OT: UM fraternity members to face charges this afternoon in ski resort incident
From mlive.com:
The sheriff isn't saying yet but some are indicating four fraternity members will be charged. I suppose once they are charged and enter plea negotiations it is possible the code of silence may be broken and others may be identified. Glad to see that some individuals at least will be forced to face the legal consequences for such outrageous behavior.
4 guys caused most of that damage? Daym, I'm kinda impressed.
4 man wrecking crew
or these are the four most likely to rat eveyone else out
they are going to hold their feet to the fire. I am tired of hearing about this, can we move on please?
March 20th, 2015 at 10:24 PM ^
And yet still commented on it in his preceding sentence.
don't click
Paging Dr. Klima, Peter Klima report to this thread please...
I can't wait.....
I feel like the plaintiff will not have a lot of legal ground to stand on? Maybe an MGoLawyer can chime in for clarity on property laws when renting a hotel room. I just don't see many significant punishments being handed down once a fair estimate for the damages is drawn up and paid for. We'll see though, the locals aren't too friendly to anything UM at the moment up there which could influence things.
This is a criminal case, bro. There is no plaintiff. Bringing the charges is significant.
This is a criminal case, based on the OP. There is no plaintiff - it's the State of Michigan v. Jackass McShithead, etc. As StateStreet notes, it's not a civil case.
The likely charge would be malicious destruction of property. Depending on the amount of damage wreaked, it can either be a misdemeanor or a felony. Here, it is almost assuredly a felony-level offense. (It could very likely be pled down to a misdemeanor, depending on the mood of the prosecutor, the cooperation of the defendants, and whether they voluntarily make restitution.)
It may help for sentencing if the defendants compensate the resort for damages before sentencing. If not, part of the sentence will very likely include restitution for the resort.
If there is a civil suit, the resort would likely wait until after sentencing to bring the suit. The point being it's a much easier suit to win (or settle on plaintiff favorable terms) if there is a guilty verdict in the criminal case.
Your avatar-who is that?
Eraserhead
It is the lead character from Eraserhead, so we'll accept the answer, but the character's name was Henry Spencer, played by Jack Nance.
Care to comment about the movie? It is kind of slow around here today.
David Lynch's first film, shot on a shoestring budget over the course of several years. The best thing to do would be to watch a couple of YouTube clips of the movie - you'll determine pretty quickly whether you want to invest time into the film. Avoid the one referenced below by Mr. Sheen, though, unless you decide not to watch the whole film. The pencil factory scene is at the end of the story, and everything builds up to it.
My experience is that people either love it or hate Eraserhead, with very few lukewarm on the film. Many find it too slow-moving to be interesting, while others savor every second. (Similar, maybe in that way only, to 2001: A Space Odyssey.)
Hated it. Couldn't finish it. Found it visually revolting and while I think I understand what Lynch was trying to do, it was too confusing, artsy and boring. David Lynch is mostly love/hate for me and this definitely fell in the hate category, along with Blue Velvet. Loved Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive.
I remember renting Eraserhead my freshman year and watching in my dorm room. My roommate woke up in the middle of it, asked, "what are you watching?," glanced over during the pencil fanctory scene, and immediately said, "you know what...nevermind," and went back to sleep.
I'm kind of dissappointed my search for "State of Michigan vs. Jackass McShithead" didn't come back with anything worthwhile. That would definitely be an interesting courtroom to wander into.
The charges coming about were expected, I think, and hopefully it forces some accountability from those involved as I believe the chapter was - at least initially - less than willing to provide full cooperation and disclosure.
Out of all this, the most curious story was the one which came out at the beginning of this month which quoted the letter sent to the various groups involved by Laura Blake Jones (Dean Of Students) which termed the damage as "not malicious". Given the scale of what was done at Treetops, I am not sure how it could not be seen as anything except malicious. Maybe I am missing something there.
Not malicious meaning all in good fun.
Not malicious as in drunk kids running into shit that happened to be expensive I'm guessing. I would also venture further and state that the things broken there probably do not include ceiling tiles, which requires a more active intentional approach.
I'm also guessing they tried to clean up their mess instead of just leaving it there the next morning.
Sammy's case is clearly malicious.
I imagine they'll be able to get out of these charges quite easily.
FratGoBlog
New mgoshirt?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
In magazine interview, anonymous PSU frat member defends posting of nude co-eds on Facebook (CNN video):
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/03/19/nr-baldwin-grace-frat-member-de…
Penn State Frat Member http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/03/18/member-of-penn-states-kappa-de…
KDR member: What I meant is that everybody fools around, everybody makes jokes, everybody occasionally engages in … what might be considered inappropriate behavior, and it's not just, shall we say, when somebody happens to be caught doing the same thing that everyone else is doing … [and] they're just tossed in the crowd, you know. Like back in the Middle Ages, they would find a witch or somebody who the community thought was a witch or something like that and toss them to the crowd, you know? When the person's no different than anyone else.
March 20th, 2015 at 10:26 PM ^
Wow. Actually no. I don't think most people take nude photos of people they've slept with without permission and make them available to lots of people.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 20th, 2015 at 10:36 PM ^
Nancy Grace sucks, but she's not the one who made me angry watching that video.
...[t]he issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests—we did. [wink] But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg: isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!"
*cough*blowjob*cough*blowjob*cough*
*cough*eat me*cough*eat me*cough*
Awesome scene/clip and upvote!
"Aren't you pre-med?"
"What's the difference?"
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
The guy who played Niedermeyer went to Michigan.
Mark Metcalf.
They were getting wicked with Glasgow. Sorry for partying.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad