Ed Oliver interview - NFL put him in the drug program?

[Doc]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Michael Bennett is hardly a solid and stable role model. You can think it is too cautious and risk averse if you wish but I guarantee that his attorney advised him to say nothing. If you are looking at that as somehow implicating him you are way, way off.

 

Not to mention Michael Bennett ended up looking like a fool because he lied about his arrest.  There is little to be gained from saying something before your case is adjudicated. 

 

But let's say the scenario (i.e. there was Adderall in Oliver's system, and it was within or below the tx range) mentioned above happened.  How would you have defended him, GB?

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Not to mention Michael Bennett ended up looking like a fool because he lied about his arrest.  There is little to be gained from saying something before your case is adjudicated. 

 

But let's say the scenario (i.e. there was Adderall in Oliver's system, and it was within or below the tx range) mentioned above happened.  How would you have defended him, GB?

 

Do you mean in terms of a legal defense? It is below the legal level there presumably would be no charge to answer. If it was a little over the legal level then you advise your client to plead guilty immediately. If it is way over the legal level you start looking fro procedural loopholes.

[Doc]

21 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Do you mean in terms of a legal defense? It is below the legal level there presumably would be no charge to answer. If it was a little over the legal level then you advise your client to plead guilty immediately. If it is way over the legal level you start looking fro procedural loopholes.

 

I'm figuring you're a lawyer so yes, legal defense.   Just to clarify, are you saying that as long as Oliver's Adderall level was in the therapeutic range or lower (and there's no reason to think it would be higher), considering we're pretty sure he has a prescription for it, there's no case against him?

Edited August 12, 2020 by Doc

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I'm figuring you're a lawyer so yes, legal defense.   Just to clarify, are you saying that as long as Oliver's Adderall level was in the therapeutic range or lower (and there's no reason to think it would be higher), considering we're pretty sure he has a prescription for it, there's no case against him?

 

I studied law at University but I have never practiced. I am though a policy director advising the UK government on justice issues and I advised on criminal procedure for a number of years. A lot of my social circle (friends, ex-girlfriend etc) are practicing lawyers. 

 

I am no expert on Texas state law but if he tested positive for a drug he was taking on prescription then unless he had levels of that drug in his system above the lawful threshold for being in charge of a vehicle there is no case to answer. 

[Doc]

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I studied law at University but I have never practiced. I am though a policy director advising the UK government on justice issues and I advised on criminal procedure for a number of years. A lot of my social circle (friends, ex-girlfriend etc) are practicing lawyers. 

 

I am no expert on Texas state law but if he tested positive for a drug he was taking on prescription then unless he had levels of that drug in his system above the lawful threshold for being in charge of a vehicle there is no case to answer. 

 

You would think.  I can't say for sure that's the case, though.

[Mr. WEO]

9 hours ago, Doc said:

 

No need.  They're footnotes.

 

 

Doctor's note?  That the best you got. 

 

What about technicalities?  Overzealous cops?  That he'd been on the drug for years and it helps him focus?

 

doc, the law doesn't ask why you are taking a substance that puts you on the DUI list, or if you have a prescription for it or what your DSM 5 diagnosis is.  

 

Maybe he could produce evidence that he can be on his normal dose of adderall and proven a safe driver by an independent monitor/reviewer, then he could bat the case (see? there you go!--I charge by the 15 minutes).

 

Technicalities are always an avenue for appeal, but "overzealous cops" isn't such.  Maybe as the basis for a civil suit if he feels that strongly.  I'm sure a criminal court judge in Texas wouldn't give 2 seconds of thought to the question of how this arrest was initiated and conducted.  Zero help there.

 

I couldn't find a "legal adderall limit" for DUI in Texas.  Like for prescription narcotics or Benzos...there is no such limit.  Its a tox screen:  positive or negative.

 

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Michael Bennett is hardly a solid and stable role model. You can think it is too cautious and risk averse if you wish but I guarantee that his attorney advised him to say nothing. If you are looking at that as somehow implicating him you are way, way off.

 

The point is, especially in today's political climate, speaking out against bad cops and a bad arrest poses absolutely no risk to a defendent.  If anything, it would be to his advantage to influence a potential jury pool should it come to that.  His lawyer recommending that he "say nothing in public until your test comes back" while his client is telling him he took no substances at all and they have a 0.0 FST in their pocket makes doesn't seem like sound legal advice.

