Mark Dantonio seeks early release for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

Submitted by mikefromaa on December 30th, 2009 at 12:52 AM

Mark Dantonio is seeking an early release for Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab, so that he might be immediately reinstated and fill the role of starting tailback for the spartans.
When pressed on the subject of an international terrorist representing the University, Dantonio had questions of his own:
"Does a father give his son a second chance?" Dantonio asked. "I think he does."
Michigan State's coach addressed the media Wednesday
in the wake of reports that Roderick Jenrette was charged with burglary last year ... news that came in the wake of nine Spartans, including Jenrette, being charged with assault after an incident on campus, including Glenn Winston ... and that came in the wake of Winston's reinstatement last summer after four months in jail for assault.
"We appreciate Athletic Director Mark Hollis’ support in reinstating Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Umar has done everything that he’s been asked to do from a judicial and a team standpoint. He has paid the penalty for his actions – publicly, legally and athletically – and he worked hard to maintain his academic eligibility while doing so. We regret the entire incident, however at this time, it is important that we support Umar socially, academically and athletically. He still has a lot of work to do."

Comments

bjk

December 30th, 2009 at 4:34 AM ^

can blow a game wide open. His recruitment will open a pipeline directly into the federal prison system, where Dantonio can find plenty of people who fit his program.

jbgreen

December 30th, 2009 at 7:57 AM ^

funny thought, I suppose, but keep a few things in mind....after all, obi ezeh hit a pole while drunk driving on a suspended license (Stonum too). Best practice is to not throw stones in a glass house.

Dantonio kicked Gilyard off the team a few yrs back and ended up leaving him homeless for a while....needless to say, he turned out pretty well. I don't know Mark Dantonio personally, but I'm guessing he learned something from that experience.

BiSB

December 30th, 2009 at 8:05 AM ^

The Sparties in question hit PEOPLE. Winston did so on two separate occasions.

There are judgment errors, and then there is premeditated felonious assault. IIRC from philosophy class, Humans

BiSB

December 30th, 2009 at 9:44 AM ^

Agreed 100%

I don't mean to minimize drunk driving at all. My point was that battery is an intentional crime, whereas DUI is a reckless crime, and that unintentional damage to property is different than intentional damage to people.

Yinka Double Dare

December 30th, 2009 at 6:10 PM ^

there was no chance of that happening in Ezeh's case, because Ezeh never hits anyone. When there's a clear path to hit a person he'd inexplicably drive in a different direction, or he'd get blocked by a pole and wouldn't be able to get his car off the pole's block.

jbgreen

December 30th, 2009 at 8:53 AM ^

Winston is off the team, so is Jenrette (as they should be). Those are the two individuals who definitely "hit people". As for the others, they shouldn't have been there, but it is entirely possible none of the other players "hit" anybody. Per my previous post (on diff thread), how do you explain the fact that one person gets injured if they all "hit people"? This is not a movie, it's real life, when fights break out people usually get hurt. Plus the ski mask hoax, etc....nothing about the initial account makes any sense. Regardless of that incident, I have personally several UM & MSU football players players hit people on multiple occasions. It happens at most schools, all the time, and everyone who actually went to a large university and was involved in some type of social scene would probably agree. I am NOT saying it is OK - it is far from OK. All I am saying is that MSU football is now being viewed as a bunch of terrorists (naturally, as a result of the initial headlines), but if you dig a tad bit deeper it is quite obvious that this whole thing was blown way our of proportion. Also, even the players who did hit people aren't being charged with felonies...it's a misdemeanor offense. Also, I'm not an attorney but I think drunk driving may be a more serious offense.....not sure, though.

I don't really expect any of you guys to concede to the points i'm making, but i did make some valid points...just my shameless attempt

Lordfoul

December 30th, 2009 at 9:10 AM ^

It is noble I suppose for you to come here into the Wolverine's den and try to support your team and defend its honor. The sad fact is that you have a douche of a coach that looks the other way when his team commits serious crimes that speak loud and clear to their character. Historically speaking, Spartans had honor but Michigan State has soiled their good name since taking the "Spartans" as their mascot.

jbgreen

December 30th, 2009 at 9:23 AM ^

Basically all you just did was name-call and try and talk down while providing zero substance behind anything you said...the equivalent of a prosecutor repeating how guilty the defendant is without providing any evidence. You're better than that....

