It could be that Famika played a despicable role in that hazing incident, or it could be that he was thrown in the lawsuit to gain sympathy for the plaintiff and his suit (because of his other problem back in Utah). We just don't know.

The last thing I want is to defend someone who encouraged and enabled a hazing incident that left a kid seriously injured. But I've been around the block enough to know that you just can't draw any conclusions from a news article like this. For all we know, the article could be nothing more than a publicity stunt by the plaintiff's lawyer to bolster support for his case. It happens.

But if it is accurate, then they should throw the book at Famika. Because being in a position to stop something like that and doing nothing more than telling guys not to take video of it would be disgusting.