Virginia Tech running back Shai McKenzie was suspended indefinitely from all team activities on March 4, 2015 after he was charged with two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. McKenzie appeared in court Thursday.
Suspended Virginia Tech running back Shai McKenzie has a 2 p.m. hearing today in JDR court regarding two misd indecent liberty with a minor.— Cameron Austin (@CameronOAustin) July 9, 2015
#Hokies running back Shai McKenzie had one of the misdemeanors dropped. He'll serve 15 days in jail and 50 hrs community service on other.— Cameron Austin (@CameronOAustin) July 9, 2015
At 2:36 PM Thursday Mike Barber reported McKenzie is expected to be back with the Hokies at the start of August camp.
Source: #Hokies fully expect suspended tailback Shai McKenzie to be with the team for the start of camp in August.— Mike Barber (@RTD_MikeBarber) July 9, 2015
McKenzie was previously cleared of any university sanctions at the end of March.
McKenzie suffered a tear of his right ACL against Western Michigan last season, the same knee McKenzie hurt he was a senior in high school. Team doctors operated on McKenzie's knee in October. Legal troubles aside, McKenzie was expected to miss spring practice while he rehabbed his knee. It's unclear if McKenzie will be medically cleared to actively participate in August practice.
Before he tore his ACL last fall, McKenzie rushed for 269 yards and three touchdowns on 53 carries (5.1 YPC).
Comments
So we pull a SEC act and "suspend" him for the year while he rehabs that knee and thinks about what he's done!
I think we're all really hoping that this was the correct decision....
This whole situation makes me uncomfortable.
Not being privy to the entire situation (I mean, I've heard the age and everything, but I have no idea how it happened/what was said), I agree with you, but hope that perhaps the situation is not as bad as it sounds.
There is no situation where having sex with a 15 year old is less bad.
disclaimer, I do not condone any illegal sex related behavior
Unless you're in half of Europe. His saving grace is it was consensual.
Only acceptable situation is if you are also a consenting minor imho...
Did he know she was a minor? Remember, he's only 18 - it's not like he's a 30 year old cruising around a middle school. Again, not saying I'm pro sex-with-minors. Just that there can be mitigating circumstances, and being one who doesn't know exactly how it went down, I can only trust that the courts got it right.
Edit - I guess I'm just saying there are varying degrees of wrong-ness.
He's 20, and legally, it is his responsibility to confirm her age.
Everyone gets that from a moral standpoint, this is not clear cut. If he was misled to believe that she was of age, then it's an honest mistake on his part. If he was aware, or had any suspicion, then he knowingly broke a fairly black-and-white law.
We all know that football players get special privileges that normal students/citizens don't (in this case, free access to a very good lawyer). When it's a DIP, and Bucky gets off, I'm 100% okay with it. But this is a far more serious accusation. I do not know the specifics of this case (ie, was it confirmed that Shia was misled/ignorant of this person's age?), so I have not called for a specific action either way.
I just really hope that this was an honest mistake by Shai, and not another story about a football player dodging the legal system. Like I said in other posts, I trust that our administration is doing the right thing, but I still have my reservations.
He's 20 already? I thought he was a true freshman last year. To your point, I think we're both in agreement, in that we're uncomfortable with the situation but not rushing to judge.
I hadn't ever heard that the players don't have to pay for their lawyers and this Bitter article implies that it isn't the case:
Nowhere in that article does it say or imply that players do or don't pay for their lawyer. All it says is that our coaches may refer a player to Turk when said player gets into legal trouble.
From OTL:
I doubt that Shai, Bucky, Ike, Hyman, AD, etc paid out of pocket for legal advice.
Turk is the Lawyer who more times than not represents VT Athletes and the lines, "Turk frequently gets their call and their business." and "their coaches may say, 'Well, you can call Jimmy if you want.'" implies to me that he isn't paid by the team. The first implies that Turk is getting the business of the athletes, not of the University and the second implies that the decision on whether or not he represents the athletes is up to the athletes.
Obviously it's the athlete's decision - you can't 'force' someone to have certain representation in a court of law.
I don't think the line "Turk frequently gets their call and their business" necessarily implies that the athlete does/doesn't pay Turk. Maybe they do, but I'm just skeptical as to how all of these kids, many of which, but not all, had an an underprivileged upbringing, are able to afford such a good lawyer.
Futures payment. He represents one guy who can only pay a little so when the next guy who can pay or can pay in future says I'll use him.
I think that "evading prosecution" is a bit inflammatory in that article.
The concept that "If you are innocent the legal system will reach the correct result." is flawed. It doesn't always work out that way.
A team lawyer would be in place to protect the team's interests and not necessarily the player's interests. This is no different from lawyers that most businesses have on staff or on retainer. It depends on the situation, but in most instances the earlier legal counsel is involved, the better the chance for a positive outcome for the potential defendant.
In the business world, where I have some experience, corporate lawyers represent the interests of the business and not the interests of an individual employee. If an employee becomes named in a case, then they had better retain their own counsel because their interests and the interests of the business may very well diverge. I suspect that team lawyers work the same way. I don't believe that the athletic department can pay for a lawyer for a player.
