Jim Irsay's Interview - "Real Sports w/ Bryant Gumbel"

[w87r]

4 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

Never heard of that blog but lol at thinking you can carry around a controlled substance with no proof of any prescription and the cops cant do anything about it.

They get the charge/arrested, and get a chance to prove  they had a prescription in court.

 

 

Cops can still arrest you and charge you, as they did Irsay.

[BlackTiger]

 

 

2 minutes ago, w87r said:

They get the charge/arrested, and get a chance to prove have to prove the had a prescription in court.

They can drop the charge too.  The way he carried them is technically illegal even if he did have the prescription.  It also makes him look guilty and we never saw or heard that he did indeed have it

 

Why would he carry them in "numerous" unofficial bottles when that is what would get you in trouble.  food for thought 

[BlackTiger]

Glad we had this talk.  I said what I said and working from home at 11 today.

[NFLfan]

1 hour ago, BlackTiger said:

 Prescription pills with no Prescription can be a possession charge

 

I once went to a Giants game with one of those small medication containers because I had to take a prescription at a certain time. When my small bag was searched, the security person told me that people get in trouble with the law if they do not carry the prescription bottles when carrying prescription medication. I told him that I found that hard to believe, as I know older people who take many medications and they cannot carry all the bottles with them wherever they go. They carry pre-filled medication containers.

 

Anyway, in this case with Irsay, I assume he was carrying a lot more.

[w87r]

5 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

Never heard of that blog but lol at thinking you can carry around a controlled substance with no proof of any prescription and the cops cant do anything about it.

 

You can say anything you want to a cop but they can do stuff too if you carry controlled substances with no record of anything.  You are supposed to keep something on you for situations like this.  You gotta have something for the cops to go by

People have rights.

 

 

Here is a follow up from the TSA, which would be a more reasonable expectation on "having a prescription with you". Flying.

 

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/frequently-asked-questions/i-am-traveling-medication-are-there-any-requirements-i-should-be#:~:text=All passenger items must undergo,in your carry-on bag.

 

Quote

It is recommended that medication be clearly labeled to facilitate the screening process.

It's only "recommended" to have medication labeled. Doesn't even specify a prescription, just labeled. I'm sure that's what it really meant, but not what it said.

 

 

 

[BlackTiger]

3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

When my small bag was searched, the security person told me that people get in trouble with the law if they do not carry the prescription bottles when carrying prescription medication

Yes it is technically part of the law to carry it on you, especially for controlled substances. You can get in trouble just for not having it though it can also be dropped.

[BlackTiger]

6 minutes ago, w87r said:

People have rights.

 

 

Here is a follow up from the TSA, which would be a more reasonable expectation on "having a prescription with you". Flying.

 

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/frequently-asked-questions/i-am-traveling-medication-are-there-any-requirements-i-should-be#:~:text=All passenger items must undergo,in your carry-on bag.

 

It's only "recommended" to have medication labeled. Doesn't even specify a prescription, just labeled. I'm sure that's what it really meant, but not what it said.

 

 

 

Laws are different for general prescriptions and controlled substances.  If its considered a "controlled substance" you can get in trouble just for not having proof on you.  if its not clear what it is when they find it things get murky 

 

It probably gets dropped a lot if you do have the papers somewhere but they can get you just for not having it at the time for some substances.

[bluebombers87]

53 minutes ago, w87r said:

No, all we have is the actual charge, he was convicted of.

 

 

If he wasn't prescribed the medication, he would've been charged. They would of dropped the OWI, and hit him with the pills charge on the guilty plea. Not the other way around.

 

 

Exactly, and you are making accusations off of a COULD 

 

Often times people that take multiple meditation stuff them in different bottles for daily carry.

 

 

 

Who carries around a prescription with their medicine? That is turned in, to get the medicine.(you probably mean the correct bottle?)

 

I think you're confusing the meaning of "have a prescription".

 

 

Now as far as being in the correct bottle.

 

 

You expect him to roll around with a bottle of probably at least 100 oxytocin at one time? That would be negligence.  Would be easy to lose especially the state they put you in.

 

Hence why you would put them in a different bottle.

That is exactly the point I was making. 
 

If he didn’t have a script for it, that’s possession and should have been a charge. If he had one (a script/prescription) then it should have been in the issued bottle. If not, they need a copy or the original script.

 

Additionally, if he wasn’t charged that means either he was given a break (which counters Irsays narrative) or it wasn’t what was reported by PD.

[NFLfan]

23 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

Yes it is technically part of the law to carry it on you, especially for controlled substances. You can get in trouble just for not having it though it can also be dropped.

