Media coverage/public comments regarding MSU/UM situations.

[SonomaCat]

I hate to make myself the least popular guy on yet another thread, but I think that Hauck almost has to say and do what he did in this terrible situation.

An immediate indefinite suspension coupled with public CYA comments about "innocent until proven guilty" is the reasonable path. Then, as soon as there is a legal action that makes the guilt obvious, then formally kick him off the team.

I think you need to take this route not merely for this particular case (which is 99.999999% likely to lead to him getting booted from the team), but rather to be consistent so that when somebody else is accused of a crime (hopefully one much less severe), and the case is much shakier than this one, that you can show some faith in your (potentially innocent) player without going against a firm precedent.

I understand where you're coming from BAC, but I still wonder if Wilson is innocent, why he didn't just speak to the police to give his version of the story and let them sort it out. Instead, Wilson turned himself in, basically admitting guilt and hoping to let the attorneys plea this charge down to something minor. If Hauck can let a player go for being defiant, why can't they dismiss a player for a more serious charge? I'm sure the threat of a lawsuit is why Hauck is using the CYA approach, but the least they could do is dismiss him from the team, but keep his schollie until he's charged, just like they did for Washington's situation.

I don't think the Washington situation and the Wilson situation are really comparable -- they are two different kinds of scenarios, and do need to be treated differently. I totally agree that the juxtaposition of the two looks pretty strange, but I think we are comparing apples and oranges to some extent.

I'm certainly not saying that he was right to kick Washington off the team (I neither know nor care) and I am certainly not suggesting that anyone really thinks that Wilson is innocent (as it appears that he is not), but I do think that Hauck needs to approach each situation very differently. Once legal stuff is involved, you have to be even more careful than when you are dealing with simple discipline issues. It doesn't always make sense from a common sense perspective, but given the lessons learned by other coaches in other situations, this is just the safe way to go.

[mslacat]

I hate to make myself the least popular guy on yet another thread, but I think that Hauck almost has to say and do what he did in this terrible situation.

An immediate indefinite suspension coupled with public CYA comments about "innocent until proven guilty" is the reasonable path. Then, as soon as there is a legal action that makes the guilt obvious, then formally kick him off the team.

I think you need to take this route not merely for this particular case (which is 99.999999% likely to lead to him getting booted from the team), but rather to be consistent so that when somebody else is accused of a crime (hopefully one much less severe), and the case is much shakier than this one, that you can show some faith in your (potentially innocent) player without going against a firm precedent.

Do you remember what happened in the Frank Brown (basketball) rape case 4-5 years back? According to the out line that was published, The young lady and her parents reported the rape to the Police at about 7:30 AM the following morning over the next 3 or so hours the following happened. The police interviewed her, made the determination that there was evidence enough for an arrest warrant. Got an arrest warrant. Notified (somehow) Mick Durham that Brown would be arrested for rape, Durham made a decision and issued a press statement. That Press statement he announced that Brown had been dismissed from the team, and no longer was associated with the program. This was picked up by the Gazette and they were able to put out a story on the events by 10:30 am on their Internet site. Like I said else where, I really can not tell you exactly what time Durham found out about the rape charges, but it could not have taken him long to determine an accused rape suspect was not some one he wanted on his team. Also remember Brown was our budding star and starting point guard at the time.

[CARDIAC_CATS]

I hate to make myself the least popular guy on yet another thread, but I think that Hauck almost has to say and do what he did in this terrible situation.

An immediate indefinite suspension coupled with public CYA comments about "innocent until proven guilty" is the reasonable path. Then, as soon as there is a legal action that makes the guilt obvious, then formally kick him off the team.

I think you need to take this route not merely for this particular case (which is 99.999999% likely to lead to him getting booted from the team), but rather to be consistent so that when somebody else is accused of a crime (hopefully one much less severe), and the case is much shakier than this one, that you can show some faith in your (potentially innocent) player without going against a firm precedent.

