Trevor Mbakwe, arrested earlier in the week, doesn't miss a game.
Stay classy Tubby Smith, stay classy.
Quote from: Mayor McCheese on January 13, 2011, 08:07:09 PM
Trevor Mbakwe, arrested earlier in the week, doesn't miss a game.
Stay classy Tubby Smith, stay classy.
What was the reason to suspend him? It was stupid, that is all. He wrote a nice message to a lady clearly with a lot of problems. It was her fault he wasn't blocked on FB anyways. Mbakwe didnt violate a single team rule either.
Tubby has suspended White, Mbakwe, Nolan, Joseph and benched several players for other poor actions(iverson/williams this year and westbrook/nolan last year). You lose.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 08:17:42 PM
What was the reason to suspend him? It was stupid, that is all. He wrote a nice message to a lady clearly with a lot of problems.
Or, you know, established contact with (see: harassed) a woman he was legally prohibited from interacting with as a result of his own prior indiscretions.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 08:17:42 PM
What was the reason to suspend him? It was stupid, that is all. He wrote a nice message to a lady clearly with a lot of problems. It was her fault he wasn't blocked on FB anyways. Mbakwe didnt violate a single team rule either.
Tubby has suspended White, Mbakwe, Nolan, Joseph and benched several players for other poor actions(iverson/williams this year and westbrook/nolan last year). You lose.
He was arrested? I'm sure in the team rules it states "Don't get arrested", or maybe thats an unwritten rule
To state that getting arrested is not breaking team rules is ridiculous.
I don't lose, Its absurd he doesn't miss a game for this infraction against the law. Usually if its against the law, it should be against the team rules.
Ah yes! IT WAS HER FAULT BECAUSE SHE DIDNT BLOCK HIM ON FACEBOOK!
Good christ, what an epic representation of MU you are.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 08:17:42 PM
What was the reason to suspend him? It was stupid, that is all. He wrote a nice message to a lady clearly with a lot of problems. It was her fault he wasn't blocked on FB anyways. Mbakwe didnt violate a single team rule either.
"A lady clearly with a lot of problems?" What were her "problems" other than Mbakwe? Violating a court order doesn't rise to the level of breaking a team rule? Wow.
Not sure about everyone here but getting arrested is not a good thing for a fighter pilot. Kind of makes keeping your security clearance a bit difficult...
Quote from: reinko on January 13, 2011, 08:29:44 PM
Ah yes! IT WAS HER FAULT BECAUSE SHE DIDNT BLOCK HIM ON FACEBOOK!
Good christ, what an epic representation of MU you are.
If you have a goddam restraining order against someone you dont make it so they have access to your public webage dumbass. He should have been blocked if she wanted no contact just about every ESPN analysts agrees but you're right Ill go with the random nobody with no background of the situation.
And I thought he posted through a mutual friend. I understand it was only facebook. It was still violating a court order. You would think by now he would have had enough of the legal system.
Did he call her a "Urinator?" Now that is serious
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 13, 2011, 08:31:25 PM
"A lady clearly with a lot of problems?" What were her "problems" other than Mbakwe? Violating a court order doesn't rise to the level of breaking a team rule? Wow.
Her problems? Idk maybe whatever they were that Trevor wrote to her making sure she was doing alright. Did you even read the message he wrote?
Quote from: MU B2002 on January 13, 2011, 08:33:26 PM
And I thought he posted through a mutual friend. I understand it was only facebook. It was still violating a court order. You would think by now he would have had enough of the legal system.
No, he did it on his page through a message. So while they are not "friends" on FB he was able to message her because she was foolish enough to not block the one man she apparently feels threatend to be near. Only person dumber than Trevor is the broad.
Law says: Don't contact this person.
Mbakwe: Contacts the individual.
Law: Arrests Mbakwe for violating the law.
HH32: Girl's fault
Quote from: reinko on January 13, 2011, 08:38:44 PM
Law says: Don't contact this person.
Mbakwe: Contacts the individual.
Law: Arrests Mbakwe for violating the law.
HH32: Girl's fault
You make Forrest Gump seem intellegent. I said Trevor was stupid for even making the comment, she was just as dumb for allowing it to be possible. If she went through all the trouble for restraining order against a man she deemed "dangerous" to her, she couldnt take the time to click 2 buttons and make it impossible for him to reach her? You now join her level of stupidity.
Noone with any experience or profession in the college basketball world has a single problem with the Gophers letting him play. Im sorry but im going with credibility on this one.
Ok. You win.
Your logic that no one at the Minnie basketball program wants their best player disciplined right before a huge game against a ranked opponent. That logic is infallible.
BTW, you are from Minnie right, have a bunch of family and friends that have gone there, and have noted that Minnie is a favorite team of yours right? Well, here at MU chief we have standards.
Quote from: reinko on January 13, 2011, 08:49:21 PM
Ok. You win.
