Free Press MSU Coverage
Not to beat a dead horse, but the Free Press' pullizer prize winning coverage continues.
I guess now it's the DA's fault that MSU Football Players are in this mess? C'mon man, use common sense....they all got together and went to Rather Hall in order to cause a ruckus and beat people up...whether some players explicitly hit people isn't the point - they went out of their way to find trouble, and it looks like they found it.
Common sense people. Common sense. These are not good kids. They are thugs.
Anyway, for your enjoyment!
http://freep.com/article/20091210/SPORTS07/912100475/1319/Legal-strateg…
December 10th, 2009 at 8:41 AM ^
Everyone knows it's somehow RR's fault.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^
It is either RR or George W's. One of the two.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:05 AM ^
but it certainly didn't help.
/Arrested Developent Reference
December 10th, 2009 at 9:30 AM ^
is taking an entirely different approach to their coverage of MSU as they did as to Michigan's pre-season difficulties. I expect that the Freep will however, make a concerted effort to "over-sympathize" with the Wolverines this off-season as well to attempt(unsuccesfully) to acheive some form of journalistic credibility.
The details of the MSU incident are puzzling, however. The initial reports of ski masks and a mob type scene are inconsistent with misdemeanor charges, however, if the police report includes details of injuries to females that have not been refuted or otherwise discredited, the ski-mask-non-ski mask discussion would not matter it seems, as such acts toward females would likely command felony charges at least to begin with.
While "conspiracy" does sound like a mighty scary word, it simply means that participants collectively contemplated the actions before taking them, not even that the necessarily came to a consensus on them. As such, it is perfectly possible that some of the players are inplicated in the conspiracy and took no actual steps toward its completion.
My guess, Winston and Jeanerette talked some shit about this and that on the way to a location, other players "manned up" and said hell yeah. The players entered the location, the above named players did some roughin up and the remaining players said hell yeah. Any mob-like beat down would have resulted in felony charges against at least some of the participants. My guess, 3 to 4 convictions for Assualt and Battery, 1 or 2 for conspiracy, Winston gets a short stint in Ingham County, Winston and Jeanerette play their remaining years at Just Barely Community College (JBCC), program loses some degree of desirabily short term.
Just my legally educated opinion.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:44 AM ^
however, if the police report includes details of injuries to females that have not been refuted or otherwise discredited, the ski-mask-non-ski mask discussion would not matter it seems, as such acts toward females would likely command felony charges at least to begin with.The act of hitting a woman automatically commands felony charges. Domestic violence is a 90 day misdemeanor.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
at no point did I say the "hitting of a woman" automatically commands felony charges, don't substitute your language for mine to refute a statement never made. As to your statement as to domestic violence, true, domestic violence is a misdemeanor, however, violent crimes are a matter of degree as to what is charged. Is your position that the existence of a 90 day misdemeanor charge for domestic violence precludes the people from charging anything else relating from an assault on a women? While the police called to a scene for a man pushing his wife aside to get through during an argument may result in a misdemeanor charge, I assure the act of a man putting on a ski mask and beating a women down would not be charged as a misdemeanor simply because a man had a "domestic" relationship with the woman at some point.
My point is not to say that the actions alleged are not serious, however, I will stand by the statement that the lack of felony charges does indicate that the reality of the incident is more in the nature of a college fratenity fight, and less in the nature of a concerted plan to inflict serious bodily injury on any one person. There were some reports that indicated that this incident was mob style beat down with ski masks and weapons. The only point that I am making is that the failure of the prosecutor to at least charge a felony as to one participant, especially when that participant has been convicted of a violent offense in the past, suggests that such a description is likely eroneous.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:30 AM ^
http://www.freep.com/article/20091210/SPORTS07/912100475/1319/Legal-str…
Mitchell also said some of the men wore ski masks. Police chief Dunlap, however, said police concluded that one person was wearing a knit cap that covered his head and chin, but the face was visible.
