Grant Perry Suspended Indefinitely Comment Count

Seth December 22nd, 2016 at 3:28 PM

image

Sophomore WR Grant Perry today was informed of the charges that would be filed against him, which include two counts of sexual assault and running from police. He has been suspended apparently until the law is finished with him.

The charges against him include assaulting, battering, resisting or obstructing an officer(a felony), plus two counts of fourth degree sexual assault and a minor-in-possession charge (all misdemeanors). The Lansing State Journal had some details on the incident:

He is accused of touching a female who was waiting in line outside a downtown East Lansing bar at 12:20 a.m. Oct. 15.

"When (police) arrived on scene, we tried to grab onto him, and we had to chase him," said Lt. Scott Wriggelsworth, a spokesman for the East Lansing Police Department. "In the midst of that fracas, one of our officers suffered a minor hand injury."

Perry, along with Jack and Jared Wangler, was suspended for the Illinois game the week after the incident, and Perry didn’t travel to MSU. He was active for the Maryland, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio State games this year, notably catching 4 passes for 49 yards in The Game. How much of the incident Michigan knew at the time of disciplinary action is an open question.

Perry, playing a Dileo-style slot, was Michigan’s third most productive receiver this year, and was expected to play a larger role in 2017 with the graduation of Chesson and Darboh. Perry is almost certain to miss the Orange Bowl, and his future with the team will likely be decided by the justice system.

Comments

Mr. Yost

December 22nd, 2016 at 4:23 PM ^

The response has been appropriate with the infomation at the time, IMO. I really don't think it's that hard for any school and I think Michigan has done a great job.

Arrested whether you're charged or not...suspended unless you and many others can prove without a doubt that you had absolutely NO fault in the situation. Doesn't sound like that was the case here. 2 games seems about right.

Files charged? Okay...now you're done until your situation gets figured out.

If you're found not guilty or everything is dismissed (not settled, dismissed)...welcome back. If you're guilty...goodbye forever.

I realize it's not always that black and white, but that's the baseline I'm working with every time.

I also realize that it's not fair you're suspended and truly may not have ANYTHING to do with the situation. But, you know what, life isn't fair.

However, to that point...I'd like to see the NCAA allow an additional year for those special cases. Which are few and far between.

(i.e. I'm arrested for murder...I'm suspended the entire year while everything sorts itself out. Then it turns out they have a video of the real murderer, ski mask off, waiving at the camera, holding 2 forms of ID and screaming "IT WAS ME!." I should be suspended indefinitely...but once they let me go, I should get my year back if I want to keep playing).

Clearly that doesn't happen often, but the NCAA can show some feel by allowing the 100% innocent to get their lost season back. This would give coaches more freedom to suspend players, knowing that "hey kid..if what you say is true...we'll get you that 5th or 6th year."

kevin holt

December 22nd, 2016 at 5:23 PM ^

I think that would possibly be a 6th year situation. You would have lost a year to circumstances beyond your control. That's already the criterion for granting a 6th year and I'd think it would count since you'd have been wrongfully incarcerated for that year.

Holmdel

December 22nd, 2016 at 6:35 PM ^

Before we go on condemning our fellow MgoBloggers for being a-holes and worse, take a look at the CSC statute (quoted further down, in comment #74).  What is impermissible according to the law of the State of Michigan appears much narrower in scope than what you suggest, CCW.  Specifically, check out section (b) in which the statute identifies examples of what might be taken to constitute "force or coercion."  Kevin13's example is arguably not prohibited by this statute because arguably it doesn't meet the standard of "force or coercion." 

Holmdel

December 22nd, 2016 at 6:58 PM ^

On the subject of what the coaching staff knew when, it's also worth mentioning that, as per the statute, the charge might be...

that the woman was physically helpless or mentally incapable (by reason of intoxication), and yet, Perry's story to the coaching staff was that she was not that drunk.  And the police/prosecution did not release evidence pertaining to her state of intoxication, and were investigating further to see what they came up with. 

If that is the case, the suspension timeline might make sense.

Or the charge might be that Perry used "the element of surprise" and Perry might have sworn to the coaching staff that this was completely false.  What should the staff do under those circumstances?  Same if the charge was that he used the threat of force and he completely denied that?  So it is a he-said/she-said and the prosecution indicates that the woman has not yet pressed charges?  What should the staff do then? 

Could be that the facts are that he truly "overcame" her physically and groped her, and it could be something far different.  We really ought to withhold judgment until we know more.

Sextus Empiricus

December 22nd, 2016 at 10:05 PM ^

that is serious enough to get him kicked off if proven in court regardless of the actual alleged assault IMO... just sayin'.