 

Okay, thanks. What I was carrying was not a controlled substance, but the security person had no way of knowing or proving that at the moment, as it was not in a prescription bottle. I was carrying only one pill; so, he let me go in with it. But I never forgot that.

 

[w87r]

6 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

It probably gets dropped a lot if you do have the papers somewhere but they can get you just for not having it at the time for some substances

I agree and this seems to be what happened.

 

 

They got him(arrested him)for it and it got dropped because he provided proof of having a prescription.

[bluebombers87]

29 minutes ago, w87r said:

You can say it again, doesn't mean you're correct.

 

https://www.grllaw.com/blog/never-disclose-prescription-medications-to-law-enforcement-during-a-traffic-stop/#:~:text=Laws protect against disclosure of,person to waive those protections.

 

 

That doesn’t discuss the issue at hand. You cannot, with certain meds, carry them in anything other than the issued bottle without a prescription indicating you are prescribed them. 
 

This article only states you don’t have to tell an officer you are on any medications.

[bluebombers87]

20 minutes ago, w87r said:

People have rights.

 

 

Here is a follow up from the TSA, which would be a more reasonable expectation on "having a prescription with you". Flying.

 

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/frequently-asked-questions/i-am-traveling-medication-are-there-any-requirements-i-should-be#:~:text=All passenger items must undergo,in your carry-on bag.

 

It's only "recommended" to have medication labeled. Doesn't even specify a prescription, just labeled. I'm sure that's what it really meant, but not what it said.

 

 

 

TSA are not police though. Their scope is limited to what is immediately necessary. They can however call over LEOs if there is an issue they cannot address.

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Okay. What I was carrying was not a controlled substance, but the security person had no way of knowing or proving that at the moment. I was carrying only one pill; so, he let me go in with it.

Only 1 pill, I need at least 5 so I could do this - joking  

[NFLfan]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Only 1 pill, I need at least 5 so I could do this - joking  

 

Lol. I do not believe I would have gotten in any trouble with the law because by electronically accessing my medical records, I would have been able to show that this was prescribed. I can access medical records on an app on my mobile phone. The charts document everything. Even if I call to reschedule an appointment, I will immediately receive a text message and an email that my appointment was rescheduled. It will refer me to my electronic medical records.

[Bravo]

All police need is probable cause for arrest.

 

1.) You may have any prescription/ controlled substance on you in any container however you must prove that you are prescribed those medications. Law enforcement has some ways of looking up prescriptions but it is ultimately up to the person to prove that you are prescribed those controlled substances or there is PC for arrest. Your attorney or you can always bring evidence of you have a VALID prescription during the stop to court and the case may be dropped.

 

2.) Courts will often dismiss or drop charges to lesser offenses to work with people on guilty pleas. With Irsay having a large amount of money, AKA paying for a top notch attorney, they most likely dropped the controlled substance with he guilty plea for OWI. Also with this, There was most likely solid evidence of his operation while intoxicated/ under the the influence because with great attorneys those cases are almost always fought in court.

 

3.) You can be charged for OWI in Indiana and not have any alcohol in your system. It’s possible to get an OWI from drugs/controlled substances as well. That’s why Robert Mathis was charged with OWI even though the alcohol in his system was under .08%. He had taken pills along with alcohol which created his intoxicated state.

 

 

[RollerColt]

Round and round and round this thread goes… 

 

In before the inevitable lock. 

[masterlock]

Sorry Jim, but "prejudice" isn't the reason you were pulled over. You were pulled over because you were driving 10 mph and could barely speak. 

[Smonroe]

4 hours ago, masterlock said:

Sorry Jim, but "prejudice" isn't the reason you were pulled over. You were pulled over because you were driving 10 mph and could barely speak. 

He never said that’s why he was pulled over.  Read the article.

[NewColtsFan]

31 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

He never said that’s why he was pulled over.  Read the article.

He said that’s why he was arrested.   Police didn’t know who he was when he was initially pulled over.  They didn’t know who was behind the wheel.   But once he failed the field test and was arrested, by then they knew who he was.   Have you even seen the full video?  
 

[EasyE]

15 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

He said that’s why he was arrested.   Police didn’t know who he was when he was initially pulled over.  They didn’t know who was behind the wheel.   But once he failed the field test and was arrested, by then they knew who he was.   Have you even seen the full video?  
 

Was he in a vehicle with a license plate? They didn't run that or a driver's license number? I'm asking cause I don't know 

[EasyE]

4 minutes ago, EasyE said:

Was he in a vehicle with a license plate? They didn't run that or a driver's license number? I'm asking cause I don't know 

Irsay is a billionaire? Yes

He is still human and makes mistakes.

