Glasgow suspended.
Angelique Chengelis:
From UM per Glasgow: We have been made aware of Graham's probation violation and he has been suspended...cont'd
— angelique (@chengelis) March 16, 2015
From UM/Glasgow- "subject to punishment through the judicial system, the student-athlete alcohol policy and the Michigan football program."
— angelique (@chengelis) March 16, 2015If this whole situation had to happen, its better that it happens now rather than right before the season starts. One good thing about Hoke is he stockpiled on O-Linemen, so there's no shortage of talent to work with, even without Glasgow. Maybe now we'll get to see if Kugler can live up to his recruiting hype.
Hopefully Glasgow can use this time to get himself straightened out.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I hope he gets his shit together. I'm glad Harbaugh didn't kick him off the team, but I mean, let's be honest, he could have. Probation is essentially a substitute for the jail time you could have gotten. I enjoy a drink as much as anyone, but it really isn't hard to avoid it when you know you are subject to random breathalyzers any morning (I assume it was random as I would hope he wouldn't be careless enough to drink when he knew it was coming) and the penalties for violating could potentially include a couple weeks in jail. He was lucky to only have his probation period extended. If he's genuinely addicted I hope they can get him help and not just punishment.
Making drinking essentially illegal for people who are on probation seems like a way to trap people in the justice system and provide work for probation officers and funding for testing companies. I also doubt it reduces drunk diving. The goal should be to stop drunk driving. We tried to outlaw drinking in the past and it did not work.
In a perfect world people would follow their probation terms to the letter but that's not what happens. Instead we spend tons of money keeping people in the criminal justice system with questionable effectiveness. The goal is to keep people from drinking and driving, not drinking. If someone has a drinking problem that is not really the society's business. You can't force someone to give up drinking. We can provide support when they do decide to quit but using the criminal justice system to make them stop is not the answer.
End rant
I guess I just have a few problems with the way past offenders are treated in our criminal justice system generally, especially as it relates to otherwise lawful conduct.
March 17th, 2015 at 12:03 AM ^
He drove drunk, and good have faced significant jailtime. In an effort to keep him away from the prison system, he was sentenced to probation which required certain conditions for a year. This isn't about recidivism or three strikes or anything else -- this was part of his initial sentence. He either has enough of a problem with alcohol that he couldn't abide by his probation conditions, which is an in issue, or he simply didn't care, which is also an issue. Given the amount of alcohol in his system, it's unlikely this was the first time he's had a drink since his sentencing. More likely it's the first time he got caught.
That's legitimate, but that doesn't mean you can simply outlaw it.
For the general public, you can't. As part of a probation - you absolutely can.
You can lose your job, your right to own a firearm (even for a misdemeanor), your right to vote...
They did not outlaw drinking. This was punishment given to Glasgow for a serious crime he committed. He could have received the punishment of incarceration. Requiring him not to drink for a year seems a suitable punishment, since his crime involved an irresponsible and dangerous use of alcohol.
March 17th, 2015 at 10:36 AM ^
My issue is not with what the law is, but what I think it should be. And you and I might disagree on that, but I think probation terms that don't really get at the heart of the problem (we might disagree on that, too!) aren't useful or just.
I agree personally, but the way the legal system looks at it, if you were caught once, you've probably gotten away with it several times. Thus, you have a drinking problem and need to be restricted from drinking or being in a bar. I don't like the way they assume everyone is an alcoholic like that, but it is what it is.
I just don't think the legal system is the most effective way to deal with substance abuse. When an individual's behavior harms others or creates string potential for harm (they break the law) the legal system should issue punishment.
