Gibbons apparently not facing charges

Submitted by Cold War on

...

In the legal realm, though, Gibbons likely will not face further proceedings.

“We have not received a request for prosecution for anyone with this name,” Steve Hiller, Washtenaw County chief assistant prosecutor, said Wednesday.

The Washtenaw County prosecutors office does not conduct investigations. At the end of a police investigation, a request for prosecution can then be submitted to the office...

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140130/SPORTS0201/301300045/Former-Michigan-kicker-Brendan-Gibbons-apparently-not-facing-charges?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Sports

 

grumbler

January 30th, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^

Exactly why Hoke couldn't have said that could well be that he exactly didn't know.  Exactly why is that hard to believe?

It isn't necessary for you to assume that Hoke knew Gibbons's actual status on Dec 23rd.  It wouldn't be hard to simply acknowledge that the simplest explanation for Hoke's statement is that he believed it to be true.

BigTex

January 30th, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^

I don't understand why people are still harping on Hoke and/or Brandon about what they said, didn't say, didn't do, etc. I have yet to see anything in Hoke's or Brandon's time at UM that would indicate they were light on disciplinary issues. Numerous players have been suspended or dismissed from the team for "lesser" offenses. Hoke never seemed to have much regard for the "importance or value" of said players when taking action (JT Floyd, Stonum, Hagerup, Touissaint, etc). From all accounts I have seen or heard, Hoke is a very high-character guy. Why can't people give him the benefit of the doubt that he handled the situation as he was likely instructed to do based on the info he had? Why do so many have to assume the worst and demand firing when there is no precedent of shady character or relaxed discipline policies? I think the sense of entitlement by some fans is getting out of control.

BigTex

January 30th, 2014 at 12:18 PM ^

I'm one of those people who tries to take a step back and look at things logically...remove emotions from the mix (i.e. My first solution to any problem is not "fire someone!").



Honestly, please enlighten me as to the other shady decisions Hoke has made in his time here that would justify the immediate reaction of "he clearly covered this up and should be fired.". I will gladly change my perspective here in the presence of facts...

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 30th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^

"Honestly, please enlighten me as to the other shady decisions Hoke has made in his time here "

Allowing Brendon Gibbons to play in the 2013 season and celebrating him with full honors at the banquet after the police documents were published for all to see, a university investigation of sexual assault instigated, and a finding of guilt issued.

BigTex

January 30th, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^

I still feel like the facts are unclear about this instance, so I was referring to historical examples of poor judgement...there is no proof (to my knowledge) that Hoke would have not taken action sooner had he not been instructed or advised to do so based on lack of definitive evidence, incomplete process, etc.



I just don't understand how/why people are so quick to condemn without knowing all of the facts...needless to say, I pray I never report to some of the folks on here in a future career move. :-)

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 30th, 2014 at 10:56 AM ^

Where are the allegations of a "conspiracy" or a cover-up?  The allegations are that the football team took insufficient action in light of the police record publication, the redo of the school's investigation, the finding of guilt, and the expulsion.

I don't see that the university did anything wrong, necessarily.  I do see that the football team did something wrong, clearly.

TruBluMich

January 30th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^

When was the last time Hoke even commented on Gibbons directly? Our bowl game was played 12/28. Gibbons was expelled on 12/19. Can anyone find a direct quote from Hoke after 12/20 where he specifically says "family issues". He very well may have known about the investigation and felt at the time that it was just a technicality and nothing would come of it. Remember he was not the coach at the time this alleged incident occurred.



I can find articles stating Gibbons wasn't playing and quoting an earlier interview. But, I can't find one interview after 12/19 where Hoke was even asked about Gibbons or said anything about Gibbons.



I can see everyone else's pout of views but I'm still gathering facts before rushing to judge anyone. That includes the accuser, Gibbons, Hoke and Brandon.

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 30th, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^

The News story today said that on December 23, the date the team got to Arizona, Hoke said,

“A couple things to note on our end, Brendan Gibbons, our kicker, won’t be with us,” Hoke said. “He has a family matter in Florida that he has to attend to.”



From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140130/SPORTS0201/301300045#ixzz2rtqkR6Yd

TruBluMich

January 30th, 2014 at 11:56 AM ^

Ya, just watched the press conference on MGoBlue video. He clearly says "family matters". He didn't lie but he clearly went out of his way to make it sound like something else.



Pretty hard to defend him. He really should have said something else or nothing at all. Perception is he was trying to hide something.

