory card out of my camera and dropped it on accident. You were attempting to do something that, when executed correctly, wouldn't cause any harm, but in the act of doing so, you accidentally caused the damage.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:29 PM
#15
Eh, I don't know about you,
Eh, I don't know about you, but I don't want anybody trying to slide across the hood of my car. No matter his intent, he shouldn't have attempted the feat in the first place. I doubt he would have tried the same thing if he had been sober.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:32 PM
#16
Oh, I agree completely.
Oh, I agree completely. That's why I think he should replace the hood.
May 31st, 2012 at 6:31 PM
#17
Completely Agree
I agree that 'intent' is not the issue. The issue should be whether or not it was, in fact, objectively funny. It doesn't matter if he was trying to be funny. If it was not actually funny, then he should be charged for a crime.
Judging by the fact that Big Will was arrested, I would say he was not funny enough in his attempt to slide across the hood of a car. Which in and of itself is a crime: wasting the endless comic possibilities of a drunk 300lb manchild playing Dukes of Hazard.
So, as you can see, we are in complete and total agreement.
May 31st, 2012 at 8:15 PM
#18
I'm sorry, but that makes
I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. The whole reason behind the felony charge is INTENT. To then go and say it had nothing to do with intent is completely contradictory. If it wasn't his intent, he is not guilty of a crime of intent. Period.
As far as the misdemeanor goes, I'll tell you what - if you break my camera, whether it's accidental or on purpose, justice will be served when you buy me a new one. No reason to file a report. Just buy me a new camera. No reason to bring the fuzz in. At worst, it's a matter for civil court.
Also, vehicular homicide is different from property damage. The comparison is invalid.
June 1st, 2012 at 2:17 PM
#19
You've given me a headache...
And now I must drink 3 hrs earlier than was originally my intent for the day
May 31st, 2012 at 4:34 PM
#20
No doubt it's a lesser crime.
No doubt it's a lesser crime. I think the questioning, here, is more whether this seemingly reckless and accidental destruction of property rises to the level of a FELONY. Misdemeanor, sure, that makes sense... examples of misdemeanors: public intoxication, disorderly conduct, vandalism. Might these fit the bill? Should the kid really serve a 5 year prison sentence for what he did?
Doubtful that he would serve the maximum sentence, or perhaps even get convicted of the felony. But one would have to conclude that the AAPD, by virtue of their charging him with that level of crime, believe that such a sentence would be appropriate. And that, I vouch, is the reason for the head-scratching and questioning. That said, when all the facts come to light, maybe we'll have a different view.
May 31st, 2012 at 5:10 PM
#21
It's a property crime.
The amount of damage makes it a felony. More than $1,000 makes it a felony. Less than $1,000 makes it a misdemeanor.
May 31st, 2012 at 10:46 PM
#22
See above
Fgowolve's response to my question regarding intent.
Perhaps the po-po are instructed to presume malicious intent and let the courts sort it all out. But that would be an incredibly inefficient use of the courts, and therefore should not be surprising if true.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:37 PM
#23
Your analogy makes no sense.
Your analogy makes no sense. By tryiing to be funny by smashing the camera, you're still intentionally destroying the camera. By trying to be funny by sliding over a car hood, you're not intentionally smashing the hood. If he had climbed on top of the car and stomped on the hood over and over, you'd have a much better argument.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:49 PM
#24
So which one of the two posters above me
is going to shoot first?
May 31st, 2012 at 6:02 PM
#25
I believe them lawyer types
I believe them lawyer types refer to it as a "reasonable person" standard.
May 31st, 2012 at 6:10 PM
#26
Intent
Criminal intent is not based on intended outcome. It's based on intended action. Theoretically, Campbell fully intended to jump and slide over that car. There's your criminal intent right there. It just so happened that his intentional action damaged the car. He didn't intend to do that, but he did anyway. A proper defense would be that, someone pushed him and it knocked him against the car, damaging it. In that case, he did not intend to make contact with the car. You do intend contact with the car when you think it would be funny to slide across it.