[GunnerBill]

14 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The point is, especially in today's political climate, speaking out against bad cops and a bad arrest poses absolutely no risk to a defendent.  If anything, it would be to his advantage to influence a potential jury pool should it come to that.  His lawyer recommending that he "say nothing in public until your test comes back" while his client is telling him he took no substances at all and they have a 0.0 FST in their pocket makes doesn't seem like sound legal advice.

 

Why doesn't it? You think advising them to attempt to litigate their criminal charge via social media would be preferable? I am sorry that is just wrong. 

 

Keep your mouth shut, do what is asked of you, and when the truth inevitably outs you can have your say. 

[Mr. WEO]

46 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Why doesn't it? You think advising them to attempt to litigate their criminal charge via social media would be preferable? I am sorry that is just wrong. 

 

Keep your mouth shut, do what is asked of you, and when the truth inevitably outs you can have your say. 

 
That’s not how things are going these day’s—not in this side of the pond.  That mentality has brought us to this point 

 

Again, with no risk or penalty, playing your case in social media would be a safe parallel defense.  5 years ago, maybe not.  To argue otherwise is to ignore current reality. This wasn’t a violent crime charge, it was a dime a dozen DWI that many have concluded was racially motivated.  

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 
That’s not how things are going these day’s—not in this side of the pond.  That mentality has brought us to this point 

 

Again, with no risk or penalty, playing your case in social media would be a safe parallel defense.  5 years ago, maybe not.  To argue otherwise is to ignore current reality. This wasn’t a violent crime charge, it was a dime a dozen DWI that many have concluded was racially motivated.  

 

I don't think that is how you have got to this point at all. And regardless of whether you think his attorney was right or wrong I am 99.9% certain that is the advice he will have received and is the reason he stayed silent.

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

doc, the law doesn't ask why you are taking a substance that puts you on the DUI list, or if you have a prescription for it or what your DSM 5 diagnosis is.  

 

Maybe he could produce evidence that he can be on his normal dose of adderall and proven a safe driver by an independent monitor/reviewer, then he could bat the case (see? there you go!--I charge by the 15 minutes).

 

Technicalities are always an avenue for appeal, but "overzealous cops" isn't such.  Maybe as the basis for a civil suit if he feels that strongly.  I'm sure a criminal court judge in Texas wouldn't give 2 seconds of thought to the question of how this arrest was initiated and conducted.  Zero help there.

 

I couldn't find a "legal adderall limit" for DUI in Texas.  Like for prescription narcotics or Benzos...there is no such limit.  Its a tox screen:  positive or negative.

 

The law also doesn't allow for handjobs in massage parlors.  Yet Kraft still (ahem) got off.  How could that be?  You know the answer.

 

As for the bolded part, really?  You might want to revisit your/the Kraft defense. 

 

I'd argue that being on a medication, one that he has a valid prescription for, is used to help improve focus, which he has been on for years and being within (or below) the therapeutic range, doesn't necessarily make one impaired.  I'd then ask the LEOs if they observed him swerving or driving unsafely and if so, why didn't they see fit to charge him with that as well?
 

But again, all academic now.  He was innocent all along. 

 

 

 

[Doc]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I don't think that is how you have got to this point at all. And regardless of whether you think his attorney was right or wrong I am 99.9% certain that is the advice he will have received and is the reason he stayed silent.

 

Forget it GB.  If you haven't realized it by now, WEO believes any Bills player who gets into legal trouble is guilty...period.  It doesn't matter what comes out exonerating or if legal action isn't taken against the player. 

 

I mean, in this case it couldn't be any more cut-and-dried seeing as how Oliver's lab tests came back negative for everything, including Adderall.  Yet here he is, offering some silly "he would have protested on social media!" as some sort of proof that he was somehow impaired by, and worried about, it even though he obviously didn't take it for at least 4 days (which is how long it can remain in the bloodstream).

[Sherlock Holmes]

13 hours ago, Doc said:

 

No need.  They're footnotes.

 

 

Doctor's note?  That the best you got. 

 

What about technicalities?  Overzealous cops?  That he'd been on the drug for years and it helps him focus?

I find that a little meth salts help me focus as well how about you @teef?