Picture two hypothetical scenarios:
1) A player is near something that occurs and the police become involved. The player is asked to come down to the station to answer some questions. The police grill the player for a long time. The player makes a poorly judged statement. Charges are brought against the player. The player is suspended from the team. 12 months later, at the end of the trial, the player is found not guilty.
2) A player is near something that occurs and the police become involved. The team lawyer appears on the scene and clearly advises the player of his rights. The player declines the invitation to make a statement. No evidence is ever found that the player was involved with a crime. No charges are filed against the player.
Scenario #2 is clearly better for the team. I see nothing wrong with this. The right to legal counsel is baked into the US Constitution for very good reasons. The legal system is an adversarial system, with which most of us do not have regular experience. Lawyers provide that experience (just like mechanics, plumbers, and accountants do).
You hit the nail on the head. Regardless of your guilt or innocence, if you become involved in the legal system, you need the services of a legal professional. Rail against them all you want, but a good lawyer can be the difference between a good and a bad outcome, again, regardless of guilt or innocence. They know the game, they know the players, they know the system. They play golf/cards/party/vacation/whatever with the people who will play the key roles in your encounter, and they make a tidy living being able to play the game the way it needs to be played.
If they got lawyers for free, that would be an NCAA violation as they'd be getting an extra benefit. A lawyer in the area got in trouble because he suggested he represented ODU athletes for free.
All VT students have free legal counsel in criminal matters:
http://www.legal.sga.vt.edu/
I don't know the specifics (and will gladly be corrected if wrong), but I'm guessing Jimmy Turk isn't involved in that program. Also the SLS attorney won't go to court with you. I have a feeling that if you were charged with a crime and went to the school-appointed lawyer they'd tell you to seek private counsel.
Sure, but the point is there is an out if anyone claims NCAA inequity. Students have access to a free lawyer.
Yes, but regular students don't have free access to Turk. If Turk were representing athletes for free and didn't do that for regular students that would be a violation.
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/03/lawyer-bazemore-case-has-helped-many-mon...
I doubt it gets that specific, as to requiring that the same lawyer be available to everyone. From that article (emphasis mine):
I don't know Turk's relationship with VT, but he's been representing our players for years. I suspect his involvement has passed the smell test, given our commitment to compliance. If absolute person-for-person equality were required, then I would want access to the players' tutors, their study facilities, and their nutritionists. If I were to demand that, I'd be told, "tough luck, go see the generic tutors, facilities, and whoever you can get a hold of at the gym about what to eat." In general, the same facilities and expertise are available, but not the exact same individuals. Otherwise, I would have been getting trained by Mike Goforth and I wouldn't have exited college as out-of-shape as I did.
It's not that the same lawyer be available for all students, but that the athletes would be getting something for free/cheap from outside of the university solely due to their status as athletes. If Turk or any lawyer were doing favors for athletes, that would be just as big a problem as a car dealership giving rides to players. It wouldn't matter that VT students could take the bus to places instead. One of the things UNC got dinged a couple years back for was free jewelry given to players because they were football players.
Decker's quote that you pulled up is what got him in trouble in the first place, which is why he clarified things later and said he does the same thing for non-athletes. I'm sure that there is some sort of arrangement worked out, and I'm sure Turk is smart enough to not tell a reporter he represents athletes for free. The "free" legal service the school provides is nothing at all- that lawyer won't go to court, negotiate a plea deal, or represent you in any meaningful way. Compare that to what Turk or any other private defense attorney does and it's night and day. I don't think that provides any sort of way out.
Couldn't Turk just represent one or two regular student pro-bono and be able to claim that his services are not unique to student athletes, thus, not an NCAA violation?
I just find it hard to believe that student athletes, many of whom are from lower income families, pay for a top notch lawyer.
Pro-bono would be difficult I think, as he is known to represents athletes from VT. It's in Turk's best interest to help athletes in trouble because he is likely after other more lucrative work. I doubt he is only "helping" student athletes for the otherwise low, to no fee those cases bring. I am sure he finds ways to make things easier to pay, including lengthy payment plans, but his eye is on the bigger prize I would imagine.
For example, in my own work. I "help" a client with a design on a tight budget because I want the next project that is VERY well paid.
Agreed, 100%. My point is that there is no way accused college football players across the nation pay anything near full price for a good attorney.
I figured that boosters took care of it and everyone involved was smart enough to evade the NCAA.
Bingo
I agree with you 100%. I am all for giving people 2nd chances, but this event was so wrong on so many different levels. I believe he should closely watched until he can gain everybody's trust again and with zero tolerence.
Well, he'll be watched very closely for 15 days.
Yea, those 2 weeks + 1 day will be very sobering....
He will probably serve 7-10 days.
Yea. But it still won't be pleasant. I hope it sinks in real far.
Just get rid of him. This is dumb. There is no reason to run VT's name through the mud for one guy.
how is keeping him running VT's name through the mud? Its a misdemeanor not a felony... this is not national news outside of Vt fans this is extremely minor.