"There weren't, in my estimation, any items that would fit what I would commonly refer to as a ski mask," Dunlap said.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:05 AM ^
I would be watching this very carefully. Do I want my kid to be in a place where a group of 15 to 20 adults, most if not all of them well over six feet tall and at least 220 pounds, who in the last several years have spent several hours a day working on increasing their strength, agility and physical size, can burst into a private party and start manhandling some of the participants? Especially when one of them has the history that Winston had. (Why was he even allowed back on campus? If he was just an ordinary student, rather than one who could potentially make a major contribution to winning the Michigan game, he would have been banned from campus for at least a year for what he did, if he were ever allowed back on at all.)
I expect you're more or less right as far as the legal niceties are concerned. But setting that aside, even if only three or four are actually striking people, the rest of the twelve to sixteen are making the actions of the four possible. Three or four people are not going to be able to invade a party like that - the partygoers en bloc could overwhelm them and throw them out. They need the glowering nuclear arsenal behind them to go around hitting people unmolested. It's more than just saying "hell yeah" as far as the practical effect is concerned.
Point of information: I'm no lawyer, and so I'm curious about what the law of trespass says in a case like this. I assume that had this fraternity had its own frathouse, and the party was a private party in the house, the players could and probably would be charged with trespass in addition to everything else. What is the legal status of a student dorm? Can students of the university who aren't residents of a university dorm be charged with tresspass if they march uninvited into that dorm bent on mayhem? Or is this just a situation that's sufficiently foggy that the DA would prefer to stick to uncontroversially applicable charges?
December 10th, 2009 at 10:18 AM ^
As to the dorm/house distiction, my guess is that trespassing would be not sustainable at least at a criminal level as the players are students of the university that operates the dorm. However, the lack of at least a trespassing charge is likely due to the fact that trespassing in and itself is a minor charge and is in fact, somewhat of a lesser included offense to what is actually charged, at least in effect.
Your statement as to parents and the MSU reputation is spot on. The result of the criminal charges is really immaterial as to the way the school and the program are perceived, that damage is already done.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:53 AM ^
A Trespass charge in this case would have required the building director to revoke permission for these individuals to be inside the building, and them not leaving within a reasonable amount of time thereafter. It doesn't appear this was what happened.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:44 PM ^
I assume that had this fraternity had its own frathouse, and the party was a private party in the house
Not in this case. The fraternity in question doesn't have their own house, and holds their events in one of MSU's dorms.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:37 AM ^
With criminal charges filed against nine Michigan State football players, the question now is how many could go to jail and how many could line up to play again in the Green and White.Clearly, the answer to both questions, regardless of what follows, is all of them. Also, there's this gem:
"It sounds like they just charged everybody because they probably weren't getting the full story from everybody," said Farmington Hills criminal attorney D. Todd Williams.... who we'll soon learn is representing at least one of the players, no doubt.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:18 AM ^
D. Todd Williams has ads on the radio around metro Detroit. I'm pretty sure he advertises in criminal defense and specifically notes DUIs and stuff like that. Seems reasonable that he might end up being a defense attorney in this one.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^
I have no idea whether he will be or not. I found it strange that his quote was the first quote in the story. Usually, stories about a person being charged don't lead with the defense. I'm guessing that D. Todd put himself at the forefront by contacting the paper or someone (i.e. one of the defendant's family members) gave the writer his name to contact.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:39 AM ^
the free press hates potlucks and will stop at nothing to see each and every one of them beaten down. heads up, menonites!
joke/sarcasm/some of my best friends are menonites
December 10th, 2009 at 9:57 AM ^
...be careful. I don't think the reasoning is good. Saying some of them are friends doesn't make it right. For example, do you have a problem with this statement: "Here come some black people; make sure your valuables are secure. Just kidding, some of my best friends are black."
