Heitz Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 These guys will never learn Damn hippies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 One question, if the officer smelled a strong odor of cannabis? How come Nigel doesn't some type of operating a vehicle while impaired ticket e.g., DUI,DWI etc. A gues/hypoethesis* here... If there wasn't enough evidence that he had used the substance recently (before or during) driving the car, I wonder if he can plausisbly pass the stuff off as belonging to someone else. Or does the lack of DWI relate to the fact he wasn't pulled over for erractic driving... *not at all familiar with new york state laws so someone please tell me if my hypoethis isactually just me being ignorant and putting my foot in my mouth. 1-Perhaps he was just in possession of some dank weed. 2-Valid question. There had to be some probable cause. 3-Yes, lack of DWAI (ability impaired) would signify the patrolman believed him not to be stoned. I'm curious to was the PC was for the cop to pull him over. Was he speeding, swerving, tints, loud music, was it something other than any of these that made the cop think something was weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 False. I will unhappily submit myself as evidence. Same here. But then again the town where I got busted in in WNY had no black people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 1-Perhaps he was just in possession of some dank weed. 2-Valid question. There had to be some probable cause. 3-Yes, lack of DWAI (ability impaired) would signify the patrolman believed him not to be stoned. I'm curious to was the PC was for the cop to pull him over. Was he speeding, swerving, tints, loud music, was it something other than any of these that made the cop think something was weird. He was pulled over for tints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 What is the liklihood that the Bills cut him? He is probably a second stringer, maybe they wil decide they don't want to put up with the hassle or distraction. He's a starting LB and the Bills will not cut him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglukes Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 He's a starting LB and the Bills will not cut him. It's like people aren't even paying attention. He's pretty much run exclusively with the ones. And guys have done a hell of a lot worse and kept their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris heff Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 you,re my first... Are we going to Godfather quotes " Kevin,it's just business"...... "Leave the gun, take the cannoli ." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 (edited) There are a lot of questions here. It seems the cop was "fishing," and the subsequent amount of marijuana found would normally lead to an ACD (Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal). The NFL reserves the right to discipline players "convicted of or admitting to a violation of law" pertaining to use or possession of illegal substances. However, the ACD exists as chance to maintain a clean record. It is not a conviction and it's not equal to a probation. So I wonder: 1. Will the NFL consider Bradham's actions as a violation of their substance abuse policy? He certainly hasn't been convicted, and I don't know if the "admission" part applies in a criminal case. Admission is not the same as a confession, so I am interested to learn the NFL's interpretation of the term. 2. Is the Tonawanda PD at fault for acknowledging that it was indeed Bradham? When ACD is in play, there seems to be an assumption of privacy. In essence, if Bradham stays out of trouble for a period of time, there would be no record of the initial charge. Does a subsequent dismissal of the charge matter in the NFL's eyes? 3. Is the NFL willing to set a precedent that they will discipline a player on essentially hearsay? As noted above, the record of Bradham's possession exists in a weird (at least to this layman) legal netherworld, in the sense it may cease to officially exist. Of course, it "exists" now and there is a news report regarding the incident, but I don't know that the NFL can use that against Bradham since as far as I can tell, as that would be circumventing "due process." Any attorneys want to chime in here? I know we are talking about two sets of laws here, the NFL's and NYS's, but I have to assume that the NFLPA and Bradham have a good shot at "beating the case," so to speak. So I didn't really think all of this through. I did some asking around and some digging of my own and answered my own questions: The Tonawanda PD didn't violate any privacy. The fact that the charge may be dismissed at some future time is almost certainly irrelevant to the NFL. Conviction or not, the "facts" are out of the bag. Next, I turned to looking at other suspensions/discipline for other similar offenses. Based on Isaiah Pead's one game suspension, I think that is the most we can expect. http://profootballta...exas-last-july/ What seems more likely is that Bradham will enter Stage One of the league's intervention, he'll complete it, and we'll never hear anything from the NFL or the Bills about it again. Edited August 20, 2013 by uncle flap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 just goes to show you.. Never tint the windows . Profiling although unethical, usually creates revenue . My own local PD told me not to tint for just that reason. Idiot ? agreed. I am pissed at his stupidity much more than the reefers. Idiot Nigel. i had so much hope for you kid. and Tonawanda ? Really ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUNCH OF MULARKEY Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 What is the liklihood that the Bills cut him? He is probably a second stringer, maybe they wil decide they don't want to put up with the hassle or distraction. I think the league has been looking the other way as far as marijuana for a long time; and rightfully so. I'm sure if they wanted to administer the dreaded hair follicle test they would have to suspend at least 25 percent of the players. Its not so much of a drug issue as it is a stupidity issue. I never understood these guys that get caught drunk driving, it's like dude, you're a millionaire, hire a driver. I'm sure marrone will give him a spanking and he will have to attend the bs substance abuse classes. That's punishment enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Good we need more guys with records! My concern is WTF was he doing in Tonawanda? Wait a second? My daughter came home Saturday around 2am wreaking of pot. I live a block from Sheridan. You dont think? nahh. no way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Did not pay attention at rookie orientation that the NFL makes the guys go thru. Don't drink and drive, don't possess drugs, don't do roids, don't hook up with gold diggers and so on. Why do these guys still do these things? Because they are GUYS in the prime of their lives and have money to burn. We all had our knucklehead moments in our youth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Pettine is quoted as saying Bryan Scott is getting the first team reps while Bradham was getting 2nd team reps. I can see Brady pointing right now yelling "43 is the Mic!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 I can see Brady pointing right now yelling "43 is the Mic!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 I can see Brady pointing right now yelling "43 is the Mic!" It's Mike. And, are you saying 43 was the problem in that game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 (edited) A tint violation, eh? The window or Nigel? PTR Edited August 20, 2013 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 It's Mike. And, are you saying 43 was the problem in that game? The problem was 43 was playing linebacker. In wannys scheitty hybrid nickel. The guy is not a linebacker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AReed Deep For6 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Im from Tonawanda. The answer is Nigel. A tint violation, eh? The window or Nigel? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefootballexpert Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Just put the guy on waivers and move on. He's too light to play middle linebacker anyway. He was getting run over in the preseason games. Bills need another inside linebacker to play next to Kiko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglukes Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 (edited) Just put the guy on waivers and move on. He's too light to play middle linebacker anyway. He was getting run over in the preseason games. Bills need another inside linebacker to play next to Kiko. He's a grand total of two pounds lighter than Kiko. And I don't remember one instance of him getting run over in the preseason so far. Can we stop inventing problems please? Edited August 20, 2013 by biglukes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts