Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

The Blade reports today that "Former BGSU basketball player Germain Fitch pleaded no contest and was found guilty in BG Municipal Court of possession of marijuana. ...ordered to pay a $150 fine, and his driver's license was suspended for six months...charges of a marked-lane violation and having no operator's license were dismissed. J.D. Campbell said Mr. Fitch had 'not been involved in any basketball-related activities since the arrest.'"

Two things I would point out. First, the headline on this blurb is "Ex-BGSU player fined after plea in drug case". So in the headline they use "ex-player" and the story starts off with "Former" player, yet when they quote the assistant AD, he only says that Fitch is not doing anything with the team, but did not say he is off the team. I don't know what his status is with the team, but it seems the Blade's reporting of his status is contradictory since no official with BG has actually said Fitch is gone, have they?

Second issue. If I remember the incident correctly, Fitch was stopped because he was swerving and crossing the center lane. So, the marked-lane violation was the basis for him to be stopped and subsequently searched. I am defintely no lawyer, but it doesn't seem right that that charge would be dropped yet the subsequent charges stick. Do you follow me on that? Like, if he isn't guilty of the marked-lane violation, then why was he stopped? How can he be stopped if we wasn't guilty of anything? Just a philosophical lawyer question, I guess. :shrug:

You don't have to be guilty to be stopped for something, This is evident in the Phone in laws, that allow some one to be pulled over if there has been calls to police to report suspected drunk driving. That would be the cause of being pulled over, but then say you weren't wearing your seat belt, a crime discovered after the initial stopping you could be charged with that, even if a DUI didn't stick. Basically you just need a reason to pull someone over. Police don't and can't proove guilt at the time of arrest/citation, courts decide guilt. If you are charged with several crimes, prosecutors can decide which one to pursue. I believe this is what the dismissed charges mean, not that he was innocent of them, but that they didn't pursue it. It states nothing of guilt or innocence

PGY Tiercel wrote:You don't have to be guilty to be stopped for something, This is evident in the Phone in laws, that allow some one to be pulled over if there has been calls to police to report suspected drunk driving. That would be the cause of being pulled over, but then say you weren't wearing your seat belt, a crime discovered after the initial stopping you could be charged with that, even if a DUI didn't stick. Basically you just need a reason to pull someone over. Police don't and can't proove guilt at the time of arrest/citation, courts decide guilt. If you are charged with several crimes, prosecutors can decide which one to pursue. I believe this is what the dismissed charges mean, not that he was innocent of them, but that they didn't pursue it. It states nothing of guilt or innocence

Sounds like a man with some experience!

I think it's pretty routine to drop the lesser charges when one is pleading guilty or no contest to a greater offense.

If I heard the news story on the radio this morning correctly, I believe Germain lost his liscense for 6 months.

Warthog wrote:I don't know what his status is with the team

I saw Fitch on campus the other day and he had some facial hair growing. Knowing how DD is with rules, I'd have to say that's good enough reason to say he's off the team.