Darryl Stonum pleads to lesser charge
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6622416
ESPN is reporting that Stonum has pleaded guilty to driving while visibly impaired. This is reduced down from the initial charge of driving while intoxicated. Also the charge of driving on a suspended license will be dropped as well.
It's pretty obvious Darryl had one hell of a lawyer. The question is now, do these charges warrant a suspension?
I'm 100% behind Brady Hoke, and really hope this helps Stonum mature.
He should be suspended for the full year. 2 DUIs and a probation violation. The fact that the charges were dropped to a lesser charge, shouldn't affect the team punishment.
Just think about it this way... if we were talking about another program (MSU, ND), we would definitely say at least a full year suspension.
I agree; if Hoke is convinced that Stonum was drinking and driving again the conviction on his record should have nothing to do with his football punishment.
what about like 6 games? that's a pretty heavy suspension. i think you have to consider the specifics of the crime. yes a DUI is a DUI and he should be severely punished but didn't he blow like a .1 or something? I would think that would be something to consider before suspending him for the year.
It needs to be a year, IMO. This is his second offense and quite frankly I think it would reflect poorly on the program to have him out there this year. Let him redshirt and come back in 2012 if he works his ass off in the meantime.
We should stop the speculations and let Hoke determine what his punishment should be.
I'll support anything Hoke does that seems reasonable.
I believe in player punishment and I believe in the higher standards we hold our players to. We do not know what Hoke is thinking or making him do to get back on the team thats why I do not speculate, I trust that Hoke & co set a high bar for his return and I hope he reaches that bar.
Speculation is what drives the Internet man. Without it, we'd just be looking at bewbs and playing flash games.
After 1 DUI he shouldn't be driving the same day as having even 1 drink. The fact that it is .1 means nothing to me. Sure its better than him going Grady up in here, but regardless he shouldn't have been driving. It shows a lack of maturity, self-control and that he doesn't take the 1st incident seriously enough (nor did I think the coaching staff did and it reflects).
I definitely see that point. The health of the program and the message it sends is more important than one player. It's a shame, but especially in this era of collegiate athletics, I'd rather see us hold ourselves to a higher standard than let a player play that may not deserve to.
I can definitely get behind him earning his way back (yesterdays thread was about 50/50) but I think Hoke needs to make the road hard enough that everyone from Hoke himself to teammates to students/alumni/fans know that Stonum is committed to doing whatever it takes to come back, play for M again and maybe have a shot at playing in the NFL.
You're right though, it is a shame that things get to this point.
On a side note: Why are my comments hidden? I've commented like 4 times since april and none of them have been particularly insidious. i think a couple were voted redundant but is that really enough to basically not have a voice on the board?
You most likely have a karma score of zero. I upvoted you on your last comment (the one I replied to) and that should help. If it doesn't...call profit, maybe he'll get into the karma business.
Edit: You're at one now! Maybe profitgoblue will take me on as a summer associate.
Awesome thanks. I figured it was something like that but I also figured there was more room to breathe than a couple "redundant" comments. Appreciate the alms, though!
No problem. I wish someone with Slashdot knowledge could come forward with information on what the numbers are for the different karma levels.
the prosecutor says different. In any case opinions don't mean squat. He'll be punished for the crime he's charged with not what was reported in the news or a police report.
I don't believe we're talking about his criminal penalty. For football, Hoke is the judge, jury and executioner, not to mention the legislative branch writing the law in the first place.
If Hoke is convinced Stonum drank and drove again, he should punish him for that offense no matter what he was convicted of.
thats just like the NCAA punishing Michigan based on freep reports. nobody should be held to the standards of what is reported in the news or merely a police report. I'm sure you are of high moral character yourself would take responsibility for your actions but not based on the word of a news report right.
I don't see it that way. Hoke should have some sort of interview with Stonum (and I'm sure he did) and decide if he's convinced whether he had been drinking before going driving (I'm sure Stonum admitted it). Hoke's standard should be less than the legal system, because the punishment within his scope is much less than a judge has.
I'm sure that RR didn't punish Stonum because he specifically had a DUI conviction, just like Hoke shouldn't change anything based on the lessened conviction here.
It's not a question of who it is, I think it's a question of keeping or compromising values. I don't claim to know everything about Stonum or his case, thus I'll defer to Hoke, who does. If it was Denard or Woodson or whoever, it should be a harsh punishment.
I think Hoke will do the right thing, so I'll back a little off of my one year stance, but yes I think Denard would need to undergo the same thing*.
*Though I completely agree that this would never happen.
I would hate doing it, but if that happened, yes Denard should be suspended for a year.
It seems so clear cut to me. There has got to be severe punishment for a 2nd DUI.
For me, definitely. You break the law twice (and rather recklessly, by the way), and you shouldn't be allowed to play football. Practice with the team, cheer on the sidelines, etc., but driving drunk while on probation for the same offense shows a lack of maturity, and you shouldn't reward players for that by letting them play.