Do you remember what happened in the Frank Brown (basketball) rape case 4-5 years back? According to the out line that was published, The young lady and her parents reported the rape to the Police at about 7:30 AM the following morning over the next 3 or so hours the following happened. The police interviewed her, made the determination that there was evidence enough for an arrest warrant. Got an arrest warrant. Notified (somehow) Mick Durham that Brown would be arrested for rape, Durham made a decision and issued a press statement. That Press statement he announced that Brown had been dismissed from the team, and no longer was associated with the program. This was picked up by the Gazette and they were able to put out a story on the events by 10:30 am on their Internet site. Like I said else where, I really can not tell you exactly what time Durham found out about the rape charges, but it could not have taken him long to determine an accused rape suspect was not some one he wanted on his team. Also remember Brown was our budding star and starting point guard at the time.

Yep, exactly .... guilty or not, there are team rules where you can be guilty and thrown out by the words (GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION). Players DO NOT have a right to play for a college team. Heck, I had classmates thrown of my high school team for FAR LESS (someone saying they saw someone at a party etc.). By not cutting Wilson free this could totally bite the Griz in the butt again because he is still associated with the University of Montana.

[SonomaCat]

I hate to make myself the least popular guy on yet another thread, but I think that Hauck almost has to say and do what he did in this terrible situation.

An immediate indefinite suspension coupled with public CYA comments about "innocent until proven guilty" is the reasonable path. Then, as soon as there is a legal action that makes the guilt obvious, then formally kick him off the team.

I think you need to take this route not merely for this particular case (which is 99.999999% likely to lead to him getting booted from the team), but rather to be consistent so that when somebody else is accused of a crime (hopefully one much less severe), and the case is much shakier than this one, that you can show some faith in your (potentially innocent) player without going against a firm precedent.

Do you remember what happened in the Frank Brown (basketball) rape case 4-5 years back? According to the out line that was published, The young lady and her parents reported the rape to the Police at about 7:30 AM the following morning over the next 3 or so hours the following happened. The police interviewed her, made the determination that there was evidence enough for an arrest warrant. Got an arrest warrant. Notified (somehow) Mick Durham that Brown would be arrested for rape, Durham made a decision and issued a press statement. That Press statement he announced that Brown had been dismissed from the team, and no longer was associated with the program. This was picked up by the Gazette and they were able to put out a story on the events by 10:30 am on their Internet site. Like I said else where, I really can not tell you exactly what time Durham found out about the rape charges, but it could not have taken him long to determine an accused rape suspect was not some one he wanted on his team. Also remember Brown was our budding star and starting point guard at the time.

If the crime would have happened in Missoula, and Hauck had first-hand discussions with the police who made the arrest (including communication of a confession of wrongdoing on many levels, as it appears Brown had done?), it is entirely possible that his decision-making process would have been different as well.

Given what little we know, I have to give Hauck the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[Au Blue]

I don't think the Washington situation and the Wilson situation are really comparable -- they are two different kinds of scenarios, and do need to be treated differently. I totally agree that the juxtaposition of the two looks pretty strange, but I think we are comparing apples and oranges to some extent.

I'm certainly not saying that he was right to kick Washington off the team (I neither know nor care) and I am certainly not suggesting that anyone really thinks that Wilson is innocent (as it appears that he is not), but I do think that Hauck needs to approach each situation very differently. Once legal stuff is involved, you have to be even more careful than when you are dealing with simple discipline issues. It doesn't always make sense from a common sense perspective, but given the lessons learned by other coaches in other situations, this is just the safe way to go.

You're right, they're not comparable. Washington kicked off simply because Hauck didn't like him. To avoid legal action, they let Washington keep his scholarship, probably in the hopes that he would transfer elsewhere to play football and forfeit his scholarship.

Wilson, by his own self-conciousness and eyewitness accounts, turns himself in, probably hoping to get a plea bargain, and he is neither dismissed nor required to forfeit his scholarship. But it's ok, because Hauck "likes" Wilson and apparently believes this will all blow over.

Edited for clarity...


I'd be more fearful of the backlash from letting a player go because he doesn't play nice with the coach than I would letting a player go because he's so guilt-ridden he turns himself into police. I don't buy Hauck's reasoning and I would certainly hope ANY MSU coach would immediately dismiss a player under these circumstances.

[SonomaCat]

Turning oneself into the police with your attorney present when you know that you are the primary suspect (and an arrest warrant has been issued?) is not the same thing as confessing guilt.

I find it highly, highly, highly unlikely that Hauck believes this will [blow] (I assume that's what you meant instead of "boil") over. I'm pretty confident that Hauck is 99.99999% sure that he will ultimately kick Wilson off the team.

