Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The Buffalo News' Jay Skurski writes Chris Ivory "would be the first option" if LeSean McCoy is unavailable.

 

Serious allegations against McCoy of domestic, child, and animal abuse surfaced this week, throwing his availability into question. Signed to a two-year deal in March, Ivory is the obvious replacement for McCoy if the Bills decide to stay in-house, but they could also look to add a veteran like DeMarco Murray or Adrian Peterson.
 
No matter who takes over, Buffalo's offense will be in serious trouble if McCoy is out.
Source: Buffalo News
Jul 12 - 10:29 AM
Posted

WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIGURE ANYTHING OUT ABOUT THIS CASE FOR A WHILE, why are people complaining about getting poor insight on a TBD thread about a Shady allegation after.. 2 days

Posted
1 hour ago, Fadingpain said:

I think there is a growing concern that Shady may well end up on that indefinite suspension list, depending on how this plays out and how long we go without him being exonerated, assuming he is even going to be. 

 

This case may well not come to some type of resolution in any quick manner.  

 

This aspect of the story will become the most relevant part given enough time.  Shady could easily be suspended pending the outcome of the investigation.

 

Who's concern?  Yours?

 

I will wait for facts before I become concerned.

Posted
1 hour ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

 

So at this point, we have no proof that McCoy beat his child, beat his dog, did PEDs, or had any previous domestic violence issues, and the only connection he has to this issue was a 911 call from a woman who was being sued by him.

 

"a" woman living in his house wearing the jewelry he wanted back...

Posted
4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

"a" woman living in his house wearing the jewelry he wanted back...

 

...and who was facing eviction with nowhere else to live, much less means to support herself... (next up)

 

Just now, LikeIGiveADarn said:

which has now been returned to it's rightful owner who was not Shady.

 

From where are you getting this?

Posted
1 hour ago, BuffaloSol said:

Someone saying "actually water isn't wet" is just them regurgitating a clickbait article they read to try and "get someone." 

 

And yes sorry I did get you and Murph6 a little confused. 

was that humor ? felt a bit like humor : )

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

...and who was facing eviction with nowhere else to live, much less means to support herself... (next up)

 

 

From where are you getting this?

 

Few pages back. Apparently the jewelry was loaned to her, and has since been recovered and returned to the jewelry store.

 

Going to guess the thief pawned it, and the police took it from the pawn shop.

Edited by LikeIGiveADarn
Posted
2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

...and who was facing eviction with nowhere else to live, much less means to support herself... (next up)

 

 

From where are you getting this?

 

That's true too.  But she wasn't a stranger.

Posted
1 hour ago, JoPar_v2 said:

She certainly does have tenant’s rights until those rights are revoked by a judge via an eviction proceeding. That hasn’t taken place yet. So not sure what you’re even saying anymore.

 

That is like saying just because someone sues someone for $1 million that they have the right to $1 million until a jury says otherwise. 

The judge is going to find that she has NO right to stay there.

You are arguing semantics just like DC Tom. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

Few pages back. Apparently the jewelry was loaned to her, and has since been recovered and returned to the jewelry store.

 

Going to guess the thief pawned it, and the police took it from the pawn shop.

 

They haven't recovered the jewelry.

Posted
2 minutes ago, LikeIGiveADarn said:

 

Few pages back. Apparently the jewelry was loaned to her, and has since been recovered and returned to the jewelry store.

 

Going to guess the thief pawned it, and the police took it from the pawn shop.

 

 

You "guessed" this? lol

 

The cops found which pawn shop the perp brought the evidence of  crime to and the cops immediately took this evidence to a jewelry shop they somehow knew owned the evidence?

 

Great guess...

Posted
1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

Do they or do they not have the right to appeal?

 

 

 

A "right" to appeal does not mean that she had an underlying substantive "right."

 

You are arguing for the sake of arguing. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...