Stonum gets 10 days in jail

Submitted by Maizedout1982 on January 6th, 2012 at 8:56 AM

 chengelis angelique 

 
Just leaving 15th District Court in Ann Arbor -- Mich WR Darryl Stonum sentenced 10 days in jail
 
 chengelis angelique 
 
Stonum to Judge Pope "I didn't mean to deceive you"
 
 chengelis angelique 
 
Stonum mentioned to Judge Pope that classes have started: "I know the timing stinks, but it is what it is," Pope said
 
 chengelis angelique 
 
Pope to Stonum: "To have somebody with 4 encounters w the criminal justice system involving the use and abuse of alcohol ...(more)
 
 chengelis angelique 
 
Pope to Stonum cont'd: ."... alcohol at the age of 21 is extremely unusual. You're less than 1 % of the population as a result of that."
 
 chengelis angelique 
 
Pope to Stonum: "Trust is the easiest thing to lose and the hardest thing to regain, Darryl, and that's the situation you're in."

Comments

Promote RichRod

January 6th, 2012 at 9:12 AM ^

I'm interested in hearing the latest spin on how this wasn't a big deal and he deserves another shot.  Brian, this includes you.  Straight from jail to the practice field (again) - where have a I heard this before?

Promote RichRod

January 6th, 2012 at 10:08 AM ^

But no one is arguing that those 2 crimes are similar.

This is his 4th offense and one that requires jail time (again).  It's a big deal.  There is not a single 4 time offender (no matter the crime) that should be able to play after serving yet another round of jail.

For fun, try going back to the threads covering Stonum's status after his last DUI.  Of those that argued he should have a 4th chance (which he got, obviously), about 95% argued that OK, SRS LAST CHANCE HERE - any more mistakes at all and he is gone no question!  Now we have another mistake that will land him in jail for 10 days and people want him to remain on the team.  It's pretty sad.  If I wasn't lazy I'd go dig up the thread - I'm sure a lot of those last chancers are now saying he should still stay on the team.

oriental andrew

January 6th, 2012 at 10:33 AM ^

Which thread have you been reading?

 

Magnus: I'm guessing Stonum will be gone. Maybe he can catch on at GVSU or something.

ijohnb: He really does not have any choice but to cut him loose, does he? I mean the red shirt was kind of probation of its own, a last chance, and if jail time does not violate his football probation it is hard to imagine what would. Hoke has a lot of goodwill going at this point and pulling a Dantonio here would be a black eye and personally I don't think it is worth it. I mean maybe even give the kid the opportunity to practice if you want, practice for another year or transfer, but I don't think he can see the field here again.

Tater: Stonum is already in the system in Michigan. He needs a fresh start in a new state.

His Dudeness: He gone. Shame.

CRex: It's time to cut Stonum. Honor his scholarship for the winter team so he can finish off here if he wants. However make it clear that he's not on the team and can't work his way back.

Mr Yost: I hate to say it... ...I (as in just me personally) think he's done.

Laser Wolf: I know we badly need his talents on the outside next season, but we routinely lambast MSU and the like for placing wins over integrity. He has to get the boot. He's had his chances and again and again has proven he just doesn't understand what he needs to do to earn his place on this team.

GWhizz: I am torn about this. Stonum has had his share of off-the-field issues, but he did seem to be trying. However, this latest lapse supports a pattern of misconduct (military term); perhaps he is best let go. I am glad I do not have to make this decision.

JewofM: I do not see how Hoke can keep him on the team. He already had two strikes and now he has to serve jail time. Regardless of the severity of his transgression, he should be gone.

LSAClassOf2000: 10 Days Sounds Fair, but sadly, I tend to believe that this also marks the end of his time on the team and at the school, which is a shame. He has great potential as a player and I know many of us were excited to get him back from the suspension, but I don't see how he comes back now. Wherever he goes, hopefully he can succeed there.

robpollard

January 6th, 2012 at 10:43 AM ^

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/more-trouble-stonum

A good portion of the comments are "No big deal" (e.g., Mr. Rager, amongst many others).  Certainly not all, but quite a bit.