Not saying what he did was right but this won't hurt VT's reputation.
Yep, just a misdemeanor, not going to win us a Fulmer Cup or anything. Thankfully!
Did you know Mike London was a cop? Does Jarrett Boykin have large hands?
When he does come back, I fear that each game it will start with "Shai McKenzie spent 15 days in jail this summer due to sex with a minor."
I don't know if he should stay or go. I guess we'll just have to see how he handles himself from here.
That would get an awful lot of lawsuits in a hurry. He was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. There is a huge difference.
Fair enough on the legal difference but kind of semantics in the court of public opinion. Ultimately he still banged a 15 year old, went to jail/prison, and ESPN is going to mention it. They can work on the right phrasing. The narrative will be a difficult year for Shai, ACL and jail.
I'm not judging the dude, I don't know the whole situation. But I don't think this is something that won't get picked up throughout the season.
this is extremely minor
*rimshot*
bazinga
Can anyone clarify any details of this situation? I feel like the specifics have been swept under the rug. We've had some less-than choir boys on the team in the past, but at least we knew what was going on. Just because the courts find someone not guilty doesn't mean they should be representing VT. He is still doing two weeks in jail, so he did something...
I am very confused about the laws surrounding this incident and what this actually means. Anyone here have a law background who can explain this legally? Is he not a sex offender now? How was he not found guilty of anything by the school conduct committee?
Lastly, how do we feel about this guy being on the team still?
Maybe I'm off but was he not arrested for having sexual relations with a minor?
Sex with a minor seems like a major deal? There has to be something, some detail, some explanation we are all not privy to? But then why 15 days in Jail? And what happened to the other student, both academically and criminally? So many questions...
Ok, contributing is a class 1 misdemeanor. It can encompass a few things, one of which is being over 18 and having sex with someone between 15 and 17. You do NOT have to register as a sex offender if convicted of contributing, additionally, in VA if you're convicted of a misdemeanor, then you generally only serve 50% of the sentence, so if he received 15 days active that's really 7.
Its not a felony (generally) to have sex with someone unless they're under 15 unless there is a supervisory relationship. So a teacher who has sex with a 16 year old, or coach etc. then that would be a felony. (and would have to register).
As for the school conduct committee that's a question for that body.
15 days in jail is steep for a first misdemeanor. Glad he can finally move on with his academics & athletic career.
Not really, it depends o the charge and the facts.
Any info on the status of his knee?
Either way, if he is on the team, he should be redshirted this season.
You are correct.
Risk vs reward... the team, and Shai, have everything to gain, and very little to lose from his sitting out a year. Time heals all wounds, literally and metaphorically. Trey, J.C. and possibly Travon shoudl be able to carry the load this year. (Hell, I'd even sit Marshawn. 2016 would look nice with that fully healed and raring to go 1-2 punch.)
I am with you and French. Both Shai and Marshawn should be red-shirted this year. We have 2 proven RB's ready to play and a redshirt freshman that also wants to be the "guy." They are both less than a year off an ACL tear and both have available redshirts. USE THEM.
Cameron has the full story from today's developments in court. No change in his status with the team right now.
http://www.roanoke.com/suspended-virginia-tech-running-back-to-serve-day...
woah so the same girl got 2 guys.. that doesn't sound to good for them and her..
Editing this post because I misread what you were saying. My bad.
I knew you were editor material.
These two things are interesting.
that's what I'm saying.. 1 girl got two guys and it seems to be very close timing???
Three guys, I mean she has some role in getting Shai to her house.
edit-- yes she definitely did.. hope shai's got his head on straight
Just a reminder, minors are not capable of consent. It doesn't matter how man guys she "got" in how many days, she is still the victim in every case.
Glad I'm not her Dad! Shai's "DNA" was probably not the stuff found. Who knows, young girls DO NOT look the way they did when I grew up. I agree, redshirt them both. He didn't turn a chick into a K Mart lawn chair.
From the report, he says the girl was involved in more than one case similar to this. While I realize that innocence almost always begins with the girl, I have to wonder if she and the girl directly involved with Shai were luring older guys under false pretenses and when adults found out, the father figure came in with the swift hand of justice to protect daddy's little girl. Again, I'm not accusing the girls of any wrong-doing but if there were enough evidence, I would see some punishment for the girls as well. Maybe dad just grounded them for a year or something. It just seems to me that they way its presented, only the guys are the ones breaking the law, which may not be entirely true.
some of this could be true.. it seems some charges have been dropped to misdemeanor but we will never know for what reason.
regardless- hope this is a learning lesson to everyone weird stuff like this sadly happens and is easier to happen due to all these dating apps.
my head now hurts.. football needs to come sooner
There can be a variety of reasons for amending the carnal knowledge charges to contributing. Some considerations that may have been taken into account: circumstances of how they met, his age, victim and her family's input. If the guy was 19 do we saddle him with a felony conviction along with having to register for the rest of his life, does that benefit the Commonwealth considering the facts of hat particular case? Do we want to put the girl on the stand 2x (once for the preliminary hearing and once for a trial)?