It's the denial that get's you.  He shouldn't have run...but I have done worse than that ... and never been caught...so I won't throw a stone...I hope he learns from this regardless of what actually happened/happens here.

This sucks.

MichiganMAN47

December 22nd, 2016 at 4:03 PM ^

The problem with the objectification of women argument is that most modern women objectify themselves. What purpose do make up, false lashes, high heels, dyed hair, and push up bras serve? It's definitely not to seem more intellectual. They go to great lengths to make themselves appear more physically attractive. Women bear some of the responsibility for being objectified as well. That doesn't excuse sexual assault. It's just an acknowledgment that if women don't want to be treated like objects they can do a fair amount to avoid it.

michgoblue

December 22nd, 2016 at 4:18 PM ^

Let me try to mediate the shitstorm that I think is about to come in the direction of Michman47:

What he is saying is simply that in today's times, some women do take action to objectify themselves - they use some of the methods that he described (fake lashes, push-up bras, etc)to make themselves more sexually appealing.  I don't think that anyone would really dispute that some women try to make themselves appear more sexually desirable. 

But, I don't think that Michman47 is saying that this is a bad thing, or that they are inviting sexual assault by doing so.  He is simply stating a fact. 

But, here is the part of Michman47's comment that I can't defend; the statement that if a woman doesn't want to be sexually assaulted, they can avoid it by simply not trying to look attractive.  Sorry, that's where I think that you need to step back and re-examine your world view - wanting to look sexually attractive simply does NOT equate with wanting to be assaulted, and nobody - man or woman - should have to avoid making themselves look and feel go so as to avoid being sexually assaulted. 

michgoblue

December 22nd, 2016 at 4:24 PM ^

He is correct that if one doesn't want to be objectified, they should not do things that make objectification more likely.  That may not be ideal, but it is true.  Don't go out half naked and them complain that people are staring. 

But, the implication of that statement - that I can't agree with at all - that one who chooses to dress in a manner that would objectify them somehow invites sexual assault is just horrible.  People are free to look at anyone in any manner that they want, but that doesn't excuse abuse.

MichiganMAN47

December 22nd, 2016 at 5:01 PM ^

To clarify, I do not think that dressing in that way is an invitation for sexual assault. I'm only referring to the previous poster's comment on objectification as something perpetuated by men. If women do not want to be objectified, simply do not go to such great length's to objectify themselves. If they are genuinely concerned about being objectified part of the solution is in their hands. That's what I mean by avoiding.

The fact that some people are conflating objectification with sexual assault is silly. One is a psychological concept, the other is a very real thing.

JBE

December 22nd, 2016 at 5:26 PM ^

Women are not objectifying themselves. Looking good, etc. is not making oneself an object. An object only becomes an object when the viewer deems it such.

It is empowering onself really - and for the benefit of self rather than the other, the objectifier. Don't you feel better in a suit than sweatpants? When I dress in a suit I don't do it to become an object - that's what someone else does to me - I dress nicely to feel good about myself. 

To say women are objectfying themselves says more about you than it says about women. They are objects because you deem them so. 

Your, MichiganMan47, argument is so stone aged you're probably smoking rock with Fred Flintstone. Is he an object because he's wearing minimal clothing? 

MichiganMAN47

December 22nd, 2016 at 5:42 PM ^

Dressing up is empowering yourself? To do what? Gain physical attraction.

If in your average daily social interactions you think that your physical appearance is the more important than your character and virtues you are objectifying yourself. That's not to say you can't look nice, but it is relative to the emphasis you put on the other things in your life. I suggest that most women go to quite an extent to look nice to impress men rather than focus on other things that make them attractive partners such as character. Look at how about 80% of shopping malls are dedicated to women's vanity. To a certain extent it is healthy and feminine, and I think what we have today in America is a bit excessive.

grumbler

December 22nd, 2016 at 10:02 PM ^

This, one million times over.

Objectification occurs ONLY in the minds of the observer.  People cannot see themselves as objects (unless, perhaps insane in some specific way); they know themselves too well to see themselves as non-human.

The argument that men objectify women because, in part, women objectify themselves is absurd and so immature I'm surprised anyone tried it out here.  It shows a gross misunderstanding of what objectification is and why it is so dangerous.

Blue2000

December 22nd, 2016 at 4:23 PM ^

The problem with the objectification of women argument is that most modern women objectify themselves. . . It's just an acknowledgment that if women don't want to be treated like objects they can do a fair amount to avoid it.

Good lord this take is straight up garbage.  As a human being, I'm disgusted by it.