I think now that's he going to jail for ten days, people have finally opened their eyes ("oh no, we can't have a jail bird on the team!"), but that shouldn't matter - whether they would have decided to send him to jail or not, he should have been on the zero tolerance plan*.  Blatantly violating your probation and then lying about it at this point should result in gonzo.

*He may have been, for all I know, but it doesn't seem likely..  Hoke may have been waiting for confirmation of the charges, but I would have liked him to say yesterday "If these allegations are true, there will be a change in Stonum's status."  Instead he punted with the "no change in status" statement.

GoBlue21

January 6th, 2012 at 9:13 AM ^

Is Stonum still on scholarship?  If they were to let him go after this, wouldn't that have opened up a spot for Arnett since they told him they were full?

UMICH1606

January 6th, 2012 at 9:19 AM ^

The scholarships are good through the academic calender,so it wouldn't be free to use until after the winter term. At least that is what Mr.  Webb says. Which is why we can still recruit, but be full for Arnett for his timeline. They are at 85 through the winter term. Tom VH reported too.

Laser Wolf

January 6th, 2012 at 9:18 AM ^

 

I know we badly need his talents on the outside next season, but we routinely lambast MSU and the like for placing wins over integrity. He has to get the boot. He's had his chances and again and again has proven he just doesn't understand what he needs to do to earn his place on this team.

Genzilla

January 6th, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^

We lambast MSU for overlooking and turning a blind eye, not for sticking with and trying to help troubled young men.  If this was MSU, Stonum would not have been suspended all season, he'd be playing.  MSU let's guys walk straight from a prison bus to the stadium.  Sticking with a kid like Hoke is doing is not really helping the product on the field this year, but he has probably helped Stonum quite a bit.  People will point to the fact that he's back in jail, but one can only imagine where Stonum would be if his scholarship was yanked last summer and he couldn't finish his Michigan degree and he wasn't in this sort of structured atmosphere.

The driving without a license and violating parole is a big mistake, but I can only imagine where he would be if Hoke just cut and run to "save face" for the program.  This is not overlooking the problem or ignoring it.  It's investing time and energy in trying to help a young man make something of his life after he's made a number of mistakes.

beachbum69

January 6th, 2012 at 11:11 AM ^

Spin. At. It's. Finest.

Boot Stonum now. He doesn't understand jail time and fines are bad, yet somehow you think giving him a free ride at UM is going to give him some kind of perspective? The dude can't remember he doesn't have a license, yet we should cater to him and help right his life? When he has no interest in working to right it himself? He has had several chances and blown them all up. He is not changing and not getting that there is a problem. Buh bye.

Gwhizz

January 6th, 2012 at 9:18 AM ^

I am torn about this.  Stonum has had his share of off-the-field issues, but he did seem to be trying.  However, this latest lapse supports a pattern of misconduct (military term); perhaps he is best let go.  I am glad I do not have to make this decision.

bluewave720

January 6th, 2012 at 9:50 AM ^

I think he truly is a good kid.  That doesn't mean he should be able to play for Michigan. 

I feel like I want a harsher punishment more often than the average fan.  I want first time DUIs to be dealt with in an extreme way.  Say at least a 6 game suspension.
I want acts of violence to also be dealt with using an actual "no tolerance" policy. 
It's just so tough though in this situation.  The goal should always be to make this young man a better person.  You can't be handed things and you should be punished when you screw up.  It just sucks that what would be considered an innocuous offense by most is likely going to be the final straw.

death by trident

January 6th, 2012 at 9:22 AM ^

I've done some pretty dumb things in my life and not gotten caught doing them.  I've also been caught doing dumb things too.  Luck, fate, or whatever you chalk it up to - so I feel bad for him but at the same time really don't.  The only way to never get caught doing dumb things is to not do them.

I hope the kid can get himself right. My feeling is that we will part ways soon.  Best of luck to you Mr. Stonum. 

JewofM

January 6th, 2012 at 9:22 AM ^

Hoke can keep him on the team. He already had two strikes and now he has to serve jail time. Regardless of the severity of his transgression, he should be gone. And spare me this whole we were all young and make mistakes stuff. He is like what 21 years old? It is not like he is 10. He knows right from wrong. He knew that he was on probation and that driving on a suspended license is against the law. He knew that if caught, he risked jail time. Yet he did it anyway.

