So What Have We Learned from the MCW Incident?

[Col. Bleep]

MCW isn’t quite the great kid some of us (myself included) thought he was.

Jim Boeheim cares only about basketball.

As long as MCW doesn’t face criminal charges and the issue appears resolved, then he’s willing to look the other way. Not his problem.


SU won’t lie to support a star athlete.
The “no comment” Waters initially reported (even with horrific sourcing) was a good indication that something negative and something serious had occurred.

You can't cover up anything anymore.
Allegations circulate as fast as people can hit the post/forward/retweet keys.

Some people here don’t realize that THIS FORUM is part of the news media.

News professionals can’t ignore serious web allegations – even when there’s little primary support for them.

Mike Waters’ reporting ranges from weak (writing and sourcing in first MCW article) to pretty good (he finally dug up the story).

Lord & Taylor will take a payoff to make trouble go away.
Its policy of "fining" would-be shoplifters is pretty close to extortion.

The value of attending Georgetown may not be very much (I guess we already knew that).
It appears Michael Graham now works as a security guard at Lord & Taylor.

 

[Solitude]

That was hardly a payoff considering it was the store's regular policy.

 

[mark79]

I still think he is a great kid who made a foolish mistake. IMO that doesn't mean he's not a great kid. Even great kids make mistakes sometimes.

 

[dasher]

That was hardly a payoff considering it was the store's regular policy.

I don't care if it is store policy. It is 100% a shakedown. A shop lifter is a criminal that society has a right to see punished. At least his day in court. Under their guidelines, a repeated shop lifter can go before a judge and claim to be a first time offender. That is not right. We always knew that JB only cares about basketball.

 

[Cuseregular]

as usual like every other programs supporters we have way too many sycophantic star gazing apologists at all levels of posterdom who think its ok for this type behavior to occur and he's still a "good kid". And they think he doesn't need any further punishment for these acts continuing to enable the kids of todays me first society. In fact in the thread deleted the other night where someone offered an explanation for how it supposedly all happened the majority of posters agreed that they'd too take the stuff for free as well. Nice. And we wonder why society has issues.

So he stole things (he's nearly 20 not 12 folks which suggests to me he's done this before finally getting caught), he lied about it to his coach, his mother, probably his peers amongst others, and some want us to forget it right away cuz he's a good kid who made a mistake. Oy ve. Call me old fashioned, stealing isn't a good thing and some sort of punishment (game or two, not draconian) need be done. This isn't the pros, it's college where the educational mission is still primary and values, ethics and morals need still need be preached and teached.

Like I said nothing draconian or overly severe, a meaningless game or something, but for Gods sake take this rare golden opportunity to send a minor message of what's right and wrong.

 

[dollarbill44]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I guess not all of us can know what's inside other people's hearts, while some of you on here can.

 

[pfister1]

2 things

- very few, if any of us here, know these kids well enough to know if they are or are not good kids. I always get a chuckle out of those posts. More accurately, they seem like good kids until they don't any more.

- I find it hard to believe that so many of you went to college, were in the service or did whatever you did from the age of about 17 - 22 and didn't do things (caught or not) that if laid out in the press for all to see wouldn't be a huge embarassment to your family, employer whomever.... is that the standard we want to judge people by?

Seems like the world should be a much better place if we were all as "good" as we seem to think we are.

Kids, and make no mistake, this age group are kids in a heckuva lot of respects including having the life experience to know that just because you can get away with something that might be wrong, doesn't make it less wrong.

 

[billsin01]

I still think he is a great kid who made a foolish mistake. IMO that doesn't mean he's not a great kid. Even great kids make mistakes sometimes.

Yeah, I think the problem comes when people try to call them "great kids" or "bad kids." They're people. I tend to be a little skeptical of athletes simply b/c everyone is always telling them how great they are, but ultimately none of us know.

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

Some people identify so closely with the University and its student athletes that they seem to think any failing therein is like admitting a failure of their own. It's ok to say one of our gang did wrong, just like its ok to say Jim Boeheim might make mistakes every so often..

