• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Missoula Independent interviews Gerald Kemp

BWahlberg

Well-known member
DONOR
EDIT: Full article can be found here: http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/the-other-side/Content?oid=1892046" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's some excerpts:

On Oct. 23, 2011, former University of Montana football player Gerald Kemp says that he briefly lost consciousness after a Missoula Police Department officer shot him with a Taser for the second time. The stun gun's barbs landed in the player's sternum, causing him to temporarily blackout before being placed in a police cruiser and arrested.

"It's definitely something that's not easy to forget," says Kemp in his first interview since the police responded to the North Russell Street house party that garnered national headlines and added to nearly two years of investigations surrounding the UM football program.

....

Kemp's friends and family add that the former player is still not wholly recovered from the October 2011 incident. The Independent obtained video footage from the arrest, and one section captures the sound of Kemp weeping while detained in a police cruiser at the scene.

"I didn't touch the cop," Kemp says today, maintaining that he was arrested for no reason.

...

That same footage captures police chastising Johnson for intervening in the arrest. Erbacher yells at Johnson: "That was the dumbest thing you've ever done in your entire life. (Unintelligible) people have served our country right now in the United States Marine Corps. You go play football. ... Maybe you should get out of Montana if that's what you want to do. ... I don't know where you're from. I don't care..."

Police initially charged Kemp and Johnson with obstructing a police officer, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The student-athletes eventually pleaded no contest to misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges.

Assistant Missoula Police Chief Mike Brady says that MPD penalized Erbacher for verbally engaging with Johnson. "It was unprofessional to banter back and forth," he says. The department, however, has maintained that its officers used appropriate force. "We would have been ready to go to trial," Brady says, "had it come to that."

...

Kemp and his family maintain, and the NCAA report acknowledges, that they paid back the bail money. But the NCAA found that allowing a booster to bail out the two student-athletes constituted preferential treatment and, therefore, was a violation.

...

UM cooperated fully with the NCAA's investigation, which troubles O'Day. In light of what witnesses and the Kemp family have told him, in addition to the videos he's seen that were taken during the October 2011 house party, O'Day thinks that UM administrators should have taken a stronger stand in support of its student-athletes.

"The university did not want to fight a battle with the NCAA over what was right—and the right was to tell the real story about why any of these things happened. That was very disappointing to me as a former administrator and equally as important as an alum," O'Day says.

...

Despite the controversy, Gerald Kemp has returned to UM this semester to finish the final two classes required for him to complete a bachelor's degree in organizational communication. The events of the past two years have made returning to Missoula from his California home somewhat daunting, he says. "But I'm ready to face it."
 
Right or wrong, President Obama stood up for what he perceived to be a violation of Trayvon Martin's civil rights. Where was President Engstrom and why did he not stand up for the players civil rights? Suspected of major violations by the NCAA, but agreed to charges amounting to jaywalking...and agreed to "self-imposed sanctions" that did not fit the crime.

I agree with Jim O'Day...where was RE?

The University of Montana deserves better!
 
Sounds like the MPD. I have seen many of events stopped but they always target minorities and talk to them first.
 
What I conclude from the article, among a few other things, is that if you are a booster and you provide services to UM athletes then that is an automatic NCAA violation regardless of the circumstances.
 
It seems as though Kemp may have a legitimate grievance with MPD. I still haven't heard exactly what it was he did to justify getting tazed. However, Pflu still should have notified the NCAA about the bail-out. Any possible misconduct by MPD and the details surrounding the bail are different entities.
 
What I've heard is: dozens of witnesses support most of the story as told by the player--and not the police, including witnesses who didn't know the players. The first policeman hit a button on his chest to signal a cop in distress. He did this prior to the tasering. About a half dozen squad cars were eventually on the scene. One or more white players were more mouthy than the two who were tased. The police/city have not seen or heard all of the video/audio. The tapes don't support this use of force. Some of the police tapes sound like the police were trying to get their stories straight during the incident. Right before the next game, Pres. Engstrom and Jim O'Day were asked to address the team before they came back out of the tunnel after warm ups. They, including Engstrom, assured the team that they supported the players and team's version of what occurred. If the witnesses step up to affirm what they apparently told people and UM right after the incident, the city is likely to be in trouble over this. Besides a lawsuit, I wonder if an organization like the NCAAP would get involved.

I certainly agree with Jim O'Day that the university, including Pres Engstrom and the compliance officer, didn't properly dispute and fight the NCAA. They appear to have thrown coach Pflugrad, Jim O'Day to some extent, and the team under the bus. The compliance officer had a complete conflict of interest of handling the NCAA investigation on behalf of the university. The compliance officer is the person who should have looked into the bail and legal representation matters--not the head football coach. As others have said, the bail and legal representation could have should have been defended harder and better, and the university should not have offered up the penalties it did.
 
tampa_griz said:
It seems as though Kemp may have a legitimate grievance with MPD. I still haven't heard exactly what it was he did to justify getting tazed. However, Pflu still should have notified the NCAA about the bail-out. Any possible misconduct by MPD and the details surrounding the bail are different entities.