Wendyk5

January 6th, 2012 at 9:26 AM ^

Agree. I don't know the guy, but given what I do know, if you don't want to ask someone for a ride, or can't find a ride, how hard is it to call a cab in Ann Arbor to get across town? It seems like there's a piece missing with him (based on this very bad decision, after a series of bad decisions and time in front of a judge). 

 

If Hoke wants guys who are accountable to each other, maybe Stonum isn't the guy. Too bad - I really liked him. 

m1817

January 6th, 2012 at 9:25 AM ^

If Stonum doesn't have a valid driver's license, why does he even have a car?  For what he pays in insurance alone, he could pay for cabs for whereever he needs to go.

LB

January 6th, 2012 at 9:26 AM ^

the flight back from NOLA, that he overslept. He woke up and saw his world turning to shit. From that point on, he was focused on getting there, not the implications of getting caught driving.

LSAClassOf2000

January 6th, 2012 at 9:31 AM ^

...but sadly, I tend to believe that this also marks the end of his time on the team and at the school, which is a shame. He has great potential as a player and I know many of us were excited to get him back from the suspension, but I don't see how he comes back now. Wherever he goes, hopefully he can succeed there.

Moleskyn

January 6th, 2012 at 9:41 AM ^

Here's the link.

Here are some quotes from it:

Pope said earlier in court today that Stonum has had four alcohol-related encounters with the criminal justice system, which he called "extremely unusual" for someone Stonum's age.

Pope said the court has no record of Stonum attending any 12-step meetings in the past two weeks, which he is required to do. Pope also said Stonum has "yet to pay a dime" for fines and fees he owes for probation. He also told Stonum that he's not eligible to apply for a driver's license.

"Trust is the easiest thing to lose, and the hardest thing to regain Darryl, and that's the situation you're in."

He's definitely having to learn some tough life lessons. Hopefully he can truly learn from all of this and realize the importance of living responsibly. I don't see any way that he stays on the team at this point, but I really hope all of this affects him for the better (i.e., he uses this season of his life as a chance to grow and mature).

EDIT: After thinking about it a little more, it seems to me that there's a logical explanation for why Stonum hasn't attended any 12-step groups in the past two weeks: the bowl game. Stonum still had responsibility there, either to inform his probation officer that he'd be out of town for a while, or to see if he could attend a meeting in NOLA while there. I don't know how feasible that would have been, but I wonder if he at least informed the proper authorities that he would be pre-occupied with the bowl preparations.

ish

January 6th, 2012 at 9:34 AM ^

frankly, that's a bizarely harsh sentence for the crime.  as a lawyer, i' confident that if he had landed in front of another judge, he would've been given a stern warning.

Erik_in_Dayton

January 6th, 2012 at 9:41 AM ^

This didn't need to go the way it did...I realize I'm in the minority here, but I don't think this changes anything re: his status on the team.  He drove with a suspended license.  What a judge decided to do about that doesn't change that one way or the other.  I still don't think it merits kicking him off of the team.  Driving without a license is a victimless crime.  Hoke can punish him without kicking him off of the team. 

Mr Miggle

January 6th, 2012 at 10:02 AM ^

Although I think driving on a revoked, not just suspended, license is a pretty serious matter. Perhaps he wouldn't have gotten the jail time just for that. He also lied about it, isn't paying for his obligations to the court, is skipping meetings. He also had a poor record of following the terms of his earlier probation.  

Those are a lot of bad facts to come out all at once. Maybe Hoke could forgive one more serious mistake. But combined with a continuing lack of responsibility, I just can't see how he does.

profitgoblue

January 6th, 2012 at 10:19 AM ^

You and I are usually on the same page but I have to disagree with you here.  He committed a serious crime and got off pretty easily the first time.  But he had obligations to fulfill, including reporting to his probation officer like everyone else in his situation is required to do.  Regardless of the situation, it was required.  If it were you or me in that situation and we knew we would be out of town until late the night before, we would make arrangements to be sure that we did not miss the meeting (e.g. write a letter explaining the situation and ask that the meeting be postponed by even a day).  And we all know that there are court-appointed defense attorneys available to all defendants.  He should have used one.  He should have talked to his coaches who would have given him advice as to how to proceed.