 

[billsin01]

I don't care if it is store policy. It is 100% a shakedown. A shop lifter is a criminal that society has a right to see punished. At least his day in court. Under their guidelines, a repeated shop lifter can go before a judge and claim to be a first time offender. That is not right. We always knew that JB only cares about basketball.

What do you suggest the store do? Go through a court and police every time they catch a shoplifter. That's fine in theory and completely absurd in practice.

 

[billsin01]

2 things

- very few, if any of us here, know these kids well enough to know if they are or are not good kids. I always get a chuckle out of those posts. More accurately, they seem like good kids until they don't any more.

- I find it hard to believe that so many of you went to college, were in the service or did whatever you did from the age of about 17 - 22 and didn't do things (caught or not) that if laid out in the press for all to see wouldn't be a huge embarassment to your family, employer whomever.... is that the standard we want to judge people by?

Seems like the world should be a much better place if we were all as "good" as we seem to think we are.

Kids, and make no mistake, this age group are kids in a heckuva lot of respects including having the life experience to know that just because you can get away with something that might be wrong, doesn't make it less wrong.

Agree with all of this. My only point is that I don't think a suspension would be a bad thing b/c it drives home an important point for MCW going forward for the next 15-20 years. That lesson is this: MCW doing something is far different from Joe Blow doing something -- you're a public figure and your primary objective is not to blow a really bright future. You have to be extra careful and thoughtful with your actions. It's not fair, but it's life.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

MCW isn’t quite the great kid some of us (myself included) thought he was.

Jim Boeheim cares only about basketball.

As long as MCW doesn’t face criminal charges and the issue appears resolved, then he’s willing to look the other way. Not his problem.


SU won’t lie to support a star athlete.
The “no comment” Waters initially reported (even with horrific sourcing) was a good indication that something negative and something serious had occurred.

You can't cover up anything anymore.
Allegations circulate as fast as people can hit the post/forward/retweet keys.

Some people here don’t realize that THIS FORUM is part of the news media.

News professionals can’t ignore serious web allegations – even when there’s little primary support for them.

Mike Waters’ reporting ranges from weak (writing and sourcing in first MCW article) to pretty good (he finally dug up the story).

Lord & Taylor will take a payoff to make trouble go away.
Its policy of "fining" would-be shoplifters is pretty close to extortion.

The value of attending Georgetown may not be very much (I guess we already knew that).
It appears Michael Graham now works as a security guard at Lord & Taylor.

Dude, the civil penalty that L&T took is a statute. It's provided for BY LAW.

 

[pearl31]

MCW isn’t quite the great kid some of us (myself included) thought he was.

Jim Boeheim cares only about basketball.

As long as MCW doesn’t face criminal charges and the issue appears resolved, then he’s willing to look the other way. Not his problem.


SU won’t lie to support a star athlete.
The “no comment” Waters initially reported (even with horrific sourcing) was a good indication that something negative and something serious had occurred.

You can't cover up anything anymore.
Allegations circulate as fast as people can hit the post/forward/retweet keys.

Some people here don’t realize that THIS FORUM is part of the news media.

News professionals can’t ignore serious web allegations – even when there’s little primary support for them.

Mike Waters’ reporting ranges from weak (writing and sourcing in first MCW article) to pretty good (he finally dug up the story).

Lord & Taylor will take a payoff to make trouble go away.
Its policy of "fining" would-be shoplifters is pretty close to extortion.

The value of attending Georgetown may not be very much (I guess we already knew that).
It appears Michael Graham now works as a security guard at Lord & Taylor.

Do you use a ladder or some other means to get on and off that equine creature of yours?

 

[pfister1]

Dude, the civil penalty that L&T took is a statute. It's provided for BY LAW.