December 10th, 2009 at 10:38 AM ^
this was a joke within a joke. the "some of my best friends are..." is a long standing signal of ignorance for me, so i trot it out there for pretty ridiculous situations as a joke. to me, the more it is used with things other than "black" further invalidates it as an excuse for rasicm.
of course, i thought that was an obvious joke - who would want to be best friends with a menonite?
again, joke
December 10th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
Compound jokes; Awesome.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:18 AM ^
The state will offer deals to most of the players in exchange for testimony against the primary suspects. Those players will plead no contest and get probation and community service, while maybe one or two guys stands trial. Others may have the charges dropped completely for whatever reason. I have seen it too many times here in Florida. It could play out different, but that is a likely scenario.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:33 AM ^
Did the Freep ever consult a legal expert when they were covering RR's attempt to fight his buyout clause? I don't think so. The Freep's columnists (and others) acted like challenging the enforceability of a buyout clause could be the move only of a greedy, unprincipled weasel. RR was clearly just a promise breaker.
In truth, former employees challenge the enforceability of contract clauses (especially a potentially punitive buyout or non-compete clause) as a matter of course. It’s business, not personal. All the Freep had to do was talk to a "legal expert"--hell, law students learn this in the first semester of Contracts. The only reasonable explanation for this blindspot in the Freep’s coverage is that the Freep couldn't find a qualified legal expert to opine on such arcane matters. [Sarcasm alert]
Meanwhile, note how the Freep made no attempt to connect the dots when Williams, their legal expert, noted "it was possible that some of the players did not strike anyone. 'If I walked up to you and reared back my fist and made you flinch, that's assault,' he said. 'Conspiracy is when you plan to do it, like two or more people getting together saying, "Let's go kick his butt."'"
Williams' quote explains why the players may be guilty of assault and conspiracy even if (as Mr. Dell, Sr. insists) they did not hit anyone. Of course, the sub-headline for the article ("Charging many players could be way to get to truth, experts say.") discounts the very point that Williams makes. And Williams' analysis is buried at the end of the article. The other possibility--which the Freep's own expert explains--is that some of the players could be guilty of assault and conspiracy even if they did not actually hit anyone.
Of course, Rosenberg was all-too-happy to connect the dots when he framed the media day comments of Michigan freshmen J’Ron Stokes:
The Free Press also asked freshman receiver Je’Ron Stokes about Michigan’s off-season program. Stokes, from Philadelphia, arrived at the Ann Arbor campus in June. “Hooooo!” Stokes said. “A typical week is working from 8 a.m. in the morning to 6 or 7 at night, Monday through Saturday.” And that was starting in June? “Yes, sir,” Stokes said. “We do the weight room at least three times a week, and seven-on-sevens and one-on-ones. Speed and agility on the other days. Every day we have something new to get ready for the season. The coaches have done a great job of stressing the importance of getting us ready for the big season that we’re about to have.” Stokes was not complaining. Like Hawthorne, he apparently was unaware of the rules.
As numerous people (including Bryan and Jon Chait) have pointed out, the final sentence misleadingly suggests that what Hawthorne and Stokes had described was a blatant rule violation. This is where Rosenberg should have asked an expert well versed in the NCAA’s countable/non-countable distinction to opine on Hawthorne’s and Stokes’ descriptions, and the unnamed player’s allegations. Instead, Rosenberg assumed the existence of the very violation that he was purportedly investigating.
Ridiculous.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:37 AM ^
I hate to see any student athletes be total morons and act like the MSU kids did. However, I do enjoy seeing the Free Press exposed and put in a quandary with their credibility.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:39 AM ^
I view all freep coverage through one prism now. Putting aside that a few individuals obviously have a strong anti-RR bias, everything they do centers around one goal - try and sell enough papers and generate enough web traffic to stay in business. The UM excess practice thing is weak so they have to pump it up. The MSU student-assault thing is pretty bad so they don't have to exaggerate it - just keep coming up with new angles here and there to be able to generate a new "story" every day.
That's it - take it with a grain of salt - it is difficult but the best approach may be to ignore them as much as possible.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:09 PM ^
I bet Nike would love this picture.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
Damn. First double post. My apologies.
December 10th, 2009 at 1:58 PM ^
A big white S on a green field and an ESPN anchor talking about nine players.......... aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, well I feel better.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:26 PM ^
I decided to post the link on a new thread.