RB Maurice Clarett (B1G Freshman of the Year, National Champion)

[BuckeyeNation27]

Who gives a shit if he was drunk? The guy had 4 loaded weapons in the front seat of his car....I'd be more concerned with that. A drunk driver may or may not injure somebody. Shooting someone will.

 

[AJHawkfan]

Reaction from a few of the Broncos players....

http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=334&storyID=5826

Wednesday, August 9, 2006


Team Reacts to News About Clarett

By Andrew Mason
DenverBroncos.com

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- At this time last summer, Maurice Clarett was in the midst of an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to make the Broncos roster.

Wednesday morning, as the Broncos rolled onward in this year's training camp, Clarett found himself in an Ohio jail, arrested on charges of carrying a concealed weapon following an overnight car chase.

Two time zones away, the status of the one-time Bronco was a topic of discussion among players as they went through the work of their 12th day of this year's training camp.

"If that did happen, it's very unfortunate," wide receiver Rod Smith said. "Hopefully it hasn't gotten to that point where he feels he has to go out and try to hurt somebody. I don't know. It's said, but I'm sure it's (more sad) for his family, because he made the decision to do it."

"He's got some heavy issues," Head Coach Mike Shanahan said following the morning practice. "It's just a shame that this has happened to a guy that (had) so much promise and so much ability. I'm not sure what happened to him, but it's a real shame."

Clarett's four-month tenure in Denver was defined by a nagging injury in training camp, his inability to take part in even one snap during the preseason games and his unwillingness to reach back when his new teammates offered warm, welcoming hands and counsel to the former Ohio State tailback.

"We tried to reach him quite a bit when he was here," Shanahan said. "One thing he did have here was a lot of support from our veterans, and our players tried to really take care of this guy and he wanted no part of it, and that was one of the reasons why he didn't make our football team.

"I don't think I've ever been around a bunch of guys (who) reached out to a guy more than Maurice, trying to help him, and (having) a guy not wanting that help."

Similar sentiments were offered in January after Clarett turned himself in on an unrelated charge, also in Columbus.

"It's hard to build a relationship when you're not on the field or really not sociable in this locker room. It's hard not to be, but that's how he was, but that was that," linebacker Keith Burns said in January.

Wednesday's news disappointed many Broncos, including safety Nick Ferguson.

"I was one of the one guys who really had somewhat of a decent relationship with him and talked to him on a consistent basis. The first time he left camp I was asked to kind of use that relationship to find out what was going on. But it just seems like the young man is troubled."

Added Shanahan: "As we all know, everybody's got issues. You try to help people through those issues, except that he was one of the few players that we've had that really didn't want to be helped."

 

[tedginn05]

I think we should get off the talk of if he was drinking or not, thats pretty clear, he had a half empty, open bottle of vodka(They showed the bottle sitting on the seat with no cap). He was the only one in the truck, but yet he wasn't drinking it?

I think we should be talking about what he was planning on doing with the 4 loaded guns and a bullet proof vest. I mean, you just don't go cruizing the city with the fire power he had. He was going to do something big.

 

[AJHawkfan]

Nice summary by Matt Hayes

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=116045

Clarett's troubles are nobody's fault but his own
August 9, 2006

OK, 10 points and a blow pop for the first person who correctly answers what Maurice Clarett was getting ready to do before getting arrested:

A. Rob someone.
B. Go hunting.
C. Get on top of the tallest building in Columbus and go James Cagney on us.
D. All of the above

True story: I'm driving back from taking my kids to school this morning, and this pudding pop host on talk radio says Clarett's troubles are Jim Tressel's fault. Says the university walked away from Clarett instead of standing by him.

Poor Maurice. The university used him to win a national title, then it all unravels.

1. He pouts while the rest of his teammates celebrate at Sun Devil Stadium after winning it all in the Fiesta Bowl.
2. His (loaner) car is vandalized and he files a fraudulent insurance claim.
3. He takes on the NFL in court and has "advisors" tell him he can win when he had a better chance brokering Middle East peace.
4. He says Ohio State committed NCAA violations; none of which were proven.
5. He is drafted by the Denver Broncos, shows up fat and unmotivated and is quickly cut.
6. He pulls a gun on a couple of guys in an alley to steal a cell phone.
7. He hops in his car with four loaded weapons and wears a bullet-proof vest and decides to do a little joy riding.