There are a multitude of reasons the carnal knowledge was amended.
Yeah, the adults are responsible in abuse cases, not the adolescents. That's the way that works.
It doesn't matter if she was walking up and down I-81 with a sign advertising her services, she is a minor. She is not capable of consenting to any sexual acts. It's a very clear cut legal issue.
If they had sexual relations with a minor, the guys were the ones breaking the law. Regardless of what led up to the acts or what they thought they knew about the age of the girl. As an adult, it's your responsibility to be 100% sure that your partner consents to any sexual activities. If you aren't 100% sure that your partner is of age to consent then you haven't fulfilled your responsibilities. Is that inconvenient for young adults trying to hook up with strangers? Yes. Is that an excuse for breaking the law? No.
Fett Man, I know your head and heart are in the right place and you aren't trying to blame the victim. I felt those points needed to be highlighted though.
While I don't disagree with the law, I was merely suggesting that there was some moral wrong-doing on the part of the girl from my perspective. Yes we know Shai broke the law, he's being punished. Hopefully the girl will have learned her lesson if from nothing else than the legal process.
But if as a minor, the girl can not legally consent to sexual acts, wouldn't her consenting in this case be considered breaking the law? Or does the law not consider her a person until she's 18? Not being in the law industry, this part is fuzzy to me.
No, she can't consent and it is not illegal for her to consent even if she's unable. It's the responsibility of the adult to know if she's lying about her age or not. This was unconsenual sex with a minor through and through in Virginia. That being said the courts can adjust things as appropriate and this involving a minor we will not be able to actually know what happened in the court room.
From what I've heard back when this happened it probably almost went away because she might have admitted to actively deceived him and word on the street she had done this before and even tried with other players these two were just dumb enough not to see it.
I fully believe the outcome of this had more to do with the judge as the enforcement of these underage consent laws don't get uniformly enforced by every judge. One judge might sentence an 18 year old having consensual sex with their 17 year old partner while another might toss it out.
Am I the only one that finds this a little far fetched? She could be a really good liar especially if she was getting what she wanted. I seriously doubt he carries around a pocket lie detector. When I was a freshman in college, I didn't ask to see ID to every girl that showed interest in me.
we could just back up a few steps and say that it's a good idea to avoid random hookups anyway, but I'm sure that would seem even more far-fetched.
Don't buy an inexpensive car stereo from a shady guy in a trenchcoat and you won't have to worry about getting charged with receiving stolen property.
That was a risk you were willing to take. If you ended up hooking up with someone under the age of 18, you broke the law.
It is not a legal defense to say "Judge, it is really inconvenient for me to not statuary rape".
Is it illegal to rape statues? Wouldn't you just get an indecent exposure?
besides, I feel like that act would inflict its own punishment
No.
I think the misinterpretation in "legal consent" is there. In the eyes of the law, a minor of a certain age does not possess the capability to consent because they don't have a full understanding of what it means to do so.
It doesn't make her consenting "illegal". It just means that, she can't consent to something. It's the law, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Arbitrary numbers and all. Many states have fairly low ages of consent, and we're actually one of the countries with the highest average age of consent.
In actuality, it's also considered rape if a person is under the influence, regardless of whether both parties are or not. However, life is full of people who end up getting drunk and having sex while having a good time. It's not a law that can be fully enforced, but it's there to protect those who become victims because of alcohol. As such is the age of consent law there to protect those who are victims of such things.
It works both ways, where a female over 18 would be charged if she had sex with her boyfriend 15 or younger, but those are things you don't see because the difference in how it's viewed.
I've often wondered how the law would treat a situation where an adult is legally incapacitated and has sex with a minor who initiates the sexual activity.
Given what happened in this incident at Amherst, (the male student was incapacitated according to the college's handbook, but was found in the wrong and dismissed from school in his Senior year because the female student withdrew consent after she had initiated sexual activity he was unable to consent to in the first place, filed a complaint nearly two years after the incident, and hid potentially exculpatory evidence that the college refused to consider when it came to light a couple months after the disciplinary process had run its course and the male student had exhausted his appeals process) I would guess that the courts and certainly any college disciplinary system would find whichever participant was male (incapacitated adult or sober minor) to be in the wrong.
Okay, so he was convicted of having sex with a 15 year old...but cleared of student misconduct? Then maybe we should rewrite that student misconduct policy to read: "Don't have sex with 15 year olds."
I thought because he got off from the student misconduct hearing that he didn't do anything. 15 days in jail says he did something. No thank you.
i think i read somewhere it was consensual sex so he didn't force it.. no idea if that's why he got off the student misconduct but that talk is for lawyers and people that understand the stuff and facts.
Consent doesn't matter - the statute says it's against the law for someone 18 or over to engage in sexual activity with someone 15-17. Minors don't have the legal right to consent. If it was forced or aggravated, it would be a rape charge. I find it strange as well that the student conduct hearing so quickly comes to the conclusion that no university discipline should be levied when the legal process hasn't even run its course.