It's not the person, it's the principle - what sort of character do you want the program to have? Should it be an SEC program with disposable players who are speed bump material while others, despite serious behavioral issues, are treated like royalty? No, 2 DUIs and probation violation are definitely a full-season suspension in my mind. If Hoke allows him to earn his way back, I hope the lesson is one that starts at 4 AM in the gym and one that Stonum is unlikely to forget.
If it were Denard, I would blackmail him into staying at Michigan and force him to play receiver. Oops! Let that one out of the bag.
I love DS but he probably has to miss at least three full games.
Innocent until proven guilty, maybe the state's case was just not that strong and justified the plea bargin.
duh. yesterdays news.
a good chance that he gets some kind of suspension. I believe Hoke will punish him in some way maybe 1 or 2 games. I would have to say its significantly less than a dui charge though.
So having a good lawyer not only helps him with the law, but should also help him with the punishment from the coaching staff?
Its tough to say what Hoke is going to do. You look at Michael Floyd and Stephen Garcia and, as of right now, doesnt look like they will be missing any games. Garcia has been suspended 5 times, and Floyd has similar DUI charges as Stonum. In Stonum's case, he has 2 DUIs and violated probation. To me, that warrants some kind of suspension. I was adamant about him missing the whole season, but now im starting to think differently. I dont know if it is because of the lesser charge, but I think at the very least he should miss 4 games. Just my opinion.
I am not a big fan of punishment for the sake of punishment. If Hoke puts him threw hell and he meets any other criteria that is made, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to play. Maybe a few game suspension just to drive home the point that playing football is a privelege that can be taken away.
This is no biggie.
Have him complete the punishment, and get his ass back out on the field. As soon as he is finished with the legal system, he should be finished with punishment from the program.
As soon as he is finished with the legal system, he should be finished with punishment from the program.
Is that you, Mark Dantonio?
Mark Dantonio had his player back out on the field before he was sentenced, let alone finished the punishment.
Dantonio also drew a ton of criticism for taking Chris L Rucker directly from jail to Iowa City.
Pssst.............(That's who I was talking about in my above post)
It was a probation violation, the eight days were his sentence.
For the probation violation. Not the moving violation.
So are you saying that Rucker/Stonum should have been suspended through the entirety of their probation?
If that's what you're saying then I could probably get behind that, as long as Hoke was kicking his ass the whole way through it.
Yes, assuming there is some clear path back to the team within a reasonable amount of time.
Break the law in Michigan, get sent to Iowa City to get jailsexed by the Hawkeyes.....it's only natural.
Do you consider his probationary period as part of his punishment? If so, he will be missing some games. If so, I agree with this, let him successfully complete his probation before being allowed to play again.
By that logic a kid shouldn't ever be punished for skipping class or cheating on a test because they never even reach the legal system.
This isn't his first offense. He needs to be punished by the team, whether his legal punishment is over or not. It's just kind of silly to think otherwise.
Glad none of you guys are the coach-In college today kids get as many chances as they need it seems like-I don't forsee this being any different .
Agreed. Talking on cellphones are dangerous, and ND's Floyd has had more drinking and driving offenses. What do either of these things have to do with Michigan and Stonum's situation? The kid has make the same mistake twice now and I don't really care how good he is at football. I think he should consider himself blessed if he ever plays for UM again. But in the end Hoke seems like a guy who will do the right thing.
It is not correct that ND would have kept Stonum out for a year. Indeed, their star wide receiver, "golden" Floyd, not long ago had his 3rd DUI in 2 years. His blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit.
Now, Coach Kelley says he will receive not have to sit out any games if he keeps himself clean (otherwise, he'll miss the year).
So, keeping Stonum out a year would not be justified if we use ND as a standard.
Moreover, Stonum has one less offense than Floyd---perhaps even two fewer DUIs ((the second incident now being a lesser offense--although I'm not exactly sure what the difference is). Thus, even if Stonum had one (or two) more offenses by September, he would only then be catching up to Floyd, and would still have a chance to play at ND.
I am not saying that Stonum shouldn't miss any games; however, if he does so, it would probably be more than he would get at ND..
So ask yourself: If Floyd plays in this year's UM- ND game and Stonum does not, will that be fair?????
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6242523
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/25/brian-kelly-says-mi…
Floyd's first two offenses were minor in possession charges, nowhere near as serious as a DUI. I think it's fair that UM athletes be held accountable for their actions, regardless of what their rivals might do.
I hadn't read the article carefully.
So, Floyd has one real DUI and two minor alcohol related offenses. Stonum has one real DUI and lesser but still severe offense (operating while visibly impaired). The two situations also are different because a second DUI by Floyd, after his recent DUI, would come after a prior warning from his HC about the consequences. Whereas, Stonum's DUI came years ago, long before Hoke became the HC. I do not know if RR laid out the consequences of a repeat offense.
Regardless, I agree with you that UM athletes need to be held accountable for such offenses, regardless of what ND does.