I can see him now: Top of the world, ma!

 

[AJHawkfan]

And here's Mike DeCourcy's view:

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=116066

Clarett squandered his talent all on his own
August 9, 2006

Let's be honest here: I did not need a bachelor's degree in order to work as a journalist. There have been lots of successful journalists who never finished college, some who never attended. Although there was plenty to learn in my time at Point Park College, most of what I needed to know specifically about being a professional in this field came by experience.

Nevertheless, lots of media companies now require a four-year college degree before they'll consider a job applicant. They've got businesses for which they should be able to set the standards.

So it is for the National Football League, which negotiates with the NFL Players Association to set the standards for entry into the league's player draft. Maurice Clarett did not meet those standards in 2002. He did in 2004. That two-year gap is not the reason Clarett is now a national punch line. Clarett bears that responsibility himself.

If you turned on the radio Wednesday just about anywhere in America, you heard commentators, professional and amateur, trying to spread the blame for Clarett's latest episode.

It was Ohio State's fault for "using" Clarett. Really? Ohio State offered Clarett a free education (perhaps in more ways than one?) and high-level training in the art of playing football.

It was the NFL's fault for delaying his entry into the league. Really? Are we to believe he would have been mature enough, physically and emotionally, to handle the responsibilities of being a professional football player just one year out of high school? Three years out of high school, he couldn't get in shape to try out at the scouting combine nor, after the memory of his freshman year excellence seduced Broncos coach Mike Shanahan into spending a third-round pick on him, could he motivate himself to perform in his one shot at training camp.

Clarett was presented with great talent and abundant opportunity. He isn't the first to waste either or both. Perhaps you remember Marcus Dupree or Brian Davis. Neither of their circumstances turned as tragic as Clarett's, but they probably were even more gifted as runners and produced, ultimately, just as little at the game's highest level.

Football is a hard game. It exacts a stiff price. Those who are willing to pay that price are rewarded, but nothing is handed to them. Which is as it should be.

 

[RugbyBuck]

Gary Colman would be funnier.

And faster.

 

[BB73]

2. His (loaner) car is vandalized and he files a fraudulent insurance claim.

I've seen this in a couple of articles about MoC lately. I'm pretty sure that's not true. He was cited for overstating the value of the car's contents in the police report, but I don't believe he filed an insurance claim for the overstated amount, if he filed a claim at all. He would have been charged with insurance fraud if he'd done that.

I'm long past the point of wanting to defend MoC, but I believe those trashing him should be accurate in their reporting.

 

[Steve19]

I guess life IS stranger than fiction.

Am I the only one troubled by the wild speculation I'm reading? I don't even know why, I guess everyone will have an opinion, but I don't see any value in it.

"He's was going to the WHAC"
"He's was going to Geiger's"
"He owes money to some 'bad' dudes"
"He was going to take care of some witnesses"

I think it safe to say that MoC has proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that no one knows what the hell Mo is thinking. I'm hoping we can skip the attempt at mind reading.

Agreed. What we can agree on is that this guy needs to be removed from society. Now. And for a long time.

 

[Saw31]

Unfuckingbelievable...

Not much to add except that how truly disappointing this whole thing has been. I watched this guy since he was a junior in high school. That seems like a lifetime ago at this point.

 

[CONGERSBUCKEYE]

Scary

I think there is a lot to be thankful for today. The information coming in is very disturbing and sad. It is very interesting to read the comments from the people around Maurice. Everyone has tried to help this young man but he wants no part of it. Just looking at the facts. 1.) Due to have a child.
2.) Broke and lawyer fees mounting.
3.) Impending trial.
4.) No more career options than the hitman.
5.) Start of New Football Season in which he should be THE STAR.
6.) Calls Tom Friend and Terry at 1 am? (who seems to be one of his only friends)
7.) All Guns loaded and bullet proof vest on.

