When I was young and stupid, I was young and stupid. But even in my youngest and stupidest moments, I never got drunk, crawled into bed with someone who wasn’t expecting me and tried to play Donald Trump.
Such are the felonious actions of which Augustana freshman jock Peyton Zabel stands accused:
On Monday afternoon, May 13, Zabel appeared in court, charged by Minnehaha County prosecutors with four counts of first-degree burglary, each a Class 2 felony with a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.
He also was charged with a count of simple assault, a Class 1 misdemeanor.
…At his arrest, police also cited Zabel with underage drinking and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors, as well as first-degree burglary and simple assault, according to booking information from the jail.
Prosecutors did not include the drinking and disorderly conduct misdemeanors in their charges filed Monday.
…The woman told police Zabel entered her unlocked dorm room and climbed into her bed, obviously drunk and tried to grab her and pull her toward him, police spokesman Sam Clemens told reporters in a televised news conference on Monday. The woman, who knew Zabel, said she was able to get away, go to a friend’s room and call police. Zabel was asleep in the bed when police arrived and could not be roused. He was taken to a hospital and when he came to, told police he remembered nothing of the incident, Clemens told reporters, according to several news sources… [Stephen Lee, “Former Pierre Star Athlete Jailed in Sioux Falls, Charged with Felony Burglary at Augustana U,” Pierre Capital Journal, updated 2019.05.14].
Zabel has well-known attorney Clint Sargent to defend him. ***[updated 18:02 CDT] Sargent splashed onto these pages last year by keeping Stephanie Hubers from going to jail for her role in the GEAR UP scandal. In addition to his young and, it would seem, hard-to-defend sporty client, Sargent is also defending South Dakota man of mystery and the light of Russian agent Maria Butina’s life, Paul Erickson (Thanks to Chris below for reminding me to Sargent’s full plate!).
So, Bill Clinton gets his cigar smoked by an intern in the White House and Donald Trump crawls into a proverbial bed to promulgate unwanted advances. The analogy probably holds in both cases, but in Clinton’s case there was more than just smoke, but a lot of smoke, too. I mean for […] sake .. don’t cigars smell bad enough?
Being young and stupid once, I can relate. I drank to blackouts two times. I remembered short interludes between hours of not remembering a thing. I guess by dumb luck I didn’t do anything like snuggle up with a coed after walking into her room. I was lucky to have a friend and a brother who likely saved my life in these two instances. After the second one I decided drinking wasn’t for me. I’d go to bars to listen to music, but I’d drink Coke. Maybe this guy should do the same.
Males can just walk into a women’s dorm at Augustana University?
We had better not EVER legalize marijuana for fear of having the very social fabric of our society ripped asunder; alcohol on the other hand — is fine. Nothing wrong with that socially accepted drug.
Youthful stupidity fueled by legal and socially approved alcohol use. Just thank the gods (and greasy governor Krisco) he wasn’t using the evil weed or it’s synthesized derivative CBD to commit some truly insane and evil act like staying in his own dorm room minding his own business. Instead he overdoses on the legal poison and pays his liquor tax to the South Dakota. Thank you for your taxpaying patronage Peyton. Now apologize to the young lady for your alcohol poisoning induced fantasies and find a new recreational drug you can handle. Go west young man (to Colorado).
Cory writes:
[…Sargent LAST appeared on these pages for keeping Stephanie Hubers from going to jail for her role in the GEAR UP scandal. ] https://dakotafreepress.com/2018/06/30/#post-47106
>>>timeline correction humbly requested: Sargent HAS since then re-appeared on these here pages, working for Paul Erickson.
https://dakotafreepress.com/2019/02/07/feds-indict-erickson-for-wire-fraud-and-money-laundering/
[…Erickson has some of the best legal representation his ill-gotten money can buy. NPR reports that Erickson’s legal team consists of at least South Dakota power attorney Clint Sargent and Virginia “super lawyer” (that’s an actual term) William Hurd. ]
I suspect WJC soaked his cigar in cider. As for Clinton’s real and imagined/made up indiscretions, the attacks began by William Barr as AG for Hitler Weasel Bush and dirty trickster, Lee Atwater, who warned wingnuts Clinton was the one Dem that could beat HW.
Now, I can see a wingnut judge letting a star athlete off the hook so as not to ruin HIS future, irrespective of what the young lady’s attorney may want or the law says.
