Michael Rothstein has an article out featuring today's testimony from Josh Furman's trial. I'll add the link but it looks like the situation was overblown and, unless something new comes out, I think Furman should be back on the field for fall practice.
Furman details coming out
the trial already started. sounds like prosecutor is going through with it
Furman's attorney offered to plead to illegal entry if the other charges were dropped and the prosecutor declined.
not a very bright attorney.
Obviously, he was not out of control or anything. If two females can restrain an angry Furman, then we should look at them for OL depth.
So if this recap is correct Furman is in trouble because some other dude was sending explicit texts to a girl he knew and he wanted to confront said texing guy hiding in a room in one of the girl's apartment. And when Furman wouldnt leave it sounds like texting guy called the cops rather than confront Furman. Furman hit no one, threatened no one but according to the femaile witnesses had Furman actually gotten to said texting guy "it wouldn't have ended well."
Not sure how the law views these situations but as a father of 22 year old girl I can tell you I'd shake his hand if it was my daughter getting the texts and Furman was confronting said texting guy.
It's unclear from the report whether the third witness (the guy who called the cops) was texting guy or some other guy who lived in the apartment.
Actually, upon rereading it, I think the third witness was not the guy Furman was there to confront.
"The third witness, who called 911, also testified Monday he did not realize at the time Furman was not attacking the girls but rather trying to reach a back room where the man who sent the text messages was."
Rut-row, looks like someone got on Mrs. Kass's bad side.
As a father, I'd prefer that Furman trust my daughter's judgement with regards to her home. If she says to leave then he should leave.
I knew there was something up when I read about how great a guy he was, and it didn't seem like him to be suspended. I'm hapy to have coach Hoke when you have the two of the highest arrest rates at our two rival big ten schools.
The prosecutor needs to quit wasting tax payer money on this case. What a joke.
This explains why someone on the football tweeted Furman a couple weeks back when this happened that he did the right thing.
Furman should have known better. I mean, you're not just a college student. You're a representative of the University of Michigan. You just do not go ANYWHERE looking for trouble. Gotta keep a cooler head than that and find a more constructive solution. Assuming the guy sending the texts was a student, it'd have been much more worth while to take your concerns and evidence to the dean of that guy's program and have him punished through the school.
That said, he went there to uphold the honor of a girl he knew, neither attacked nor threatened anyone, and left peacefully. Sounds like he should be reinstated right away.
Hope as more details become available it becomes clear, that Furman was actually attempting to do the right thing, he just unfortunately was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
When one eats, they all eat.
Bloo bloo bloo.
We'll see who you call when your daughter is in trouble, or when a utility company damages your sister's property, or when your best friend is discharged from his employer because he's black, or when your business needs to negotiate with a labor union that has taken a hardline position.
This isn't directed at you personally, but hating the legal system is like hating nature. The only reason you'd be able to say that it sucks as a broad, overarching statement is if you feel threatened by it and you don't understand it.
I like this quote:
"Everyone hates lawyers until they need one."
You can still need something and not like it at the same time.
It's kinda analogous to a toilet plunger.
This isn't directed at you personally, but it sounds like you are part of the bloat. I understand it perfectly well, thank you, and I don't feel threatened by it.
"so called legal system" is a neutral comment. How dare us make any inferences from it.
Barring new testimony, you have to feel bad for him. To proceed to trial you would imagine the prosecutor would have some evidence of a physical assault or direct life-threatening verbal threats from Furman towards the victim, but if what the witnesses testified is what actually happened you know all spring he had to be thinking "I'm missing spring ball for THIS?"
He was in someone else's home, threatening a person. He was asked to leave and didn't right away. He's a young man who put himself in a bad situation. I hope he's learned from this and this promotes his maturation.
I agree that the prosecutor seems overly zealous not to have reached a plea agreement on it, but that's in her discretion.
My hope is that this doesn't derail his career here and that he learns better ways of dealing with these sorts of situations. He also did something stupid, and he should learn that there are consequences. That said, many of us have done equally stupid things, and this seems a good situation for justice mixed with mercy.
