8 suspended sparties return / 4 transferring
January 13th, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^
I think "standing in the same room" is simplifying it just a bit. They can be charged with assault for being there, given they were in a large group, because that could instill fear of bodily harm.
January 13th, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^
I was curious about the Freep coverage of this Sparty "event". Seems like the Justin Feagin plea deal, something relating to a single player immediately dismissed from the team when Rich Rod heard the story, demanded the same size headline and story as the not so little escapade in East Lansing.
What a bunch of Aholes. Objective reporting at its not so very best.
January 13th, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
I applaud the effort, but it doesn't "seem" that way at all. Freep.com has an entire subset of headlines titled "Full Coverage of the MSU Football Team Fight" containing ~20 articles in total. The initial reporting of the MSU football team fight was embellished just as much as the report of UM's "NCAA Violations". The freep.com reported with what they had at the time - the result is typical and shouldn't come as a surprise to UofM and MSU fans alike.
January 13th, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^
The very large difference is the shoddy reporting at the beginning of the brawl was going off of police reports, not their own journalist's work. People at the assault filed a report and the freep went off that for the original story. People at the freep misrepresented Michigan football players and the freep went off that for the original story....big difference.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
Well, considering your internal investigations validated the freep story, it can't be classified as a misrepresentation....and considering the initial police report was deemed inaccurate (no ski masks, etc.) that CAN be classified as a misrepresentation.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
Go home sparty, you are trolling.
1st - since when did our investigation validate anything the freep has written? Read up on it a little and educate yourself. You won't sound like a ridiculous homer. If you don't think the UM players' quotes were misrepresenting what they meant, you weren't paying attention. Or you aren't very smart...I am going with the latter.
2nd - the initial police report was reported on by the freep, not an initial report from the freep reported on by the freep. Also, masks were worn, just not ski masks. It only your run of the mill masks that cover your head and neck while leaving your face open. I guess it must have been freezing out that night.....or maybe that guy was hunting beforehand instead of attending his team meeting. But you are right, he wasn't wearing a mask so no one would know who he was.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:13 PM ^
Why did Dantonio suspend them in the first place? Did he have information indicating a violation of team rules? If so, why reinstate them now, before the legal process (which Dantonio says he wants to allow to work its course) is completed?
Did the players supply any kind of statement to Dantonio? Surely they would not, under advice of counsel. It might make Dantonio a witness, and any statement(s) usable in the trial court.
If the players have not given any statements to Dantonio, why the dismissals, and now why the reinstatements? Why now, shortly before the pretrial? It might make some sense, if there had been a plea deal worked out, and everybody was on the same page and knew what they were talking about, but if these players were in fact pleading guilty, then what's up with the reinstatement?
Alternatively, Dantonio might have been given information that the lesser-involved players were going to fight the charges, and it might take a while to either go to trial and get acquittals, or else to get the prosecutor to back down and dismiss charges or allow minor misdemeanor pleas.
I have to say, given that this appears to have been nothing more than a wild night and an instance of menacing among people who knew each other, it does seem to me that perhaps the prosecutor might be overcharging or overprosecuting the case.
I say that even as I acknowledge that the Glenn Winston-aggravted assault looked to be a horrible and frightening criminal act worthy of a felony charge. Perhaps the current charges are a kind of a prosecutorial make-up call.
Anyway, I don't get any of this from a legal persepctive; the timing is very odd, and it makes me wonder if there might be any football-specific reason to change the players' "suspension" status, because the legal part doesn't make a lot of sense.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:22 PM ^
keep in mind this is a legal system where McDonald's gets sued for serving hot coffee.....and loses. 15 football players from a large university are involved in some way, shape or form. You have a DA who wants his name in the papers and a prosecuting attorney (who has practiced law for just a few years) wanting the same.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:09 PM ^
I didn't know Sarah Palin posted on Mgoblog! How bout that!
Look...the "McDonalds" example is about as isolated, inapplicable and stupid as one could possibly name. First, that was a civil suit (the MSU matter is criminal). Second, it was in another state. Third, it was ages ago before heavy-handed tort reform. Fourth, with apologies for repetition, what the hell does a mob assault have to do with hot coffee????
As for DA getting his name in the paper...yeah, he's in the paper every day. In fact, he's such a press whore that you didn't even list his name (because you don't know it).
January 13th, 2010 at 9:19 PM ^
this example: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Yeah, the story is not at all how it was fed to you.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:29 PM ^
Much appreciate your pointing out the nonsense behind the "people sue McDonald's because their coffee is hot" garbage. Thanks.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
my point is this: in this country charges are filed so liberally (in whatever capacity) that you can't always take the initial charges for face value. If these players get convicted then I'll concede.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:34 AM ^
Your proof that "charges are filed liberally" is a misunderstood civil suit from another state long ago. How in the world does that prove charges are "filed liberally"? You think prosecutors and police enjoy extra paperwork just to screw someone over with a weak criminal case? The players absolutely have their right to trial, and are presumed innocent, but if you can't even understand the difference between the civil and criminal system...analyzing prosecutorial discretion likely isn't your gig.
January 14th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
http://freep.com/article/20100114/SPORTS07/100114024/1319/Ex-MSU-RB-Leg…
or is a plea bargain not a conviction and thus reinforcing your point?
