Apparently Darryl Stonum spent some time in jail

Submitted by me on

At least according to Mark Snyder and the Freep

 

 

Darryl Stonum, a projected starting receiver and U-M's primary kickoff returner, spent three nights in jail last month, according to Washtenaw County court records.

The junior from Stafford, Texas, was sentenced in 15th District Court in Ann Arbor and spent June 4-7 in Washtenaw County jail for probation violations.

 

The probation was related to the DUI he received a couple years back.

 

These were the violations:

 

From May 15, 2009, through June 1, 2010, according to court records, he committed probation violations such as leaving the state without consent, failing to submit to random alcohol testing nine times in a 63-day span, failing to complete additional alcohol testing and failing to report for probation on multiple occasions.

 

Here's the rest of the article if you're so inclined

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20100721/SPORTS06/7210377/Wolverines-WR-Da…

Wolverine318

July 21st, 2010 at 5:47 PM ^

Actually it was a FOIA. Carty/A2 News filed a FOIA for the academic record. The grades should never have been released due to FERPA, but...there is a douchebag in the AD that released that information.

For while I was debating Carty on his blog (papertigernomore) about the legality of publishing student academic records. I even got him to admit, what they did was technically unethical and illegal. He just blew me off as according to him, the ends justified the means.

DGDestroys

July 21st, 2010 at 8:45 AM ^

I mean everyone kills people, murders people, fails to submit to random alcohol testing nine times in a 63-day span, steals from you, steals from me, whatever

Blazefire

July 21st, 2010 at 8:47 AM ^

So either he's indignant or he's still on the sauce. That said, he was not charged with an additional DUI, indicating that while he might still be drinking, he's likely NOT drinking and then driving.

At least he better not be...

MH20

July 21st, 2010 at 8:50 AM ^

I'd like to be all "OMG WTF F*CK THE FREEP RAWR!!!" but come on, if you've been ordered to follow a set of procedures after something like a DUI, and you don't follow through, I don't have much sympathy for you.

Doesn't mean I'm dogging Stonum, but facts are facts.

jaggs

July 21st, 2010 at 9:14 AM ^

Doesn't mean I'm dogging Stonum, but facts are facts.

Facts are rarely facts when presented by the FREEP. Seriously, haven't we learned not to trust ANYTHING they write?

jg2112

July 21st, 2010 at 9:43 AM ^

you did notice the words "Washtenaw County court records," right? Take off your tin foil hat for a second and answer this question: do you really think that a Free Press reporter would falsely represent official court documents? Gee whiz.

J. Lichty

July 21st, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^

I am not sure that your question is as rhetorical as you make it out to be, i.e.

do you really think that a Free Press reporter would falsely represent official court documents?

I for one, would not be surprised at a false reporting or at least a skewed interpretation by that rag.  I am not saying that they did in this case, but, no, I do not take the freep's word for much.

jaggs

July 21st, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^

tbh I didn't even read the article. I know 'fuck the freep' is a  popular opinion around these parts. I literally will not read the freep. Many people say they don't/wont but always click the link. We'll see these people in 'Inferno-Canto VIII'.

And yes, after the sloppy repoting that the freep has put out with regards to this program, I do question the presentaion of the facts.

Tater

July 21st, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^

While many may be melodramatic and say that Stonum "risked the lives of innocent people by getting behind the wheel drunk," the bottom line is that Stonum's crime was victimless and did not involve violence or the sale of drugs.  I do agree, though, with the general sentiment here that his punishment will and should be handled in-house.  Or, better yet, in-Big House.

As for that comparison to MSU, I think one probation violation involving one drinking incident isn't even "worthy" of being compared to fourteen players committing a premeditated act of gang violence against innocent students, especially when some of that violence was male-on-female.

I have a feeling, though, that Stonum may be like a batter looking at an 0-2 count right now.

Anonymosity

July 21st, 2010 at 10:36 AM ^

While many may be melodramatic and say that Stonum "risked the lives of innocent people by getting behind the wheel drunk," the bottom line is that Stonum's crime was victimless and did not involve violence or the sale of drugs.

I don't think it's "melodramatic" at all to say a drunk driver "risked the lives of innocent people by getting behind the wheel drunk." Especially when you know multiple people whose lives were seriously affected at the hands of drunk drivers. When drunk driving is victimless, it's only victimless by chance.

maizenbluenc

July 21st, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^

drunk driving is one of those misjudgments made by a lot of college students. I would hope awareness, increased patrolling, and increased punishments have made a long strides in reducing the occurrence since I was at Michigan, but still.

Actually, given that Kevin Grady went through the same set of circumstances, I do not think the board would go overboard if this was a story about an MSU player. We don't have a moral leg to stand on.

I also agree that repeated organized group assault is very different than deciding, while impaired, to drive. DUI is also different than facilitating a cocaine deal, or a fraudulent cocaine con. (And even then, the difference is the decision to immediately dismiss someone from the team by one coach, over welcoming them back [after assaulting a student athlete so badly his brain was injured] only to have them do it again by the other coach.)

So I was hoping to get through the summer without news like this. Oh well.

And why does anyone feel the need to expose stuff like this anyway?

maizenbluenc

July 21st, 2010 at 1:39 PM ^

You're right. Anonymosity appears to only be asserting that drunk driving should not be taken lightly. I agree that drunk driving is serious.

I then went on to respond to MSU related comments made further up the thread chain.

jamiemac

July 21st, 2010 at 8:58 AM ^

Stonum has now spent as much time in jail as I did during my college days. Mine were in the first two years of college as well. Well done, sir.

College students and alcohol offenses, sadly a common bond for a ton of us.

I hope he enjoys the stadium steps or whatever he's going to have to run for this.

jg2112

July 21st, 2010 at 9:44 AM ^

Is this something that RR can punish Stonum for in the summer? I thought that was something the staff got in trouble for last year - punishing kids for not going to class (way to have your priorities straight, NCAA).

MGoShoe

July 21st, 2010 at 9:04 AM ^

...Stonum gets his act straight going forward.  It's a head shaker that he's been unable to keep up with probation requirements.  I mean, it's not like there's any way to get away with these sorts of violations.

Sounds like RichRod better institute some close control over this situation.

bronxblue

July 21st, 2010 at 9:12 AM ^

While none of these probation offenses sound particularly egregious, they definitely point to a pattern of disregard for his legal responsibilities.  Hopefully Stonum will learn from his time in jail that when you break the law, you have to make amends.  Sure, it is annoying to check in with your PO or submit to random testing, but it is also annoying to the rest of society that he drove drunk.  This isn't a newspaper or "haters" looking to pick on UM; this is a legit story about a football player who decided not to follow the law.

 

chitownblue2

July 21st, 2010 at 9:13 AM ^

So - he was basically as stupid as possible about how he handled this. Time for some stadium steps.