Your logic that no one at the Minnie basketball program wants their best player disciplined right before a huge game against a ranked opponent. That logic is infallible.
BTW, you are from Minnie right, have a bunch of family and friends that have gone there, and have noted that Minnie is a favorite team of yours right? Well, here at MU chief we have standards.
Good call, again you cannot read. All of ESPN and there team of analysts and writers I said had no problem with him playing. Im not talking Minnesota people. So, if people with real knowledge have no problem I think its fine Tubby plays him after suspending player after player as it is with transfer after transfer to discipline.
Why should she need to block him? That's what the damn restraining order is for (or so she thought.) And who cares what people in the basketball profession think. Common sense is good enough for me, I don't really need expert opinion on this one. Guess we can agree to disagree.
Quote from: warthog-driver on January 13, 2011, 08:34:14 PM
Did he call her a "Urinator?" Now that is serious
Hey, I resemble that remark!
Quote from: MU B2002 on January 13, 2011, 08:52:05 PM
Why should she need to block him? That's what the damn restraining order is for (or so she thought.) And who cares what people in the basketball profession think. Common sense is good enough for me, I don't really need expert opinion on this one. Guess we can agree to disagree.
Clearly everyone on these boards. Thats why theres some different thread about what ESPN writers or analysts say regarding MU or other teams in the BE. So you only choose to listen to them when convienent?
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 13, 2011, 08:54:31 PM
Hey, I resemble that remark
There is nothing more hateful than to be branded a "Urinator"
I'm sure it would also be ok if Trevor went inside her home. The no contact agreement be damned, so long as the door was unlocked he would be safe in assuming she wanted him there.
Tell me how ESPN analysts have "real knowledge" of this situation that anyone else doesn't? Because they're on television and understand the game of basketball they can tell us when to discipline or not discipline players who get arrested? Perhaps they could revise their titles to say "ESPN College Basketball Analyst and Ethicist".
Quote from: chapman on January 13, 2011, 09:00:37 PM
I'm sure it would also be ok if Trevor went inside her home. The no contact agreement be damned, so long as the door was unlocked he would be safe in assuming she wanted him there.
Tell me how ESPN analysts have "real knowledge" of this situation that anyone else doesn't? Because they're on television and understand the game of basketball they can tell us when to discipline or not discipline players who get arrested? Perhaps they could revise their titles to say "ESPN College Basketball Analyst and Ethicist".
Try, the fact that they cover the situation and do follow ups that you dont do from your couch big guy. Try the fact that all of them at 1 point either played or coached in college basketball so if they have no problems with the fact hes playing it means most of the league more than likely doesnt have a problem with it. So yeah, the knowledge matters.
I to listen to them when I want to know about basketball. As I said before, I require no expert opinion on this issue. If I wanted an expert's opinion on this I would ask a cop or a lawyer, not Digger Phelps.
Quote from: MU B2002 on January 13, 2011, 09:06:32 PM
I to listen to them when I want to know about basketball. As I said before, I require no expert opinion on this issue. If I wanted an expert's opinion on this I would ask a cop or a lawyer, not Digger Phelps.
I thought Digger flat out knows the law?
Quote from: MU B2002 on January 13, 2011, 09:06:32 PM
I to listen to them when I want to know about basketball. As I said before, I require no expert opinion on this issue. If I wanted an expert's opinion on this I would ask a cop or a lawyer, not Digger Phelps.
So a cop or lawyer is going to tell you if a man should be allowed to play a game of basketball? Rather than the guys who have been around the game there whole lives and seen what has and hasnt gotten people suspended throughout the years?
Lots of winners on this board.
Quote from: Jam Chowder on January 13, 2011, 08:25:11 PM
Or, you know, established contact with (see: harassed) a woman he was legally prohibited from interacting with as a result of his own prior indiscretions.
Just as, you know, Ashely Smithwick deserved to be expelled from the Lee County schools because she brought a paring knife to school, even though she was legally prohibited from doing so. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance.
No one will argue that the reader of that note had a legal right to have Trevor hauled off to jail. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance.
But unlike the legal world, where there was no discretion as to whether that particular message warranted a night in jail, Tubby has the ability to use his own discretion to determine if further punishment is warranted.
After reading the note, I can understand why he reached the conclusion he did.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 13, 2011, 09:19:07 PM
Just as, you know, Ashely Smithwick deserved to be expelled from the Lee County schools because she brought a paring knife to school, even though she was legally prohibited from doing so. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance.
No one will argue that the reader of that note had a legal right to have Trevor hauled off to jail. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance.
But unlike the legal world, where there was no discretion as to whether that particular message warranted a night in jail, Tubby has the ability to use his own discretion to determine if further punishment is warranted.
After reading the note, I can understand why he reached the conclusion he did.
There is hope out there
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 09:11:16 PM
So a cop or lawyer is going to tell you if a man should be allowed to play a game of basketball? Rather than the guys who have been around the game there whole lives and seen what has and hasnt gotten people suspended throughout the years?