Edited August 12, 2020 by Sherlock Holmes

[teef]

7 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said:

I find that a little meth salts help me focus as well how about you @teef?

i've been out of the baths salts game for a while now.  the eating other people thing...ya know.

[Sherlock Holmes]

2 hours ago, teef said:

i've been out of the baths salts game for a while now.  the eating other people thing...ya know.

Oh, bath salts are a whole different ball game! especially added to the meth salts... 

 

I'm sure mead could come up with a nice human rotisserie recipe though!!

 

 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Sherlock Holmes said:

I find that a little meth salts help me focus as well how about you @teef?

 

Adderall's legal.  And pure.  The other stuff...

[Sherlock Holmes]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Adderall's legal.  And pure.  The other stuff...

Well, both were technically legal until 2012... that was the year the real fun ended

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said:

Well, both were technically legal until 2012... that was the year the real fun ended

 

Meth salts were legal until 2012?

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

 

The law also doesn't allow for handjobs in massage parlors.  Yet Kraft still (ahem) got off.  How could that be?  You know the answer.

 

As for the bolded part, really?  You might want to revisit your/the Kraft defense. 

 

I'd argue that being on a medication, one that he has a valid prescription for, is used to help improve focus, which he has been on for years and being within (or below) the therapeutic range, doesn't necessarily make one impaired.  I'd then ask the LEOs if they observed him swerving or driving unsafely and if so, why didn't they see fit to charge him with that as well?
 

But again, all academic now.  He was innocent all along. 

 

 

 

 

One more time:

 

The Palm Beach cops and the DA blew the case because of really stupid (that's different from what you are thinking of as "overzealous" in Oliver's case) procedural mistakes.  Evidence was  (except for a you) predictably at risk, challenged and tossed.  So, yes, WE all KNEW the answer a week after the arrest.  You are still grappling with how on earth (!!) this all fell apart for you on the Kraft Handie Caper.   A shocking turn of events!!

 

I do like how you keep giving "me" credit for that defense though--it's still worth a chuckle.  Put me down for "the sun will rise in the East tomorrow" as well.  You can credit me later.

 

No one has challenged the Oliver stop.  Certainly neither he or his lawyer did, so why do you even mention it?.  They didn't see him swerving nor did they claim to, and didn't charge him for that.  You have no point there.  They pulled him over,  he told them he was taking a drug that is on the state's DUI list so they brought him in for a blood test.

 

See?  All very simple.

 

And as for your theory that his function is improved under the influence of adderall, the law in Texas doesn't not allow for that.  No doubt people on prescription narcotics would like to make that same claim--that their oxy's allow them to function normally.  Same with medical marijuana users.  The law would not care, or else it would have been written to allow for these exceptions.

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

One more time:

 

The Palm Beach cops and the DA blew the case because of really stupid (that's different from what you are thinking of as "overzealous" in Oliver's case) procedural mistakes.  Evidence was  (except for a you) predictably at risk, challenged and tossed.  So, yes, WE all KNEW the answer a week after the arrest.  You are still grappling with how on earth (!!) this all fell apart for you on the Kraft Handie Caper.   A shocking turn of events!!

 

I do like how you keep giving "me" credit for that defense though--it's still worth a chuckle.  Put me down for "the sun will rise in the East tomorrow" as well.  You can credit me later.

 

No one has challenged the Oliver stop.  Certainly neither he or his lawyer did, so why do you even mention it?.  They didn't see him swerving nor did they claim to, and didn't charge him for that.  You have no point there.  They pulled him over,  he told them he was taking a drug that is on the state's DUI list so they brought him in for a blood test.

 

See?  All very simple.

 

And as for your theory that his function is improved under the influence of adderall, the law in Texas doesn't not allow for that.  No doubt people on prescription narcotics would like to make that same claim--that their oxy's allow them to function normally.  Same with medical marijuana users.  The law would not care, or else it would have been written to allow for these exceptions.

 

Yeah, I know all about how Kraft got away with a handy in a massage parlor.  Again the point is that what appears to be a slam dunk case (illegal activity caught on camera) turns out not to be...in this case because of overzealous law enforcement.

