Westerman charged re: alleged nightclub incident

[sj-roc]

More details have emerged about those "personal issues" of Jabar Westerman that Benevides spoke of in this Friday UL article.

According to this update today he's been charged with common assault "in connection with a June 29 nightclub incident in Vancouver in which he is alleged to have thrown a punch in an altercation" and this "was why the 25-year-old was not with the Lions when they rallied to post a 25-24 win over the Stampeders, though he remained on the 46-man active roster and scratched in a move that severely affected the club’s defensive line rotation." Apparently the terms of the league's new CBA prevented the team from suspending him, although it's not difficult to imagine they would have elected to do so, judging from previous incidents.

He was charged this past Tuesday and will have a court reading next week.

[TheLionKing]

Why is the Lions forced to pay him if he didn't play ?

[sj-roc]

Why is the Lions forced to pay him if he didn't play ?

He was placed on the 46-man (with every intention of never playing him because of the charge), and presumably you get a full game cheque in such situation even if you don't make the 44. It sounds like with the new CBA, this was the only way they could keep him out of the lineup; the team fined him but the amount is undisclosed. Khalif Mitchell was suspended in 2012 for his controversial tweet but this was under the previous CBA and teams presumably in this type of situation no longer have such option under the new one.

[korey&dante4ever]

One job to do as a professional athlete when you hit the town at night:

Don't throw a punch.

Unfathomable

[DanoT]

One job to do as a professional athlete when you hit the town at night:

Don't throw a punch.

Unfathomable

A 25 year old at a bar with a few drinks in him, I'll guess, and throwing a punch; it is quite fathomable.

This kid is still learning to be a pro, so I'm not too bent out of shape over it as long as he learns from it. OTOH, those Rider vets who got charged with aggravated assault last season should have known better. Did they get any team discipline? I'm not sure but I don't think so.

[Toppy Vann]

While I 'm one of the first to suggest that these pro teams need to take a strong stand on behaviour but this is a complete head scratcher.

I don't recall the Lions doing anything when Jerome Messam was not only charged with assault, he was declaring he was just in the wrong place and it was helping to save a friend or something and not in a fight situation - taking NO responsibility as a rookie. In fact on the Messam situation Wally was - I may be wrong - sounding like he swallowed Jerome's story. An indicator of future immaturity that he is no doubt well past now. Had they laid the law down to him then he might have had a longer time here and more success.

Wally let Messam break Paris Jackson's jaw and said the dressing room was the players' place. In fact this didn't come out for a long time as this event didn't make the news for a long time but we knew only that Jackson had some sort of face issue.

It seems the Lions handling of matters depends on the value of the player. If they needed him for the benefit of the team they could have played him as this is pro and they will deal with him if he is guilty.

My sense is the Lions should denounce any incidents involving players and let justice be done as there is in Canada still - a presumption of innocence until a judge in this case tries the facts and makes a finding.

There are certainly incidents that could lead to an immediate set of actions such as a huge bar room brawl or street fight all captured on camera but this sounds a bit premature - unless of course the punch was tossed at a police constable or the bar manager and not at another combatant.

The court date is simply an appearance notice and there is no outcome as there is no trial. Justice moves far slower now.

The Lions should have denounced it - yes - but suspending him with just this information is a bit strange.

[DanoT]

While I 'm one of the first to suggest that these pro teams need to take a strong stand on behaviour but this is a complete head scratcher.

I don't recall the Lions doing anything when Jerome Messam was not only charged with assault, he was declaring he was just in the wrong place and it was helping to save a friend or something and not in a fight situation - taking NO responsibility as a rookie. In fact on the Messam situation Wally was - I may be wrong - sounding like he swallowed Jerome's story. An indicator of future immaturity that he is no doubt well past now. Had they laid the law down to him then he might have had a longer time here and more success.

Wally let Messam break Paris Jackson's jaw and said the dressing room was the players' place. In fact this didn't come out for a long time as this event didn't make the news for a long time but we knew only that Jackson had some sort of face issue.

It seems the Lions handling of matters depends on the value of the player. If they needed him for the benefit of the team they could have played him as this is pro and they will deal with him if he is guilty.

My sense is the Lions should denounce any incidents involving players and let justice be done as there is in Canada still - a presumption of innocence until a judge in this case tries the facts and makes a finding.

There are certainly incidents that could lead to an immediate set of actions such as a huge bar room brawl or street fight all captured on camera but this sounds a bit premature - unless of course the punch was tossed at a police constable or the bar manager and not at another combatant.

The court date is simply an appearance notice and there is no outcome as there is no trial. Justice moves far slower now.

The Lions should have denounced it - yes - but suspending him with just this information is a bit strange.

He was not suspended. He was on the 46man roster but was one of two healthy scratches. So he got paid, he just didn't play. The incident did cause him to miss some practice time which is enough, imo, to not dress.