May 31st, 2012 at 6:30 PM
#27
caveat:
Sometimes the action is the outcome, such as the "taking of a life."
June 1st, 2012 at 9:25 AM
#28
"Campbell fully intended to
"Campbell fully intended to jump and slide over that car. There's your criminal intent right there."
Whut?
May 31st, 2012 at 8:04 PM
#29
I think a better analogy
I think a better analogy would be: Man thinks it would be funny to take camera and take a pic of his back fat. In the process, he drops and breaks the $1000+ camera. Intention was not to cause any damage or commit any crime. I'm not a lawyer obviously, nor do I know how this sort of thing works. This just seems like a case where intention should come into play somewhat.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:43 PM
#30
Just don't ever try to make
Just don't ever try to make it as a criminal defense attorney, OK?
June 1st, 2012 at 2:05 PM
#31
I think technically that's
I think technically that's called a plea of "No Contest."
May 31st, 2012 at 4:35 PM
#32
The police apparently
The police apparently disagree with you, considering they arrested him.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:46 PM
#33
...because the police are
...because the police are always correct? They never go overboard, just ask Rodney King.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:17 PM
#34
Something about intent maybe
Something about intent maybe worth considering and how it fits in criminal law.
Stupid act by a college kid which our fine Ann Arbor police, using notroiously bad judgement, then become overly zealous and charge a kid with a felony. Good God.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:38 PM
#35
Over zealous? nope, the
Over zealous? nope, the norm. This country is jail-happy, and its very easy to be charged with multiple crimes for even the simplest of supposed offenses. And I'm not talking about pot, either.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:07 PM
#36
I have no idea what the
I have no idea what the details are right now, but when they come out I think it'll be pretty likely that BWC wasn't exactly hanging around the scene offering to fix the damage, necessitating the police involvment. Woo baseless speculation.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:01 PM
#37
At least
At least he didn't try to jump a gulley.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:51 PM
#38
So you're saying the arresting officer was...
May 31st, 2012 at 4:01 PM
#39
seatbelt unbuckled, wheeew.
seatbelt unbuckled, wheeew.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:03 PM
#40
I will pay a king's ransom
I will pay a king's ransom for this youtube clip.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:03 PM
#41
Did he have a bow and arrow with dynamite strapped on?
I doubt he could fit through the window.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:10 PM
#42
If they both roll down and there is no B pillar...
Now all he has to do is worry about lifting his legs high enough while wearing the skin tight jeans.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:23 PM
#43
How much moonshine?
How much moonshine does it take to get a man-child that size to attempt to slide across a hood? Did he scream Yee-Haw? How hard did Greg Mattison laugh about this the instant the door slammed post-ass-reaming? So many questions left unanswered.
Stupid oughta hurt...I'm guessing it will in this case.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:04 PM
#44
This does seem a little like
This does seem a little like overkill...hopefully it's not the same DA as last time
May 31st, 2012 at 4:04 PM
#45
So I'm guessing it wasn't his
So I'm guessing it wasn't his car or the car of anybody he knew.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:12 PM
#46
It was Pryors
His insurance would not cover becuse it had expired........but his mom still has a heated house though!
May 31st, 2012 at 4:06 PM
#47
Good to see
He took all of that SEAL leadership training to heart. I understand he's young and "we all did stupid stuff" but the training wasn't even a week ago.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:10 PM
#48
you're mistaken
It happened about 8 weeks ago, actually a week before the spring game.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:13 PM
#49
Yeah, and the auto-abuse was
Yeah, and the auto-abuse was almost two months ago.
Edit- Too slow.
May 31st, 2012 at 6:25 PM
#50
Yes
Hopefully the SEALs taught him the proper way to slide across the roof of a car.
May 31st, 2012 at 4:07 PM
#51
Look Campbell,
my Saturn is not your General Lee goddammittal!
