Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

ViriLudant

Senior Member
  • Posts

    2,727
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Uncategorized

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

ViriLudant's Achievements

Walk On

Walk On (1/6)

4

Reputation

  1. I'm glad you agree that if a person agrees to pay a fine they are guilty.    That explains why Kraft didn't fight the league in deflategate.

  2. ROFL. First of all, geography lessons are needed. Neither are Boston cops; not even close, in fact. Second of all, this friend is one of the best human beings I've ever met. He tells things the way that they are . Read his post. It's full of FACTS, not conjecture. He knows what he's talking about.
  3. Here's what a friend of mine who is a local police officer in that area (not Foxborough) who has been on the force for over 20 years posted elsewhere. Hello all. I haven't read all the way through this thread nor have I been following this story on the radio/news/wherever outlets but massive speculation has floated my way so wth I'll throw my two cents in.First off there is no "police cover-up conspiracy" here as I've been told is one of the themes of the day. Here are a few facts regarding these types of situations to cut through the uninformed nonsense.1. If Chandler Jones overdosed on a narcotic, the police would consider this a medical matter, not a criminal matter. He would not be charged for a crime. First off, under Mass Law, there is no crime for using illegal drugs, the charge relates to possession of illegal drugs. If Jones had been using illegal pills and used them all then there never would have been a criminal violation in this state. Secondly as of August 2012, MGL 94C-34(a) exempts all OD victims from criminal prosecution regardless of if they were found still in possession of an illegal narcotic.2. So if Jones had overdosed on an illegal substance, and he didn't possess any more, he would not have committed a prosecutable crime. If he still possessed quantities of the the narcotic or other narcotics, then he also would not have committed a prosecutable offense under Mass Law.3. There would be nothing to charge him with. There's no need to cover up anything to shield him from prosecution when he hasn't committed a crime.4. The police are not "covering up" because they entered his house without a warrant. There was no crime, they were not investigating him for a crime. Under the well established "Community Caretaking" exception to the warrant requirement police can and often do enter homes without warrants. In this case they checked his house because he left it unsecure. Once it was checked they secured it and left. They do not need a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances to do this. Once again there is nothing to cover up in this regard.5. Medical/mental health/drug abuse records are well established exceptions to the Massachusetts Public Records Law specifically under section C the Privacy Exception. This is why the Foxboro Chief denied having contact with Jones. The chief obviously doesn't really understand how that exception works so now he comes off as covering something up rather than simply coming off as a buffoon but such is life.6. Under the privacy exception, the chief simply could have refused to release any information citing medical privilege. That's what the law requires not pretending there was no medical simply acknowledge there was an incident the details to which will be withheld due to the privacy exception of the Mass Public Records Law. Done.7. This means that no reports, radio transmissions or video related to this incident are subject to release by the police department. No crime was committed meaning none of these things are evidence and as such are not subject to any legal process for release. The only way that tape can be released is if it's leaked or if a judicial order is issued to release it which is highly doubtful.8. Regarding the radio transmission where an officer states there was Class D in Jones' residence, "Class D" is Marijuana, no ifs ands or buts. That's what it is in Mass police lingo. 100%. 9. The fact the cop didn't place Jones under arrest for possessing MJ wasn't because he didn't have a warrant, he didn't need one in the first place. He was in the home under the warrant exception and observed MJ in plain view. Ten years ago this would have been an arrestable offense under the circumstances. It is not arrestable today.10. The fact he didn't arrest Jones wasn't because he's covering up for the team, he had no right to arrest Jones under MGL in the first place.11. Even if the law on overdoses hadn't passed, the officer still couldn't arrest Jones for possessing the marijuana he observed in the residence. Under current Mass Law, only quantities of MJ weighing more than an ounce are illegal to possess unless there's evidence of distribution which doesn't appear to be the case here. The possession of smaller amounts of MJ is not illegal hence people who possess smaller amounts are not subject to arrest or any kind of prosecution. 12. Jones' involvement with the Foxboro Police regarding this matter is over. There will be no investigation, no follow-up no charges, no cover-ups no anything. 13. These things are obviously confusing as the laws have changed dramatically in recent years and even many police officers are not fully up to date but this is where things stand.
  4. As mentioned above, apparently the synthetic stuff can make you feel like you're ODing. Not a fan of such a decision. I'm pretty sure that he'll be hitting the open market in the offseason .
  5. I thought that a main reason for the combine being in Indy was because the local medical infrastructure had been trained well to work with the athletes. Why change something that isn't broken?
  6. You posted a direct quote from PP. We all know it. What makes it even more amusing is that the poster's name wasn't Am's.
  7. LOL. Gronk was in Florida. Nice try. And science has already vindicated the Patriots. Most non-Colt fans already know that.
  8. Actually, it was proven that the Colts lied several times, from Pagano to Grigson. But if you don't know the story, that's fine. or, it could be from Irsay's various misdeeds.
  9. I know. It's hilarious. Its also hilarious how Jvan and others stalk people on PP. Wait, that's sad, not hilarious.
  10. Looks like the Colts paid even more of a Karma payback, eh?
  11. It's so cute how ignorant people are about AJ-A. You know, that Peabody award winning organization.
  12. With a blow to the head like that, it's hard to tell. I don't necessarily buy Pacman's claim that Briwn winked at him. If Briwn is practicing tomorrow , then I'd say that the hit wasn't that bad (for fairly obvious reasons).
  13. He easily could have avoided that hit, as Teddy Bruschi stated yesterday. And the suspension wasn't just for the hit, it was for all of his actions throughout the game .
  14. Except that Vollmer will be back. And Edelman. And Chandler Jones. And Hightower. Maclin may not play, or if he does, he'll play with a bad high ankle sprain. Houston is injured. With Maclin out, who will make big plays for the Chiefs? Patriots by 10+.
×
×
  • Create New...