I like the Lions stance: If you get in a bar fight, regardless of the bar circumstances, you may not dress for the next game. The player has then created a hardship for his teammates with tough love from his teammates to follow. I don't expect Westerman to get himself in bar room trouble again regardless of the bar scene circumstances.

[Shi Zi Mi]

The incident occurred after the first home game, June 29th, so he's played 4 games since then.

I don't agree with punishing players for "alleged" misconduct......in a country where innocent until PROVEN guilty is supposed to be the accepted norm, this practise of "guilty by pointed finger", I find particularly distasteful. The media has a way of bending the truth to make a story more exciting/controversial for their benefit and fans base their opinion on what the media tells them. Many instances of false accusations/bogus charges from law enforcement/misguided condemnation from fans have occurred in the past.

I would like to see the Lions take a "wait and see" attitude with ALL these types of incidents......then take the appropriate action AFTER the player has been CONVICTED of a crime.

[Blue In BC]

The incident occurred after the first home game, June 29th, so he's played 4 games since then.

I don't agree with punishing players for "alleged" misconduct......in a country where innocent until PROVEN guilty is supposed to be the accepted norm, this practise of "guilty by pointed finger", I find particularly distasteful. The media has a way of bending the truth to make a story more exciting/controversial for their benefit and fans base their opinion on what the media tells them. Many instances of false accusations/bogus charges from law enforcement/misguided condemnation from fans have occurred in the past.

I would like to see the Lions take a "wait and see" attitude with ALL these types of incidents......then take the appropriate action AFTER the player has been CONVICTED of a crime.

While I understand your position I don't entirely agree. He's a public figure and a representative of the organization. So what he does and can reflect negatively on the organization. That can fall in many forms such as social media use or just mis-stepping in public as this seems to be.

Don't really need something like this to be proven IMO. OTOH, an internal team fine would have seemed to be appropriate enough?

[Hambone]

The incident occurred after the first home game, June 29th, so he's played 4 games since then.

I don't agree with punishing players for "alleged" misconduct......in a country where innocent until PROVEN guilty is supposed to be the accepted norm, this practise of "guilty by pointed finger", I find particularly distasteful. The media has a way of bending the truth to make a story more exciting/controversial for their benefit and fans base their opinion on what the media tells them. Many instances of false accusations/bogus charges from law enforcement/misguided condemnation from fans have occurred in the past.

I would like to see the Lions take a "wait and see" attitude with ALL these types of incidents......then take the appropriate action AFTER the player has been CONVICTED of a crime.

Not sure if the fact he's played 4 games since factors in on anything. It could very well be that Westerman and any other team witnesses, if there were any, thought of this as little more than stuff that happens when someone is getting escorted out of a place and doesn't like it. Until the formal charge was laid Westerman may have thought nothing would come of it. That nothing came of it from the team's perspective until now might simply be a case of team management being totally unaware of the incident until they were informed of the charge earlier this week.

[Hawkballer 14]

Innocent until proven guilty...

[Rammer]

Innocent until proven guilty...

Yes that is the law, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Wally has had his own one sided interogation with Westerman and any other player around at the time. He knows what went down, has made the decision of sitting Westerman, thus being able to answer any media questions on due punishment. He now is able to say that he has taken action to the extent of the CFLPA and will allow the courts to weigh out any further action. Being a representative of a public team, means that any player is subject to the scrutiny of the team on how they are viewed in public situations. Any player should know that being at a bar is going to bring the yahoos out to see if they measure up. So all players should walk away from these situations, as their name is likely to be the only name printed and beside that the name of club they play for.

[jwbavalon]

So all players should walk away from these situations, as their name is likely to be the only name printed and beside that the name of club they play for.

Should be written on the first page of the playbook.

[Hambone]

So all players should walk away from these situations, as their name is likely to be the only name printed and beside that the name of club they play for.

Should be written on the first page of the playbook.

Only problem with that theory is a lot of the individual's common sense that should kick in is also well over .08.

[Shi Zi Mi]

What EXACTLY has been PROVEN at this point in time that warrants any type of punishment? All we have is speculation/allegations. Police lay charges quite regularly without substantiated evidence......they choose to proceed or drop the charges based on what's discovered afterwards. An example of this was Herman Smith years ago......charges laid in Las Vegas, vilified by the media, condemned by many on this board, released by the Lions.....only to have the charges dropped.......sorry, too late, we've already punished you.

In Westerman's case, we could find that he's guilty of all allegations.....or we could find that he's entirely innocent......isn't it smarter to keep the guillotine in the shed until the FACTS of the case have been PROVEN?......pretty well what Sask is doing with Taj Smith.

Quite simply, NO ONE should be punished until wrong doing has been firmly established and convicted in a court of law......absolutely no gray area there.