One is his age and earlier partying days are catching up to him. Needs to stop TwiXing and stop dumb interviews. Cause media these days disect everything in the wrong way. JMO 

[NewColtsFan]

36 minutes ago, EasyE said:

Was he in a vehicle with a license plate? They didn't run that or a driver's license number? I'm asking cause I don't know 

Not that I’m aware of.   I’m just saying that they pulled him over based on how he was driving.   Which was like a few miles an hour in a neighborhood zone of likely 25.   I’m sure they very quickly figured out who he was.   In a matter of a few minutes.   I’m sure it happened fast.   But they easily had probable cause, no matter who he was.  Then they confirmed.   At least that’s how I believe it was presented.  

[EasyE]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Not that I’m aware of.   I’m just saying that they pulled him over based on how he was driving.   Which was like a few miles an hour in a neighborhood zone of likely 25.   I’m sure they very quickly figured out who he was.   In a matter of a few minutes.   I’m sure it happened fast.   But they easily had probable cause, no matter who he was.  Then they confirmed.   At least that’s how I believe it was presented.  

I'm commenting on when you said they didn't know who he was. They have a plate number and driver's license they ask for. They don't ask for that unless you are a runner and resisting the pullover and questioning.

[EasyE]

14 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Not that I’m aware of.   I’m just saying that they pulled him over based on how he was driving.   Which was like a few miles an hour in a neighborhood zone of likely 25.   I’m sure they very quickly figured out who he was.   In a matter of a few minutes.   I’m sure it happened fast.   But they easily had probable cause, no matter who he was.  Then they confirmed.   At least that’s how I believe it was presented.  

I'm not arguing with you plus I don't know the whole story. But when they pulled Irsay over. They ran his plate, then they went to the vehicle window and asked for his ID. They knew who he was.

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

He said that’s why he was arrested.   Police didn’t know who he was when he was initially pulled over.  They didn’t know who was behind the wheel.   But once he failed the field test and was arrested, by then they knew who he was.   Have you even seen the full video?  
 

That was my point when I responded to that post.   He didn’t say he was pulled over because there was prejudice at him being a billionaire.  He said that was why he was arrested.  

[GoColts8818]

5 hours ago, Smonroe said:

He never said that’s why he was pulled over.  Read the article.

That’s fine but they still weren’t prejudiced against him for being a rich, white, billionaire.  They saw someone driving erratically and pulled him over and determined he was too impaired to drive and arrested him and guess what they were right.  They didn’t arrest him becsuse he was a rich white billionaire as he claims.  They arrested him because he was DUI which they would arrest anyone for if they caught them.  That’s by the book treatment.  

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, EasyE said:

I'm not arguing with you plus I don't know the whole story. But when they pulled Irsay over. They ran his plate, then they went to the vehicle window and asked for his ID. They knew who he was.

Understood….  And I don’t think I’m arguing with you, just trying to clarify.   
 

If there were a list of steps taken by police, I don’t think running his plates was first.   Spotting him and getting him out of the car was first.    THEN officially getting his ID.   I wouldn’t be surprised if the cops knew who Irsay was just by recognizing him.  Either way, he had to produce ID and that was that.  
 

I’m not trying to say which came first, the chicken or the egg.   Only determine which steps came in which order.   
 

I think it was @GoColts8818 who stated police had probable cause based on what Irsay was doing.   Hard to imagine they saw him, ran his plates, said there’s Jim Irsay, let’s bust him.    They saw him, pulled him over, THEN quickly realized who he was.   

I don’t find Irsay’s argument very compelling. 

 

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

That’s fine but they still weren’t prejudiced against him for being a rich, white, billionaire.  They saw someone driving erratically and pulled him over and determined he was too impaired to drive and arrested him and guess what they were right.  They didn’t arrest him becsuse he was a rich white billionaire as he claims.  They arrested him because he was DUI which they would arrest anyone for if they caught them.  That’s by the book treatment.  

I’m not arguing about that, I was just correcting an earlier post. 
 

Earlier I did say rich people are treated differently by the justice system, good and bad.  Mostly to their advantage.  But sometimes to make an example.  

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, EasyE said:

I'm commenting on when you said they didn't know who he was. They have a plate number and driver's license they ask for. They don't ask for that unless you are a runner and resisting the pullover and questioning.

OK….    I’m confused.  
 

You wrote:  they don’t ask for a plate number and drivers license unless you’re running and resisting pullover and questioning.    
 