Huh? He didn't know the mom was a booster. He didn't know a mom couldn't put up a few hundred dollars at the request of the player's family, who requested it and said they'd repay it (and did within a week). The coach said he made sure none of his coaches had bailed out the players, and then moved on. Where was the compliance officer? Why didn't she looked into this? It's the responsibility of the compliance officer to look into matters like this, not the head coach.
 
Washgrizfan1 said:
tampa_griz said:
It seems as though Kemp may have a legitimate grievance with MPD. I still haven't heard exactly what it was he did to justify getting tazed. However, Pflu still should have notified the NCAA about the bail-out. Any possible misconduct by MPD and the details surrounding the bail are different entities.

Huh? He didn't know the mom was a booster. He didn't know a mom couldn't put up a few hundred dollars at the request of the player's family, who requested it and said they'd repay it (and did within a week). The coach said he made sure none of his coaches had bailed out the players, and then moved on. Where was the compliance officer? Why didn't she looked into this? It's the responsibility of the compliance officer to look into matters like this, not the head coach.

I am firmly on Pflu and O'Day's side on this. But, to be fair, wouldn't the logical follow up question by Pflu be, "Okay, if none of the coaches paid it, who did?"
 
Washgrizfan1 said:
tampa_griz said:
It seems as though Kemp may have a legitimate grievance with MPD. I still haven't heard exactly what it was he did to justify getting tazed. However, Pflu still should have notified the NCAA about the bail-out. Any possible misconduct by MPD and the details surrounding the bail are different entities.

Huh? He didn't know the mom was a booster. He didn't know a mom couldn't put up a few hundred dollars at the request of the player's family, who requested it and said they'd repay it (and did within a week). The coach said he made sure none of his coaches had bailed out the players, and then moved on. Where was the compliance officer? Why didn't she looked into this? It's the responsibility of the compliance officer to look into matters like this, not the head coach.

I know it's a weird and convoluted rule that they (Pflu, O'Day, etc.) were probably unaware of initially. But they probably should have done some due diligence shortly after the incident and if there was any confusion notify NCAA. And I'm not saying what they did (or didn't do) was a mortal sin deserving of any real scorn, but they should have known how fickle and unreasonable the NCAA can be and taken steps to circumvent any possible problems.

That's all hindsight of course.
 
People bitch about trial lawyers, but this is exactly why the Cochrans, Kardashians and Shapiros of the world exist. Somebody needs to hold the government (including cops) accountable.
 
grizpack said:
Washgrizfan1 said:
tampa_griz said:
It seems as though Kemp may have a legitimate grievance with MPD. I still haven't heard exactly what it was he did to justify getting tazed. However, Pflu still should have notified the NCAA about the bail-out. Any possible misconduct by MPD and the details surrounding the bail are different entities.

Huh? He didn't know the mom was a booster. He didn't know a mom couldn't put up a few hundred dollars at the request of the player's family, who requested it and said they'd repay it (and did within a week). The coach said he made sure none of his coaches had bailed out the players, and then moved on. Where was the compliance officer? Why didn't she looked into this? It's the responsibility of the compliance officer to look into matters like this, not the head coach.

I am firmly on Pflu and O'Day's side on this. But, to be fair, wouldn't the logical follow up question by Pflu be, "Okay, if none of the coaches paid it, who did?"

Why would that be a question for the head coach to ask? Isn't that the job of the compliance officer? Do you really think that every head coach in the U.S., or for that matter any head coach in the U.S., inquires as to who bailed out players--and then does an investigation of whether the person is a booster? Compliance officers don't even do that most of the time. Why would a head coach?
 
tampa_griz said:
Washgrizfan1 said:
tampa_griz said:
It seems as though Kemp may have a legitimate grievance with MPD. I still haven't heard exactly what it was he did to justify getting tazed. However, Pflu still should have notified the NCAA about the bail-out. Any possible misconduct by MPD and the details surrounding the bail are different entities.

Huh? He didn't know the mom was a booster. He didn't know a mom couldn't put up a few hundred dollars at the request of the player's family, who requested it and said they'd repay it (and did within a week). The coach said he made sure none of his coaches had bailed out the players, and then moved on. Where was the compliance officer? Why didn't she looked into this? It's the responsibility of the compliance officer to look into matters like this, not the head coach.

I know it's a weird and convoluted rule that they (Pflu, O'Day, etc.) were probably unaware of initially. But they probably should have done some due diligence shortly after the incident and if there was any confusion notify NCAA. And I'm not saying what they did (or didn't do) was a mortal sin deserving of any real scorn, but they should have known how fickle and unreasonable the NCAA can be and taken steps to circumvent any possible problems.