 

Why didn't they challenge the stop?  Huh?  They didn't have to challenge a thing.  Because Oliver was innocent from the start.  And they knew it.  No need to challenge anything, no need to complain about the stop, no need to sweat...just wait for the facts to come out.  Again if Oliver had some Adderall in his system, his lawyer could have attacked the lack of a reckless driving charge, i.e. if it wasn't documented, it didn't happen and say there was no grounds to claim impairment. 

 

And yeah, doctors routinely prescribe opioids for ADHD/focus issues.  Good one.

[Sherlock Holmes]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Meth salts were legal until 2012?

No Bath Salts were legal until 2012...

 

Meth is still legal as the pharmaceutical Desoxyn.

[Sherlock Holmes]

28 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah, I know all about how Kraft got away with a handy in a massage parlor.  Again the point is that what appears to be a slam dunk case (illegal activity caught on camera) turns out not to be...in this case because of overzealous law enforcement.

 

Why didn't they challenge the stop?  Huh?  They didn't have to challenge a thing.  Because Oliver was innocent from the start.  And they knew it.  No need to challenge anything, no need to complain about the stop, no need to sweat...just wait for the facts to come out.  Again if Oliver had some Adderall in his system, his lawyer could have attacked the lack of a reckless driving charge, i.e. if it wasn't documented, it didn't happen and say there was no grounds to claim impairment. 

 

And yeah, doctors routinely prescribe opioids for ADHD/focus issues.  Good one.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

One more time:

 

The Palm Beach cops and the DA blew the case because of really stupid (that's different from what you are thinking of as "overzealous" in Oliver's case) procedural mistakes.  Evidence was  (except for a you) predictably at risk, challenged and tossed.  So, yes, WE all KNEW the answer a week after the arrest.  You are still grappling with how on earth (!!) this all fell apart for you on the Kraft Handie Caper.   A shocking turn of events!!

 

I do like how you keep giving "me" credit for that defense though--it's still worth a chuckle.  Put me down for "the sun will rise in the East tomorrow" as well.  You can credit me later.

 

No one has challenged the Oliver stop.  Certainly neither he or his lawyer did, so why do you even mention it?.  They didn't see him swerving nor did they claim to, and didn't charge him for that.  You have no point there.  They pulled him over,  he told them he was taking a drug that is on the state's DUI list so they brought him in for a blood test.

 

See?  All very simple.

 

And as for your theory that his function is improved under the influence of adderall, the law in Texas doesn't not allow for that.  No doubt people on prescription narcotics would like to make that same claim--that their oxy's allow them to function normally.  Same with medical marijuana users.  The law would not care, or else it would have been written to allow for these exceptions.

You two are so cute... menage a trois?!?!?!

[Doc]

41 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said:

No Bath Salts were legal until 2012...

 

Meth is still legal as the pharmaceutical Desoxyn.

 

Gotcha.

 

32 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said:

You two are so cute... menage a trois?!?!?!

 

You offering-up your wife? 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah, I know all about how Kraft got away with a handy in a massage parlor.  Again the point is that what appears to be a slam dunk case (illegal activity caught on camera) turns out not to be...in this case because of overzealous law enforcement.

 

Why didn't they challenge the stop?  Huh?  They didn't have to challenge a thing.  Because Oliver was innocent from the start.  And they knew it.  No need to challenge anything, no need to complain about the stop, no need to sweat...just wait for the facts to come out.  Again if Oliver had some Adderall in his system, his lawyer could have attacked the lack of a reckless driving charge, i.e. if it wasn't documented, it didn't happen and say there was no grounds to claim impairment. 

 

And yeah, doctors routinely prescribe opioids for ADHD/focus issues.  Good one.

 

Again, the Palm Springs keystone cops were not "overzealous"--they were ignorant of the law regarding videotaping and traffic stops.  They could have easily nailed Public Enemy Number One had they used competent evidence gathering.  It had nothing to do with their "zeal".  They were just dumb.

 

Cops aren't compelled to charge for "reckless driving" when they are charging for DWI compounding a weapons charge.  "Attacking" the "lack" of more charges isn't usually something a defendant pays his lawyer to do.  And a judge would laugh at your pretzel logic argument, counselor.

 

So we do agree that the Oliver stop was not an act of overzealous cops.  That's hopeful, doc.

 

Obviously I didn't claim that doctors (who actually prescribe medications for patients they are treating to preserve functional status) prescribe narcotics for ADHD, Straw Man George Patton.  You understood my comparison of one prescription drug in a driver for another, yet you made that bizarre comment anyway----as if you did not.  