Lots of winners on this board.
Thanks buddy nice to see the road you take when everyone doesn't agree with you.
No I would not consult them about the decision to suspend him or not. My comments were more directed at the crime itself. My opinion on the decision to suspend or not to suspend is not one that requires much thought. If he would have violated the order by showing up at her house, class, place of work would that be cause to suspend him? He broke the law, it was serious enough that police arrested him and put him in jail.
If they would have been playing Iowa tonight, I bet Trevor would have been in a sweater.
As I said before we can agree to disagree.
Quote from: MU B2002 on January 13, 2011, 09:23:14 PM
Thanks buddy nice to see the road you take when everyone doesn't agree with you.
No I would not consult them about the decision to suspend him or not. My comments were more directed at the crime itself. My opinion on the decision to suspend or not to suspend is not one that requires much thought. If he would have violated the order by showing up at her house, class, place of work would that be cause to suspend him? He broke the law, it was serious enough that police arrested him and put him in jail.
If they would have been playing Iowa tonight, I bet Trevor would have been in a sweater.
As I said before we can agree to disagree.
Yes, if he showed up to her in person that would not only be twice as dumb but also suspension worthy because he would be in a position to cause harm or put her at risk, and no one would know his true intentions while with the note you can see his intentions by simply being literate.
Quote from: MU B2002 on January 13, 2011, 09:23:14 PM
I bet Trevor would have been in a sweater.
Not sure what he wore in the tank but my guess he was doing some major sweating while locked up with all the gang...do they take showers in the morning before or after the bologna sandwich?
Are you entirely certain that the "real knowledge" the ESPN personalities had to base their opinion on whether or not he should play wasn't actually just the knowledge that their network was televising Minnesota's game tonight?
I didn't hear their explanation. Just asking.
Quote from: MUEng92 on January 13, 2011, 09:26:25 PM
Are you entirely certain that the "real knowledge" the ESPN personalities had to base their opinion on whether or not he should play wasn't actually just the knowledge that their network was televising Minnesota's game tonight?
I didn't hear their explanation. Just asking.
Digger Phelps flat out has access to the "real knowledge"
Quote from: MUEng92 on January 13, 2011, 09:26:25 PM
Are you entirely certain that the "real knowledge" the ESPN personalities had to base their opinion on whether or not he should play wasn't actually just the knowledge that their network was televising Minnesota's game tonight?
I didn't hear their explanation. Just asking.
And that was a good game.
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/36504/ncaa-bb-w-brennan
go to the bottom
Im not the only one who finds it strange
Quote from: chapman on January 13, 2011, 09:00:37 PM
I'm sure it would also be ok if Trevor went inside her home. The no contact agreement be damned, so long as the door was unlocked he would be safe in assuming she wanted him there.
Tell me how ESPN analysts have "real knowledge" of this situation that anyone else doesn't? Because they're on television and understand the game of basketball they can tell us when to discipline or not discipline players who get arrested? Perhaps they could revise their titles to say "ESPN College Basketball Analyst and Ethicist".
According to one ESPN Ethicist, she should have laid back and enjoyed it.
Sage advice from EB: Other note to the guys out there: If a woman files a restraining order against you, she isn't playing hard to get. Let it go.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 08:34:42 PM
Her problems? Idk maybe whatever they were that Trevor wrote to her making sure she was doing alright. Did you even read the message he wrote?
I believe I read the letter...he was congratulating her on graduating...she must have tons of problems and I bet Trevor is just the type of person that could help her with those problems. My guess is:
- Trevor knew he should not contact her and he did anyway.
- Trevor knew he would be arrested if she turned him in for doing so.
- Trevor decided to put his coach and team in a terrible situation.
- Most abusive males will try to reconcile a relationship only to repeat abuse.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 13, 2011, 09:19:07 PM
Just as, you know, Ashely Smithwick deserved to be expelled from the Lee County schools because she brought a paring knife to school, even though she was legally prohibited from doing so. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance.
No one will argue that the reader of that note had a legal right to have Trevor hauled off to jail. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance.
But unlike the legal world, where there was no discretion as to whether that particular message warranted a night in jail, Tubby has the ability to use his own discretion to determine if further punishment is warranted.
After reading the note, I can understand why he reached the conclusion he did.
C'mon man. Don't act like those situations are even remotely similar. That girl's predicament was a result of ignorance of the law. Mbakwe acted in defiance of it (unless you're going to argue he didn't know he was violating the court order?). Can I empathize with the situation? Yeah. I get the other side of the argument. But how can you make the assumption that his intentions were innocent? It's easy for him to claim it was a kind hearted gesture but who's to know?