That's all hindsight of course.

See response that I just made to another post. It isn't the head coach's job to notify the NCAA. I wonder if a head coach has ever notified the NCAA of anything. Why would a coach think that a mom of another player could not be involved with bailing out another player at the request of that player's family? How is that a special benefit? Do you think the mom honored the request to bail out the player, because she was a booster?

Do you think parents of Montana players, atsay MSU, ever take one of their son's friends out to lunch or dinner? Do you think any family of the local girlfriend of a player ever takes boyfriend out to lunch or dinner? Do you think a MT's players family, who lives out of Missoula, i.e. out of the "vicinity", ever invites their son's out-of-state player-friends over for Thanksgiving and provides them with a home-cooked meal not in the "vicinity"?
 
Washgrizfan1 said:
grizpack said:
Washgrizfan1 said:
tampa_griz said:
It seems as though Kemp may have a legitimate grievance with MPD. I still haven't heard exactly what it was he did to justify getting tazed. However, Pflu still should have notified the NCAA about the bail-out. Any possible misconduct by MPD and the details surrounding the bail are different entities.

Huh? He didn't know the mom was a booster. He didn't know a mom couldn't put up a few hundred dollars at the request of the player's family, who requested it and said they'd repay it (and did within a week). The coach said he made sure none of his coaches had bailed out the players, and then moved on. Where was the compliance officer? Why didn't she looked into this? It's the responsibility of the compliance officer to look into matters like this, not the head coach.

I am firmly on Pflu and O'Day's side on this. But, to be fair, wouldn't the logical follow up question by Pflu be, "Okay, if none of the coaches paid it, who did?"

Why would that be a question for the head coach to ask? Isn't that the job of the compliance officer? Do you really think that every head coach in the U.S., or for that matter any head coach in the U.S., inquires as to who bailed out players--and then does an investigation of whether the person is a booster? Compliance officers don't even do that most of the time. Why would a head coach?

He apparently thought enough about who paid it to ask if it was a coach. Maybe I am the only one who thinks it would be a logical next question.
 
grizpack said:
He apparently thought enough about who paid it to ask if it was a coach. Maybe I am the only one who thinks it would be a logical next question.
And if the answer to that next question was "his attorney" would it then be logical to ask "who his attorney is"? Then ask "is she a booster"? Do all occurrences have to be a game of 20 questions? Seems like a silly thing for an HC to worry about. I agree that the compliance officer must be really good at that game but it seems a lot to expect from the HC..
 
grizpack said:
Washgrizfan1 said:
grizpack said:
Washgrizfan1 said:
Huh? He didn't know the mom was a booster. He didn't know a mom couldn't put up a few hundred dollars at the request of the player's family, who requested it and said they'd repay it (and did within a week). The coach said he made sure none of his coaches had bailed out the players, and then moved on. Where was the compliance officer? Why didn't she looked into this? It's the responsibility of the compliance officer to look into matters like this, not the head coach.

I am firmly on Pflu and O'Day's side on this. But, to be fair, wouldn't the logical follow up question by Pflu be, "Okay, if none of the coaches paid it, who did?"

Why would that be a question for the head coach to ask? Isn't that the job of the compliance officer? Do you really think that every head coach in the U.S., or for that matter any head coach in the U.S., inquires as to who bailed out players--and then does an investigation of whether the person is a booster? Compliance officers don't even do that most of the time. Why would a head coach?

He apparently thought enough about who paid it to ask if it was a coach. Maybe I am the only one who thinks it would be a logical next question.
My guess is he only wanted to know if it was a coach or a university employee, since those are the obvious no-nos. I'd bet if you asked every head football coach in the county if he knew whether a player parent loaning bail money to another player parent that was paid back within a week was an NCAA violation, hardly any would say yes.

Before the report came out, I'd bet 99% of Griz fans would have said the same thing, so I can understand why he didn't take it further.

Is that acceptable? In hindsight, of course not, and it's easy to pile on Pflu, but at the time I don't think anyone with knowledge of the situation would have expected it to come back and haunt UM.
 
I got an email about this, and will add a few things to this.

I support the Kemps and O'day 100% in this. It sure looks like Jim was done wrong by the powers to be if this turns out to be in favor of the Kemps. Jim is 100% correct in his stand on the university not supporting the student athletes accordingly, and caving in. I hope Engstrom is shown the door after this plays out. Also would love to see O'day have a position in the school again.

As for the NCAA, I have a feeling if Kemp's side turns out to be the real truth (which I think is likely), this will sure help change the NCAA for the better.

I also feel this will get the backing of the NCAAP and other interest groups. The quick turnaround on the Manziel case certainly brings more red flags against the NCAA.

