Wunderkind: Ohio State Student Stripped Of Full Scholarship After Football Stunt

Anthony_WunderOfficials have informed Ohio State student Anthony J. Wunder, 21, that he will be stripped of his full scholarship as a result of his running on to the field in the second quarter of the game between the Buckeyes and the Cincinnati Bearcats. The incident went viral with pictures of assistant Buckeyes coach (and former OSU linebacker) Anthony Schlegel tackling Wunder. It appears that linebackers never truly forget their techniques or training.

6_3122208

Wunder was hauled away by Schlegel and security staff. The mechanical-engineering student is believed to have been inebriated at the time.

He has a rather curious scholarship under the Evans Scholars program for college students who served as golf caddies. I had to check that twice, but that is what is being reported. This scholars programs is for golf caddies? They even live in the “Evans Scholars” house, where Wunder has now moved out from.

A website states

“The Chick Evans Caddie Scholarship is a full tuition and housing college scholarship for golf caddies that is renewable for up to four years. Each year, more than 800 deserving caddies across the country attend college on a four-year scholarship from the Evans Scholars Foundation. Selected applicants must have a strong caddie record, excellent grades, outstanding character and demonstrated financial need.”

Wunder is in his fourth-year student in a five-year engineering program

He faces criminal trespassing, which is a fourth-degree misdemeanor punishable by no more than 30 days in jail. Of course, some faculty have been found to have committed such misdemeanor offenses on campus without serious university discipline.

This stunt will prove costly if Wunder loses both his scholarship and cannot avoid a criminal record, even with a misdemeanor.

Source: Dispatch

84 thoughts on “Wunderkind: Ohio State Student Stripped Of Full Scholarship After Football Stunt”

  1. Paul, this is why the Feds should never have gotten involved in schools. There are too many strings attached to get Federal money. Well, leave it in the states, where it belongs. A 5-year-old boy is charged with sexual harassment? Insane. School officials can no longer use common sense. Look at CO, the inmates (students) are running the asylum (school, board). The parents are trying to correct the problem. And move-on.org is providing materials to students! Students should be charged with truancy. Any book referencing Black Panthers 26 times is unfit for education. Parents want true History taught to their children, not liberal ideas of a perfect world.

  2. Here’s what to do. Student agrees not to file charges for assault by coach. In return school reinstates scholarship, which he won in the first place. The schools in this country, kindergarten to Phd, are run by idiots!

    1. Sand- I think a low score on the GMAT is required before you can run any public school. The larger the school, the lower the score.

  3. Paul, Michigan is the hated rival of Ohio State. HBO did a great documentary on it, titled, The Rivalry. Michigan fans fancy themselves the smarter and classier of the two.

  4. Paul, yeah I understand the student and the venue if any civil action was taken against the coach. πŸ™‚ But for the coach, as you know for a crime to be charged it is his right to be tried in the jurisdiction for which the event took place.

    As to the issue of assault as defined in statute:

    2903.13 Assault.

    (A) No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another’s unborn.

    (B) No person shall recklessly cause serious physical harm to another or to another’s unborn.

    The use of force within the sporting event, listed previously, as you can see does not eliminate criminal liability for actions beyond what is considered reasonable. But does what the coach did amount to guilt of a crime?

    As for physical harm Ohio defines this as:

    2901.01 General provisions definitions.

    (A) As used in the Revised Code:

    (1) “Force” means any violence, compulsion, or constraint physically exerted by any means upon or against a person or thing.

    (2) “Deadly force” means any force that carries a substantial risk that it will proximately result in the death of any person.

    (3) “Physical harm to persons” means any injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its gravity or duration.

    Pointing to Physical harm to persons, an injury is a necessary element of assault being defined. If the student suffered no injury than the statute of assault would not apply and hence a criminal conviction thereof is highly improbable.

    As for Force, in reading the definition above, the coach can use these means if it is reasonable for the purpose of the Use of force on the sports field as defined in the use of force statute for this. Again, it is defined as reasonable force which then applies to a Force Continuum. Obviously punching the student to unconsciousness is not reasonable but reasonableness is influenced by time, place and circumstances.

    The question remains was the coach using reasonable force. From the standpoint of violating the criminal assault law if there was no injury it does not violate the criminal code. There is of course of civil action on behalf of the student, but without an injury it might be a difficult task getting through a summary judgment motion.

    Thanks for the discussion.

    1. Darren – I think the student can clearly make the case he cannot get a fair trial in whereever the hell Ohio State is. πŸ™‚ And I doubt there is a neutral country in the state. Whereever Michigan is would be perfect. πŸ™‚ He is golden.