Also, HH32: are you really citing opinions expressed on ESPN as authoritative? Seriously? Journalistic integrity and objectivity are not words that come to mind when I think about the worldwide leader. Their tendency toward bias and inaccuracy have been evident on numerous occasions. Some talking head spouting an opinion (or failing to) does not equate to an exonerating authority.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 09:26:09 PM
Yes, if he showed up to her in person that would not only be twice as dumb but also suspension worthy because he would be in a position to cause harm or put her at risk, and no one would know his true intentions while with the note you can see his intentions by simply being literate.
You could simply be literate and get that out of the message, or you could have a brain, in which case you'd realize why they ban ALL contact. Get a clue.
Quote from: Jam Chowder on January 13, 2011, 09:39:44 PMAlso, HH32: are you really citing opinions expressed on ESPN as authoritative? Seriously? Journalistic integrity an objectivity are not words that come to mind when I think about the worldwide leader. There tendency toward bias and inaccuracy have been evident on numerous occasions.
Doug Gottlieb lie? He is as honest as the day is long! Ask his roommate from South Bend!
HH, sleep it off
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 09:32:41 PM
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/36504/ncaa-bb-w-brennan
go to the bottom
Im not the only one who finds it strange
Quote
Trevor Mbakwe (Minnesota)Seriously though, if you're gonna file a restraining order against me then why don't you block me on Facebook? Why are we still "friends"?
Eamonn Brennan (3:36 PM)This is an excellent question, and one of the first things I thought of when the news came down last night. If this woman had blocked Trevor, he wouldn't have been able to send her a message, let alone post on her wall, right? I don't know. I try to stay away from Facebook, so I might be wrong. But the whole thing is profoundly strange.
This is moronic if this is the justification for why he did it, "because she hadn't blocked me."
Your honor, it's her fault not mine. She knew that I knew where she lived, but she didn't move. I had to go over there... This arrest is Trevor's fault, and his alone.
Quote from: MU B2002 on January 13, 2011, 09:48:06 PMThis arrest is Trevor's fault, and his alone.
No. I think we all know that deep down this is all the fault of Tanned Tommy
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 08:17:42 PM
It was her fault he wasn't blocked on FB anyways. Mbakwe didnt violate a single team rule either.
Did you really say that? Wow.
Quote from: warthog-driver on January 13, 2011, 09:49:48 PM
No. I think we all know that deep down this is all the fault of Tanned Tommy
Haha. Duh.
Quote from: mu77vegas on January 13, 2011, 10:10:41 PM
Did you really say that also? Wow.
Wow is right. Yeesh. Cura personalis, eh?
Quote from: Jam Chowder on January 13, 2011, 09:39:44 PM
C'mon man. Don't act like those situations are even remotely similar. That girl's predicament was a result of ignorance of the law. Mbakwe acted in defiance of it (unless you're going to argue he didn't know he was violating the court order?). Can I empathize with the situation? Yeah. I get the other side of the argument. But how can you make the assumption that his intentions were innocent? It's easy for him to claim it was a kind hearted gesture but who's to know?
Also, HH32: are you really citing opinions expressed on ESPN as authoritative? Seriously? Journalistic integrity an objectivity are not words that come to mind when I think about the worldwide leader. There tendency toward bias and inaccuracy have been evident on numerous occasions. Some talking head spouting an opinion (or failing to) does not equate to an exonerating authority.
Of course they're similar. Both are zero-tolerance situations under the law, and both provide an opportunity for others to apply their own experience and judgement as to whether the actions warranted further sanctions.
Quote from: Jam Chowder on January 13, 2011, 09:39:44 PM
But how can you make the assumption that his intentions were innocent? It's easy for him to claim it was a kind hearted gesture but who's to know?
So, guilty until proven innocent? If there is even the slightest possibility that Trevor's intentions were not innocent, its wrong for Tubby to conclude that they were?
Look, I'm not making any assumption about his intentions.
I'm merely saying that after reading the note myself, I can understand why Tubby might conclude that no further punishment is warranted.
A couple of thoughts:
1) Over the last few years, ESPN analysts haven't always shown that they're particularly reliable sources of information when it comes to boundary issues with women. They've had their share of sexual harassment issues in Bristol.
2) Many harassers/stalkers are extremely polite and cordial. If you're trying to intimidate someone (and I have no idea if Trevor was), simply defying the court order sends an ominous message that you will not abide by the TRO. That's one reason that such orders say "no contact" instead of "only have contact if you're going to be nice.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 09:26:09 PM
Yes, if he showed up to her in person that would not only be twice as dumb but also suspension worthy because he would be in a position to cause harm or put her at risk, and no one would know his true intentions while with the note you can see his intentions by simply being literate.
Really? How on earth can you or anyone know what his
true intentions were? Do you know what problems the girl was having? Do you know what led to the no contact order in the first place? Do you know how he thought those comments would be received? Do you know how they were received? How do you know they didn't cause her to feel at risk? Was he using teal?
Clearly she wanted this guy out of her life. He obviously didn't get or accept that aspect. Even if he was simply trying to be nice,
he didn't think
he should have to abide by the order, because after all,
he was just trying to do something nice, so who cares what she thinks, right?