OTOH, he may claim she gave him a date rape drug so he doesn’t remember what he did. It could happen.
This is not a Clinton story, John. The suspect in this case wasn’t even alive during the cigar-smoking to which you refer.
MFI, will the court also need to know what the young woman was wearing (in her room sleeping) that evening? If this trial is going to turn into a circus, let’s get all three rings going.
Good heavens! Thanks, Chris, for that update! I wonder which defendant has the better case, Erickson or Zabel?
O, of course she was dressed provocatively and the poor drunk couldn’t help himself, which is probably good for him as he might have been charged with assault/rape.
Wait! Anyone else see that Mark Twain is back?!
From the Stephen Lee article referenced above: “The woman told police Zabel entered her unlocked dorm room and climbed into her bed, obviously drunk and tried to grab her and pull her toward him, police spokesman Sam Clemens told reporters in a televised news conference on Monday.”
The smoke surrounding Trump is pretty thick also, John Dale, but his indiscretions were consensual (as was Bill’s). Neither has been convicted of rape or attempted rape but Trump just pays his partners off.
Speaking of this tawdry case, I suspect the jock will probably get off as jocks tend to do, but the judge might want to consider this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/06/judge-aaron-persky-who-gave-brock-turners-lenient-sentence-sanford-rape-case-recalled/674551002/
Porter asks, “Males can just walk into a women’s dorm at Augustana University?”
Hell, yeah. It’s been that way for a couple generations. Where have you been? Things were wide open in the early 70s. There were hours when men weren’t supposed to be wing the women’s wings, but that was difficult to police. Now , I think all of Augie’s residence halls are coed, separated by floors or wings.
Well. Frost my cake!! In Vermillion, early 70’s, males could sign in during the day… with the females written permission to the RA at the entrance. But there was at least one female dorm with a no male visitor ever rule.
My daughter never lived in a dorm. Now I know.
I don’t mean to blame the women, but I guess if I were a dorm student going to bed for the night, I would lock the door. I suppose there are times when they can’t but I can’t imagine going to bed at night without locking the door.
Damn my ‘puter must have virus or malware. Thought I was into an intelligent, thought provoking site and I got the National Enquirer.
The fact that an individual chooses not to lock a door never shifts any blame onto that person for the action of another person who chooses to come through that door without permission and do violence to the proper occupant inside. There exists no moral or legal obligation to lock one’s door.
There do exist moral and legal obligations to not get drunk, not enter another person’s domicile without permission, not lie down in another person’s bed without permission, and not try to sexually assault anyone.
Did we mention that the accused is 6’6″?
I saw that as well, Mr Pay.
This probably saved this young guy’s life. Way too many people get black-out drunk in college. Luckily, he got caught and will hopefully have some serious consequences for his behavior to mull over while he contemplates his future and what kind of an adult he wants to be.
As for locking doors in communal living situations – probably a good idea, eh? As cory says, we can’t blame the girl who was sleeping in her bed for this guy’s actions. However, keeping our person and out belongings safe is the real-world obligation for each of us. Leaving doors unlocked at a place where people often over-drink does not remove blame from the criminal for taking advantage, but it’s not smart practice. Cory, you probably lock your car and your house doors at night or when you are away, don’t you?
I recall a time when Spearfish locals used to say they could park downtown all day with their windows open and doors unlocked and leave a $20 bill exposed on the dashboard and it would always be there when they returned.
On the other hand, a friend told me about a fellow who left his accordian in the backseat of his car but forgot to lock it. When he returned the worst thing he had imagined had occurred – someone had deposited a second accordian next to his on the seat.
All jokes aside, giving any weight to the detail that a victim failed to lock her door (other than explaining how the perp had been able enter) necessarily implies some contributory negligence such that she bears partial responsibility for the attack, despite contrary disclaimers.
bcb,
Did I see somewhere that you are (or were) an attorney? I’m sure you know that contributory negligence is a consideration in tort claims, not criminal proceedings. If she had damages sufficient for a tort claim against this idiot, I doubt the minor factor of her locking or not locking the door would be grounds for reducing or dismissing the claim due to contributory negligence.
However, since nobody here was talking about torts, I think it’s fair to suggest in conversation that people take reasonable steps to secure their body and their belongings from unknown risks. I would love to live in a world where valuable items on dashboards are left alone, but that world doesn’t exist. Despite anecdotal evidence of the good ol’ days, I believe property crime rates drop year after year. That is probably not due to people being nicer – it is probably due to people taking more appropriate steps to safeguard themselves and their stuff.