  5. I think it would be difficult to convince a jury to convict him of excessive force for tackling a college male student the same age as the players playing a tackle football game. Could the coach have acted better, absolutely especially when there were others trying to remove him such as the security person in the black shirt who was just steps away.

    1. Darren – if the kid is smart he is going to ask for a change of venue. I do not know who Ohio State’s rival is, but if he can be tried there, he is free as a bird. πŸ™‚

  6. If the kid wandered onto the field suffering from dementia would everyone feel so good about the actions of macho man? How about a drunk female student?

    1. mespo – changing it to a drunk 100 lb female student would certainly change the dynamics. I think the asst. coach is guilty of assault regardless of the victim. And I think there is a gender bias being used here because young men (and we know this scientifically) are prone to do stupid thing drunk or sober. And those males amongst us who have not done something stupid when you were you raise your hand. Remember you have to be honest about this. πŸ™‚

  7. Mark,

    You are certainly right about the public opinion issue, very much so considering the press attention and such.

  8. Darren:

    “So, I believe this addresses conclusively the coach acted with lawful authority. It’s hard to really argue the force was unreasonable when the game performed at the stadium itself was a football game and tackles are considered reasonable on the grass there.”
    ******************************
    Funny, I didn’t see any protective equipment on that obviously inebriated kid that every other authorized game participant had on to protect them from being hurled to the ground by another participant. Plus I doubt any of the other participants were so obviously stoned so as to render them unable to protect themselves from the takedown. Likewise I doubt the trespasser, who could have just as easily been restrained by the obvious strength of the strength coach, was sufficiently trained in the safety procedures of football such as the proper way to fall to protect himself. You might get away with that legalistic approach to a guy flexing his adult muscles versus a kid, but it won’t pass the smell test in the court of public opinion. Just another meathead playing macho man in this physical mismatch.

  9. Paul, even if the asst. coach was not an agent, which I am certain he was, he is authorized in the Ohio statute to use reasonable force and the ejection because he is a participant in the event as described in the Ohio code.

    1. Darren – I think body slamming a student to the field is not ‘reasonable force,’ Now that is just me and I come from the protests of the ’60s where we went up against the fascist pigs of the “hated” college administration on a daily basis. Darren, I am being to worry about you, have you gone over to the ‘dark side?’ πŸ˜‰

  10. stevegroen obviously never saw the Andy Griffith episode where Gomer arrested Barney, yelling as he did, “Citizen’s arrest, citizen’s arrest.”

  11. Ohio alumni should be calling. This makes their school look bad. Alumni threatening to quit sending money is also effective. “Bad things happen when good men do nothing” (sic) I think I’ll call and tell them my college-looking daughters won’t be looking there!

    1. Stevegroen:

      RCW 9A.16.020 Use of Force — When Lawful
      […]
      (3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

      (4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person’s presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

      1. Who was the person about to be injured (other than Caddie by Schlegal)?
        Was Schlegal in lawful possession of the football field?

        Groen

        1. Stevegroen,

          I have explained the matter sufficiently in the comments I have made. The element in the statute that a person might be injured is not required under the subsequent notation after “about to be injured” in the statute.

          Again, possession of a football field is not an element required for the purposes of criminal trespass. One could argue constructive possession of the property as being one possible way for a victim to declare standing to prosecute or detain, however it is not an essential element as I have previously mentioned several times having agency as a representative of the property owner, either a state or municipal corporation is sufficient standing to prosecute or detain for the purposes of criminal trespass.

          Furthermore Washington’s appellate and supreme courts have ruled numerous times there is a common law provision for citizens to arrest a person for breaches of the peace. While the notion of a citizen’s arrest is not defined in Washington by statute, it is recognized by the courts as being applicable through the common law and in addition there is this statute:

          RCW 9A.04.060
          Common law to supplement statute.

          The provisions of the common law relating to the commission of crime and the punishment thereof, insofar as not inconsistent with the Constitution and statutes of this state, shall supplement all penal statutes of this state and all persons offending against the same shall be tried in the courts of this state having jurisdiction of the offense.

          In State v. Gonzales the court held “At common law in general, a private person may arrest for a misdemeanor only if it constitutes a breach of the peace and is committed in his presence. 5 Am. Jur. 2d ARRESTS 35 (1962).” In this case a breach of the peace is applicable because of the disorderly conduct in which he disrupted an lawful assembly. So in that regard, and if this was the only element required for the student’s detention, his detention and apprehension is lawful. If the use of force is reasonable, then the action by the coach is lawful.

          Furthermore, the agency relationship between the coach and the municipality or state which would own the football field establishes this ability.