[tetoncat]

I agree with most of the arguments on here that there appears to be a double standard.. If it were my program he would be done. if they had come out immediately with the indefinite suspension and later kicked him off, I would understand. Hauck did not comment for several days and O'day deferred to someone else to make initial comments. After the initial hearing and the bail was raised, you would think they would have been able to get enough info to just get rid of him.

As a team mate would you want this guy back in the Locker room.

But, didn't Kramer have a kicker that supposedly got into a fight and beat the tar out of some guy. he did not get kicked off. I bring this up to ask where should the line be drawn. When a player gets an MIP, assault, drugs tests, murder. Should the players sign a contract like in high school listing the thing s that can get the suspensions and what is immediate dismissal?

[SonomaCat]

To follow-up on Ponycat's point, just for the sake of debate, were you guys upset when Kramer only suspended OB at first, as opposed to firing him immediately?

[catatac]

I hate to make myself the least popular guy on yet another thread, but I think that Hauck almost has to say and do what he did in this terrible situation.

An immediate indefinite suspension coupled with public CYA comments about "innocent until proven guilty" is the reasonable path. Then, as soon as there is a legal action that makes the guilt obvious, then formally kick him off the team.

I think you need to take this route not merely for this particular case (which is 99.999999% likely to lead to him getting booted from the team), but rather to be consistent so that when somebody else is accused of a crime (hopefully one much less severe), and the case is much shakier than this one, that you can show some faith in your (potentially innocent) player without going against a firm precedent.

I agree, and if I remember correctly this is the exact same route that Kramer took with O'Brien, with the comments being almost identical.

Actually... I could be wrong but if I remember correctly, Kramer fired O'brien immediately after he heard about the arrest. He stated that he didn't need to wait and find out if the allegations were true or not because the facts were that O'brien was arrested in Townsend... when he was supposed to be on a recruiting trip in Great Falls. That was reason enough. Or maybe I'm wrong and Kramer immediately suspended him, but didn't fire him? I'll look that up later if I have time...

[mslacat]

To follow-up on Ponycat's point, just for the sake of debate, were you guys upset when Kramer only suspended OB at first, as opposed to firing him immediately?

Actually Yes! I think the subject title of the thread I created bad then was "Fire O'Brian Now!"

[Au Blue]

To follow-up on Ponycat's point, just for the sake of debate, were you guys upset when Kramer only suspended OB at first, as opposed to firing him immediately?

I was. There was no denying it was him that delivered the goods, therefore he was "guilty" immediately upon the transaction. Kramer should have let him go immediately, no discussion. I don't remember what OB's claim to innocence was....

Now that I think about it, I think catatac is correct. I think by the time it came out in the press, OB was gone.

[SonomaCat]

I hate to make myself the least popular guy on yet another thread, but I think that Hauck almost has to say and do what he did in this terrible situation.

An immediate indefinite suspension coupled with public CYA comments about "innocent until proven guilty" is the reasonable path. Then, as soon as there is a legal action that makes the guilt obvious, then formally kick him off the team.

I think you need to take this route not merely for this particular case (which is 99.999999% likely to lead to him getting booted from the team), but rather to be consistent so that when somebody else is accused of a crime (hopefully one much less severe), and the case is much shakier than this one, that you can show some faith in your (potentially innocent) player without going against a firm precedent.

I agree, and if I remember correctly this is the exact same route that Kramer took with O'Brien, with the comments being almost identical.

Actually... I could be wrong but if I remember correctly, Kramer fired O'brien immediately after he heard about the arrest. He stated that he didn't need to wait and find out if the allegations were true or not because the facts were that O'brien was arrested in Townsend... when he was supposed to be on a recruiting trip in Great Falls. That was reason enough. Or maybe I'm wrong and Kramer immediately suspended him, but didn't fire him? I'll look that up later if I have time...

Suspended.

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ar ... bzbigs.txt

[Grizlaw]

I understand where you're coming from BAC, but I still wonder if Wilson is innocent, why he didn't just speak to the police to give his version of the story and let them sort it out. Instead, Wilson turned himself in, basically admitting guilt and hoping to let the attorneys plea this charge down to something minor.

I strongly disagree with that statement.