Was this stupid? Somewhat.
Was this criminal? I think not. I've thrown open someone's door and yelled at them for being an asshole before. The charges are ridiculous; this should never have gone to trial. The consequences of something like this should purely be social.
Remaining in someone else's home, after they've asked you to leave, is trespass. It's a crime. Yes, I'm an attorney licensed in Michigan. No, I don't do criminal work, but this is standard black-letter stuff.
I've racked up enough criminal charges to get life in prison. Go ahead, arrest me.
My point is that there's discretion at multiple levels about this kind of incident, and the legal system handled this poorly.
I hear what you're saying from one standpoint. From the other, I would like to think that the law is protecting me and my family if someone is in my home threating us about anything. Of course, this is much less significant than the scenario I'm about to describe, but the legal principles are the same: The "castle rule" is one of the oldest and most protective laws - everyone should feel safe in their homes. I've got no problem with the city using de minimis funds to have a junior prosecutor handle the case and press the issue. It at least makes this guy and his family feel just a little safer in a world where homes aren't as safe as they used to be (e.g. security systems are everywhere these days).
As someone who does know the details, I will say that this is way overblown. It wouldn't surprise me at all if all of the charges are dropped. (As they should be)
It sounds like a very unfortunate situation. The law and young peoples' lives don't mix.
All misdemeanor charges; is this a bench trial? It would not surprise me, if the defense waived a jury and asked for a bench trial, because the charges seem so silly.
What happens at South Quad should stay at South Quad.
Am I getting this right? This was a non-fight, that was provoked by something that was texted? If I were the judge I'd take away all of their phones through the rest of 2012.
Sounds to me like all of the law enforcement officers in the area are getting their criminal justice degrees from MSU. Not offering a degree in CJ may many negative side affects for UM.
That this kind of stuff was handled discretely and directly with a little conversation and some time for cooler heads to prevail, as I can testify as a former resident advisor in South Quad back int he days of Bo. Someone would get me, I would remind the young man that it would be smarter to come on back to his room with me and we would be sure that the offending party understood the massiveness of his transgression, and things were locked down and kept to a lower level simply to avoid problems for all concerned. I could always get their attention by reminding them that Bo had given me his phone number and said that if I ever had an issue, I was required to call him directly anytime day or night. That usually "sobered them up" one way or another.
Unfortunately, that mentality and path has gone away with everyone calling the police and filing complaints and what not instead of taking a more we are a community lets get these things handled and taken care of approach. I understand why, just the way things are today in today's hypersenstivie college environment, but a little teaching and learning is always appropriate.
How many times did you have to call Bo?
Only once, and after that, never again simply because word got out fast that when I said if we had any problems I would call Bo and that he had provided me with his number, I had the credibility required to demonstrate that I did. Got to meet him a couple times after that for summer high school football camps and other stuff, people hve some image of him as a hardass, but in reality, one of the most charming and intelligent men I ever met.
This isnt about furman speaking at length about being gay? Huh. NTTAWWT.
I actually read the headline Furman details "coming out" as you suggested. I was thinking, "Darn, that takes a lot of courage for a guy who is going to be sharing the locker room with 90 guys" That would make for one heck of a Free Press headline.
At any rate, I am glad to hear that Furman's legal troubles are of the petty/relatively harmless variety.
And I'm pretty sure its you.
But I'll bite.
What website does my slightly humorous misunderstanding belong on?
His hair WAS fabulous!
Why is the prosecutor wasting everybody's time and money with this trial? It sounds like a situation that happens probably ten times in Ann Arbor every night. Call the cops, have a come to jesus meeting with Furman, and leave it there. The prosecutor is a dick for having it go anywhere past that (but hey, she got on ESPN!). Unfortunately, that article makes it seem like he'll be convicted of the illegal entry, which is a same for Furman. I hope he gets a repreive from Hoke and the justice system.
