Frank Clark acting stupid (again.)
Better to say nothing at all especially when you were actually guilty of DV in the past. Just be happy with your second chance.
This stuff is rampant across the nation. Keeping it in the national spotlight is paramount to getting it cleaned up. When that action comes from a Michigan player then I expect Michigan players/alumni/fans to care.
this 4 year old incident needs to be rehashed in order to clean it up? Like Louis CK says...no one who hits women is swayed by the NFL giving a shit about it.
You'd rather that bad/stupid things done by people affiliated with Michigan just be swept under the rug?
OK.
since he was already charged with felony for home invasion for stealing laptop. Hoke gave him a 2nd chance and he got a 3rd chance by getting drafted by the NFL.
hit take his meds. You can, however, give him a little inducement to encourage him to stay on the straight and narrow.. Simply tell him to take his meds with a brick in each hand. The first time he refuses, simply bring the bricks together in rapid fashion in order that each brick hit one of his nuts. Yes it seems like it might hurt, but the trick is to remove your thumbs just before contact and you should be fine.
Here's a partial of what she wrote a few years ago,
"I am a woman, and I watch people do things on TV, for entertainment, who have beaten women. Who have raped them. Who've threatened their lives...
....But yesterday, the Seahawks -- no, wait -- coach Pete Carroll and general manager John Schneider, who had specifically said in 2012 that the team "would never, ever take a player that struck a female, or had a domestic dispute like that," drafted Frank Clark with their first pick, a former Michigan defensive end who was arrested last November after his girlfriend Diamond Hurt's brothers, ages 3 and 5, told neighboring hotel guests "Frank is killing our sister."" "
And here's what he tweeted tonight,
Here's her original piece: LINK
It's a pretty terrible reaction, and ugly look by Clark
First, thanks and kudos to you for that link. Since it is the column by Natalie Weiner that seems to have given rise to this whole thing, I regarded it as essential reading. And before your link, I hadn't found it.
And having read it thanks to you (I recommend that everybody do so), it occurs to me that Frank Clark was upset by a really terrible column, by a really second rate writer.
Natalie Weiner paid no attention to the facts as set forth below by MGoBlogger "Maizen." Kudos to Maizen and keep up the good work.
Natalie Weiner then blandly mentioned the name of Jameis Winston as if he had been a confirmed, convicted sex offender. The state of the art hit-job on Winston was the documentary, "The Hunting Ground." Which was utterly destroyed by attorney and author Stuart Taylor (the guy who -- literally -- wrote the book on the Duke lacrosse case) here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415269/
And here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427166/smoking-gun-e-mail-exposes…
Ms. Weiner's column then cited the "1 in 5 women have been raped" fake-stat. No serious researchers are relying on that phony claim which was taken from old and discredited online polls, never from peer-reviewed interview-based research, and not from FBI crime statistics.
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/RapeCultureSumme…
I'll happily give some credit to Ms. Weiner for confessing that she was never a reporter assigned to the Frank Clark allegations back in the late fall of 2014. She probably should have learned more about the case before writing about it.
My harshest criticism goes to Ms. Weiner's completely unsupported and badly attempted point about "blaming the victim." No one in the press blamed any victim in Frank Clark's case. No one whom I can recall on this blog -- reserved mostly for pro-Michigan football fanatics -- blamed any victims. Then-Coach Brady Hoke didn't blame any victims. Then-AD Jim Hackett didn't blame any victims. Brian Cook didn't blame any victims. Apparently Pete Carroll's worst offense in the Department of Victim Blaming was to suggest that "there are two sides to every story." Egads. I'd forgive anyone who dared to think that as a reporter, Natalie Weiner might want to consider that there may be two sides to a story.
And to be clear, some of us have different ideas about what constitutes "victim blaming." Maybe, when Natalie Weiner wrote her column back when Clark was drafted by the Seahawks, she was reading this MGoBlog post by Ace, in which he links to what he thought was "victim blaming":
http://mgoblog.com/content/frank-clark-seahawks-failed-everyone
There's a link in there. And a story at the link. And quotes from Clark, which I'm not sure were taken out of context given the transparent attitude of the reporter (Cameron LaFontaine). But assuming the quotes from Clark are completely accurate and in context, I'd ask the readers to decide for themselves the extent to which they thought that Clark was "victim-blaming." Clark was answering pointed questions, about what pointed questions he had been getting from NFL scouts, and how he had been responding.
Frank Clark had, and has, good reason to be unhappy with that column by Natalie Weiner.
No, it's not the same, but what and who he's pissed off about matters. This isn't a tweet bashing some guy who thinks Clark isn't a great player or something of that sort.
