This is probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on this board.
Cornell Mann arrested for OWI in Dayton, OH Tuesday
- Thread starter IcSyU
- Start date
This is probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on this board.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
I think he has a good argument. Mann is purely lucky that he only hit that pole and didn't endanger somebody else. Therefore, there is a huge component of luck right there.
Driving with a .10 BAC isn't really that impaired. .17? Yeah, that's pretty drunk, and obviously he DID lose control and WAS doing something dangerous, and will deserve whatever punishment the State of Ohio dishes out.
But the assertion (and the quote I posted was insinuating this) that once you cross .08 you turn into an automatic death machine is emotional, reactionary, and unrealistic.
And yes, my cousin was killed by a drunk driver in 1992. However, this hasn't caused me to ignore reality and form a frothing at the mouth emotional take on the issue.
In this case, sure. But equating all OWI's to "getting lucky that it wasn't manslaughter" is ridiculous. OWIs are as like the sex offender list. If somebody gets one you know they made a mistake, but you have no idea if it was something like an 18 year old who slept with his 17 year old GF (or blowing a 0.09 at a checkpoint despite not being at all impared) or more along the lines of going on a rampage of rape and molestation (passing out behind the wheel and blowing like a .4 after crashing into a fence).
.17 and crashing in to a telephone pile isn't at either extreme, but is a lot more than a slight lapse in judgement.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Who said automatic death machine? Saying that he is lucky no one got in his way doesn't equate to automatic death machine.
I don't know a single person killed or injured by a drunk driver. I simply don't respect a grown man that makes that decision. This idiot should know better. He signed up to be paid to know better, and he simply doesn't.
He does not deserve to be in a leadership position where coaches sell building character to parents, which is always mentioned as part of the recruiting sales process. This guy doesn't have a right to respect, he had a chance to earn it. He chose instead to make a blatantly stupid, dangerous decision.
He absolutely needs to be fired.
The dude I originally quoted, not you.
I think this was stupid and easily avoidable. However, its a single mistake. Not a pattern of poor behavior. No one is perfect, and if he doesn't do again, it'll be safed to say he learned his lesson. If he does it again, then look into firing him.
I certainly don't think driving drunk is Ok. I think, if found guilty, he should suffer whatever legal ramificiations the state of Ohio deems necessary as punishment for his crime. That doesn't mean I think he should lose his job on top of the legal punishments.
I guess I have just never understood the mentality that some posters have: that if you are guilty of a crime, you should be punished in all aspects of your life (employment, college, basketball career, etc) on top of the legal punishments. I also think it is quite counterproductive for every athlete/coach arrested of a crime to have their college/coaching career taken away.
To be clear, in the sentence you quoted I was not talking about Mann (I said I care if he is fired or not, that's Hoiberg's choice to make with more info than I have), I was talking getting out pitchforks and torches for posters like this:
and this:
Last edited:
Gotcha. I guess I come in on the middle ground; I think the legal punishments are appropriate for the crime (and they are really quite extensive, once you factor everything in), but I disagree with the posters who believe the punishment for the crime should extend beyond the legal ramificataions to firing from one's job, kicking players off the team, etc.
I think that is all up to the coach and administrators. They need to judge whether this will impede his ability to do his job, whether he is sincere in remorse, and whether he has a systemic issue or this is a one time thing.
There are certainly cases where it warrants action beyond the legal system. I (and no one else here either, really) don't have the information necessary to judge that in this case.
I think Fred should be fired. What kind of person hires someone who would do this and not fire him immediatley. Also, he did not let go of Railey after his DUI and is still on the team after his latest incident. Furthermore, he brought recruits onto the team who have done things like steel laptops, get a DUI, and gotten kicked off their previous teams. He must seriously be lacking any maturity or intelligence.
Last edited:
It would be a better argument if he said "drunk driving and manslaughter" instead of OWI and manslaughter.
I can get an OWI at a .08. And I can assure you that I'm not a danger to anyone at a .08. I can be sitting in church at a .08 and no one would have any idea.
Cops need to rely more on the sobriety test and less on their little breathalyzer.
A static number like that assumes that we are all the same. And we most certainly are not.
I hope this is sarcastic. In years and years of following ISU athletics, I have never seen one single coach kick a player off the team for first offence OWI. Not once, and their have been dozens and dozens of athletes from all different sports charged with the crime. But your probably being sarcastic, and if so I agree with your sarcasm.
Frankly, you could completely subtract driving from any part of his job, and I would still say you would be hard pressed to argue that this incident isn't directly related to his job. Really, anyone whose job directly involves working with minors should think that this situation is directly related. Add the fact that he's part of the entirety of a staff/program that will dole out punishment in the form of suspensions for the exact same thing. Add that at least incidentally his job involves keeping student athletes out of trouble . . . I'm not talking about what attorney-speak language may or may not be in a formal written contract. That can never cover everything (though attorneys certainly try sometimes). Part of the job of public employees whose job includes working directly with minors is to NOT be a NEGATIVE role model. I'm not sayin' they have to be a positive role model. But you just can't have a negative role model in that position. Add that he hasn't even been hired for more than a week or 2 and I think there is credibility in an argument that firing him should be considered.
For the record -- I don't think he should automatically be fired. He probably should consider voluntarily resigning in disgrace/shame. I think firing him should at least be a possibility. I know very little facts -- so perhaps something could come out that wouldn't make it seem so bad. At this time, with what little I think I know, I consider it fairly emabarassing to ISU. Though I'm not really sure what that means. "It's complicated". Seems trite, but it's true.