I know for a fact that a DIP charge in Blacksburg will get you an automatic year of probation from student conduct and likely a meeting with an alcohol counselor, while the maximum legal penalty for someone 21 years of age is a $25 fine. Seems as if there's not very much consistency between the legal system and the student discipline process, IMO.
So would it be breaking the law for a minor if she did consent per this case? Or are kids just exempt from all laws until they are 18? Damn I missed out on so much in my childhood then. Mostly joking aside, shouldn't there be some kind of juvenile case Shai could file?
Nope. She can say it's consensual all she wants, but it's nullified by the fact that she is not of the age of majority to make that decision. There are no legal ramifications against her for consenting either. Similarly, you may enter into a contract with someone under 18, but it is voidable at the discretion of the minor with no legal recourse. Minors are shielded from a great deal of legal liability in most instances.
Consent absolutely matters. In the grand scheme minors can't legally "give consent" but whether they are willing participants or matters greatly.
Consensual relations = misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor
Non-consensual relations = felony rape
It's not uncommon for Student Conduct to defer punishment to the court system if your action not only violated university policy but also violated the law.
The same girl involved in Gavion's case was also involved in Payne's charge.
The older guys should've known better but this 15 year old girl gets around.
Just let him go - I have a feeling this is going to just turn into baggage down the road...
Don't be so quick to judge. How would you feel as a freshman if a girl, who looks your age, lied to you about being 18 and in college, brought you to her house to engage in sexual activities only to have her dad find out and file a suit. Yes, Shai should have been more careful and I don't have all the details, but given the shady circumstances, you've got to wonder. The part about the girl's family being content with his punishment makes it seem like they got what they wanted; a young boy to be taught a lesson without ruining his life.
Agree 100%. A lot of people here are trying to act like saints but how many times in college did any of you meet a girl and then ask for her i.d. before having sex. I am willing to bet never. I agree that it is against the law and shouldn't happen but people make mistakes. His life shouldn't be ruined because of it.
I always ask for social security numbers and do background checks on any woman I talk to.
But on all seriousness FUCK VIRGINIA and their consent laws. They're way to god damned binary. A friend of mine got drug through the court for rape because he had sex with his girlfriend of almost 2 years just after he turned 18 his senior year and her parents found out. Completely consensual on both sides and they only found out because teenagers can't help but talk about it and they admitted to it. It got plead down but it cost them so much god damned money and set him back a few years.
Very similar thing happened to my brother. Not all girls are saints and not all men are dogs. Not trying to start an equality debate or anything, but our judicial system's interpretation of the law can be so subjective at times.
I always asked for an I.D., a CV and at least 2 references
you could probably just skip all of that and ask her (or him, I'm not going to judge) to spell CV. If they get it right then you're golden. If they get it wrong you should steer clear
and by that i mean, ask them what CV stands for, and then ask them to spell curriculum vitae
I'm 27 and can't spell "curriculum vitae". Nobody tell my wife
I too am 27, and I admittedly looked it up before posting just to make sure I didn't make an arse of myself. I'm pretty damn sure that there aren't any girls out there under 18 trying to get laid who can spell "curriculum vitae" so I maintain that it is a pretty safe bet to ask that as a qualifier right off the bat.
Its pretty clear McKenzie deserves the second chance. Girl involved was, according to the charges, 15 to 17, her friend has done this several times...how many guys over 18 got with a 15 to 17 year old? a willing one, and in a situation where the student hearing didn't care to continue charging him. The important part of this whole thing, is being cleared by the student hearing, thats what determines whether you get to stay or not, we saw it with shit vick, and theres no reason to think it won't still be the case.
Is it though? I don't know... a DIP is a non-crime in my opinon. Stealing is a non-violent crime, but still a crime. Bar fights are no good, and DUIs are worse, but (to me personally) sexual crimes cross a line. All of the other acts I listed, I can attribute to a 'mistake', when you get into sexual crimes, it's a grey area at best.
Maybe Shai was coerced and lied to, but without knowing the all the details, I'm hesitant to support his return to the team. I'm trusting Frank on this one, but in a very hesitant manor. It just doesn't feel right to me, but I hope I'm wrong.
I'm no legal expert, but to me the 15 day / 50 hour sentence seems very light, which would suggest that Shai and his lawyer were able to convince the court that this is indeed the case. If Frank is convinced of this, I think Shai comes back, but on a very short leash. Even a 'non-crime' like a simple DIP would probably be enough to drop the hammer after accepting his return.
I'm sure he was read the Riot act from the coaching staff already. One more slip up of any kind and he is done.
I am not condoning this behavior at all, but I went to VT in the late 70's and many times there were a lot of under aged townies (as we used to call them) trying to pass off as a college student. I must it admit, it was hard to tell their age sometimes and it is even harder today. They grow up too fast.
and the early to mid-70's.
today, a child starts first grade based on their age at the time schools starts.
back then, you started school based on the calendar year, so in the fall there were a lot of 17 year old freshman girls at both VT and Radford...and they were at all the frat parties...and there were LOTS of misdemeanors
this is true still. I was 17 when I started VT and well, I got misdemeanered more than my fair share my first year in Blacksburg.