On a different note, that article is pretty terrible. It doesn't say whether it is a jury or bench trial, which is kind of a big deal. A jury is more likely to be compassionate and not convict Furman on these facts, but I'm guessing a judge would. That's kind of key information, Mr. Rothstein.
Unless it's just a case where she made some ultimatum prior to trial that once the trial started, she wouldn't accept any plea deals. But the fact that not a judge or jury is going to have to decide this makes me nervous.
It is, indeed, beginning to sound like an unnecessary fuss & expense.
That said, I suppose if you're the prosecutor, you're sensitive about potential accusations that your office makes sweet deals and/or sweeps things under the rug for university athletes. Pursuing a case or dropping it is careful judgment call, and I imagine even an objective, well-meaning prosecutor doesn't always get it right.
If someone is treating one of your girl-friends (friends who is a girl) like that, it's hard not to get worked up. I wouldn't have thought about Michigan football at the time, I'd be thinking about telling texting guy to STFU.
another young athlete who will have to go through some anger management training, what a suprise. If what I am reading is the extent of it. I am somewhat suprised a district attorney would spend any time on this one, unless they are sure to get jail time, might be because he is on the football team and said attorney is looking to show he or she is on the ball keeping us all safe. Don't you feel safer now.
Thank you Sammy Safety!
A lot of talk about very little. The prosecutor would be stupid to move forward too far in this case. It is barely a misdemeanor.
I can't understand why the public hates them. Self serving prosecutor has a wet vagina over a kid because he will get her attention. Look I got on ESPN.
The prosecutor has wasted a bunch of time and money on this, based on what's been revealed so far. I can't believe that this information couldn't have been obtained before the trial.
I mean a man can be pretty desperate for some pics at 2am in the morning...maybe he deleted, she didn't?
In all seriousness, this case is a "womp womp" for those trying to make a big deal out of it. Hell, the fact that Tamani Carter was held out of spring ball when this was his big spring to get better is the thing that strikes me. Shows me Hoke knows what he's doing. 90% of coaches would've said "son you can't be at the wrong place at the wrong time...you have to be better. You get Josh and leave --- and if he isn't coming, you leave and find another way to handle it. But you can't be there." They would've given him a good ol' day or two of 5am running and let it go.
All in all this is a classic "move along, nothing to see" in terms of us fans. Furman shouldn't have done what ever he did, nothing good can come from the situation...however this is something that the courts/coaches and handle and I don't think fans really need to be worried about.
IMO, this is the equivelent of a player getting arrested for driving with a suspended licence or no insurance or something like that. Unless that player is under the influence of alcohol, meh, let him have his day in court and let the coaches figure out how he should be punished. But it's not a "on team/off team/suspension" type debate.
If this is the standard for being arrested, you could have arrested someone at almost every party I went to when I was at Michigan.
One of the witnesses said he often visited the house as was allowed to come and go as he pleased. Yeah, he should have left when they told him to, but it wasn't like he was breaking into some random house. It was clearly a place he visited often and he knew the people involved. If he had actually been pummelling someone I could understand the arrest, but it sounds like he was just worked up about something one of the guys had done.
This seems really weak to even arrest him, let alone charge him. If the women who stopped him are testifying that they weren't even concerned about him hurting them he must not have been totally out of control. Sounds like a 3rd party came upon the situation and overreacted by calling the police.
I know very little about this case; but from what I am now gathering, this isn't a trial, despite the fact that AnnArbor.com seems to have called it a "trial" in several reports, leading to all manner of internet pundits to speculate about what kind of a trial this is.
I don't think that this is a trial at all. I think that what this is, is a preliminary examination. And at the conclusion, the District Court Judge will decide whether there exists cause to proceed to a trial. But even as nice as all of that may sound, I didn't think that they bothered with preliminary exams for misdemeanor charges, which is what the Complaint apparently alleged in Furman's case. It doesn't add up.
Anyway, just from the procedural view, there is something about this that I am not getting and I think that there needs to be some better and more careful reporting of the legal part of this story.