But this isn't the way to rehabilitate your image. It shows a lack of maturity and frankly, empathy. She was reporting / relaying facts about Seattle not drafting players with DV pasts. He should have taken high road about learning from past mistakes.
Can I drink from your fountain of knowledge?
1. Clark hit the woman. Wow. I didn't know that was ever determined. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I thought that was where it was left and no third-party ever weighed in on it. Glad you are smart enough to know.
2. Its safe to assume Clark never read the article that mentioned him. Okay? That seems counter-intuitive, but you have your mind made up about him and that seems clear.
3. You say Clark got mad she mentioned him in the article and that is why he said something mean to her..... except, his tweet was not in response to the article about him. That was years ago. Oh well, looks like we can assume someone else didn't bother reading a full article. Maybe that is why you assume he never read the article from 2015, because you don't bother to read even short Deadspin articles yourself?
Seriously, guys. I think Frank Clark is a jerk. But, the smug judgment and refusal to try to be neutral is really a bad look outside of the internet.
FFS you can google pictures from the police which show his girlfriend's face with bruises on it.
He took a plea deal, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I think everyone who makes rash decisions about guilt based on a couple news articles would really just prefer that reason and objectivity "sit it out." Why can't everyone just see you are right. There is no gray area here. You so smart.
I think everyone who makes rash decisions about guilt based on a couple news articles would really just prefer that reason and objectivity "sit it out."
Seriously, troll harder man. At least when you were being an idiot about the frat stuff, you spoke with a smidgen of coherence. You are just getting lazy now.
I didn't read his Tweet as a threat, but I can see why people would - and that does make it worse. I don't mean to defend what he posted. It was thoughtless and inappropriate to say the least. I only mean to say that we shouldn't confuse this mole hill for the mountain that was the 2012 incident.
For the record, I'm not a fan of Frank or Natalie -- mostly entertained by the comments in here.
BUT if Natalie beleives in redemption as she writes, then why the hit piece? I say "hit piece" because has Frank been arrested again?
Has Frank hit a woman again?
Has Frank run afoul of the law in any other manner?
If so, then I understad where sh'es coming from. If not, then I question her motives.
He is just being mean to this reporter, just like some douchcanoe first year Wall Street trader might say to a waitress at happy hour who spills his drink. Yeah, he's toolish for saying it, but he is just some arrogant, young, rich kid saying dumb stuff. Its really not that newsworthy. Meh.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
If he was just being an asshole to be an asshole, that's one thing.
Going after someone who wrote about you beating up your girlfriend and getting thrown out of school? And then deleting it and not apologizing for it? That is newsworthy.
At least he's consistent about being an Asshole.
Was this sarcasm? Please tell me this was sarcasm.
BTW I was originally going to say "take a shit in a diaper" but I changed it to a misspelling of incontinent instead.
Yeah, because continuing/escalating pissing contests on Twitter makes everyone involved look so good.
the average career is 3.3 years and Frank's gonna tell her that she's unlikely to have a long career in her field? My moneys on Natalie writing long after Frank is done playing football
Philosopher/woman beater Frank Clark states "(p)eople like you don't have long careers in their field". This from a guy playing in the NFL where the average career is 3.3 years (per the NFL Players Association).
"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack."
"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot;
"'Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean - without blemish or blot -
That your blackness is mirrored in me."
1873 - St. Nicholas Magazine, courtesy Wikipedia
Whether people like it or not Frank Clark's DV charge was reduced to disorderly conduct because the prosecutors office in Ohio did not believe Clark ever struck the victim. The Seahawks also investigated the incident before the draft and also believed he never hit the victim. I don't know whose version of events is accurate, the accuser's or Clark's, but at some point we have to accept what the law tells us too.
This was always the thing that bothered me about the Gibbons situation. No charges, no prosecution, no conviction, and yet he is treated like he was guilty. If he was he got off easy and should be in jail, but that's why it's important for these things to go through the criminal justice system. That's why the university has been succesfully sued by several expelled students over sexual assault incidents because their investigation process assumes guilt because they don't have the rescources to conduct them properly.
Point being, maybe these are bad guys, maybe they aren't, but we really don't know and it's unfair to assume one way or the other.
