Will Campbell Thinks He's In Dukes Of Hazzard, Is Not Comment Count

Brian May 31st, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Dukes-Of-Hazzard-TV-09[1]

WHICH ONE OF THESE MEN IS WILL CAMPBELL? TRICK QUESTION

He is not correct. The result:

According to Ann Arbor police, Campbell was arrested after attempting to slide across the hood of a vehicle at 2 a.m. on April 7 in the 600 block of Church Street. An officer in the area could hear the sheet metal on the hood of the car buckle under Campbell’s weight — he’s listed at 322 pounds — and arrested the senior, police stated.

Campbell was intoxicated, according to police.

I'd hope so.

He's got a felony and a misdemeanor coming, which will obviously be pled down to some community service and a fine and Brady Hoke doghouse time. Will it affect his availability for Alabama? I'd say probably not, but we'll see.

Comments

JeepinBen

May 31st, 2012 at 4:25 PM ^

I hope this makes an EDSBS Fulmer Cupdate. This deserves points (or negative points?) for utter hilarity. Picture a drunk guy trying to slide across the hood of a car. Now picture a 330lb drunk guy doing it... and the hood breaking.

Seriously, I hope it's on video. Has anyone checked ricksline.com yet? do they have archives?

ShockFX

May 31st, 2012 at 4:00 PM ^

That's hilarious. Why is an arrest needed? He's of age, why can't they just ask him to pay to replace the hood before they arrest him. Seems like overkill.

BostonWolverine

May 31st, 2012 at 4:25 PM ^

He didn't willfully intend to jump onto property. His intent was to slide across it without damaging it. A better analogy for you would be that you were trying to pop the memory card out of my camera and dropped it on accident. You were attempting to do something that, when executed correctly, wouldn't cause any harm, but in the act of doing so, you accidentally caused the damage.

 

MrVociferous

May 31st, 2012 at 5:44 PM ^

It doesn't matter if that was his intent or not.  I don't (and neither will a judge) care that he tried to "gracefully slide across the hood of a car."  He left his feet and put his ass on property that wasn't his, and damaged it.  And no one gives a shit if the occume was intened or not.  This is such a stupid argument.  No one means to kill someone when they drive drunk.  "Sorry officer, I was just trying to get home.  My intent was to get home safe with out hitting those people."  Accidents (and lawsuits) happen all of the time because unexpected things happened when people were doing something stupid.

A better analogy for the camera thing that fits your insane logic would be if I was just trying to be funny to see if it would bounce.  I didn't intend for it to break.  I just thought I could make it bounce and it would be fine.

Foote Fetish

May 31st, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^

I agree that 'intent' is not the issue.  The issue should be whether or not it was, in fact, objectively funny.  It doesn't matter if he was trying to be funny.  If it was not actually funny, then he should be charged for a crime.

Judging by the fact that Big Will was arrested, I would say he was not funny enough in his attempt to slide across the hood of a car.  Which in and of itself is a crime: wasting the endless comic possibilities of a drunk 300lb manchild playing Dukes of Hazard.

So, as you can see, we are in complete and total agreement.

BostonWolverine

May 31st, 2012 at 8:15 PM ^

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. The whole reason behind the felony charge is INTENT. To then go and say it had nothing to do with intent is completely contradictory. If it wasn't his intent, he is not guilty of a crime of intent. Period.

As far as the misdemeanor goes, I'll tell you what - if you break my camera, whether it's accidental or on purpose, justice will be served when you buy me a new one. No reason to file a report. Just buy me a new camera. No reason to bring the fuzz in. At worst, it's a matter for civil court.

Also, vehicular homicide is different from property damage. The comparison is invalid.

Ernis

May 31st, 2012 at 4:34 PM ^

No doubt it's a lesser crime. I think the questioning, here, is more whether this seemingly reckless and accidental destruction of property rises to the level of a FELONY. Misdemeanor, sure, that makes sense... examples of misdemeanors: public intoxication, disorderly conduct, vandalism. Might these fit the bill? Should the kid really serve a 5 year prison sentence for what he did?

Doubtful that he would serve the maximum sentence, or perhaps even get convicted of the felony. But one would have to conclude that the AAPD, by virtue of their charging him with that level of crime, believe that such a sentence would be appropriate. And that, I vouch, is the reason for the head-scratching and questioning. That said, when all the facts come to light, maybe we'll have a different view.

Ernis

May 31st, 2012 at 10:46 PM ^

Fgowolve's response to my question regarding intent.

Perhaps the po-po are instructed to presume malicious intent and let the courts sort it all out. But that would be an incredibly inefficient use of the courts, and therefore should not be surprising if true.

Callahan

May 31st, 2012 at 4:37 PM ^

Your analogy makes no sense. By tryiing to be funny by smashing the camera, you're still intentionally destroying the camera. By trying to be funny by sliding over a car hood, you're not intentionally smashing the hood. If he had climbed on top of the car and stomped on the hood over and over, you'd have a much better argument.

MrVociferous

May 31st, 2012 at 5:49 PM ^

What if I didn't intend to smash the camera, but just wanted to be funny and see if it would bounce.  No intent to break it, so its all good right?  How was I supposed to know it was going to break?  By everyone's logic here, as long as I don't intend for something bad to happen I can't get in trouble.

Intent or not, his actions caused a felony level of damage to a car.  And now he's in trouble for it.  That's pretty clear.

FgoWolve

May 31st, 2012 at 6:10 PM ^

Criminal intent is not based on intended outcome. It's based on intended action. Theoretically, Campbell fully intended to jump and slide over that car. There's your criminal intent right there. It just so happened that his intentional action damaged the car. He didn't intend to do that, but he did anyway. A proper defense would be that, someone pushed him and it knocked him against the car, damaging it. In that case, he did not intend to make contact with the car. You do intend contact with the car when you think it would be funny to slide across it.

marti221

May 31st, 2012 at 8:04 PM ^

I think a better analogy would be: Man thinks it would be funny to take camera and take a pic of his back fat. In the process, he drops and breaks the $1000+ camera. Intention was not to cause any damage or commit any crime. I'm not a lawyer obviously, nor do I know how this sort of thing works. This just seems like a case where intention should come into play somewhat.