Substance abuse that does not do this should be handled as a public health issue. Testing as a condition of probation tends to push the substance abuse issue more towards the legal side as opposed to the public health side. That's basically why I am against the concept
Oh, I totally agree, believe me. Many years ago I bartended in kind of a divey place, I've heard plenty of stories of alcohol-related legal issues. The cookie cutter way of slapping everyone with mandatory AA attendance and random breathalyzers, when some of them really are just people who made a bad decision one night, always bothered me to hear about. Obviously I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished at all, just saying not everyone should be presumed an alcoholic. There are real alcoholics who need real help, but that's not everyone who makes a mistake, as terrible as this mistake is.
It's not much of an assumption to say that a person who is convicted of drunk driving probably shouldn't be drinking for a while. The probation is "based on evidence and what they could prove." The evidence was a BAC above .08, and they could prove operation of a motor vehicle with that BAC.
You seem to be arguing that people with a history of endangering others should not be restricted in their activites until those activites cause further endangerment. That's a very bizarre view of the legal system, and in my opinion, a very dangerous one.
Yes, it would be great if we could simply tell people to stop drinking and driving as part of their probation. But having faith in those with a history of drunk driving isn't very reassuring to others on the road, which is why we is why we try to remove the catalyst. If you don't drink, you can't drink and drive.
March 16th, 2015 at 10:02 PM ^
Alcohol effects everyone differently. I've watched a girl with a BAC of .06 stumbling around and a guy with a .12 handling himself fine. (Scientific experimenting with a PBT at a bar ;) )
I think the field sobriety tests and officer video would be a far better standard applied in court.
For example, a coworker of mine was charged with a "super drunk" violation when he was sleeping one of in the car. Car was not running and he was sleeping in the back seat in the bar parking lot. Even though he was not driving, he still had to plead to an OWI to avoid the "super drunk" penalties.
March 16th, 2015 at 10:37 PM ^
Well until the law starts accounting for people with higher tolerances, I don't see any alternative. Besides, Glasgow blew a .13. He wasn't even close.
March 16th, 2015 at 10:41 PM ^
much worse cases and lost on this issue. His lawyer (if he had one) did not do a good job for him if that was the case.
March 17th, 2015 at 12:15 AM ^
Driving while impaired is against the law. It is against the law because it is in fact very dangerous to others. While excessive alcohol use may be a public health issue, it is criminal to engage in some activities while drunk because it in fact is lethal to the public. Public health should work at preventing these incidents from occurring, by indentifying people more likley to engage in this behavior and helping find alternative solutions, be it drinking less or arranging other transportation.
But the law isn't about assumptions. There was certain evidence that he broke the law and drove while drunk. The penal code has always been based on two principles, retribution and deterrence. That no one was harmed in this instance of drunk driving means that his punishment was only on the deterrence side -- hence probation with alcohol testing. Had someone been injured or killed, the punishment would have been more on the retribution side. He was not able to live up to the standards of his detrrence punishment, so he will likely face jail time as a stiffer deterrent, because he didn't get the message. And again, that's based on evidence too -- he failed a test.
He has a problem. Whether it's a drinking problem or a problem with authority, I cannot say. But he broke the law, got a somewhat lenient sentence, and violated his probation. Future punishment aside, he needs to figure out what his problem is and deal with it. He's quickly throwing away an opportunity a lot of hard work earned him.
If a person is incapable of drinking responsibly to the point where they are driving around two-ton machines intoxicated, I don't think it's unreasonable for society to demand that they stop drinking for a while.
I disagree a bit. Part of the goal is to prevent alcohol abuse. People who drink and drive tend to have elevated incidence of alcoholism. The not drinking for a while part is a timeout of sorts, an opportunity to check yourself. I work in wine production, and alcoholism is rampant in the industry. In an attempt to thwart alcoholism, I go dry for a while after harvest, and it helps put things in perspective. Not saying he has a dependency problem, but I'm sure it helps some people.
I don't disagree with some of your arguements, but you are missing a couple of key points. The criminal justice system determined that he was a hazard while driving because he got caught drinking and driving. So as a punishment, which can be construed as limiting your individual constitutional freedoms, to "hopefully" prevent this reoccurence, the court rather than suspending his license and thus prohibiting him from driving, they attempted to prohibit his ability to drink. He at the end of the day (or night?) decided to not abide by this punishment, and unfortunately will now face more consequences.