MCalibur

January 30th, 2014 at 11:41 AM ^

I haven't been able to keep up with the hundreds of comments about this story so maybe this has been already considered, but there isn't any need to assume Brady Hoke was lying as to the reason Gibbons did not play the Ohio State game: He was held out because of injury and the ongoing investigation into this incident had nothing to do with it. That interpretation is also consistent with the fact that Gibbons played in the Iowa game after he and the Athletic Department had been notified that he was under investigation for sexual misconduct.

Of course, there are certain implications regarding Brady Hoke and David Brandon's priorities that go along with that interpretation. Regardless of what happened prior to the insitution of the new policy in 2013, the decisions that occurred afterward by Brady Hoke and/or Daivd Brandon were either poor or disgraceful, in my opinion. Take your pick. Your choice determines whether I think they are stupid or evil.

help me out here...

Yeoman

January 30th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^

"That interpretation is also consistent with the fact that Gibbons played in the Iowa game after he and the Athletic Department had been notified that he was under investigation for sexual misconduct."

There's no evidence that the athletic department was informed, and OSCR policy would prohibit such a notification utnil the hearing and appeal were completed. If the firewall happened to leak and Hoke was somehow informed, it's understandable to me that he wouldn't act on that knowledge, since one of the purposes of the firewall is to prevent such an action.

JediLow

January 30th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^

How do we even know the Athletic Department was even notified? I can see a whole lot more scenarios where in a proceeding like this they wouldn't be notified about what was going on until a decision was reached. Gibbons had, and still has, the right to privacy - does that go completely out the window as an athlete (all rights waived)? According to every source Gibbons was also notified of the decision via mail - do we expect that Brady was told before he was?

JediLow

January 30th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^

And I think its naive to think the AD knew about this and had more information than the process allows for. They probably knew an investigation was happening, I'll give that, but knowing all the details, etc - that's NOT allowed by all the governing rules/laws... and knowing the verdict before the player himself would - no way.

MCalibur

January 30th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^

Whateves, let's keep going...

Cynical might be a better characterization but, whatever.

The athletic department, is not an external entity to the University of Michigan. And this isn't something new we're talking about...Police report was almost 4 years old, holmes. Thats all the detail you need to make a call here.

Furthermore, if the policy of the University is to keep the Athletic Department in that dark about these things then they're stupid too. 

 

JediLow

January 30th, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^

Isn't a separation of powers of the AD from the university something that we've all called for? It leads to a whole lot less abuse.

 

The university HAS to keep the AD in the dark - that's what the whole policy is for! Would you want the university to broadcast every investigation, especially those where the accused is innocent (especially when the standard for triggering investigations is so low)? No! It leads to all kinds of issues (especially privacy) - and the only way to ensure that is to only inform the AD when there's a verdict of guilt!

 

In your seemly perfect scenario the whole thing would be ripe with abuse - want to jump up on the depth chart? Just accuse the guy above you of something anonymously, they'll get suspended and you get to play.

MCalibur

January 30th, 2014 at 1:04 PM ^

Seperation of Power and Seperation of Information are mutually exclusive to me. OCSR: Hey Athletic Department, persuant to current University policy, we're (re)opening and investigation into accusations of sexual misconduct by Brandong Gibbons stemming from an incident that occurred in 2009.

Where's the confidentiality breach?

As for your strategy to climb the depth chart, its delightfully absurd. If a player can anonymously produce a police report and rape kit and trigger a OIE investigation then we have a new Machiaveli. Come on, man. 

Yeoman

January 30th, 2014 at 1:09 PM ^

OSCR assures the partipants that their confidentiality will be protected until the proceedings have concluded. It doesn't say "we won't tell anyone, except we might tell your coach/professor/department chair."

I'm really, really hoping you aren't in a profession where confidentiality ever comes into play.

Yeoman

January 30th, 2014 at 1:56 PM ^

No, I think we disagree on whether "need" should come into play at all.

When you're talking to your attorney or your psychologist they make no determination of your need for confidentiality. Except for certain explicit legal exceptions, your guarantee of confidentiality is absolute. And any lawyer or therapist with any ethical sense will alert you if you get close to one of those legal exceptions, so you can make an informed choice on whether you want to go there.

Participants in an OSCR proceeding get confidentiality because OSCR guaranteed it to them. It's part of the contract, it's not something OSCR can waive at its own whim because it determines one of the parties doesn't need confidentiality, or that there's an overriding institutional imperative that outweights that need.