In all Shai got lucky with his sentence. Hope he learns from his mistakes and comes back from his ACL tear. If he can concentrate on his knee and not his leg then he could have a bright future here and maybe on sundays.
Is this your slick way of telling us you did the hokie pokie a lot your freshman year?
I did not realize there was any misdemeanor that would get you 15 days in jail. I have 2 boys in high school and the hs girls today scare the shit out of me. I am fortunate they have learned some chivalry but the texts I see from these young ladies are disturbing if you are a parent.
Edit: yes I am that dad that monitors texts
There ya go.
Well corrected...
Haha. Thanks for that. I swear parents need support groups nowadays. Currently, mine are Jim, Jack and Evan lol!
Geez what if that was your daughter. Feel for that family
I'm surprised that so many people are very unwilling to give second chances. I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt and forgive once, but Shai will be on very thin ice now.
I agree, second chances are important. That's what JUCOs are for.
That's not exactly a second chance.
In NJ, this would not have not even been a crime. Unfortunately, Virginia has some of the most stringent laws in the entire country. This girl could have shown him a fake id and it wouldn't have mattered, as false statements or articles by the "victim" can not be used in the defendant's defense. These laws ruin the lives of the offenders (most of the time, unaware of the true age of the "victim"). I am willing to bet the whole court scenario, with the parents (likely painful as well due to the constant reminder of what occurred) involved is more mentally damaging to the "victim", than having sexual relations with these kids.
In today's world these 3 just got branded with the scarlet letter. For at least the next 15 years(they will be in their mid 30's) they will have to register as sex offenders, have trouble finding employment, have trouble maintaining long lasting relationships, and will be likely stuck to the confines of VA at least until their review to be removed from the registry. Luckily, Shai was above the 15 or older mark, or he would have to register as sex offender for the rest of his life. I believe the only state in union you have to register as murderer is Virginia. If stabbed this girl with a knife instead of his junk, he would have been better off.
I know a lot of you are getting all "what a scumbag" on him but honestly look at the situation with out being all sensitive to the issue. In a lot states this wouldn't constitute a crime. When he is finally able to apply to be removed the Sex Offenders list which is searchable by anyone, he will be 34 and the "victim" will be 30 years old. Did he rob anyone, no. Did he physically hurt anyone, no. Will this flood the system with more people that are no threat, which inhibits the ability of law enforcement to watch over the real threats(rapists, child molesters, etc.), 100% yes.
He will now have to register as a sex offender everywhere he goes if its generally longer than 72 hours, he will have to register. So, if he goes to a bowl game, say in Florida, he will have his picture taken and it will be displayed on a family watchdog website, searchable online by anyone.
So, really does he need to be bagged on. By any means this is his last chance of success for a quite a long time. I am grateful, the football team is not bailing on him.
Scroll up; he does not have to register as a sex offender.
sorry missed that, while on my rant
Um, no. That's not true.
The only state I can find any evidence of a "murderer registry" is Illinois.
I really appreciate that you actually Googled "murder registry."
I wanted to know what I was signing up for.
Oh, wait...I mean...I thought you said something else...agh....murder mystery...yeah, that's it! A party...
So, did it occur to you that, on Monday night, on national TV, against National Champion Ohio State, the commentators, sideline reporters, and everyone else will be boldly announcing that a VT running back is now reinstated to the team despite being convicted of improper behavior with a minor. I say get rid of him.
Alright I'm sorry, but I could not really care less what the media wants to spew at us. If the powers that be have decided that he's getting his just punishment, I choose to accept that and let the young man continue to live his life. He made a mistake and is going to pay a price that, from what I can tell, everyone but football fans seems to accept.
Screw what the media decides to spin on gameday. We listen to those hacks too much as it is.
I suspect that, even if he is reinstated, and is healthy by opening night, Shai will likely be suspsended for the first couple games and will not be on the field. And the broadcast crew will be too busy sniffing Urban's jock and carrying on about the special teams greatness of Beamerball (despite the fact that it's been sadly missing for several years now) to even notice.
Furthermore, if it was indeed an honest mistake and Shai was led to believe that she was of age (not just that she looked older and he didn't bother to ask), then he deserves a second chance and giving it to him is the right thing to do regardless of what the talking heads have to say about it.
This plus backfield depth is why French stated he likely will redshirt. These things work together in this case for the better of him and VT.
I agree the discipline should be more harsh here, but there seems to be justification opinion for it because it is the law. There is what he did, and then there is the law with regard to age of consent.
Let's just keep in mind that there is a fairly strong chance many on here, and potentially sons and daughters, have/will violate this law at some point. Someone under the age of 18 cannot consent, well there are a whole lot of high schoolers committing crimes everyday for violating this law, sometimes by months difference in age. There are freshman in college dating someone just about to turn 18, that may well be in long term relationships violating the law.
I think he should be more harshly punished by VT given (i) his age and (ii) her age, regardless of what a judge decides.
age of consent varies by state, for the majority (34 states) it is 16. minimum age of victim also varies by state , as well as the age differential between defendant and victim.