          In Moss v. Vadman an agency relationship results from the manifestation of consent by [the principal] that [the agent] shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, with a correlative manifestation of consent by the [agent] to act on his behalf and subject to his control.” In Bloedel Timberlands Dev., Inc. v. Timber Indus., Inc the right to control the manner of performance is essential to prove agency. So with regard to this case the school would have both supervisory control of the coach and consent to the coach being able to direct the actions onto the playing field which is owned by the municipal corporation or the state. Because of this relationship, which both parties have consented to by virtue of both employment and appointment to the responsibility for what goes on in the field, an agency exists for the coach to act on behalf of the property owner with regard to the trespassing statute.

          I hope this answers your questions.

          1. Excellent post, Darren. Kudos.

            Be that as it may, I don’t read RCW 9A.16.020(3) with such a broad brush. I’ll defer to your knowledge of Washington law.

            As for a citizen’s arrest at the old common law, let’s remember felonies were punishable by death. The common law has been superseded for good reason..

            In Ohio, detention without a warrant requires reasonable grounds to believe a felony.has been committed:

            Ohio stat. 2935.04 When any person may arrest.
            When a felony has been committed, or there is reasonable ground to believe that a felony has been committed, any person without a warrant may arrest another whom he has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the offense, and detain him until a warrant can be obtained.

            The only exception is for certain theft crimes (shoplifting, museum thefts, library thefts, etc.), and the arresting individual needs probable cause: Ohio Stat. 2935.041.

            Hence, Mr. Shlegal was operating without a basis in law when he tackled the Caddie, let alone within the scope of his duties as an educator at the Ohio State University.

            Groen

            1. stevegroen,

              I respectfully disagree with your assessment that Schlegal was acting without basis of law under the Ohio Revised Code. You referred to Ohio Revised Code on the use of force in citizens’ arrest did not apply because the offense was a misdemeanor and was not one of the exceptions such as libraries, shoplifting etc therefore the use of force was unlawful. for general misdemeanors I agree.

              However, I will point you to this Ohio Revised Code that specifically mentions an issue such as the subject of this thread, that is a stadium:

              2911.23 Criminal trespass on place of public amusement.
              (A) As used in this section, “place of public amusement” means a stadium, theater, or other facility, whether licensed or not, at which a live performance, sporting event, or other activity takes place for entertainment of the public and to which access is made available to the public, regardless of whether admission is charged.

              (B) No person, without privilege to do so, shall knowingly enter or remain on any restricted portion of a place of public amusement and, as a result of that conduct, interrupt or cause the delay of the live performance, sporting event, or other activity taking place at the place of public amusement after a printed written notice has been given as provided in division (D)(1) of this section that the general public is restricted from access to that restricted portion of the place of public amusement. A restricted portion of a place of public amusement may include, but is not limited to, a playing field, an athletic surface, or a stage located at the place of public amusement.

              (C) An owner or lessee of a place of public amusement, an agent of the owner or lessee [the coach, that is the employee of the municipal corporation of the college and having agency as to his appointment to the position by a college], or a performer or participant at a place of public amusement may use reasonable force to restrain and remove a person from a restricted portion of the place of public amusement if the person enters or remains on the restricted portion of the place of public amusement and, as a result of that conduct, interrupts or causes the delay of the live performance, sporting event, or other activity taking place at the place of public amusement. This division does not provide immunity from criminal liability for any use of force beyond reasonable force by an owner or lessee of a place of public amusement, an agent of either the owner or lessee, or a performer or participant at a place of public amusement.
              […]
              (1) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of criminal trespass on a place of public amusement, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
              ~+~
              So, I believe this addresses conclusively the coach acted with lawful authority. It’s hard to really argue the force was unreasonable when the game performed at the stadium itself was a football game and tackles are considered reasonable on the grass there.

              Thank you for taking the time to have our discussion.
              Darren

              1. Darren – I still am not sure that the asst. coach is an agent of the owner or lessee of the stadium. I think this is judiciable.

              2. I don’t agree with your assessment that tackling a student on a football field is reasonable just because the event is tackle football. That’s like knocking out a fan who unjustifiably jumps into the ring of a boxing event. So, your last paragraph re reasonable force will have to remain for sale to a jury.

                As to the bigger issue, Schlegal’s authority, your analysis appears solid, including the probability of agency, and I stand corrected. Well done.

                Here’s to butting heads again in the future,

                Groen

  12. Help! Darren, I’ll sponsor a round of shots and beers if you retrieve my comment on the walrus thread from the wordpress ghetto. Thanks.

Comments are closed.