Turning oneself in to the police is not "basically admitting guilt"; not by a long shot. The facts of this case do not appear to be favorable to Wilson, but there are several viable defenses that his lawyers can and probably will argue in support of his innocence (self-defense being one, and a temporary insanity defense being the other obvious one). To my knowledge, he has made no admissions that would affect the viability of either of these defenses, and in my own opinion, his willingness to return to California and cooperate with the police makes him appear more confident that he was justified in the shooting, not less confident.

As for the question of dismissing him from the team vs. suspending him -- I don't know; I'd have to think about that one. The question is, even if he is found to have been 100% (legally) justified in shooting this guy, would I want him on my team? I don't know; I'd have to think about that one...

[Au Blue]

I understand where you're coming from BAC, but I still wonder if Wilson is innocent, why he didn't just speak to the police to give his version of the story and let them sort it out. Instead, Wilson turned himself in, basically admitting guilt and hoping to let the attorneys plea this charge down to something minor.

I strongly disagree with that statement.

Turning oneself in to the police is not "basically admitting guilt"; not by a long shot. The facts of this case do not appear to be favorable to Wilson, but there are several viable defenses that his lawyers can and probably will argue in support of his innocence (self-defense being one, and a temporary insanity defense being the other obvious one). To my knowledge, he has made no admissions that would affect the viability of either of these defenses, and in my own opinion, his willingness to return to California and cooperate with the police makes him appear more confident that he was justified in the shooting, not less confident.

As for the question of dismissing him from the team vs. suspending him -- I don't know; I'd have to think about that one. The question is, even if he is found to have been 100% (legally) justified in shooting this guy, would I want him on my team? I don't know; I'd have to think about that one...

you're right Grizlaw, I should've chosen my words more carefully... but I still stand behind my belief that he could've simply talked with police and given his side of the story rather than turn himself in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anywhere they had officially charged him with a crime BEFORE he turned himself in, so why did he turn himself over to police custody?

[SonomaCat]

I understand where you're coming from BAC, but I still wonder if Wilson is innocent, why he didn't just speak to the police to give his version of the story and let them sort it out. Instead, Wilson turned himself in, basically admitting guilt and hoping to let the attorneys plea this charge down to something minor.

I strongly disagree with that statement.

Turning oneself in to the police is not "basically admitting guilt"; not by a long shot. The facts of this case do not appear to be favorable to Wilson, but there are several viable defenses that his lawyers can and probably will argue in support of his innocence (self-defense being one, and a temporary insanity defense being the other obvious one). To my knowledge, he has made no admissions that would affect the viability of either of these defenses, and in my own opinion, his willingness to return to California and cooperate with the police makes him appear more confident that he was justified in the shooting, not less confident.

As for the question of dismissing him from the team vs. suspending him -- I don't know; I'd have to think about that one. The question is, even if he is found to have been 100% (legally) justified in shooting this guy, would I want him on my team? I don't know; I'd have to think about that one...

you're right Grizlaw, I should've chosen my words more carefully... but I still stand behind my belief that he could've simply talked with police and given his side of the story rather than turn himself in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anywhere they had officially charged him with a crime BEFORE he turned himself in, so why did he turn himself over to police custody?

I suspect that there was a warrant out for his arrest before he turned himself in ... otherwise the police wouldn't have any reason to hold him ... unless he came forward and confessed to being guilty, which I haven't seen stated anywhere.

[Au Blue]

I suspect that there was a warrant out for his arrest before he turned himself in ... otherwise the police wouldn't have any reason to hold him ... unless he came forward and confessed to being guilty, which I haven't seen stated anywhere.

This was the only story I've read on the subject so I interpreted this as meaning he had only been named as a possible suspect, not that he had a warrant out for his arrest.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007 ... s/br38.txt

PALMDALE, Calif. - University of Montana cornerback Jimmy Wilson is in custody in Los Angeles County on murder charges, authorities said Wednesday.

Wilson is accused of shooting and killing a man on June 2, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department told the Antelope Valley Press of Palmdale, Calif. A deputy, Kelly Simon, identified Wilson as a University of Montana football player.


Wilson was being held in Los Angeles County on $1 million bail.

He turned himself in to authorities Tuesday in Lancaster, Calif., which is about an hour northeast of Los Angeles.

Authorities say he was involved in an altercation between Kevin Smoot, 29, and Smoot's girlfriend, who apparently is related to Wilson.