In 27 states, statutes specify the age below which an individual cannot legally engage in sexual intercourse regardless of the age of the defendant. The minimum age requirements in these states range from 10 to 16 years of age. The legality of sexual intercourse with an individual who is above the minimum age requirement and below the age of consent is dependent on the difference in ages between the two parties and/or the age of the defendant.
so there are a few states where this was not a crime at all and states where even though it is a crime, it would not be prosecuted because of the age of the defendant.
should they know the law if they are going to have sex? yes. should one go to jail for having consensual sex as a first time offense? to me that's the State of Virginia sitting on its high horse
if I'm VT (and maybe they do this...they didn't when I was at VT), I'm telling all new students that the laws re: sex are likely to be different in the State of Virginia than their home state, and giving them a copy of the state statute.
Lots of judgin in this thread and few facts to speak of.
This. People are surprisingly quick to be willing to throw away a kid's future based on very little information.
A quick Google check informed me that it is legal, with varying degrees of permission required, for girls as young as 13 (New Hampshire) to marry. I don't believe this is a good thing, but it just shows how differently age is viewed in the whole morass of teen sexuality, depending on various circumstances and locations. My brother's wife is 16 years his junior, my next door neighbor's wife is 15 years younger than him. Yes, consenting adults, I'm happy for them all, much different than minors, but an 18 year old isn't much more than a minor and it seems that total banishment in a case like this might not be the fairest approach, but that's just my opinion. Again, please understand, I am not condoning what happened, just trying to figure out how outraged to be about this particular incident. I am tempted to blame the girl's parents at least as much as Shai, though.
And herein lies another issue I have with the thought process where "the law is the law and that's all I care about, period"
Do people think there's some sort of revelation that makes people smarter/more responsible on their 18th birthday? In this case, the offenders are still kids, and we know that kids make mistakes. Yeah they broke a law, whether they were aware of that at the time or not... but it's not black and white here.
This seems like a good place to insert the source of my avatar
Lease
That last panel is actually how I met my girlfriend.
wow...this raises a whole lot more questions than it answers...
+1 for formatting (not that you wouldn't get one for xkcd anyway...)
He's serving 15 days for having sex with a 15 year old. Those are all the facts I need.
Where does it say she was 15? It only says she was at least 15, right?
Ahh, to be so certain in a totally clear black and white world. Wish it were so easy for me.
This is not Tallahassee. I do not want our schools ethics to be defined by this. I would rather give away a national title.
I hope the kid has something that would make it less worse than it is, but I haven't seen anything. This is just upsetting to someone who is so proud to go to this school.
I upvoted this, but I also disagree with this. Let me make the point that what Shai did is wrong in every sense. There is no right or excuse. However, I think what you see in both the school's and court's decisions is that while wrong there are extenuating circumstances that mitigate that wrong from being a VERY WRONG to just a wrong. Shades of extremely dark gray perhaps but having been a part of several court cases that involve worse situations let me say there are a lot of issues that come up in them that make a wrong less grevious, yet still wrong.
In Shai's case, I will trust the school and court that what they decided is correct, and based on that I see no reason why he shouldn't be given a second chance, albeit on an extremely thin rope.
Yeah, the outcome of these cases vary wildly for everyone. With how extremely strict Virginia is with this kind of thing it really comes down to the judge and jury. One set could have tossed him in the slammer for years while another would do this. People have become way to quick to demand rolling heads in the past few years without knowing 1/10th of what is going on.
It would help if people got away from the fuzzy concepts of wrong or very wrong or kinda wrong and just say misdemeanor. That doesn't address wrongness (laws seldom deal strictly with right or wrong) but it does express how the state views the severity of the issue, and keeps us from confusing it with things like statutory rape, etc. And it also places it in the context of the CAP, which guides how VT deals with it.
I know I wouldn't give up a National Title.
If this were Tallahassee, Shai's name wouldn't even be mentioned at all in any news reports, but we'd know the girl's name, age, DOB, home phone number, cell phone number, SSN, bank account number, grandmother's maiden name, favorite color, and Facebook password.
This is one of those extremely sensitive situations where you need to trust the university & coach that you love, hope the justice system got it right, make awkward eye contact with everyone that's posted thus far, & shut the hell up.
I am fine with him back on the team for a second shot as long as and only after he serves his punishment handed down by the judicial system, school, then any team punishments.
Serious question - if a guy is 18 and is dating a girl who is 17, does this whole "scumbag" scenario still apply? Or are we taking the 15-17 window and only viewing it from the 15 age?
X/2+7 where X is dude or ladies age seems to work fairly well. That being said it's still not perfect. People mature at different rates both physically and emotionally.
I think you meant to say X/2+7
by your formula, a 16 year old would work with a 1 year old instead of a 15 year old...
Whoops, you're right that's a typo, unfortunately my 8th grade band teacher would disagree...
eewwwwww
Over or under a bazillion times announcers during games this year bring up Shai serving 15 days in jail?....
If he redshirts, I'll take the under.