BigBlue02

December 30th, 2009 at 9:31 AM ^

If it wasn't that big of deal, why did they all lie to Dantonio about it? I mean, they were just there intimidating fellow MSU students, that's not a crime, right? Also, if they weren't doing anything wrong, why did they even go? I will tell you why, because they were going to throw a punch if they needed to. Unless you think, after Winston told them what was going to happen, they went thinking they would go to watch Winston get his ass kicked while they stood around and watched. This has major logic fail sparty. Also, MSU players are being viewed negatively because they intimidated other students gang-style, not because 15 large football players going to beat someone's ass was "blown out of proportion."

jbgreen

December 30th, 2009 at 9:41 AM ^

I agree with part of what you're saying, but please explain: if the 15 players went to go throw a punch "if they needed to" (which I somewhat agree with), then why didn't they? What we do know is that a fight broke out and that Winston and Jenrette (dismissed players) were involved, but why didn't the other 13 players start wrecking house like you're suggesting they planned to?

I disagree with your last statement - the perception is that 15 players went in with ski masks and started beating people up (as initial report suggest), and that's why this is viewed so negatively. Clearly this isn't the case. A one-on-one fight with the "fighters" friends surrounding is not an uncommon occurrence on college campuses. Again, NOT saying it's OK....

I don't have an explanation why they lied but keep in mind these are 18-21yr old kids. They knew they did something wrong so didn't tell coach, but it doesn't mean they are COMPLETE thugs.

BiSB

December 30th, 2009 at 9:50 AM ^

I'm curious how you know that 13 of the players didn't do anything.

But even assuming, inter alia, that the scenario you described is true (that they just stood by while Winston went all Incredible Hulk on the place), these guys are still guilty of the conspiracy counts. Hell, they meet the textbook definition of conspiracy.

jbgreen

December 30th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^

I don't know for fact they didn't do anything. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense that one person gets injured....like if a bumper is scratched it was probably a fender bender, not a high speed collision, right? And Winston didn't go "incredible hulk", he got into a fist fight.

I really think people who are reading my posts on this blog haven't read anything about the situation, which is not surprising. If I read the initial headline I would be coming after me too. Fact is, the incident was caught on a surveillance camera and there has been a thorough investigation - it is concluded that this wasn't some huge gang ambush. Nothing about the initial claims makes any sense, and the only rebuttals i am getting are reiterating the fact that it was a "gang" mentality, etc. which i am not contesting. A lot of the players on most teams usually roll together....the mistake that these players made is tagging along with winston as he sought out someone who (apparently) did something to him the night before. He will end up doing nothing with his life and i hope he never wears green and white ever again.

I agree, they are likely going to be found guilty to conspiracy charges.

restive neb

December 30th, 2009 at 4:15 PM ^

You keep mentioning that only one person went to the hospital, and using that as evidence that the other players possibly did nothing. Do you know how serious a beating you can take before you need treatment at a hospital? When I was younger I was in more than one fist-fight (typically on the losing end, of course), including one in which I took about a dozen punches to the face. Not only did I not need hospital treatment, I went on to my next class afterward. The likely reason there were "numerous 'victims' but one treated at a hospital..." as you mentioned, is because only one of them was injured seriously enough to warrant being taken to the hospital. This in no way supports the idea of the other players just being bystanders.