Was there any ill intent, or anything nefarious about writing that note? Probably not, but you don't know that anymore than I know that there was.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 13, 2011, 10:45:28 PM
I can understand why Tubby might conclude that no further punishment is warranted.
Me too. He wanted to beat Purdue.
The kid is a bad seed, and I am very glad he's no longer at MU.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 08:51:50 PM
Good call, again you cannot read. All of ESPN and there team of analysts and writers I said had no problem with him playing. Im not talking Minnesota people. So, if people with real knowledge have no problem I think its fine Tubby plays him after suspending player after player as it is with transfer after transfer to discipline.
ESPN also had no problem with the crock that was the ruling for the Ohio St football players (not suspending for the Sugar Bowl).
The problem is there are violations, yet NCAA doesn't want their profits down, so they don't do what is best, and of course ESPN is going to stick by the NCAA, NCAA is a major product of ESPN, or vice versa, depending on how you look at it.
There's something wrong in America when a man is arrested for BREAKING THE LAW. And that somehow doesn't constitute breaking the team rules in some minds.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 09:04:18 PM
Try, the fact that they cover the situation and do follow ups that you dont do from your couch big guy. Try the fact that all of them at 1 point either played or coached in college basketball so if they have no problems with the fact hes playing it means most of the league more than likely doesnt have a problem with it. So yeah, the knowledge matters.
The fact that all of them played or coached means they have a bias toward letting him play and/or don't want to piss off Tubby by stating their opinion. Of course they are going to come down on the side of the team here.
You are giving ESPN way more credit than they deserve.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 09:11:16 PM
Lots of winners on this board.
In life, when I am on the 5% side of an opinion while others are on the 95% side, I don't find it real smart to insult the majority...it makes you look really stupid.
I actually thought the Tubby got this one right. Poor decision by TM? Yup. And I expect that Buzz would have handled it differently, which would have been OK with me, too. I just don't think the action is that big of a deal.
What amazes me is that someone is actually defending Mbakwe's actions. It was the girl's fault? Really?
Okay, first of all, they don't need to be friends on FaceBook for him to send her a message. Anyone on FaceBook can send anyone else on FaceBook a message. It's like email. Two years ago, I discovered an old box of pictures when I was moving that didn't belong to me but to a prior resident of the same rented house. Using the name on the picture envelopes, I found the person on FaceBook, messaged them, got their info, and sent them their pictures. We are not friends on FB, never have been, and didn't need to be for me to make contact and her to respond.
Second, do you even comprehend the meaning of a no-contact order? It means the court is telling you that you are prohibited from making contact with this person. If you show up at their work and wait for them in the parking lot, you are violating that order. If you text message or call that person on their phone, you are violating that order. If you email them or contact them on FB, you are violating that order. But what you are saying is that it's her fault for not blocking Mbakwe on FB? So what, should she get a new job and move so he can't find her? Should she change her phone number so he can't call her from a friend's phone? Should she take herself off the Internet so he can't message her?
The answer to all of those questions is obviously no, and obviously ridiculous. However by saying that it's her fault, that is what you are insinuating. Quite simply, she took legal action and obtained a court order that he not contact her. By doing so, she has done everything she needs to do to prevent contact. She doesn't have to relocate, get a new phone number, and change her online accounts to prevent temptation. The court order should be more than enough to prevent temptation. All he has to do is not contact her. If he attempts to do so, he is instantly the one violating a court order, and is instantly the one in the wrong.
What you are saying is pretty much the same as saying that a girl who got raped is to blame because she wore a sexy dress to the bar. She should have dressed in a frumpy potato sack so she wouldn't tempt men to want to have intercourse with her. Of course that's ludicrous. As is your argument.
Mbakwe is to blame. Maybe he wrote the message with the best of intentions, maybe the message itself wasn't a big deal, but obviously it was a big enough deal that the girl felt she had to pull it out to show that he was violating the court ordered no-contact. Frankly, he is a complete moron for not knowing better, and should have been suspended purely on a basis of utter stupidity, if nothing else. Personally, I feel that violating a court order should warrant a suspension. I don't see how any upstanding program would say otherwise. But I guess beating Purdue was more important.
Quote from: tower912 on January 14, 2011, 09:01:36 AM
I actually thought the Tubby got this one right. Poor decision by TM? Yup. And I expect that Buzz would have handled it differently, which would have been OK with me, too. I just don't think the action is that big of a deal.
Here's the thing (for me at least): I don't know what happened to lead to the restraining order.