If he gets suspended for a couple of games, I'll take the over, and augment with a guess that someone will try to say "VT is without their leading/best RB due to criminal activity..."
If he plays with no suspension, also take the over.
im going to say 0. Announcers will say he got in trouble in the off season wiht legal issues but they were not major so he is back. Same as they do with the other 150 players who get arrested for something each season but still play on their school's team
The way under. Announcers rarely if ever would mention any type of issue with that degree of specificity.
Secondly, this thing is really not in the radar of anyone but VT fans. It's a bad situation for the guy, but I don't necessarily see a young man that was lied to by a younger female and ended up having consensual sex with her as some kind of predator or monster.
Yall are doing it wrong if as freshmen in college you were carding girls. If a girl tells you she is legal and looks like she is legal how many of you would ask to see identification?
This thread is just an arguing point for folks with different views. Some see the age of 18 as a magical barrier and others don't. It is what it is. I'm going to avoid the thread from here on out.
http://www.richmond.com/sports/college/schools/virginia-tech/article_91b...
Bad headline for VT, but there are some interesting comments from Jimmy Turk in the Shai case:
I'm going to trust the coaches on this one. Like people above have said, we don't know all the details. We weren't in that house that night and we didn't sit in on the court hearing. I have enough respect for Frank, Whit, and Co. that they feel like he has been justly punished, and if they feel that he is still deserving of a chance to play for Virginia Tech, then so be it. I hope the kid can get his life straightened out, I hope he can make a positive impact on the team over the next few years, and I hope that it turns out that the Administration made the right decision and showed their true integrity by re-instating Shai.
Well. Nobody's Shai-ing away from speaking their minds here.
.... I'm disappointed in us as a community that it's taken us this long for that pun
Ever since he was a recruit, his name has reminded me of the SNL Digital Shorts:
For anyone interested he will do house arrest instead of incarceration. Apparently started last Monday
Article Shai
Not the worst thing in the world that could happen. He's basically grounded with ps3/4 privileges and all his food has to be brought to him
Unless he finds himself in a disturbia type situation.
Beats a summer job.
From what I understand, the suspension has been lifted and he's practicing with the team today
Heard the same from a co-worker who is in the know.
#marinades
100% correct he was out there today..
Fantastic news.
was he in a "no/limited contact" jersey or was he going full speed?
So now that this situation seems to be settled and everybody can hopefully move on, I guess we can ask the question about whether Shai plays or redshirts this year?
#SAUCES
Holland Fisher has asked to leave the program... coaches trying to sway him back
#SAUCES
Hokie#s?
not hokie688989768596 but from another person I know.. is hokie 75897678769 reporting the same thing?
Yes
ohh this is good... i'll text my Sauce back and see where he saw it. he's normally not one to take that hokie #'s stuff for reals
I'm just wondering cause I don't see this anywhere right now, and its especially curious considering he's listed on the Roster, which was just updated today.
ok, so nobody credible so far
got it
SAUCE says he has asked to transfer..however Vt coaches are trying to convince him to stay..
Could he play that rover position???? I know he was a safety in HS what about Fork Union?
he played more LB in HS. Camped mostly as a safety and played a bit of both DB and OLB at Fork Union if I recall correctly.
Bottom line is a lot of his ratings / hype came from camp and from his measurables, not actual game film...
So, I guess with a corroborating story, a somewhat credible rumor from a non-credible person?
weird.. Fisher was backup in Spring sooo where did Fisher go, he definitely could be on his way out. Shog was listed at backup rover..
Reading the tweets by all the reporters covering the practice and there are a lot of new names. I'm flipping between twitter and the roster trying to figure out who they all are.
Really hoping Vandyke can stay healthy this year.
I believe in the report we got from one of the Hokie Club events, Foster had said that Shegog had outgrown the safety positions and would probably move to Whip.
I feel like he should've been suspended for longer. Mike Imoh got 3 games for virtually the same thing in 2004, so suspending him for the first 3-4 games wouldn't have been excessive by any means.
That being said, I still kind of hope he redshirts this year to get his head and ACL right.
doing the 50 hours of community service in 3 days could have helped reduce his suspension. Shai met with Frank & Whit yesterday so my guess is that went well
Whit said that since he had the 15 day house arrest, he came down a bit harder than he normally would for a misdemeanor. He felt like being suspended for a big game like OSU sent a message.
I believe Mike Imoh had a very similar punishment in terms of house arrest and missed 3 games because of it. And we opened with USC that year.
Anyway, just my opinion. Not saying I'll drop support for the team or anything over it.
Different times, different outcomes. Imoh's suspension was before the 2007 standards of conduct that Weaver and Beamer put in place. They were probably trying to send a really strong message back then, because disciplinary and legal problems were more frequent. VT was starting to get a bad rep, so the hammer would come down harder. I can see, in terms of program precedent, where the two might rightfully be connected, but we're in different times and it sounds like there are a lot of mitigating circumstances in Shai's case.
#Marinades are saying that he's suspended for the OSU game
And by that I obviously mean the article Andy Bitter just posted.
Doh.