Stores actually do have the right to pursue civil claims for monetary damages against shoplifting defendants, even in cases in which the property was recovered and undamaged. General Obligations Law §11-105 explains thusly:
§ 11-105. Larceny in mercantile establishments. 1. When used in this
section, the term "mercantile establishment" shall mean a place or
vehicle where goods, wares or merchandise are offered for sale or a
place or vehicle from which deliveries of goods, wares or merchandise
are made.
2. When used in this section, the term "larceny" is an act heretofore
defined or known as common law larceny by trespassory taking as defined
in paragraph (a) of subdivision two of section 155.05 of the penal law
committed against the property of a mercantile establishment.
3. When used in this section, the term "emancipated minor" shall mean
a person who was over the age of sixteen at the time of the alleged
larceny and who was no longer a dependent of or in the custody of a
parent or legal guardian.
4. In any proceeding brought under this section the burden of proof
shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.
5. An adult or emancipated minor who commits larceny against the
property of a mercantile establishment shall be civilly liable to the
operator of such establishment in an amount consisting of:
(a) the retail price of the merchandise if not recovered in
merchantable condition up to an amount not to exceed fifteen hundred
dollars; plus
(b) a penalty not to exceed the greater of five times the retail price
of the merchandise or seventy-five dollars; provided, however, that in
no event shall such penalty exceed five hundred dollars.
6. Parents or legal guardians of an unemancipated minor shall be
civilly liable for said minor who commits larceny against the property
of a mercantile establishment to the operator of such establishment in
an amount consisting of:
(a) the retail price of the merchandise if not recovered in
merchantable condition up to an amount not to exceed fifteen hundred
dollars; plus
(b) a penalty not to exceed the greater of five times the retail price
of the merchandise or seventy-five dollars; provided, however, that in
no event shall such penalty exceed five hundred dollars.
7. A conviction or a plea of guilty for committing larceny is not a
prerequisite to the bringing of a civil suit, obtaining a judgment, or
collecting that judgment under this section.
8. The fact that an operator of a mercantile establishment may bring
an action against an individual as provided in this section shall not
limit the right of such merchant to demand, orally or in writing, that a
person who is liable for damages and penalties under this section remit
the damages and penalties prior to the commencement of any legal action.
9. In any action brought under subdivision six of this section, the
court shall consider in the interest of justice mitigating circumstances
that bear directly upon the actions of the parent or legal guardian in
supervising the unemancipated minor who committed the larceny.
10. An action for recovery of damages and penalties under this section
may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction.
11. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit
or limit any other cause of action which an operator of a mercantile
establishment may have against a person who unlawfully takes merchandise
from the mercantile establishment.
12. Any testimony or statements of the defendant or unemancipated
minor child of the defendant or any evidence derived from an attempt to
reach a civil settlement or from a civil proceeding brought under this
section shall be inadmissible in any other court proceeding relating to
such larceny.
As explained above, even in cases in which the merchandise is recovered (which is usually the case for people arrested for shoplifting), the store can demand either five times the value of the stolen merchandise (up to $500), or $75. Sometimes the civil penalties can be reduced through negotiation, or an arrested person can ignore the demand and risk being sued in civil court.

 

[cto]

I'm not seeking answers to this this question here, but I wonder how many of you... before the age of 21 ... ever did anything illegal, unlawful or dishonest. This would include, but not be limited to: underage drinking, cheating on a test or a homework assignment, using illegal drugs, speeding, violations of "junior license" restrictions (or whatever they are called today), violation of other vehicle laws, trespassing, non-consentual sex, public intoxication, disorderly conduct, and, yes, shoplifting.

I was a pretty geeky kid (and female, to boot), but I plead guilty to at least six of the above. And I've known many kids who've had charges (marijuana possession/growing, shoplifting, etc) removed from their records after six months of good behavior -- allowing them to go on to become lawyers, doctors, etc (professions that would have been difficult if they had criminal records).

Now, I ask, how many kids who are NOT public figures get detained for shoplifting at a mall, pay their "penalty" (I think "fine" is a misleading term), and move on --- without anyone else knowing about it? Many, according to a mall executive I know. Maybe some are children of your friends.

Did MCW do something wrong? Absolutely. Has he paid for it (both monetarily and in terms of public embarrassment)? Absolutely. But assuming it is a pattern (and there is no reason to believe it is), I think some here are being a bit "too holier than thou."