Totally confused. 
 

Police ask everyone for a drivers license, a form if I’d, registration of EVERYONE, whether they’re resisting or not.   I give up ID and documents on the few times I’ve been pulled over.   It’s pretty much standard operating procedure for everyone pulled over. 
 

So I don’t understand your comment.  
 

Sorry, if I’m misunderstanding you.  

[Smoke317]

Irsay needs to stop with the interviews & twitter exchanges. Just a terrible look.  He can try to spin it all he wants but him being a white billionaire most likely played a role in him getting the more serious charges dropped.

 

Then when Andrea brought up the girlfriend that OD’d he factually stated that people who use drugs are at a major risk of dying.  Yes they are and  I’m sure he said that because he didn’t want to discuss that incident at great length or in any detail. But it just came across as callous and non-empathetic. 
 

Just a cluster-f of an interview. Really makes it look like the timing of Leonard’s release was to take some of the attention off of the interview. I’m sure the Colts PR team knew it was coming and couldn’t stop it so you cut a respected team leader the day before he’s handing out turkeys to families in need for Thanksgiving in an attempt to lessen the blow of the interview. 

 

They really need to get their ish together over on 56th street. The only good thing that came from that interview was we Colts fans got to see that Irsay still regularly reaches out to Peyton.  So maybe it’s time to bring #18 home and give him a small % of the team and let him be team president or something?
 

This franchise is too iconic to be doing self destructive, dysfunctional stuff like this 2 years in a row.  Jeff Saturday hire last year now this.  I’m afraid to think of what could be in store next year.  Hopefully, the 3rd time is the charm & Peyton comes back.

[RollerColt]

4 hours ago, Smoke317 said:

Hopefully, the 3rd time is the charm & Peyton comes back.

My friend, I just don’t see it happening. Colorado > Indiana. I think Peyton is happy where he’s currently located. 

[Yoshinator]

39 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

My friend, I just don’t see it happening. Colorado > Indiana. I think Peyton is happy where he’s currently located. 

Yep. I live in Colorado and would have no interest in living in Indiana except for going to Colts games because I'm a Colts fan. I would guess if you asked 100 random people with no bias, the majority would want to live in Colorado. There's very little appeal to living in Indiana IMO.

[RollerColt]

8 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Yep. I live in Colorado and would have no interest in living in Indiana except for going to Colts games because I'm a Colts fan. I would guess if you asked 100 random people with no bias, the majority would want to live in Colorado. There's very little appeal to living in Indiana IMO.

I fell in love with the natural beauty of the state the second I visited it. My family was supposed to make a big trip all over the southwest one year, and we ended up staying in Colorado exploring for two weeks lol. 
 

Glenwood Springs was my favorite location. Definitely planning to visit there again some day. 
 

I’m lucky enough to live in the lower eastern portion of Indiana, which has plenty of hills and steep valleys (we call them knobs). It’s not mountains, but it’s certainly a better view compared to some of the flatlands in the north. Heck we’ve even got a ski resort down here lol… 

[Yoshinator]

6 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I fell in love with the natural beauty of the state the second I visited it. My family was supposed to make a big trip all over the southwest one year, and we ended up staying in Colorado exploring for two weeks lol. 
 

Glenwood Springs was my favorite location. Definitely planning to visit there again some day. 
 

I’m lucky enough to live in the lower eastern portion of Indiana, which has plenty of hills and steep valleys (we call them knobs). It’s not mountains, but it’s certainly a better view compared to some of the flatlands in the north. Heck we’ve even got a ski resort down here lol… 

Nice. I go to cripple creek a few times a month, and there's always lots of tourists there visiting the mountains. I'm not the biggest fan of them, but they are enjoyable every once in a while, (especially when friends visit). I know of Glenwood Springs, but I don't think I've been there to visit except to drive thru. Never gone skiing surprisingly. I will probably go to Aspen one day. 

[ADnum1]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Understood….  And I don’t think I’m arguing with you, just trying to clarify.   
 

If there were a list of steps taken by police, I don’t think running his plates was first.   Spotting him and getting him out of the car was first.    THEN officially getting his ID.   I wouldn’t be surprised if the cops knew who Irsay was just by recognizing him.  Either way, he had to produce ID and that was that.  
 

I’m not trying to say which came first, the chicken or the egg.   Only determine which steps came in which order.   
 

I think it was @GoColts8818 who stated police had probable cause based on what Irsay was doing.   Hard to imagine they saw him, ran his plates, said there’s Jim Irsay, let’s bust him.    They saw him, pulled him over, THEN quickly realized who he was.   