Suppose some woman (maybe an ex) was stalking you. She was always showing up at places where you were; calling you at all hours; sitting in her car in front of your house; texting you; emailing you; posting on your FB page; etc. During these contacts all she ever did was tell you how much she loved you; tell you she wants to marry you; beg you to leave your current girlfriend/wife; tell you she can't live without you; say that doesn't know what she might do if she can't have you; etc. Maybe she's been violent, maybe not. Suppose that this went on long enough that you felt that you needed a restraining order so that she would not come near you or contact you any more. What would you do if she posted the following on your FB page: "
I know we haven't talked in forever and trust me I'm not trying to start any drama with nobody in your life or anything. I just wanted to wish u the best with everything and I hope all has been well with you and your family. I am still disappointed how everything played out and I do wish that in the future we could be cool again. Idk how u r going to take this msg hopefully its not bad but I just wanted to wish u a happy new year and send out a congrats for graduating. I've been well I'm finally playin bball again in everything down in miami finally got taken care of thank god. Well idk if u will respond or not but best wishes for 2011."I'd think it was a big deal, and I know what I'd do.
Without more facts, it's pretty hard for me to decide
how big of a deal it was. I really only know two things: 1) a judge thought Trevor's earlier conduct was serious enough to warrant an order that he have no contact with this girl; and 2) Trevor violated the order.
Edited to add: I obviously assumed that tower912 was a man. If I'm wrong on that, I apologize. The scenario holds true if the stalker is a man (and some would argue that it would present an even clearer case).
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 14, 2011, 09:30:58 AM
Second, do you even comprehend the meaning of a no-contact order?
One should be able to comprehend the meaning simply by being literate.
An interesting little detail from the SI.com story that I hadn't seen...
Mbakwe sent a message on Facebook to a former girlfriend on Sunday, and St. Paul city attorney Sara Grewing told the Pioneer Press on Wednesday that he has been charged with violating a harassment restraining order.
He also criticized his former girlfriend on Twitter on Tuesday afternoon. Both of those accounts have since been disabled.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/basketball/ncaa/01/11/minnesota.trevor.mbakwe.ap/index.html#ixzz1B1aiaO9m
Anyone know what he said? Seems to support what many here are saying...this was about him doing what he wanted to do, and when it went bad, he 'criticized' her for it, whatever that means.
Like I said, bad seed.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 14, 2011, 09:38:24 AM
One should be able to comprehend the meaning simply by being literate.
Trevor Mbakwe is one of those cautionary tales. Soon enough, he will be forever consigned to the scrap heap of history. His path will be tortured, littered with trouble, and fraught with brushes and scrapes with civil society. What is more disturbing is that Tubby Smith is derelict in his responsibility as a leader. He has the unique opportunity with authority to instruct this young man in what is acceptable behavior. I see this as an essential component of Smith's command obligation and yet he has shirked it in a manner both despicable and disturbing. My world demands accountability; Tubby Smith's should too.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 08:34:42 PM
Her problems? Idk maybe whatever they were that Trevor wrote to her making sure she was doing alright. Did you even read the message he wrote?
Did you? Having re-read the message, I'll reiterate Lenny's question: what problems? The closest he seems to get to "making sure she was doing alright" was when he said, "
I hope all has been well with you and your family." Ummmmm...yeah...clearly she has a lot of problems. Any semi-literate person would get that from Trevor's FB post.
Anyone who thinks this same thing doesn't happen with schools in other conferences is dilusional. See Syracuse and Dievendorf. Coaches 99.5% of the time will find anyway they can to keep a kid playing unless their is action from the ncaa
Trevor has already been found guilty--thus the injunction. Posting on Facebook is not illegal. Violating a court order not to do so is. A judge can throw him in the slam in 10 minutes. Think of it this way: A defendant is convicted of a DUI. A judge says he will lessen the sentence if the defendant does not drink for a year. The defendent goes into a bar, drinks and takes a cab home. There is nothing illegal about going into a bar to grab a drink and then taking a cab home. However, a cop sees him in the bar, takes a pciture of him drinking and sends it to the judge who rings him up for violating a court order. No trial will occur--just the judge following through on his origial order via a hearing.
Quote from: warthog-driver on January 14, 2011, 09:49:05 AM
Trevor Mbakwe is one of those cautionary tales. Soon enough, he will be forever consigned to the scrap heap of history. His path will be tortured, littered with trouble, and fraught with brushes and scrapes with civil society. What is more disturbing is that Tubby Smith is derelict in his responsibility as a leader. He has the unique opportunity with authority to instruct this young man in what is acceptable behavior. I see this as an essential component of Smith's command obligation and yet he has shirked it in a manner both despicable and disturbing. My world demands accountability; Tubby Smith's should too.
I hope you don't mind (not that it matters if you do), but I "hear" all your posts in Jack Nicholson's voice.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on January 14, 2011, 09:35:32 AM
Here's the thing (for me at least): I don't know what happened to lead to the restraining order.