 

 

 

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Again, the Palm Springs keystone cops were not "overzealous"--they were ignorant of the law regarding videotaping and traffic stops.  They could have easily nailed Public Enemy Number One had they used competent evidence gathering.  It had nothing to do with their "zeal".  They were just dumb.

 

Cops aren't compelled to charge for "reckless driving" when they are charging for DWI compounding a weapons charge.  "Attacking" the "lack" of more charges isn't usually something a defendant pays his lawyer to do.  And a judge would laugh at your pretzel logic argument, counselor.

 

So we do agree that the Oliver stop was not an act of overzealous cops.  That's hopeful, doc.

 

Obviously I didn't claim that doctors (who actually prescribe medications for patients they are treating to preserve functional status) prescribe narcotics for ADHD, Straw Man George Patton.  You understood my comparison of one prescription drug in a driver for another, yet you made that bizarre comment anyway----as if you did not. 

 

Doesn't matter what they're compelled to do.  If they don't charge him for it, or at least produce evidence like dash cam footage of impaired driving...there's reasonable doubt he was truly impaired by anything.  And judging by the fact that this "DUI expert" got it wrong, there's probably more footage of the same officer making a mistake or three, which calls into question his credibility.  So yes being overzealous to charge him with something because they got a call and he "seemed impaired" is still in play.  They're all things Oliver's lawyer can bring up to say "drop the charges or see you in court."

 

And don't blame me for your use of opioids as an example.  The reason I'm discussing Adderall is because it is prescribed to improve focus, whereas DUI is an issue of lack of focus.  If he had been on opioids for a long time, I wouldn't even bother to mount a defense.

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Doesn't matter what they're compelled to do.  If they don't charge him for it, or at least produce evidence like dash cam footage of impaired driving...there's reasonable doubt he was truly impaired by anything.  And judging by the fact that this "DUI expert" got it wrong, there's probably more footage of the same officer making a mistake or three, which calls into question his credibility.  So yes being overzealous to charge him with something because they got a call and he "seemed impaired" is still in play.  They're all things Oliver's lawyer can bring up to say "drop the charges or see you in court."

 

And don't blame me for your use of opioids as an example.  The reason I'm discussing Adderall is because it is prescribed to improve focus, whereas DUI is an issue of lack of focus.  If he had been on opioids for a long time, I wouldn't even bother to mount a defense.

 

What "mistake"?  There was report of erratic driving in a 911 call.  They found the car fitting the 911 description and pulled him over.  The call was grounds for the stop--that's been settled.  So the case has nothing to do with what they "witnessed" other than the FST (your "seemed impaired") and his admission to be using a substance that Texas doesn't  let you legally use while driving (doctor's note or not).  

 

You keep harping on the indications for adderall...but they are clearly irrelevant, just as the indications for a pain management specialist prescribing narcotics to allow a person in chronic pain to function in their activities of daily living are irrelevant to the legal operation of a car in that state.  You can repeat it infinitely, but a judge knows what is on the list of prohibited meds/drugs/etc---and he/she knows amphetamines are on that list.  He/she doesn't care what you told your doctor you needed them prescribed for.  It's not, in and of itself, a valid defense.  

 

DA: "your defendant had adderall, a substance Texas DWI law prohibits in the legal operation of a car, in his system at the time he was pulled over, therefore he is charged with DUI"

You: "he NEEDS that medicine to  FOCUS on stuff!  Ergo you must drop the charges or I'll see you in court!!" (exeunt).

 

It would be that funny to everyone but Oliver, had he amphetamines in his tox screen.

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

What "mistake"?  There was report of erratic driving in a 911 call.  They found the car fitting the 911 description and pulled him over.  The call was grounds for the stop--that's been settled.  So the case has nothing to do with what they "witnessed" other than the FST (your "seemed impaired") and his admission to be using a substance that Texas doesn't  let you legally use while driving (doctor's note or not).  

 

You keep harping on the indications for adderall...but they are clearly irrelevant, just as the indications for a pain management specialist prescribing narcotics to allow a person in chronic pain to function in their activities of daily living are irrelevant to the legal operation of a car in that state.  You can repeat it infinitely, but a judge knows what is on the list of prohibited meds/drugs/etc---and he/she knows amphetamines are on that list.  He/she doesn't care what you told your doctor you needed them prescribed for.  It's not, in and of itself, a valid defense.  