March 16th, 2015 at 11:57 PM ^
Graham likely made a deal to plead a no contest/ something that would be expunged if he agreed to the terms of the prosecutor/ MI Law. He likely did not admit that he was a hazard while driving and did not admit guilt. I'm still not sue how the court can limit a legal activity (unless he had a sticker or something on his license that said "don't sell to me)".
BTW, puniching alcoholics is great for the law and lawyers.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
They player made a mistake and will suffer the consequences. At the same time I don't think the current approach of liberally applying alcohol bans to individuals on probation is good policy. Bringing this up and having a little debate about it in the context of this story is not blaming the punishment.
March 17th, 2015 at 12:20 PM ^
Probation in this sense is a substitute for jail time. If you took the jail time you would not have alcohol available. Thus no need for testing. The testing is part of the inconvenience of that would have more severely impacted a person’s life. As far as trapping people in the justice system. Follow the terms of the gift of probation and you will not be trapped.
The argument of “We tried to outlaw drinking in the past and it did not work.” Is a straw man argument we are not trying to outlaw drinking for everyone. This only applies to people who have demonstrated they can’t / won’t follow the laws that are there now. I for one am not required to submit to testing because I have not been convicted of DUI.
Lastly you stated “In a perfect world people would follow their probation terms to the letter but that's not what happens.” I guess the judicial system should just give people a list of items that could be imposed on their probation and ask them which ones they could / would like to have, as not to unduly inconvenience them and assure that they completed the “punishment” without incident.
Bottom line. You do a crime and are given the gift of probation. Keep your nose clean follow the terms and you will have no problems.
As far as team suspension it is warranted, period!
This goes beyond football. Hopefully, if there he does have a problem, he gets his life in order, not even considering any football aspect.
Does WD approve of this move?
The drunk driving was dumb.
When I was in college (LC and RR years) and it was St. Patty's day weekend, we drank early and we drank hard.
This offense was stupid. He's on probation and there's always the chance he'll be randomly drug tested. He made a poor decision and got caught.
But really... lambasting a college kid for drinking during a holiday weekend where the holiday is celebrated by drinking all day with your friends? He took a risk and things did not come up Milhouse. He is going to be appropriately punished. Whoever is trashing him, I'm sure you were a blast at parties.
I understand you're disappointed in him, and that disappointment may come out in the form of name calling and anger because he is arguably our best offensive lineman. But name calling and belittling the kid is does nothing positive for our fanbase.
Edit: This was supposed to be in the thread where everyone is berating Glasgow.
It is a stupid reason to drink. But St. Practice Day weekend is still the weekend before and then there are still celebrations on 3/17.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Stonum had a second DUI.
Stonum also had a couple other alchol related convictions, MIPs and such, his 2nd DUI was his 4th or 5th alchol related offense while at Michigan.
Glasgow can earnhis way back on the team IMO.
This is very disappointing news. I hope he is able to get things straightened out. We all make mistakes. Hopefully he is able to learn from this.
...but he was a dumb ass. These guys are blessed with physical gifts and opportunities that less than 1% of the population possess and they too often piss it away. All they need to do is exercise a little restraint. Viewed against the tremendous opportunity, I don't think this is asking too much.
As my young daughter would say, "too bad... so sad."
Sheesh.
If he had stayed Dry, he wouldn't have been Cut.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
On a team level this is a very poor demonstration of leadership and commitment to the team and program by an upperclassmen and multi year starter.
That is disappointing.
Good grief. It's getting the point that I'm afraid to check M sports news again because of all the bad news. No NIT, LaVert with one foot out the door, Miller gone, Glasgow can't control himself.
Why can't we has good news?????
March 16th, 2015 at 10:27 PM ^