Doc Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Holmes Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teef Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Holmes Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Holmes Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Holmes Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts