Man accused of brandishing stun gun, assaulting U-M hospital worker held on $100,000 bond
A man accused of pulling out a stun gun and assaulting a manager at the University of Michigan Hospital cafeteria Friday night is being held on a $100,000 cash or surety bond after being arraigned this afternoon at the Washtenaw County Jail.
Michael Dwayne Thomas, 25, of Ypsilanti Township, is charged with unlawful possession of a harmful device, assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder, carrying a weapon with unlawful intent, possession of a stun gun and assault with a dangerous weapon.
Michael Dwayne Thomas
Brown said she does not know whether the stun gun was activated on the victim during the assault. The victim was treated at the hospital and released that night, she said.
During today's arraignment, Thomas requested that a public defender be appointed to represent him. He's said he's single, doesn't have children and attends school. He's not a flight risk, he said.
Magistrate Camille Horne set the bond with conditions, including that Thomas not have contact with the alleged victim or return to the hospital unless for medical treatment.
Victor Roberson, 32, of Ypsilanti Township, watched the arraignment on a television screen in the sheriff's department lobby. He said Thomas is one of his good friends, and he doubts Thomas is responsible for the crime. Roberson said Thomas attends Washtenaw Community College.
"Mike has too much to lose," Roberson said. "It's not making no sense."
Thomas is scheduled to return to court for a preliminary hearing July 6.
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached by phone at (734) 623-2527 and email at leehiggins@annarbor.com.
Comments
Veracity
Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.
Stephen Hankamp: ...... because Ypsilanti has more poor and impoverished citizens. Our political system working at its best!? BTW, if the perpetrator wore a mask and escaped on a bus, how did Mr. Thomas become the prime suspect? Was the weapon recovered from him or his property?
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 4:25 p.m.
Speculating that he was seen on camera in other parts of the hospital in the same clothes as the guy that did the robbing. Put 2 and 2 together and...
Dave66
Wed, Jun 29, 2011 : 9:05 p.m.
If he's not a flight risk, why did he flee the cafeteria?
Ricebrnr
Wed, Jun 29, 2011 : 8:47 p.m.
hmmm what's more dangerous? one person wielding a stun gun with intent to use it or one impaired person driving a multi ton vehicle? neither caring very much for others?
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 3:39 p.m.
No analogy just a straight up question. Also I disagree with the importance of intent. Does intent matter to the young couple put into the hospital by the alleged impaired driver? (I would argue that she intended to drive while impaired and knew the possible consequences but I digress). She got a $1000 bond for hospitalizing 2 people. This guy could have at most impaired a person or two at a time with the stun gun. Certainly unless there were other pre-existing conditions not have put them in a hospital. His bond is 100 times that of the other. Too much is weighed on "intent" not enough on ACTUAL harm methinks. Similar to "are we mad at them or scared of them"
Atticus F.
Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 1:55 p.m.
The same case could be made about people who text and drive. I guess the determing factor is intent. Is someone who is texting and driving intending to hurt someone? Is someone walking around brandishing a stun gun intending to hurt someone? I'm not against the lagel possesion of stun guns...Just pointing out the flaws in your analogy.