Suppose some woman (maybe an ex) was stalking you. She was always showing up at places where you were; calling you at all hours; sitting in her car in front of your house; texting you; emailing you; posting on your FB page; etc. During these contacts all she ever did was tell you how much she loved you; tell you she wants to marry you; beg you to leave your current girlfriend/wife; tell you she can't live without you; say that doesn't know what she might do if she can't have you; etc. Maybe she's been violent, maybe not. Suppose that this went on long enough that you felt that you needed a restraining order so that she would not come near you or contact you any more. What would you do if she posted the following on your FB page: "I know we haven't talked in forever and trust me I'm not trying to start any drama with nobody in your life or anything. I just wanted to wish u the best with everything and I hope all has been well with you and your family. I am still disappointed how everything played out and I do wish that in the future we could be cool again. Idk how u r going to take this msg hopefully its not bad but I just wanted to wish u a happy new year and send out a congrats for graduating. I've been well I'm finally playin bball again in everything down in miami finally got taken care of thank god. Well idk if u will respond or not but best wishes for 2011."
I'd think it was a big deal, and I know what I'd do.
I don't know the full background of their relationship, obviously, but the Star Tribune had a few more details about the restraining order:
Mbakwe, who sat out last season because of legal problems, agreed to cease contact with the woman in August 2009 when she sought a harassment restraining order, citing his alleged repeated, unwanted phone calls and communication with her. The woman, who said at the time that she had recently broken up with Mbakwe, told a Dakota County judge that she feared for her safety. Mbakwe was facing a felony assault charge at the time filed earlier that year while attending Miami Dade Community College.
Mbakwe denied the allegations of his ex-girlfriend, but agreed to stay away from her.
A day after the ex-girlfriend filed her request for a restraining order, Mbakwe sought a harassment restraining order against the 22-year-old woman, who did not respond to multiple interview requests Tuesday. He accused her of trailing him in a car and tracking him down at a relative's home, despite his desire to keep his distance from her.
"She threatened to leak false information to local newspapers and mutual friends after becoming mad about my relationship with my fiancée," Mbakwe's petition stated. A Hennepin County judge denied his request.http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/113288344.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU (http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/113288344.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU)
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 13, 2011, 10:45:28 PM
Of course they're similar. Both are zero-tolerance situations under the law, and both provide an opportunity for others to apply their own experience and judgement as to whether the actions warranted further sanctions.
No. They're not. You're not understanding my point. Of course the
policies are similar. The differences like in the individuals' standing relative to the law. Whereas the aforementioned school girl acted in
ignorance relative to the law, TM acted in
defiance of it. Those are two very different scenarios.
QuoteSo, guilty until proven innocent? If there is even the slightest possibility that Trevor's intentions were not innocent, its wrong for Tubby to conclude that they were?
No, guilty because there is concrete evidence from his own Facebook account that he's guilty. There's not really a question. No one involved is asserting his innocence. He is NOT innocent. Regardless of his intentions, he knowingly acted in direct violation of law.
QuoteI'm merely saying that after reading the note myself, I can understand why Tubby might conclude that no further punishment is warranted.
Look, I get what you're saying. I'm not so dense as to lose the forest in the trees. I am just saying that were I a D1 head basketball coach, and one of my players acted in clear, deliberate disregard for the law, I would find it a serious enough offense to warrant discipline. That kind of behavior, however superficially harmless it may seem, still displays arrogance, stupidity, contempt for the law, or some unfortunate combination of the three.
Quote from: KipsBayEagle on January 14, 2011, 09:59:22 AM
Anyone who thinks this same thing doesn't happen with schools in other conferences is dilusional. See Syracuse and Dievendorf. Coaches 99.5% of the time will find anyway they can to keep a kid playing unless their is action from the ncaa
Agree that this isn't a "Big 10" problem and that many coaches would not have disciplined Mbakwe. Don't agree that the number is 99.5%.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 14, 2011, 10:50:09 AM
Agree that this isn't a "Big 10" problem and that many coaches would not have disciplined Mbakwe. Don't agree that the number is 99.5%.
yea 99.5 is a little strong.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 14, 2011, 10:09:43 AM
Trevor has already been found guilty--thus the injunction. Posting on Facebook is not illegal. Violating a court order not to do so is. A judge can throw him in the slam in 10 minutes. Think of it this way: A defendant is convicted of a DUI. A judge says he will lessen the sentence if the defendant does not drink for a year. The defendent goes into a bar, drinks and takes a cab home. There is nothing illegal about going into a bar to grab a drink and then taking a cab home. However, a cop sees him in the bar, takes a pciture of him drinking and sends it to the judge who rings him up for violating a court order. No trial will occur--just the judge following through on his origial order via a hearing.
Agree with this. Some may find the "conditions" placed on a defendant found guilty of a crime to be unfair. And some may find what Mbakwe said in his violation of court order to be tame. The fact remains that what he did constituted an arrestable offense. And Mr. Mbakwe and Tubby Smith were both aware that ANY contact with this woman, whether benign or threatening, was considered as such. Wonder why athletes have such a feeling of entitlement? Look no further than how Tubby handled this.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 14, 2011, 11:26:35 AM
Agree with this. Some may find the "conditions" placed on a defendant found guilty of a crime to be unfair. And some may find what Mbakwe said in his violation of court order to be tame. The fact remains that what he did constituted an arrestable offense. And Mr. Mbakwe and Tubby Smith were both aware that ANY contact with this woman, whether benign or threatening, was considered as such. Wonder why athletes have such a feeling of entitlement? Look no further than how Tubby handled this.