Cumong now, we can look at the police report, see the cut on her cheek, the bruises on her neck, and the testimony of the children at the scene and fairly draw the conclusion that Frank Clark is a bad guy. Trigger warning for those with a continuing anti-Freep bias (I'm guilty of that too!), but look at this police report, which has photos: http://media.freep.com/documents/PDF/frank_clark_police_report.pdf
Once at the room, I entered the room and I observed a lamp in several pieces on the table next to the bed. I also observed a lamp attached to the wall in the hallway that was damaged. I made contact with the female laying in the bed and she was identified as the victim, Diamond Hurt. I observed Ms. Hurt had a large welt on the left side of her cheek, and blood near the left side of her temple area. The squad began speaking to Ms. Hurt and I spoke to another male and female in the room. The female was identified as Breon Hurt, Diamond Hurt's mother, and the male was identified as , Diamond Hurt's brother. I asked Breon if she observed anything and she stated she did not. She advised she was in a different hotel room with her boyfriend when her younger children came running to the room stating " Frank killed Diamond." stated he was in the shower in the same hotel room as Diamond and Mr. Clark. He advised his younger brother, came into the bathroom and told him Frank was hitting Diamond. He advised he came out of the shower and observed Frank punching diamond.
The younger brother, , returned to the room and I observed he was still visibly upset as he was crying. I asked what he observed and he advised he saw Frank hitting his sister. While speaking to he became more emotional while trying to tell me what he witnessed. then interrupted and stated when he came out of the shower, Frank had his sister up against the wall. He advised his sister was trying to fight back and Frank grabbed her by the throat, picked her up off the ground, and slammed her to the ground while also landing on top of her.
The fact of the matter is, as the woman who Clark berated notes in her article, that Clark's then g/f declined to cooperate with the authorities, so the prosecutor dropped the case to a lesser-included charge. I don't see how you can get from that to "the prosecutor's office in Ohio did not believe she hit him".
On Gibbons, double FFS. He got kicked out of school due to the allegations after a hearing. By your logic, at some point we have to accept what that hearing tells us. He also had his BFF Lewan engaging in witness intimidation to make it more difficult to pursue rape charges (or Lewan was acting on his own volition, but still a bad look for both Lewan and Gibbons).
I'm not inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the likes of Clark, Gibbons (esp.), or Lewan. I do believe that each is redeemable (and that Lewan is mostly guilty of being a meathead), but this notion that we aren't allowed to have a negative opinion in the light of things like the Clark police report is straight-up RCMB logic.
Here's how I got the prosecutors office in Ohio did not believe he hit her. Maybe next time before you want to act like a know it all do a little reaearch. Furthermore, incriminatory police reports are unreliable. You can read here why that's the case. You may think you're making some good points, but you're not. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2016/09/in-response-to-mondays-post-ive-been-getting-a-lot-of-questions-about-the-admissibilityreliability-of-police-reports.html
After selecting Clark, Seahawks general manager John Schneider said the team's internal investigation into the case gave them the conclusion that Clark never struck his girlfriend, Diamond Hurt, in the way that was explained in the November police report following the incident.
The Seattle Times reported earlier this week, though, that the Seahawks' investigation into the matter did not include interviews with any of the witnesses or Hurt herself.
On Thursday, The Times spoke with Lynne Gast-King, Sandusky, Ohio's municipal prosecutor, about the case. Gast-King explained how she came to the conclusion that Clark did not strike Hurt inside the Maui Sands hotel last November, and that's why the charges against him were reduced.
"From what I gathered, I do not believe he punched her, slapped her, anything like that," she told the paper. "Was there physical things going on between them? Yeah, there was.
"But I don't think he punched her."
Wrong again. Next time read the actual link before you criticize it instead of pretending to.
But on Wednesday, the prosecutor who agreed last month to reduce Clark’s domestic-violence charges wanted to be clear: she believes Clark didn’t “punch or slap” his girlfriend, and says she didn’t brush aside witnesses.
“From what I gathered, I do not believe he punched her, slapped her, anything like that,” Lynne Gast-King, municipal prosecutor for the city of Sandusky, told The Seattle Times on Wednesday.
“As a prosecutor, I want to be perceptive to the fact that domestic violence is a very serious issue that needs to be dealt with,” Gast-King added Wednesday. “But I also am perceptive to the fact that two people can have an altercation that is not domestic violence. Every case you have to look at the whole case.”
It's plain that this is Diamond's Smirking Revenge. So you're wrog again.
That, or the bootleg "prosecutor" (actually a contractor acting on behalf of the township) is a dope trying to defend a controversial decision. With clumsy logic that does not deny that Clark choked the woman and threw her to the ground. So congrats dude, your entire argument - at best - plays on a distinction between punching someone and choking them and throwing them to the ground.
One or the other.
Keep telling yourself that. If the prosecutor believed Clark was guilty she would have charged him, but she didn't. Move along.