BigBlue02

December 30th, 2009 at 9:52 AM ^

I don't even know why I am responding to you because it is obvious you are one of those who thinks Dantonio could have attended the beatdown himself and you would say "that video tape is inconclusive, it might be some other 50 year old white guy that attended," but I will anyway because I don't think you really realize what gang violence is. It is intimidation. Very often, if one member of a gang has a beef with someone, they will bring their friends to intimidate and scare anyone who thinks they might want to intervene. They stand around and watch while the one member of the gang beats someone's ass. Also, this isn't just some joe schmo 18-21 year old kid punching someone in a bar. These kids are in the weight room year round and are in top physical condition to play an very violent sport. That would be like me saying that toughman contestants should be able to beat boxers because they both have gloves on and fight in a ring. There is a very large difference.

jbgreen

December 30th, 2009 at 10:30 AM ^

I'm not sure you've read a single one of my posts, and I'm not sure you know anything about the situation. They were obviously there. They came clean to Coach D and a number have already been arraigned (turned themselves in) on assault charges. They are being punished for the "intimidation" by way of the suspensions, and players who committed battery were dismissed from the team. What I am saying is that it obviously wasn't 15 football players storming in, out for blood, because the aftermath of the incident makes that completely obvious.....because kids in a weight room all year round and play a violent sport would very likely injure somebody, right?

BigBlue02

December 30th, 2009 at 10:52 AM ^

Oh, well if they turned themselves in to the police on assault charges it can't be that bad, right? Keep making excuses. I seem to remember the police reports of the first Winston beatdown mentioning 3 carloads of football players also.....it couldn't have been the same guys, could it have? No, we all know that the players respect Dantonio so much that they wouldn't attend 2 of them. They would only attend 1 gang beatdown. Also, are you suggesting you would be equally intimidated if 15 petite women stormed in rather than 15 football players?

jbgreen

December 30th, 2009 at 11:34 AM ^

"Also, are you suggesting you would be equally intimidated if 15 petite women stormed in rather than 15 football players?"

What are you talking about? Who is suggesting that?

They turned themselves in to be arraigned. I think you are misunderstanding what that means.

BigBlue02

December 30th, 2009 at 12:07 PM ^

I think you are misunderstanding why 14 kids are either kicked off the team or suspended. It isn't because the big bad press monster made them out to be thugs, it is because 14 kids all went to the same place to kick someone's ass and were all charged with a crime. If you would like to keep trolling, I might suggest the freep or mlive.

BiSB

December 30th, 2009 at 9:39 AM ^

just a law student. And you're wrong about drunk driving being more serious than assault. The law treats a first OWI and a simple assault roughly same; 3 months in jail, 500 bucks.

Of course, there are also the conspiracy charges, which kinda tip the scales, as does the fact that based on Winston's prior convictions, they could probably bump this to a felony if they wanted to.

Besides, an assault doesn't require that someone is INJURED; in fact, an assault is basically a failed battery. If they tried to beat people up, even if they failed, that's assault.

jbgreen

December 30th, 2009 at 10:02 AM ^

Agreed and thanks for the follow-up, but not sure this negates anything I said.

- Given priors, Winston can (and should) be charged with a felony. He was also dismissed immediately. This applies to Jenrette, also. Either way there are no felons playing for Dantonio nor is there anyone being charge with a felony.

- I spoke to an attorney about this briefly (casually, at xmas party) and from that my understanding is that assault only requires instilling "fear" of bodily harm? If this is the case, the fact they went in there as a group is enough to be charged, but doesn't necessarily mean they were throwing punches. If assault is, in fact, "failed battery", then you're suggesting that they attempted but failed to commit battery?

- I could be wrong about this, but my understanding is that Ezeh and Stonum were able to get their charges reduced to OWI, just as it is highly unlikely (from what i hear) any of the players (sans Winston/Jenrette) will serve jail time.....this is why they'll pay you the big bucks one day. Either way, it doesn't matter to me. I believe in second chances for a 19yr old who makes a mistake. If the other 13 players beat someone up, might be different. Just as if Stonum/Ezeh hit a pedestrian like Stallworth things might be different.

jbgreen

December 30th, 2009 at 9:11 AM ^

Two more things: 1) Drunk driving is also a "judgment error"....are we really debating this right now? 2) There is no felonious assault....that implies that felony charges are being filed, which they are not.