Furman details coming out

Submitted by nofunforfu on April 23rd, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Michael Rothstein has an article out featuring today's testimony from Josh Furman's trial. I'll add the link but it looks like the situation was overblown and, unless something new comes out, I think Furman should be back on the field for fall practice. 




April 24th, 2012 at 7:50 AM ^

another young athlete who will have to go through some anger management training, what a suprise. If what I am reading is the extent of it. I am somewhat suprised a district attorney would spend any time on this one, unless they are sure to get jail time, might be because he is on the football team and said attorney is looking to show he or she is on the ball keeping us all safe. Don't you feel safer now. 


April 24th, 2012 at 8:52 AM ^

I can't understand why the public hates them. Self serving prosecutor has a wet vagina over a kid because he will get her attention. Look I got on ESPN.


April 24th, 2012 at 11:40 AM ^

The prosecutor has wasted a bunch of time and money on this, based on what's been revealed so far. I can't believe that this information couldn't have been obtained before the trial.

Mr. Yost

April 24th, 2012 at 3:34 PM ^

I mean a man can be pretty desperate for some pics at 2am in the morning...maybe he deleted, she didn't?

In all seriousness, this case is a "womp womp" for those trying to make a big deal out of it. Hell, the fact that Tamani Carter was held out of spring ball when this was his big spring to get better is the thing that strikes me. Shows me Hoke knows what he's doing. 90% of coaches would've said "son you can't be at the wrong place at the wrong time...you have to be better. You get Josh and leave --- and if he isn't coming, you leave and find another way to handle it. But you can't be there." They would've given him a good ol' day or two of 5am running and let it go.

All in all this is a classic "move along, nothing to see" in terms of us fans. Furman shouldn't have done what ever he did, nothing good can come from the situation...however this is something that the courts/coaches and handle and I don't think fans really need to be worried about.

IMO, this is the equivelent of a player getting arrested for driving with a suspended licence or no insurance or something like that. Unless that player is under the influence of alcohol, meh, let him have his day in court and let the coaches figure out how he should be punished. But it's not a "on team/off team/suspension" type debate.


April 24th, 2012 at 11:44 PM ^

If this is the standard for being arrested, you could have arrested someone at almost every party I went to when I was at Michigan.

One of the witnesses said he often visited the house as was allowed to come and go as he pleased.  Yeah, he should have left when they told him to, but it wasn't like he was breaking into some random house.  It was clearly a place he visited often and he knew the people involved.  If he had actually been pummelling someone I could understand the arrest, but it sounds like he was just worked up about something one of the guys had done.

This seems really weak to even arrest him, let alone charge him.  If the women who stopped him are testifying that they weren't even concerned about him hurting them he must not have been totally out of control.  Sounds like a 3rd party came upon the situation and overreacted by calling the police.


Section 1

April 25th, 2012 at 12:18 AM ^

I know very little about this case; but from what I am now gathering, this isn't a trial, despite the fact that AnnArbor.com seems to have called it a "trial" in several reports, leading to all manner of internet pundits to speculate about what kind of a trial this is.

I don't think that this is a trial at all.  I think that what this is, is a preliminary examination.  And at the conclusion, the District Court Judge will decide whether there exists cause to proceed to a trial.  But even as nice as all of that may sound, I didn't think that they bothered with preliminary exams for misdemeanor charges, which is what the Complaint apparently alleged in Furman's case.  It doesn't add up.

Anyway, just from the procedural view, there is something about this that I am not getting and I think that there needs to be some better and more careful reporting of the legal part of this story.