"A pretrial hearing has been set for May 20."
Hopefully things work out for the young man.
"A pretrial hearing has been set for May 20."
Hopefully things work out for the young man.
Best of luck Stonum. Though I don't get pleading not guilty, because, dude, they caught you behind the wheel of a car, and you were drunk. Seems pretty cut and dry.
Clearly, you haven't gone to law school.
Clearly I haven't. Clearly I've never been arrested, or questioned, or approached by the police in connection to anything, ever, so I have no idea about this.
I have seen Law and Order though, and I get the pleading not guilty in order to plead down the charges. I was just saying the system doesn't make sense.
The fact that Stonum is fulfilling his Hoke-imposed punishment shows something about his commitment to the team.
Now just lay off the booze...
Your awesome man! get off your high horse. Alot of people get DUIs, layers,doctors,nfl players,soccer moms, congressman, and COLLEGE KIDS. He pleaded not guilty because he was arrested on suspicion of DUI.
Amen. I was one of them as a matter of fact September, 2008. I was pulled over at 12:30am when I reached for my phone drove out of my lane when I did. I was arrested for drunk driving because I allegedly failed my field sobriaty test even though I only blew .035 on the breathalizer. I too plead not guilty, spent over $1,500 in legal fees and got the charges reduced to going left of center, paid a $150 fee and $187 in court costs and went on my way.
But if I didnt have the ability to afford a very good attorney I too would have a DUI on my record I'm sure. Don't judge Stonum just yet, there might be more to the story.
No. A lot of people DO NOT get DUI's. If he was indeed driving drunk, he endangered other peoples' lives. If you think that is trivial, go ask all the parents and family members of those who have been killed by drunk drivers just how trivial it is.
If you want to say wait until the legal process has run its course to judge whether Stonum did anything wrong that's fine (and fair), but please do not trivialize drunk driving.
According to this website http://duiinformation.org/duiarrestinformation.html over 1 million americans do each year which 2/3rds of them are 1st time offenders. So ya alot of people do do it each year, none the less no one said it was ok, he made a mistake and hes paying for it luckly no one was hurt so get off his nuts unless your perfect and have never made a mistake in your life.
Whoa, somebody's a little sensitive here. OK, lets do some math: 1 million DUIs in America divided by 310 million Americans is 0.3% so as I think it's pretty obvious that this is a tiny portion of the population. Now I realize that not all 300 million are above age 16 and driving, but taking even a conservative estimate of 200 million driving that still puts our percentage at 0.5%.
You claim no one said it was ok, yet here we all are supporting his denial of it. That sounds like condonment to me.
Now I don't know what his nuts have to do with this discussion, I will leave his nuts up to you to deal with, but I don't think we should be making any excuses for him just because he was a Michigan football player and projected starter.
And for the record, yes, I am perfect when it comes to drinking and driving: not only have I never gotten a DUI, I have never even driven drunk in the first place. Many more Americans achieve this simple task than do getting a DUI.
I hope you too join the larger group of responsible drivers whenever you are old enough to drive.
There's a difference between condoning his actions and condoning his right to plead not guilty.
I agree on the difference. However, the poster above was presenting the 1 million DUI's and various professionals with DUIs as evidence that a DUI is not that bad. While I may have not been perfectly correct in calling this an outright condonment, it does not in my opinion sufficiently recognizing the gravity of drunk driving.
While I have been fortunate enough to not have had anyone that I knew particularly well affected by a drunk driver, a girl from our church the same age as my little brother was killed by a drunk driver a few years ago, so I can assure you of the gravity of the situation.
first off your facts dont even make sense, if 2-3rds are first time offenders then alot more americans have done it before. Second who ever said he was a projected starter in the first place? Odoms,Rountree,Hemingway? No on is condemming the denial of it, the key word of the arrest was SUSPICION of dui that means he did not fail a breathalyzer because his right to refuse one. So unless you where with him that night and saw him drink and drive stfu your not a judge,his parent,coach,ad,uncle,friend, or teammate so you have no right to judge him and since your a church man read the bible.
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?
Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
If you can't talk about politics on these boards then I'm pretty sure you can't talk about religion, so don't post a bunch of bible bullshit on here.
Well at this point I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this, so I will just address a few of your points. First if 2/3 are first time offenders, then all that means is that the other 1/3 have a previous DUI, not that there are others. I think what you are implying is that people have gotten DUIs in previous years that are not included in the 1 million you report. You are correct, but your logic is wrong and regardless, the vast majority of drivers are not drunk drivers.
If you find it convenient to not consider him a starter, I am fine with that. No need to take offense. I simply had Stonum and Roundtree penciled in as starters but am fully aware that no starters have been announced yet seeing as the season is several months away.
You are wrong that no one is condemning the denial. Actually the very first person to respond to the post was condemning the denial. While I too think that it is dishonest to deny what one did, you missed my point which was that drunk driving is a serious offense, not something to be trivialized. You will even note in a previous post that I support letting the judicial process take its course before judging Stonum (which you seem to think I have already done). Again, you are missing the point: my point is that drunk driving IS NOT a trivial offense, people are hurt and killed.