Los Angeles County authorities said Wilson went to Smoot's home on June 2 and shot him. Smoot was shot in the upper torso and later died, police said.

UM Executive Vice President Jim Foley told the AP the school is monitoring the situation.

“It is in the California criminal courts, and we will continue to determine the facts over the course of the next few days,” Foley said.

Wilson, whose given name is James Leon Wilson, is a San Diego native who came to Montana right out of high school. Wilson will be a senior this fall.

He is scheduled to be arraigned Thursday.

Smoot was shot as he stood in the driveway of his house, sheriff's Deputy Anthony Moore told the AP. The gunman fled the scene.

Investigators later identified Wilson as a suspect, and Wilson surrendered to authorities with his attorney, Moore said. Authorities did not have the name of the attorney.

Smoot's mother, Leslie, said her son had two young children with his 27-year-old girlfriend. She did not know the relationship between Wilson and her son's girlfriend.

She said she learned the news of the arrest Wednesday, the same day she buried her son.

“My heart went out to my son, and for a young man who has just messed up his life,” Leslie Smoot said. “It didn't have to happen that way.”

Wilson's arrest was the latest bit of bad news for Montana collegiate football.

[Grizlaw]

Investigators later identified Wilson as a suspect, and Wilson surrendered to authorities with his attorney, Moore said. Authorities did not have the name of the attorney.

One thing that I've learned over the years since going to law school is that a journalist's account of any type of legal proceeding always has to be taken with a very large grain of salt. And that's not intended to be a swipe at journalists; I know they do what they can, and it would be unfair to expect them to describe a legal matter in the same way a lawyer would, but the fact is, when they write about legal proceedings, they often do use terms imprecisely, and that imprecision sometimes skews the perception of the actual proceedings.

I guess what I'm saying is, if we're trying to figure out exactly what Wilson did or didn't admit to, a journalist's statement that Wilson "surrendered to authorities" might not be a very reliable indicator. It may very well be that all he actually did was to agree to talk to them (as you suggested), and they detained them when he arrived (either because he was already a suspect, as BAC thought, or because he admitted something in the course of his interview that gave them grounds to detain him).

Either way, though -- my main point was that, in my opinion, the fact that he is cooperating with police makes him look less guilty, not more guilty (not that he necessarily looks "innocent" in any case).

[grizatwork]

Here is my perspective. Washington kicked off the team for insubbordination. It is a he said, he said situation. Scholarship kept, no grounds for legal action. Wilson accused of murder. If by some crazy situation, it is a huge case of mistaken identity (which I doubt), and you kick him off the team, there may be legal options for Wilson. I sure this was vetted through the university legal department before it was released.

[SonomaCat]

Either way, though -- my main point was that, in my opinion, the fact that he is cooperating with police makes him look less guilty, not more guilty (not that he necessarily looks "innocent" in any case).

Good point ... if this guy had gone into hiding or was last seen heading for the Mexican border, then I think it could well have been grounds to assume beyond all doubt that he was guilty. If anything, cooperating with the police has to be seen as a favorable sign for him.

[John K]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Andre Fuller was dismissed, not just suspended indefinitely, immediately upon his arrest late last fall. I don't recall Kramer or Fields making any statements about "letting the judicial system run its course" or that "we are worried and concerned about Andre Fuller" or that "this is a tragedy for Andre and his family". Andre Fuller is the only recent example that can be compared to the Jimmy Wilson situation, since all of the others were FORMER players. I understand what so many of you have said about UM being wise to take the CYA approach, but it seems ironic to me that MSU has been labeled by many as the program that is "out of control", although they took the more aggressive stance with their one and only CURRENT player who was arrested, while UM has been much more cautious in their handling of the Wilson case. I also understand that MSU was perhaps compelled to be more aggressive, since their situation had been ongoing. Still, the difference in the way that MSU responded to the Fuller arrest seems to be in stark contrast to they way that UM has handled the Wilson situation. We don't know that Fuller was not framed by someone, any more than we know whether Wilson may have fired his weapon in self defense. Both scenarios would seem to be quite unlikely, but neither one more unlikely than the other IMO. The judicial system will eventually sort everything out, but thus far Wilson seems to be getting "the benefit of the doubt", while the same "benefit" was never extended to Andre Fuller, or any of the former players, or Coach Kramer for that matter.