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?
Stonum would have never made it past his first DUI if he was at ND when it happened, no matter what he was actually charged with, he would have never made it past reslife.
If ND did treat him the same way they're treating Floyd on his first offense he would absolutely be done on his second DUI by whatever standard Kelly is holding Floyd to.
What ND does or doesn't do, doesn't make something right, or fair or whatever other word you want to use to try and measure the situations.
The way I understand it, he's waking up at 4am every morning and doing sprints. I think that if he fulfills his punishment set by Hoke (and that's one hell of a punishment to me) then he's good to go.
Probably a stupid question, but how does this type of punishment work with countable practice hours. Obviously a sensitive subject, and I'm sure the coaching staff is on top of it, but I'm just kind of curious.
Either he is doing it during his workouts with Wellman, or another teammate is waking up with him. Or he's doing it on the honor system.
but I think that falls under a voluntary time committment.
Stonum can choose to do the early morning workouts, or he can choose not to. Just like Hoke can choose to let him back if he does it, or choose not to if he doesnt.
I assume its just like summer workouts. If your not showing up, your not working at getting better, and hence you might forfeit playing time because of it. The only thing is the coaches can't say you have to be there
. I think the saying goes something like showing up is voluntary, and so is playing time.
You can discipline a player during the school year, it's in the off season that you cannot. This was actually one of our NCAA violations under RR. He was punishing players for missing summer classes which is a no-no according to the NCAA. Stupid rule but a rule none the less.
The people here saying "only suspend him for the non-conference", or the first half, or whatever are idiots. For something like this, you suspend the kid as long as you damn well want to, and he should feel lucky if he gets to play against West Bonnyville State Tech. DUI isn't a joke, it's not drinking underage in your basement, it's not stealing cookies from a store, it's not vandalizing someone's house, it's PUTTING EVERYONE (YES INCLUDING YOU) in danger. I really hope that none of you think it's ok to drink and drive, because if you do than you're a numb-nuts idiot.
I genuinely hope you've never answered your phone while driving. If you have, you are the biggest fucking hypocrite alive.
Drunk driving is nowhere even close to comparable to driving while talking on the phone. Or even texting for that matter.
Rigging a car with a red light to alert drivers when to brake, the magazine tested how long it takes to hit the brake when sober, when legally drunk at .08, when reading and e-mail, and when sending a text. The results are scary. Driving 70 miles per hour on a deserted air strip Car and Driver editor Eddie Alterman was slower and slower reacting and braking when e-mailing and texting.
The results:
Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake
Legally drunk: add 4 feet
Reading e-mail: add 36 feet
Sending a text: add 70 feet
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004/Texting_And_Driving_Worse_Than_Drinking_and_Driving
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q2/texting_while_driving_how_dangerous_is_it_-feature
Ok well none of this adresses talking on the phone which I was responding to. When you're looking at the road with a hand on the wheel it's much less of an issue. Also with texting not everyone looks down on their phone. I can text while looking at the road so that helps. I get your point though, this is why it's illegal.
With your argument style.
My apologies, let me rephrase everything in the pithy style that MGoBlog prefers, so that my argument can be understood; I'll just add in some lolkthx, a little bit of HOWEVA, a few YMRMFSPA, a "which, lol" at the end, and a kitten. Perhaps then you would understand better.
For someone who claims to be a "person of faith,"
Your point about Tressel's Bible-thumping is well-taken Brian, and as a person of faith I find that particular aspect of Tressel to be most irksome: that he could espouse a belief in being an honest individual while conducting himself without any regard for rules, or (as he should know so well) the "spirit of the law". What a disgusting hypocrite.
http://mgoblog.com/content/wardens-exit#comment-1102105
You sure seem like an unforgiving jackass.
With your argument style.
Eh-worked for these guys:
Unless speaking of a overtly oppressive regime, anyone who must reference Hitler and Nazism to prove their point or to disprove another's, isn't articulate enough to bother paying attention to. That is one of first and most important basics of modern journalism. In other word's, sir, strike 1 against you, try again, and this time be a little more pc about it.
to realize that DUI kills. Period. Bo would not stand for this and I trust Hoke. 4, 6, 8 games??? It has to be more than Rucker's 0 game (after release).
Talking on your cell phone also kills and has shown to slow your reflexes even more than those who have been drinking. Look no one wants to give the kid a high 5 for his actions but he is a kid and deserves a shot at redemption. We all tend to dismiss the careless actions we take while driving and only call those who drink and drive reckless. Far more people do talk on cell phones, change radio stations, eat, and whatever else while they drive but unfortunately there is no breathe alyzer for stupidity.
I'm not sure how this lts Stonum off the hook? So he shouldn't be fully punished b/c other people are idiots when they drive? In my mind he had a shot at redemption (after his first DUI) and fucked it up (by getting a 2nd DUI, and don't argue semantics, he was drinking and driving). There are always gray areas, and fans will always make excuses. If he is back on the field this year, I hope we never see a "OMG Dantonio" thread again.
Stonum is not and will not be off the hook. If and when he is reinstated as a member of the team, he will have payed a much stiffer penalty then any common student would and rightfully so. The point I am making with the examples is that drinking is not the only reckless thing that can be done by a driver, there is just more of a stigma attached to it is all. I am not trying to rationalize with what he did as much as I am trying to knock a few people off their moral pedestal.
At least he wasn't driving and texting or tweeting. That shit's more dangerous than driving with a .11 or .12 anyway.