Ryan, it is true that “contributory negligence” is normally not a specific defense in criminal cases. That said, victim negligence can be considered on causation issues in appropriate circumstances. See e.g., State v. Lohmeier, 556 N.W.2d 90, 205 Wis. 2d 183, 195-96 (1996) (pages [6]-[7] in the link) (affirming a jury instruction on causation and contributory negligence in a DUI vehicular homicide case).
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1346559/state-v-lohmeier/
A related concept to contributory negligence (which is a form of misconduct) is proof of “victim misconduct,” which is often considered as a possible mitigating factor in sentencing someone found guilty of a crime.
Unfortunately, the court of public opinion often takes factors into account that a court will not, including the behavior of a rape victim for a variety of asserted failures to protect herself or himself, such as drinking too much, dressing provocatively, frequenting perceived dangerous locations, etc.
My thought is that the suggestion that this victim failed to lock her door in an area where she should have known there was a danger of being assaulted while she slept falls within the third circumstances even if not a defense to a crime. If my use of the term “contributory negligence” was misleading, perhaps my usage at least can be understood in light of the various legal and non-legal uses of the term.
The concepts can be related without overlapping: This guy is 100% responsible for his actions; and people who live in community type housing probably ought to lock their doors while they sleep. Saying so does not reduce his culpability, nor apply blame to her. Both are just facts.
Careful, Ryan: can we rightly say that a sentence with “ought” in it is a mere fact?
Probably about as rightly as your use of the word “attack” in the headline, or your accusation that the accused “tried to play Donald Trump.”
Ryan, while “concepts can be related without overlapping” including the statements in your comment, without more these concepts are not “facts” rather than “opinions:”
It is a “fact” that some or even many people will have one or more of these opinions, but the fact that some or many people share an opinion does not change that opinion into an objective “fact.”
The proposition, however, that:
is an objective fact. Anyone can accept or reject an implication, but there is no denying that the implication is objectively present and that some folks will agree with it.
And I don’t mean to move this discussion into semantics, rather, I just want to emphasize that comments about a failure to lock doors will be read as either:
If one does not intend to create the latter impression, then there is little benefit in discussing the victim’s failure to lock her door.
Alright, I won’t take the time to piece apart the product of your obvious effort to “get me” here, but I’ll play the semantics game with you if you want. “Giving weight” to the fact that a person didn’t lock her door does not necessarily imply contributory negligence that allocates to her partial responsibility for the attack. It may suggest it. It may allude to it. It does not “necessarily imply” it.
Black’s Law Dictionary doesn’t have a definition for “giving weight,” so I have to assume that you mean “to attach importance to,” which is the best definition I can come up with. I think it is reasonable to attach importance to a fact in a given scenario without being required to (“necessarily”) raise that level of importance to a defense such as contributory negligence.
Now, take my comment with a grain of salt. I didn’t dig through 30 years of wisconsin supreme court cases and pretend that they have some authority in south dakota, so this is all just off the top of my head.
Help me out Ryan. What nickname did you go by on this blog eight to ten years ago? I can’t find it. We used to argue then, as well. It was something Coyote. Anyone remember? Dakota Coyote or something?
porter – you are the worst, most obvious private detective in history.
Ryan, I too struggled with the accuracy of using the term “necessarily.” I thought omitting it may be more appropriate, but then I couldn’t think of any other conclusion that might logically flow from comments that the victim ought to lock her door than a conclusion she should have locked her door and therefore was remiss in failing to do so. Perhaps you can identify some other logical implication, other than having some culpability for the attack, that can be implied or drawn from comments focusing on her failure to lock her a door in the context of this story? If so, then I may have incorrectly used the term “necessarily imply.”
And in pursuing this inquiry, I am interested in the substance of our comments rather than the semantics. That was the reason I stated “I don’t mean to move this discussion into semantics.”
Like you, I didn’t dig through 30 years of Wisconsin cases or pretend the cited case it had some authority in SD (although SD courts are permitted to, and often do, look to decisions from other states to help decide legal issues, absent binding SD or SCOTUS authority). I simply did a google search because I doubted the accuracy of your statement about contributory negligence and the criminal law and thought a link might help you understand my view. The Wisconsin case happened to pop up with an answer that seemed to help move our discussion forward.
bcb, re-read my original comment. I repeatedly say the perpetrator is solely to blame. Regarding locked doors, I said it’s not smart to leave our valuables exposed to obvious risks.