 

[billsin01]

non-consentual sex with someone under the age of 18 ..

Was this a typo? I only ask b/c I hope not that many of us here raped a minor.

Now, I ask, how many kids who are NOT public figures get detained for shoplifting at a mall, pay their "penalty" (I think "fine" is a misleading term), and move on --- without anyone else knowing about it? Many, according to a mall executive I know. Maybe some are children of your friends.

I think where you and I differ is on this basic point -- MCW isn't you or me. He plays by different rules. Some are to his benefit (he doesn't have to be nice, he probably has no trouble picking up women, he'll be swimming in cash for the fact that he's tall and can dribble, he may never have an actual job, he gets a free education if he actually cares to pursue it ...). Some aren't -- if he f's up, it becomes a big deal even if it's something that's blown way out of proportion. That's where I feel MCW is better off having a coach say, "Dude, it's not the end of the world but you've got to really think about what you're doing now and b/c this is so public there needs to be some sort of suspension."

I don't know. What I do know is that a suspension works best for everyone involved -- MCW sits out a game, does a shift at a soup kitchen (and SU sends out a press release about it), he comes back and talks about how much he's grown and how the time away from the court really made him think about how he took things for granted and how he now wants to be a better leader, blah, blah, blah ... JB looks like he actually cares a little bit about his players off-court behavior, the university can brag about how it's not like those terrible other universities that would look the other way and the media eats up the "learned from his mistakes" storyline. Oh yeah, and we beat the hell out of canisius with or without him.

I don't know. Total no-branier IMO.

 

[netman99]

i can honestly say i never shoplifted

i am curious as to why mike posted this story. was he forced too by his management or did so by choice? of course it is newsworthy, but just once it would be nice if the media treated these 18 year old celebrities as just normal 18 years and did not cause a national embarrassement for a something a normal 18 year old would not have to endure... MCW will now be viewed by many as not such a great kid as already stated by a few posts here... I am also curious how this will affect Mike's relationship with coach B and MCW.. It is surely Mike's right to write about whatever he chooses. It is also JB and MCWs right to grant interviews with whomever they wish too...

 

[orangecuse]

I still think he is a great kid who made a foolish mistake. IMO that doesn't mean he's not a great kid. Even great kids make mistakes sometimes.

Indeed it was a mistake, and, likely a mistake he has made before and just hadn't been caught. He is 21...shoplifting is a behaviorial trait/motivation.

 

[orangefan13]

Always put yourself in your neighbors shoes. Thats what Jesus meant by "love your neighbor as yourself" one of the only 2 commandments. If we all did it there would be world peace.

It takes good kids a while to learn that sometimes. What Mike did was selfish, but thets move on.

 

[Orangetradition44]

Mcw isn't 6'5"? Bout all I learned.

 

[retro44]

I really doubt this was a first time event for MCW

 

[OrangeHeel]

The proper punishment for MCW -- and there should be some -- I'll leave to greater minds then mine. But, a couple comments:

As a prosecutor, I hate that civil penalty statute. It was meant to help stores recoup their costs of security. In practice, it smacks of a way to buy your way out of a crime or to coerce money out of someone who might be innocent.

Also, as my job involves reading both the major & the more arcane sections of the Penal Law, I would be willing to bet a significant sum that every single one of us has at least once been in technical violation of some section. Christ, even Jesus committed criminal mischief in the temple when he cleared out the den of thieves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Room 914]

My sister worked at Lord and Taylor. For first time offenders it's a common thing. They get the merchandise back, +$500. Solid business strategy.

And to the first poster, you gotta hop off the high horse. Kid made a mistake. Like CTO said, he's a young kid. Under age drinking is a crime, should MCW be suspended if he has a beer. People are going way to hard on this.

 

[tbonezone]

i'd just like to hear the "kid" own up to what he did and admit it was wrong. haven't heard that yet. that's what "men" do.

 

[orangefan13]

I have learned how much I am going to miss MCW's next year. Even with Ennis! MCW is freaking Awesome!!!