You beat me to it. +1 normal moderation to you
I just think of the Leonard Little situation, in which the guy killed a mother while drunk, was convicted of manslaughter, then was caught years later for DWI. In the interim, of course, he received millions of dollars playing football while apparently not learning his lesson. Not saying Stonum's situation is similar in severity, but you risk peoples' lives when you drive drunk, and to do it twice in such a short period of time in light of his probation shouldn't be brushed under the rug. After what we saw at OSU, I rather UM lose a game because Stonum wasn't out there than set a poor precedent by minimizing the repeated idiocy displayed by Stonum.
I think he needs to go becuz Hoke needs to set a hard stance on this from the get go. I think could maybe see if its his first one but 2 DUIs. I have a CDL license and if i even smelled like alcohol, I would lose my license and my job. High profile people need to be held by high standards. Like I said, its not his first time.
You aren't likely to get much agreement here. Everyone loves to pile onto Dantonio and MSU's treatment of criminals, but soon as it happens to a Michigan player instead, people are going to keep rationalizing it down until he should only be suspended for a couple games, if that.
When it comes down to it, fans and coaches of nearly any team just want to win and they don't care how. The fans will buy into the theory that their coach is a great guy and is molding his young players into great men and he's done enough to punish a player behind the scenes and if the coach lets him play, that means he's worked through his troubles enough to earn his spot back. Michigan State fans said that about Dantonio and his band of merry criminals. Ohio State fans said the same thing about Tressel and all the violations with his players.
Now it's starting here, too. Hopefully it doesn't get near as extreme as it has at those two programs,
If it was my call, he would be kicked off the team immediately, but with a chance to earn his place back by going through rehab.
The first DUI is a wake-up call. The second means you either need help, feel entitled, or have the worst luck in the world. You can't really do anything about #3, but kicking him off the team takes care of #2, and rehab takes care of #1. I would also hope he has to write a term paper-length piece about his experience and turn it in to the coaching staff.
At any rate, it's going to have to be more than the Sparty Slap on the wrist, or claims of moral superiority over MSU will be severely compromised.
He who has never driven with a drink too much may throw the first stone. I myself never had a DUI-charge but there sure were plenty of opportunities in the past to get one. I'm not saying this is irrelevant, but at least he wasn't wearing a skimask.
My thoughts exactly
What then? Should it not even be a crime, since many people have allegedy gotten away with it?
Unlike you, Stonum actually got a DUI . . . and then got a second DUI. If it were me, I'd be pretty damn careful after that first offense not to get another. (To say nothing of the added fact that he failed to fulfill his legal responsibilities after the first conviction.)
The fact that other people do dumb/illegal things all the time does not negate their danger or the potential catastrophic ramifications, nor does it excuse the actor for his/her violations. Yes, I'm sure people here have driven home drunk before and not being given a DUI. But Stonum did it twice, and in the process risked the lives of everyone on the road those days. So no, just because others have gotten away with it, I'm not going to say "ah tough kuck Stonum, sorry you got caught" and think that is enough. And for the record, if you or I were pulled over a single DUI, let alone multiple, the chances we'd still have driver's licensese and escape legitimate jail time/massive fines is almost nil.
a couple of years ago up north. My pregnant wife and I walked downtown to get some breakfast. We passed by a car that had a bumper sticker with large lettering "My child was killed by a drunk driver." I remember having to keep walking past the restaurant for a little bit because I couldn't stop tearing up. It just struck me as so unforgivable to take a loved one from their family by doing something that stupid and that preventable. It's so selfish and I can't for the life of me understand why society seems to view it as no big deal when compared to other crimes. I don't envy coach Hoke's position here. I think these types of offenses should be treated much more severely than they are.
Why do we have some people doing their variation of Terrelle Pryor - "Everybody drinks & drives, texts & drives" - going on?
Who cares what "everybody" does (which I don't agree is remotely the case, but let's go with it)? Drunk driving is against the law. It's against the law because literally ten thousand people die every year in drunk driving accidents, not to mention the tens of thousands more injured.
Avoiding getting pulled over for drunk driving is incredibly easy to do. It should be even more easy once you've got a DUI on your record - a person with a good head on his shoulders would avoid even the slightest chance of it happening by NEVER driving after drinking, knowing that a second conviction likely would result in some jail time.
Like I assume all of you, I don't know Stonum personally. In interviews, he seems like an engaging, bright person. He's also probably our #1 receiver (if not, he's close). But for some reason, he has continually gotten in trouble witht the law, and not for minor offenses. He's lucky he hasn't killed or hurt himself or someone else.
I don't know why he deserves a fourth chance. If Hoke wants to re-consider him in a year, I can slightly see that, but he's going to look Dantonio-esque if Stonum gets arrested yet again while driving impaired/intoxicated and unfortunately, based on Stonum's past, as a coach I would be pretty nervous about putting myself in that position.
He wanted to "drink every beer in Muncie", until a coach straightened him out. Maybe he will think he can do the same for Stonum. That could still mean he redshirts or sits out a year before coming back next year. If that is the case I hope he enjoys running steps every morning like Arrington did. Hello demo team Mr. Stonum.
That was supposed to be remember
There are plenty of ways to punish the kid without making him sit for a year or kicking him off the team. Whether or not they're applicable in this case... I'll leave that to Hoke.
I'm confident whatever he decides will keep us safely out of MSU territory. If I start seeing a loss of control over the team... I'll reevaluate at that time.
Stonum is a pretty big idiot. That's all I'll say.
Wow. Losing can quickly and easily strip away any facade of honor, apparently. BAMN, amirite Raider nati.. I mean mgoblog.