I don’t find Irsay’s argument very compelling. 

 

What you say makes sense but that's not what irsay said.

 

Being profiled as a rich white billionaire means he was driving a very expensive car and he was most likely profiled by black police officers. 

 

By irsays account, he wasn't doing anything wrong (not weaving), driving his Bentley around minding his business not doing anything wrong.

 

Also by using the word "white" he is saying he was profiled by black officers who were jealous of his wealth and his expensive car.

 

Right ?

[BlackTiger]

22 hours ago, w87r said:

I agree and this seems to be what happened.

 

 

They got him(arrested him)for it and it got dropped because he provided proof of having a prescription.

Or he could have been guilty and dropped too.  The way he carried them makes it look guilty to me.  That doesnt make sense if he did have them

[masterlock]

20 hours ago, masterlock said:

Sorry Jim, but "prejudice" isn't the reason you were pulled over. You were pulled over because you were driving 10 mph and could barely speak. 

 

16 hours ago, Smonroe said:

He never said that’s why he was pulled over.  Read the article.

One is normally 'pulled over' or 'taken in' (to custody). He said "pulled in", which is a mix of the two, so your guess is as good as mine. In any case, whether he was referring to the stop or the arrest doesn't really matter, unless we're in a court of law, which we're not. His point was that the police were unfairly prejudiced against him because he's a rich, white billionaire, which is kind of a baseless claim since the was pulled him over with cause, and arrested him with cause. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

43 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

What you say makes sense but that's not what irsay said.

 

Being profiled as a rich white billionaire means he was driving a very expensive car and he was most likely profiled by black police officers. 

 

By irsays account, he wasn't doing anything wrong (not weaving), driving his Bentley around minding his business not doing anything wrong.

 

Also by using the word "white" he is saying he was profiled by black officers who were jealous of his wealth and his expensive car.

 

Right ?

I don't think he meant he was being profiled by black officers. I think he meant he was being profiled because of who he is. He is basically a celebrity with a lot of money, so the cops knew by pulling him over they would make a good name for themselves, and it would be big news. Cops knew who they were pulling over, he lives in Hamilton County and cops even run people's plates before they even pull people over. Once a plate is ran it shows who owns the vehicle. Having said that, he deserved to get pulled over for driving erratically. He was under the influence of prescribed pain killers, you should not drive while taking those. He did and he got arrested. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, PRnum1 said:

What you say makes sense but that's not what irsay said.

 

Being profiled as a rich white billionaire means he was driving a very expensive car and he was most likely profiled by black police officers. 

 

By irsays account, he wasn't doing anything wrong (not weaving), driving his Bentley around minding his business not doing anything wrong.

 

Also by using the word "white" he is saying he was profiled by black officers who were jealous of his wealth and his expensive car.

 

Right ?

Actually, Irsay was driving an ordinary looking SUV and I don’t recall the race of the officers,  but no one has brought up the race of the officers.   Certainly not Irsay.   All he said was that he was profiled because of who he was.   Profiling doesn’t imply race.   A white officer can profile a while suspect.   

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, Smoke317 said:

Irsay needs to stop with the interviews & twitter exchanges. Just a terrible look.  He can try to spin it all he wants but him being a white billionaire most likely played a role in him getting the more serious charges dropped.

 

Then when Andrea brought up the girlfriend that OD’d he factually stated that people who use drugs are at a major risk of dying.  Yes they are and  I’m sure he said that because he didn’t want to discuss that incident at great length or in any detail. But it just came across as callous and non-empathetic. 
 

Just a cluster-f of an interview. Really makes it look like the timing of Leonard’s release was to take some of the attention off of the interview. I’m sure the Colts PR team knew it was coming and couldn’t stop it so you cut a respected team leader the day before he’s handing out turkeys to families in need for Thanksgiving in an attempt to lessen the blow of the interview. 

 

They really need to get their ish together over on 56th street. The only good thing that came from that interview was we Colts fans got to see that Irsay still regularly reaches out to Peyton.  So maybe it’s time to bring #18 home and give him a small % of the team and let him be team president or something?
 

This franchise is too iconic to be doing self destructive, dysfunctional stuff like this 2 years in a row.  Jeff Saturday hire last year now this.  I’m afraid to think of what could be in store next year.  Hopefully, the 3rd time is the charm & Peyton comes back.

Peyton has zero interest running the team.  He’s living the life he’s always wanted.  He’s having fun.   He doesn’t want to be a GM, not for the Colts or the Broncos or any other team.   He doesn’t want that grind.  Life is good these days for Peyton Manning.