I don't see any point in responding to your "stfu" comment.
And concerning Biblical passages, if you are having trouble understanding them I would suggest discussing them with a pastor or priest as opposed to on a Michigan sports blog. I think a good first step would be to not take them out of context to support your preformed conclusion, but rather to read them in context to see what the authors are actually saying. The out of context quote is unfortunately all too commonly used by both religious and non-religious people, almost always to a detriment.
Finally, are you suggesting that in order to be aligned with the Bible Christians should either be anarchists or at least take no part in the judicial system? Why did you not include the Biblical passages from Romans 13 saying to respect the established laws?
Doesn't Levitt practice in Mount Pleasant? I knew Todd when he practiced in SE Michigan, but I thought he moved to the CMU area.
Ahh, the Todd L. Levitt public access show. Todd would ejaculate if he knew two people had actually watched that. Are you an attorney?
Seriously? Didnt hoke say thay he would have a place on the team after he fulfilled his obligation to te legal system? So then the solution is to plead not guilty (when you pretty obviously are)?
Defendants will plead not guilty at this stage of the proceedings 95% of the time. It gives them time to negotiate settlements. And hey, even if he doesn't eventually plead guilty, there's nothing wrong with making the state prove it's case. The justice system is a funny thing. You can catch a break anywhere through a bad test or a faulty lab result or just a crazy jury.
[T]here's nothing wrong with making the state prove it's case.
This is where I don't get the hostility. Maybe Hoke's standard of proof is less than the court system; it probably needs to be. Hoke being convinced that Stonum is guilty shouldn't mean anything in the courtroom. If the prosecution has a flimsy case, they shouldn't get a conviction. Even if they have a rock-solid case, Stonum has every right to plead not-guilty and go all the way to a jury trial if he thinks that's the best action to take.
My bad, thanks for clarifying that for me.
How is asking a question flamebait? Not trying to start an argument here, but this did not seem like an attack, or trying to start a fight, but a simple question. People on this board get so touchy sometimes, always thinking everything that could possibly be construed as negative is automatically attacked.
EDIT: This is probably going to get "flamebaited" too, but oh well. As long as I don't get branded a "troll"
It was a rhetorical question, and a pretty stupid one at that.
but I think the statement, "when you pretty obviously are" is not cool. Was the poster there when Stonum got pulled over? We are innocent until proven guilty in this country.
Having said that, Hoke is correct for punishing him for even being in this situation. If you want to play for UofM, you are held to a higher standard, and that means avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Or something like that.
I'm going to assume that by his pleading not guilty it allows him to make some sort of plea deal where he can get the DUI knocked down to something less serious, where as if he plead guilty immediately he wouldn't have that option.
Explanatory instead of condescending. Thank you. +1.
Hoke needs to take a stand here, and make an example of him.
but he was really proud of his punishment system and how strict his rules were about breaking team rules, and attending class. If he turns around and gives him an easy punishment that would be quite delusive.
...Hoke needs to send the message to the parents of players and recruits that he's a zero tolerance guy who will use "tough love" with the kids under his charge.
THAT IS AWESOME! Good for you, Hoke.
I prefer the approach in work camp prisons, where they have you move big rocks from one pile to another. What do you get for finishing? The opportunity to put them back in the first pile. Rinse and repeat.
how Josip Tito, the President of Jugoslavia, punished all the worst criminals and ultra nationalists in the state. It took place on a beach with nothing but rocks on it, needless to say, the punishment was pretty effective.
Interesting tidbit of information. I know that would be quite a deterrent to me. Then again, so would Stonum's punishment. I hope he decides that a degree from UM and a chance to continue playing football is worth being punished as severely as Hoke is going to.
I'd rather go to jail than get up that early every day and do that.
4 am? That feels so kung fu. When you can snatch the football from the defensive backs hands... you will be ready.
...should also have Stonum wax all of our cars a la "Karate Kid."
Wax on... wax off... breathe in through nose... out through mouth...
Isn't there a rule about not being allowed to force punishment drills on a player in the summer. Ins't that an NCAA violation. And aren't we on probation?!?! Someone calm me down and tell me I'm dreaming.
Its not a violation if no coaches are present.
Somewhere Mario Manningham is laughing off how easy he got it when he was busted smoking.
6AM stadium steps suck. 4AM pull-sleds will be telling of just how sorry and committed you are...
I approve. This sort of punishment both acts as a deterrent and builds character.
He is punishing him for behavior that is unbecoming of a Michigan player. Standard of proof; guilty in Hoke's football court. Next.
I remembered reading this at one time. Sounds like Hoke is implementing his own method of discipline. Let's hope that it is a meaningful deterrent for him and keeps him from doing something like this again. Not only while he is a Michigan football player, but also for the rest of his life.
Ultimately, that's the best you can hope for, that the lesson is lasting......if part of my punishment was tugging the pull sled 1500 yards at 4 AM, I'd swear off the booze too.