 

DA: "your defendant had adderall, a substance Texas DWI law prohibits in the legal operation of a car, in his system at the time he was pulled over, therefore he is charged with DUI"

You: "he NEEDS that medicine to  FOCUS on stuff!  Ergo you must drop the charges or I'll see you in court!!" (exeunt).

 

It would be that funny to everyone but Oliver, had he amphetamines in his tox screen.

 

What mistake?  The "DUI expert" claims that he seems impaired by something other than alcohol, the tox screen comes back negative...and "what mistake?"?  You think that that's the first time that's happened to that officer?

 

And yeah I keep harping because Adderall is used to help people focus and people manage to get off on=f alcohol DUI's all the time.  Seems like the law would be pretty specific there as well, no?

 

You see, fighting charges isn't reserved just for people with the Cheaters, WEO.  Why you have this odd belief that Bills players should always just accept the charges levied against them is anyone's guess?

 

 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

29 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

What mistake?  The "DUI expert" claims that he seems impaired by something other than alcohol, the tox screen comes back negative...and "what mistake?"?  You think that that's the first time that's happened to that officer?

 

And yeah I keep harping because Adderall is used to help people focus and people manage to get off on=f alcohol DUI's all the time.  Seems like the law would be pretty specific there as well, no?

 

You see, fighting charges isn't reserved just for people with the Cheaters, WEO.  Why you have this odd belief that Bills players should always just accept the charges levied against them is anyone's guess?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did I say he "should accept the charges leveled"?  He should have gotten on twitter on his way out of the station the next day and tell the world what happened to him.  He didn't.  

 

Also, it should go without saying that had his tox screen come back positive, the "DUI expert"'s prior policing habits would be a fruitless avenue of doubt--unless they include evidence tampering.  Another dead end, F doc Bailey....

 

The rest of you post is gibberish at this point.  The law is very specific.  Nowhere does it allow alcohol use while driving..."to help people focus".  People get off by challenging the Breathalyzer, the blood test, the stop--whatever they can.  They don't get off by suggesting that the laws banning drunk driving should allow for therapeutic exceptions.

 

You're all over the place now.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Mr. WEO

[Doc]

31 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Did I say he "should accept the charges leveled"?  He should have gotten on twitter on his way out of the station the next day and tell the world what happened to him.  He didn't.  

 

Also, it should go without saying that had his tox screen come back positive, the "DUI expert"'s prior policing habits would be a fruitless avenue of doubt--unless they include evidence tampering.  Another dead end, F doc Bailey....

 

The rest of you post is gibberish at this point.  The law is very specific.  Nowhere does it allow alcohol use while driving..."to help people focus".  People get off by challenging the Breathalyzer, the blood test, the stop--whatever they can.  They don't get off by suggesting that the laws banning drunk driving should allow for therapeutic exceptions.

 

You're all over the place now.

 

The only gibberish is the "he should have told the whole world what happened the next day" thing because that would have proven his innocence.  Like you or anyone else would have believed him.  Hell you have the tox screen in your face and you're still jabbering-on about how he was sweating this or that, as if he has/had no idea what and when he put something in his body. 

 

My advice to you is not to talk about Bills players' cases until they're settled.  They rarely go the way you want.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

24 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

The only gibberish is the "he should have told the whole world what happened the next day" thing because that would have proven his innocence.  Like you or anyone else would have believed him.  Hell you have the tox screen in your face and you're still jabbering-on about how he was sweating this or that, as if he has/had no idea what and when he put something in his body. 

 

My advice to you is not to talk about Bills players' cases until they're settled.  They rarely go the way you want.

 

 

 

yikes

Edited August 13, 2020 by Mr. WEO

[Sherlock Holmes]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Gotcha.

 

 

You offering-up your wife? 

No, myself silly...

[TwistofFate]

On 8/10/2020 at 11:54 AM, Doc said:

Does this happen to white drivers as well?  

It happened to me and I'm white...funny thing is, it too, happened to me in Texas. 

 

It should be called DWIT, Driving While In Texas. 

 

I was pulled over doing absolutely nothing wrong, simply because I had an out of state plate.