Somewhere recently you decided you wanted to show me, so you’ve been adding stuff to my comments that just aren’t there. I’ll have to politely disagree with the implications you are reading into my comment, again.
Ryan, I apologize if I added anything your comment. My initial comment was not intended to be limited to yours, however, as another commenter first mentioned the matter. Cory responded, and then you commented.
My next comment did not mention your comment although I identified the contention I have stood behind throughout – focusing on the victim’s inappropriate behavior – not locking her door – “necessarily implies some contributory negligence such that she bears partial responsibility for the attack, despite contrary disclaimers.”
Then you initiated a discussion with me regarding my thesis and the language I used. If I am not mistaken, you initiated a challenge to my thesis and I defended it. If you believe my responses were inappropriate or mis-stated anything you wrote I appreciate you clarifying what you wrote or meant in your comments.
Ryan, back on topic, which was your challenge to my initial thesis:
Most recently I repeated this in slightly different language in response to a legitimate question about my use of the term “necessarily:”
Does your last comment indicate that cannot identify another logical conclusion? Or can you think of another logical conclusion that I could have just as easily drawn?
For what it is worth, I agree with your proposition that “locking doors in communal living situations – probably [is] a good idea,” despite my view that making that point in this context implicitly conveys an unfortunate message.
And I think I understand that you disagree with the above thesis I have defended.
First, I’m exhausted by the current obligation to spend extra effort on a simple, neutral message in order to be artfully unoffensive to even the most delicate members of an audience.
Second, I don’t think there needs to be some conclusion reached beyond the simple point I specifically made. Again, I’m not blaming this poor girl even one iota for some drunk’s behavior because she was either intentionally or accidentally sleeping in an unlocked room. I blame him and him alone for whatever he did. The multiple articles I read about this all mentioned the unlocked door. In commenting on the consequences for the accused, I made an additional point about a detail repeatedly included in the articles. I thought it was clear that my point was: an unlocked door in shared living space where alcohol abuse is common is not safe practice.
An analogy – Every sad and disgusting shooting on the news leads to the same conversation – we need better gun control. When we say we need better gun control, we aren’t saying the dead folks are partially to blame for their deaths because they didn’t vote to pass gun control laws. We are saying here’s another example of why we need gun control, so let’s get some gun control laws already. The analogous point: our basically uncontrolled flow of guns is not safe practice.
BAH. Drum them all out of school for being the cause of such drivel in the news, and put them to work in the work force where they can make more money if they work harder. This soft schooling isn’t working.
Thanks Ryan. I really did not intend to make this about you personally but I can understand how you might have perceived it differently. In any event, I do appreciate your willingness to comment on why you disagree with my thesis.
Grudznick’s slogan is, “If you want to make more money, work harder.” He’s from a family of elitists who’ve never in three generations gotten their hands dirty for a buck.
Let me, a working man from a family of working women and men, let you in on the truth. Working harder only makes more money for the boss and for the owner. Coming together as a group of workers and bargaining as a group of workers for your rightful share of the profits is how to make more money for yourself. You’ve earned it, folks. Now, go out and take what’s yours!
porter, your repeated incorrect and baseless accusations about the lives of commenters on this blog make it apparent that when you “let us in” on the truth, you are just making stuff up. Your word is suspect at best – meaningless at worse.
Tell us the real story, then. I stand behind everything I say. Do you have facts that prove me a liar or are you just “making stuff up”? Hmmmm?
Wait—this conversation got far more complicated than necessary to address Ryan’s assertion that I somehow falsely used the word “attack.”
The victim says the defendant “climbed into her bed, obviously drunk and tried to grab her and pull her toward him….” How is that action not an attack?
Cory is correct. His use of the term “attack” is reporting a fact rather than an opinion. While the charge may only be an allegation until proven, it is an allegation of fact.
…and the actions described by the woman are most certainly an attack. I’m not sure why anyone would contest that simple statement.
Certainly the victim thought it was an attack, and she is the only non-blitzed witness to the perp’s stumble bumming. I would say if that gentleman showed up in Ryan’s bed, trying to cuddle, he might come to a different conclusion.
I will certainly deem any such unexpected advances from a 6’6″ man to be an attack. One would have to be drunk to think otherwise.