Would it be too much of a reach when a social outcast and loner takes extreme measures? More to come and hope this is proved false but right now I am very thankful we are talking about not giving a DUI test.

 

[Bucklion]

Just watched Rome is Burning...Jason Whitlock was filling in. In the Forum segment, he tried his best to get the two guys (never heard of either of them) to blame Ohio State for MoC's problems...both rejected that outright, and said that he's 22 years old, and it's on him now. Bravo.

 

[Buckin' A]

uhh... wrong again. You can't arrest someone for a crime without probable cause - that's one of those constitutional things. Sometimes, you even need a warrant. He was arrested on the weapons charges, so that's beside the point.

But under R.C. Section 4511.191, you can't request an admissible BAC without probable cause either.

.

I hope you are an attorney, and I must say, I'd love to go against you in court. Big difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
An opened bottle of vodka and erratic driving are most certainly enough to conduct field sobriety tests on someone. Field sobriety tests were not conducted b/c either A) the officers had plenty of charges to deal with and didn't want to mess with the OVI.
or B) (and most likely)- Mo had been peppered sprayed and fighting the officers. Do you really think he would have consented to field sobriety tests? Even if he did, any court would say that his balance and equilibrium would most likely be off ofter being sprayed and fighting with officers. So, what would the officers have gained by even conducting the tests?

You can be stubborn and stick with your "No probable cause" theory, but that's one you'd lose every damned day of the week in court. Bottom line is that they could have given him a BAC without field sobriety tests based on the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, but they had bigger charges to deal with.

 

[Buckin' A]

Also, I got word from a "friend" at CPD. Seems that the on scene officers are under the opinion that Mo was heading to take care of the witnesses that were going to testify against him in the morning. For what it's worth....

 

[OH10]

I hope you are an attorney, and I must say, I'd love to go against you in court. Big difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
An opened bottle of vodka and erratic driving are most certainly enough to conduct field sobriety tests on someone. Field sobriety tests were not conducted b/c either A) the officers had plenty of charges to deal with and didn't want to mess with the OVI.
or B) (and most likely)- Mo had been peppered sprayed and fighting the officers. Do you really think he would have consented to field sobriety tests? Even if he did, any court would say that his balance and equilibrium would most likely be off ofter being sprayed and fighting with officers. So, what would the officers have gained by even conducting the tests?

You can be stubborn and stick with your "No probable cause" theory, but that's one you'd lose every damned day of the week in court. Bottom line is that they could have given him a BAC without field sobriety tests based on the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, but they had bigger charges to deal with.

I am an attorney and that argument has been successful in court - although I can't say I've been faced with these particular set of facts before.

The totality of the circumstances test still requires evidence for probable cause on each and every element of the offense. And one element the POLICE SERGEANT, of all people, found to be missing, was intoxication. Was Maurice probably acting crazy? Oh sure. But you have be "under the influence" of alcohol to request the test, not under the influence of stupidity. The only evidence they have of alcohol is a closed, half-bottle of vodka that they had no indication had been consumed by Maurice within any reasonable amount of time prior to the stop. Without that, you don't have probable cause. Officers can't just go making assumptions and arrest people. (They do even though they can't, but that's beside the point).

I wasn't there. You weren't there. The police officers, based on statements made to the media, didn't give a breath test because they didn't have probable cause. Now you can't get any better backing for an argument than I have there. You can say they didn't give the test because they had other charges, but the statements from police are what matter to me, not your assumption.

EDIT: I agree that this is beating a dead horse, and that an OVI or improper handling charge wouldn't really do much more than is going to be done already. I feel I'm right on this issue, and would love the opportunity to argue it in court. But I figure I've hijacked this thread enough.

Also, I got word from a "friend" at CPD. Seems that the on scene officers are under the opinion that Mo was heading to take care of the witnesses that were going to testify against him in the morning. For what it's worth....

Well, since someone already posted it. I can confirm that I've heard similar rumblings.

 

[Saw31]

Also, I got word from a "friend" at CPD. Seems that the on scene officers are under the opinion that Mo was heading to take care of the witnesses that were going to testify against him in the morning. For what it's worth....

Jeezus...WTF?