MCalibur

January 30th, 2014 at 2:13 PM ^

This is not a criminal proceeding. The University selects its policy. Its has elected to treat all students equal in this situation, and I beleive that they have reached that conclusion in good faith. I, however, disagree that scholarship-student-athletes should be entitled to the same level of confidentiality than non-scholarship or non-student athletes *in this situation*. I've detailed why I think that previously but to summarize: they receive extraordinary benefits and are public representatives of the univesity. They are not common students.

So, being jane/john doe student involved in an OSCR proceeding is different to me than being Brandon Gibbons involved in an OSCR proceeding. I agree with keeping the AD out of the investigation, but I disagree that they should be kept in the dark of the simple fact that it is happening.

Not everyone is the same in all ways, it's OK to acknowledge and be mindful of that. To whome much is given...blah blah blah.

And I have a different question for you. Should it be kosher by the Universtiy of Michigan Code of Conduct for any student to threaten violence against another student? I say no. what say you?

JediLow

January 30th, 2014 at 1:15 PM ^

The confidentiality breach comes the second they say 'investigation', 'sexual misconduct', and 'Gibbons'.

 

From my cursory reading of the policy it takes very little for an investigation - definitely less than a policy report and rape kit - all it seems to take is an accusation by someone (not even the victim). For anything to happen in that investigation it takes a whole lot more.

MCalibur

January 30th, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^

not all investigation will warrant action by the athletic department. We need to rely on the leaders within the department to make good decisions regarding when to take action and to which degree to take action. My faith in our current leadership has shaken yet again. Any questions?

Yeoman

January 30th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^

...to expect OSCR to abide by its own guidelines?

I've worked in places where confidentiality was treated with such low regard; I didn't like it much. And I'm hoping Michigan isn't such a place. Absent evidence to the contrary I think I'll choose to remain naive.

Yeoman

January 30th, 2014 at 1:03 PM ^

It's not a question of what I think--it is explicit OSCR policy not to inform a departrment within the university. It keeps those departments from trying to influence the proceedings; it also protects the confidentiality of the proceedings.

If you have a problem with that, there's no point in arguing with me. Take it up with OSCR.

MCalibur

January 30th, 2014 at 5:17 PM ^

It’s the OSCR policy that I think creates the PR problem for the AD. That's what my complaint is when you boil it down. There is no doubt that the University at large is in a bad public light because of how this all went down and I see the three primary possibilities as to why that is: dumb AD, evil AD, dim OSCR policy. This back-and-forth has centered on the policy at OSCR to not inform the Athletic Department because of confidentiality concerns for the *respondent* is dim.

I think this policy is terrible in the specific case of student-athletes. If you want to be a represent Michigan then you should forfeit a predetermined amount of confidentiality in situations like this. Of course if the player is a complainant, cool AD definitely does not need to know. But if the player is the respondent the AD should be informed that the player is under investigation and the reason why.

I think all of that because that is the rhetoric that we as a community spew from sea to shining sea, internationally, and all the way to the bleepin moon. We are Michigan, for God's sake and we have a higher moral standard. Am I confused about that notion? I think its whack, but that's our shtick. So, let's either end the charade or call this policy what it is: dim.

There is no reason why a unilateral confidentiality policy is needed and I think it’s dumb that OSCR 1) has such a policy and 2) went ahead and applied it.

 

 

MCalibur

January 30th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^

1) I dont care about Florida Sate, I care about the University of Michigan.

2) Heisman Trophy Candidate leading a team in contention for a National Championship >>> struggling short-range FG kicker.

Again, I dont care about Heisman or the rest of it. The Unitversity of Michigan Athletic Department has attempted to position itself as a paragon of integrity and yadda yadda yadda. through its long standing rhetoric dating back to at least the time of Bo Schembechler.

Charade Over. I won't miss it.

TruBluMich

January 30th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^

As do I, but I also care that people are not subject to witch hunts. My statement was to point that playing while under investigation is completely different than playing after being found to have possibly done it. I used Winston as an example that it is not unheard of for someone to play while being investigated. Poor example but still an example.

MCalibur

January 30th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^

Not being allowed to play is not a witch hunt IMO. And the FSU Athletic Department has not positioned itself as having higher moral standard the everyone else like ours has. How many times have we heard rhetoric along of the lines of "we dont develop players, we develop Michigan Men" or whatever?

You get accused of sexual misconduct, you sit out. I think thats a reasonable upfront policy to have if you're going to pretend to be holier than everyone else.