Maybe I'm being a little to harsh but, as a college kid, I am pretty sure that I would have known what to do in this situation.  Its not rocket science.  And if I failed to do so, I don't think I could be too upset with the punishment I receive.

 

MGoBeer

January 6th, 2012 at 10:29 AM ^

There are meetings in NOLA. Can he do community service in lieu of fines? He should be able to work it off at the minimum wage rate. They didn't put him in jail for driving without a license. They put him in jail for the DUI. He probably got 90 days, but if he succesfully completes probation he doesn't have to serve it. Thats a big reward but they make you earn it. Lots of hoops to jump through and at the time it feels like they want you to fail. At the end though, you don't want to screw up again.

gobluesasquatch

January 6th, 2012 at 10:49 AM ^

Sorry, I'm not buying any of the excuses here.

He had a requirement to attend those meetings. The bowl game is NOT a legitimate reason. Guess what, he's been redshirted this year. It means he wasn't playing in the bowl game. Which means he didn't need to be there. Sure, I'm sure it would be fun to play with friends and stuff and have a good time, but when you screw up and have to attend meetings as a result - that is your first priority, not a stupid bowl game you aren't playing in. 

As for the money, get a part time job or something that is allowed within NCAA rules. Again, the responsibilities related to the legal issues >>>> football. 

Which leads me back to Hoke and Michigan football. Either Stonum didn't communicate to the staff what he needed to do, lied to them that he was in compliance, or they didn't encourage him to be where he needed to be. I am hoping for the first two, because if it is the third option than Hoke = Dantonio. 

oakapple

January 6th, 2012 at 9:41 AM ^

This is a guy with multiple DUIs and probation violations on his record. He is not being punished for a first offense.

I mean, the guy has a suspended license, and he drives to a meeting with his probation officer? If you are the judge, you have to be seriously troubled by that. You cannot give him a slap on the wrist, when prior wrist-slaps have not worked.

Mr. Yost

January 6th, 2012 at 9:49 AM ^

Had you or I dropped him off at the probation office...he still would've had multiple DUIs.

He wasn't drunk driving...why are people making it out to be like this was the SAME offense? It wasn't.

If he'd gotten a ticket for jaywalking, do you say "HE HAD 2 DUIs! KICK HIM OFF THE TEAM?!"

No the problem is in the poor judgement in trying to drive to the probation office rather than find a ride, walk, run, take a bus, etc. It's not that he got another DUI.

Maybe it's just the wording, but it seems every 5th person is putting this offense on the same level as the other ones. It's not. And to say it is would almost be offensive to someone who's been affected by a drunk driver.

oakapple

January 6th, 2012 at 9:59 AM ^

That is how the law has always worked. Even though this offense was not precisely the same as the other ones, you are always punished more harshly when you have past offenses on your record.

The thing is: when your license is suspended due to alcohol violations, and you continue driving anyway, you are not respecting the original punishment. And when you lie to your probation officer, knowing the serious consequences of doing so, does that suggest to you that he is ready to live a thoughtful, law-abiding life?

By the way, I do not favor kicking him off the team. I was simply responding the guy who suggested that 10 days in the slammer was too harsh. To the contrary, I think it is very reasonable and fair.

Moleskyn

January 6th, 2012 at 9:59 AM ^

I don't get your point about how if someone else had dropped him off, he still would have had 2 DUIs.

Your jaywalking analogy doesn't hold up. If he had gotten a ticket for jaywalking, it wouldn't have been a violation of his probation. Part of his punishment for his previous DUIs was the loss of his driver's license. He knew that if he drove a car, he would get punished more severely.

I'm not saying that he got another DUI, and I honestly haven't seen anyone else who has claimed that, either. This is a big deal because he has shown disregard, on multiple occasion, for the restrictions that have been placed on him, as a result of his previous poor decisions.