I'm not sure how long it will take, but have a feeling when all is said and done, the Oday's and Kemps win lawsuits of good portions. The NCAA is revealed as the fools they are. The NCAA punishment to the University is reduced some, but not completely. My best to the Kemps and O'day in whatever they pursue in all this.
 
mtgrizrule said:
I got an email about this, and will add a few things to this.

I support the Kemps and O'day 100% in this. It sure looks like Jim was done wrong by the powers to be if this turns out to be in favor of the Kemps. Jim is 100% correct in his stand on the university not supporting the student athletes accordingly, and caving in. I hope Engstrom is shown the door after this plays out. Also would love to see O'day have a position in the school again.

As for the NCAA, I have a feeling if Kemp's side turns out to be the real truth (which I think is likely), this will sure help change the NCAA for the better.

I also feel this will get the backing of the NCAAP and other interest groups. The quick turnaround on the Manziel case certainly brings more red flags against the NCAA.

I'm not sure how long it will take, but have a feeling when all is said and done, the Oday's and Kemps win lawsuits of good portions. The NCAA is revealed as the fools they are. The NCAA punishment to the University is reduced some, but not completely. My best to the Kemps and O'day in whatever they pursue in all this.


I agree. It is a fact that Engstrom went to O'day as said to kick Gerald and Tru off the team. Another fact is O'day said no we cant do that. We cant just kick off players that are accused of only a misdemeanor especially in a situation like this where the cops most likely were in the wrong.
 
Washgrizfan1 said:
What I've heard is: dozens of witnesses support most of the story as told by the player--and not the police, including witnesses who didn't know the players. The first policeman hit a button on his chest to signal a cop in distress. He did this prior to the tasering. About a half dozen squad cars were eventually on the scene. One or more white players were more mouthy than the two who were tased. The police/city have not seen or heard all of the video/audio. The tapes don't support this use of force. Some of the police tapes sound like the police were trying to get their stories straight during the incident. Right before the next game, Pres. Engstrom and Jim O'Day were asked to address the team before they came back out of the tunnel after warm ups. They, including Engstrom, assured the team that they supported the players and team's version of what occurred. If the witnesses step up to affirm what they apparently told people and UM right after the incident, the city is likely to be in trouble over this. Besides a lawsuit, I wonder if an organization like the NCAAP would get involved.

I certainly agree with Jim O'Day that the university, including Pres Engstrom and the compliance officer, didn't properly dispute and fight the NCAA. They appear to have thrown coach Pflugrad, Jim O'Day to some extent, and the team under the bus. The compliance officer had a complete conflict of interest of handling the NCAA investigation on behalf of the university. The compliance officer is the person who should have looked into the bail and legal representation matters--not the head football coach. As others have said, the bail and legal representation could have should have been defended harder and better, and the university should not have offered up the penalties it did.


Pretty spot on except for the engstrom part. Yes, he did talk to the team. But he offered little to no support for the two players. In fact at this point he was pushing to get those two players removed from the team.
 
Thurman Murman said:
Washgrizfan1 said:
What I've heard is: dozens of witnesses support most of the story as told by the player--and not the police, including witnesses who didn't know the players. The first policeman hit a button on his chest to signal a cop in distress. He did this prior to the tasering. About a half dozen squad cars were eventually on the scene. One or more white players were more mouthy than the two who were tased. The police/city have not seen or heard all of the video/audio. The tapes don't support this use of force. Some of the police tapes sound like the police were trying to get their stories straight during the incident. Right before the next game, Pres. Engstrom and Jim O'Day were asked to address the team before they came back out of the tunnel after warm ups. They, including Engstrom, assured the team that they supported the players and team's version of what occurred. If the witnesses step up to affirm what they apparently told people and UM right after the incident, the city is likely to be in trouble over this. Besides a lawsuit, I wonder if an organization like the NCAAP would get involved.

I certainly agree with Jim O'Day that the university, including Pres Engstrom and the compliance officer, didn't properly dispute and fight the NCAA. They appear to have thrown coach Pflugrad, Jim O'Day to some extent, and the team under the bus. The compliance officer had a complete conflict of interest of handling the NCAA investigation on behalf of the university. The compliance officer is the person who should have looked into the bail and legal representation matters--not the head football coach. As others have said, the bail and legal representation could have should have been defended harder and better, and the university should not have offered up the penalties it did.


Pretty spot on except for the engstrom part. Yes, he did talk to the team. But he offered little to no support for the two players. In fact at this point he was pushing to get those two players removed from the team.

JJ also!
 
mtgrizfankb said:
Sounds like the MPD. I have seen many of events stopped but they always target minorities and talk to them first.

I saw plenty of white guys targeted in the '80's. I see not much has changed. :evil:
 
Back
Top