January 14th, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
Dammit! Didn't register that it was a freep article until after I clicked on it
January 13th, 2010 at 10:18 PM ^
I have obviously heard about the case, commonly used to cite an example of the frivolous suits that are won. Howeva, I had not hear the real story and it seems ridiculous to assert that the plaintiff had no legitimate claim. Ignorance resolved, thank you.
And to the person who brought this up in the first place, lolwut?
January 13th, 2010 at 11:00 PM ^
So let me get this straight. A women buys hot coffee from McDonald's. The coffee is hotter than most coffee is served at. The women spills the entire coffee in her own lap. She sues. The temp is 180F.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't people boil water (202F) for tea and coffee? So McDonald's is guilty of what again? Serving coffee at comparable temps to the tea I make at home?
January 14th, 2010 at 12:12 AM ^
I agree with you. To me, the case is still frivolous. At the very least, they should have decreased compensatory damages due to her being more than 20% at fault. McDonalds must have sent the interns to argue this one.
January 14th, 2010 at 8:48 AM ^
Don't eat/drink anything from McDonald's.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
you state "they should have decreased compensatory damages due to her being more than 20% at fault." you could not have more profoundly proven you've read nothing on the case. because the jury did JUST THAT. further, the award was reduced even further because McDonald's "interns" proved the coffee was at around 150+, not 170+.
oh and the fact she tried to settle pre-trial for $20k seems to be missed by a lot of people. she's just some 70 yr old beeotch suing for a new Audi.
January 14th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^
Your coffee maker does not boil water. Nor do you expect boiling coffee when you pour it into your cup. You also would not expect to drink boiling tea directly out of the pot.
If you took a fresh cup of hot coffee at normal temps (130-140f) and poured it directly on your sweat pants, you could reasonably assume that third degree burns would NOT be the result. However, as the temp of the liquid goes up, the degree of severity of the resulting burns skyrockets.
McD's got into trouble when discovery showed this:
"During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard."
And this:
"McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving."
McD's was fully aware of both the intent of their customers use of the product and the hazards created, yet they ignored the data.
The jury gave the defendant 2 days worth of McD's coffee revenue. Then the judge deducted 20% because the woman did spill the coffee herself. As stated, if I took a cup of coffee I brewed at home and repeated the spill, I wouldn't have anywhere near the injuries that resulted. That's why McD's had to pay, and as a result lowered the holding temps of their coffee.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^
apologies for bringing up the MCD case - I was trying to make a point about our legal system and the incentive an attorney, even if it is a DA, has to press charges or take a case. The MCD case is obviously way out of context. I am not arguing that the MCD case has any merit - the fact that an attorney even took the case proves my point.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
god you're dumb. read the facts of the case. an attorney took the case because McDonald's, in discovery, acknowledged that they knew the coffee could cause third degree burns if present on skin for 2+ seconds. they had also had an overwhelming number of complaints and situations occur just like this and, in court, more or less said they didn't care and ignored them bc they wanted the coffee excessively hot. read the case, then react. it's so stupid when people try to posit themselves as experts and use examples when they have zero idea what they're talking about except the jokes a late night talk show host or internet meme gave them.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^
Don't bring up a specific topic you know nothing about in an area in which you are completely ignorant. Stop conflating civil and criminal cases - there is almost no similarity between the two. Also, the thought process/economics behind "taking a case" is way above your head.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^
Based on information from the players' families and other sources it appears that Dantonio suspended the players for not being forthcoming to him or his staff prior to the incident and/or lying to him about their involvement after the incident. That would be the "violation of team rules" part.
As to why they would be reinstated now is anyone's guess. Possibly the players have finished their sentence in the "Court of Dantonio" for violating the rules. It would certainly mean more egg on Dantonio's face if any of these reinstated players were to be eventually convicted of some of the more serious charges, so I would imagine that he feels pretty confident of the charges being dropped/reduced, plea deal as you say or that no serious punishment will be levied if convicted.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:35 PM ^
so they could participate in the team meetings. Which is a load of BS.
Anyone else find it interesting Dantonio let this out the same day as Jones coming back? He's trying to take the heat off.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:35 PM ^
so they could participate in the team meetings. Which is a load of BS.
Anyone else find it interesting Dantonio let this out the same day as Jones coming back? He's trying to take the heat off.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^
a witty and insightful t-shirt? One that I can buy on cafe press and wear to replace my fraying "Little brother beatdown: Mike Hart vs. MSU"
Perhaps it can match a ski mask?
January 13th, 2010 at 6:41 PM ^
Suspended until next team activity.
January 13th, 2010 at 8:39 PM ^
You get a forest-green knitted ski mask, and then you put the toilet-brush thing on top. Or an "S" on the side.
January 14th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^
Court proceedings continue for eight other players. Two have been kicked off the team, one is transferring and the other five have rejoined the team after serving a suspension.Leggett plead guilty, and is transferring. He wasn't kicked off the team; he is transferring. We've been talking about this as if Leggett was the guy most obviously involved, or against whom the D.A. had the best case. That could be what went down. Or maybe it's just the first one, and it's random that he chose to transfer. But here's another hypothesis: the D.A. agreed to drop the more serious charge of conspiracy, and to reduce the sentence for the other charge to community service, in exchange for testifying in the 8 other trials. That would explain the sentence. It also would explain why he wanted to get the heck out of East Lansing, since you can't exactly be teammates with guys you testified against. Maybe I've been watching too much Law & Order. But the transfer makes sense then, right?