MCalibur

January 30th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^

I dont have beef with the University though I think they could have acted sooner if they werent afraid of legal reprisal from Brandon Gibbons. So...we're cowards but at least we have integrity? I'll take it, I guess.

I specifically talked about the Athletic Department and their handling of the events once the 2013 investigation officially began. 

Also, the behavior by Taylor Lewan is really bad. But, hey, Snitches get stiches...amiright? I would have benched his ass too. Our season was already lost, sending a message to the rest of the team and the future of the program would have well been worth it. And, oh, btw, we lost all three of those games anyway!

Awesome work, AD. Yeah I answered my question. They're just dumb.

JediLow

January 30th, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^

How can the AD act any differently? They should punish a player for something that happened in the past, under a different administration and staff, when they weren't found to be gulity under the previous standards? Same thing to Lewan - how can you justify Brady punishing him for something he did under a different HC, years ago, and that resulted in no legal issues? (Yes, Gibbons and Lewan both deserved to get the book thrown at them, but that was in 2009 not 2013)

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 30th, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^

"Same thing to Lewan - how can you justify Brady punishing him for something he did under a different HC, years ago, and that resulted in no legal issues? (Yes, Gibbons and Lewan both deserved to get the book thrown at them, but that was in 2009 not 2013)"

Good question.  Answer is that more facts became known, and the true import of the charges became clear in 2013 with the publication of the police records, the (re)-institution of the university disciplinary charges, and the guilt finding.

In 2009, you had an arrest and rumors and no charges.  In 2013, that all changed.  You had a large treasure trove of source documents and facts, charges instituted, and guilt found.  Lewan's conduct is no longer violently threatening a witness in a police investigation ultimately dismissed; it's violently threatening a witness in a case in which the underlying facts were proven true on a preponderance of the evidence.

 

MCalibur

January 30th, 2014 at 12:55 PM ^

Regarding Gibbons: the past was irrelevant. If a player is under investigation for violating either the Law or the University's Code of Conduct then it is incumbant on the Head Coach and/or Athletic Director to decide whether or not the player is eligible to play. Gibbons was under investigation for a serious and credible accusation with an available police report.

Regarding Lewan: I'll give you that it may be less reasonable, but I still would have done *something* bench him a quarter, a series, strip the C off his chest. Something to send a message to the rest of the players on the team at a bare minimum.

Brady Hoke and David Brandon are responsible for the most visible aspect of the University of Michigan and a big source of pride for those that love it. One or both of them botched the series of events that occurred after the 20th of Novemeber.

JediLow

January 30th, 2014 at 1:04 PM ^

Gibbons was investigated for something that a prior investigation didn't charge him with anything. He deserves what he got, but it would have been wrong of Brady to bench him (if he knew) for merely being investigated in this. If the accusations were brought up fresh on a player now, then yes, Brady should bench the kid, but for something that bore nothing previously?

 

As for Lewan, I think prudence would be to let the past, under whatever discipline the previous coach have out, be the past. It would only be an insult to the last HC and a quick way for a new coach to lose his team.

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 30th, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^

Key word(s) are "finding of guilt."

Winston never played for FSU after he'd been found guilty of anything.  He'd never even been charged by anyone with anything.  And he never was charged by anyone with anything.

Gibbons had been charged and found guilty, and continued to play for Michigan and continued to be a member of the Michigan football team.

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 30th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^

At some point the AD has to be notified, or else they risk playing an ineligible player.  So it defies belief that they wouldn't be told that the player had been expelled from school.

It also makes sense that they wouldn't just be told, way at the end of everything, "Oh, you know Joe Smith, the starting running back?  He's been expelled from school.  We can't tell you anymore."  That would seem somewhat odd, but I suppose it could happen. 

In any event, isn't the confidentiality policy posted somewhere?  Does anyone actually *know* what it says?

991GT3

January 30th, 2014 at 12:24 PM ^

or not he will be paying for this unfortunate event for the rest of his life. It really is a very sad conclusion to this matter.

Regarding Hoke, had it won the B1G championship this year you think he would have been given considerably more leeway from the posters regarding how he handled this matter?

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 30th, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^

I'd also add that the pass the team gave Taylor Lewan (or REDACTED, if you insist) and making him a captain in the wake of the publication of the police documents was extremely "shady."

VII

January 30th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^

Check my comment history, I told u fuckers goldy locks was a sick fuck, just like I said Chris fox and Poggi are racist ass hats and they'll get kicked off the team of hoke does the right thing with the video