This and the argument over words in the media may be the eulogy for personal responsibility as a concept.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on January 14, 2011, 09:38:24 AM
One should be able to comprehend the meaning simply by being literate.
Yeah, you'd think. Though reading this thread, clearly it's not that simple :-\
Quote from: Jam Chowder on January 14, 2011, 10:26:51 AM
No. They're not. You're not understanding my point. Of course the policies are similar. The differences like in the individuals' standing relative to the law. Whereas the aforementioned school girl acted in ignorance relative to the law, TM acted in defiance of it. Those are two very different scenarios.
They are similar for precisely the two reasons I stated--both are zero tolerance rules, and both provide the ability for one to apply their own sensiblities for further punishment.
Your attempt to cite a difference (defiance/ignorance) in no way precludes the similarities I stated.
In fact, the very difference you cite (Mbakwe acted in defiance, the girl acted out of ignorance) is
excluded as a mitigating factor in both cases. An assessment of defiance and/or ignorance is not allowed in either case.
The school rule precluded bringing a knife on campus
for any reason--regardless of whether you do so knowingly or accidentally.
The law against violating the no contact order precludes communication
for any reason--regardless of whether you do so defiantly or with good intentions.
My point is that under the law there is zero tolerance in both cases. The school principal and the courts in Minnesota are equally bound by their respective rules.
Quote from: Jam Chowder on January 14, 2011, 10:26:51 AMNo, guilty because there is concrete evidence from his own Facebook account that he's guilty. There's not really a question. No one involved is asserting his innocence. He is NOT innocent. Regardless of his intentions, he knowingly acted in direct violation of law.
Ditto with the paring knife case. No one is asserting the girl's innocence. She brought a knife to school. There's really not a question. No matter what her intentions or knowledge, it was against the rules.
What people are saying
after the fact is that the rule should not apply to her because of extenuating circumstances.
Tubby isn't even going that far--he's made no mention over whether Mbakwe should or should not have been hauled off to jail. He's merely stating that he doesn't think additional punishment is warranted based on his interpretation of extenuating circumstances.
Quote from: Marquette84 on January 14, 2011, 02:46:16 PMTubby isn't even going that far--he's made no mention over whether Mbakwe should or should not have been hauled off to jail. He's merely stating that he doesn't think additional punishment is warranted based on his interpretation of extenuating circumstances.
I have little interest in getting involved in the semantics debate that you and Jam Chowder are having, but I did note that Tubby stated in the press that the behavior would not be tolerated and that there were "other things we're going to do internally that [Mbakwe is] going to have to do."
Translation: "yes, it's serious; yes, we're embarrassed; yes, additional punishment is warranted; hell no, he's not sitting out against Purdue." (Here's where I'd insert the little winking thing if I didn't hate those little winking things.)
I suppose this doesn't seem like a big deal when a coach has recruited a half dozen criminals and headcases by his third year. I think the reaction of most here is great. If this were to happen at MU we wouldn't have it; we expect more of our players. We don't have to try to play down the severity of their crimes or worry about whether players should be suspended or kicked off the team for getting arrested because our players don't get arrested.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 13, 2011, 09:11:16 PM
So a cop or lawyer is going to tell you if a man should be allowed to play a game of basketball? Rather than the guys who have been around the game there whole lives and seen what has and hasnt gotten people suspended throughout the years?
Lots of winners on this board.
Having a bad day, Bunkie?
I see some of Hayward's various points in this thread. If any of the things that happened to him were isolated, I would definitely give him the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, here is what I know following the history of him at this point:
- A poster here (I apologize I don't recall the poster) stated after he signed with Marquette that he was a bad seed and would never play a game for Marquette. He was nearly correct in his statement
- Mbakwe got injured and played at the end of his frosh season
- Crean leaves and someone hears Mbakwe is definitely transferring. Mbakwe states "he has no idea where that came from"
- Mbakwe, instead of transferring after Buzz is named coach or even transferring during the summer giving the coaches a chance to recruit someone or plan for his departure, leaves the team high and dry at the last moment
- Mbakwe goes to Florida and is arrested for a felony assualt on a woman
- Mbakwe signs with Tubby and Minnesota
- Charges of Mbakwe are not quickly dropped and remain for quite some time
- Mbakwe toils while charges are pending for a long time
- Finally cleared to play by Tubby and now we find out yet another woman filed a restraining order against him and he, albeit in a light way, defied the order and contacted said woman
A lot of history to make a general determination against someone's character. Not looking good at this point.