Vikings Message Board.Com

The Breeze wrote:I can't swallow comparing a murder scenario to a parole violation of smoking an herb.

I assume you're addressing this to me, and all I can say is, "You're smarter than that."

Nobody compared murder to smoking weed. It's about confession. If you confess to a crime, you're likely to be arrested. That's all I was saying.

Mothman wrote:http://www.people.com/article/adrian-pe ... tion-trial
If he's going to be arrested again, it sounds like it won't happen until this whole recusal situation gets resolved.

For those interested, here's a link to the actual text of the motion the DA filed (it's brief):

http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2014/1009/PetersonFiling_r.pdf

The only issue I have with it at this point is that according to the D.A.'s motion Peterson "admitted he smoked a little weed." There is no time frame specified in which he allegedly used marijuana, and therefore, is not indicative that he violated parole. It doesn't mean that there aren't more details that aren't included in the motion (the texts are typically a brief - not a "blow-by-blow" description), but honestly, if the DA filed this without knowing the specified time frame of the alleged marijuana use, then the motion should be denied, and the DA is incompetent.

IOW if Peterson "smoked a little weed" 6 months ago in Colorado, this is not an issue here (legally speaking). I would think the test result would be the final say in whether or not his bail will be revoked. OTOH if the allegation is that the employee asked, "Have you used any drugs since posting bail?" and Peterson's response was that he "smoked a little weed," well...then...

Just Me wrote:The only issue I have with it at this point is that according to the D.A.'s motion Peterson "admitted he smoked a little weed." There is no time frame specified in which he allegedly used marijuana, and therefore, is not indicative that he violated parole. It doesn't mean that there aren't more details that aren't included in the motion (the texts are typically a brief - not a "blow-by-blow" description), but honestly, if the DA filed this without knowing the specified time frame of the alleged marijuana use, then the motion should be denied, and the DA is incompetent.

... and if he knew the time frame, you would think it would have been included in the motion. Instead, it says:

"On October 8th 2014 the defendant made his first Court appearance and submitted to a urinalysis exam. During this process the defendant admitted to (name redacted), an employee of Davis Investigations, which conducts urinalysis testing for this Court; that he smoked a little weed. In light of this statement, and the fact that it was made during the urinalysis testing, and the term "weed" is a common slang term for marijuana, the State argues that the defendant has smoked marijuana while on bond for the current offense."

It's not very convincing on it's own...

IOW if Peterson "smoked a little weed" 6 months ago in Colorado, this is not an issue here (legally speaking). I would think the test result would be the final say in whether or not his bail will be revoked. OTOH if the allegation is that the employee asked, "Have you used any drugs since posting bail?" and Peterson's response was that he "smoked a little weed," well...then...

Even then, a positive answer could have been a nervous joke (which would, admittedly, be ill-timed and ill-considered). I would think that, as you said, the test results will probably be the determining factor.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: I assume you're addressing this to me, and all I can say is, "You're smarter than that."

Nobody compared murder to smoking weed. It's about confession. If you confess to a crime, you're likely to be arrested. That's all I was saying.

I wasn't directly/personally referring to you. Just the sentiment in general as it was thrown out a couple of times…and I understand your point totally.
My point is that I'm sick of seeing ganj smoking/consuming labelled as a crime. It's about as far away from murder, for example, as Mother Theresa is to Hitler… and more to the equivalent of a rolling stop at a stop sign, and if you confessed to that, unwitnessed and after the fact…nobody would give a rip, even if you were on probation.

The analogy and the whole situation just brings up my frustration and challenges I face at embracing contradiction. I'm aware we're speaking to different points in this case.

If I see Adrian Peterson trending on Facebook one more #### #### time...

This loser is prolly driving his sports car thru the city while stoned! He makes forest gump look like einstein!!

The Breeze wrote:

Well put Breeze. Again I also don't see the point in having a trial labeling someone innocent till proven guilty yet slapping on a bunch of restrictions? If someone is found innocent yet during their trial they break a rule they're charged even know they didn't do anything wrong in the first place but since they were on trial they had a different set of rules (even know in the end they're found innocent in the end).

So this seems flawed. For example if I wanted to press assault charges on someone all I would have to do is tell my friend (so and so) beat me up take him to the station and use him as a verbal witness. The guy 'we' made the story up about gets called into jail on a warrant; he leaves jail with a bunch of restrictions and a court date. He gets caught smoking weed or drinking alcohol and gets additional charges which he is convicted on. Long behold he had nothing to do with the assault charge which lead to the restrictions which lead to his now criminal record. Flawed IMO.

allday1991 wrote:
Well put Breeze. Again I also don't see the point in having a trial labeling someone innocent till proven guilty yet slapping on a bunch of restrictions? If someone is found innocent yet during their trial they break a rule they're charged even know they didn't do anything wrong in the first place but since they were on trial they had a different set of rules (even know in the end they're found innocent in the end).

So this seems flawed. For example if I wanted to press assault charges on someone all I would have to do is tell my friend (so and so) beat me up take him to the station and use him as a verbal witness. The guy 'we' made the story up about gets called into jail on a warrant; he leaves jail with a bunch of restrictions and a court date. He gets caught smoking weed or drinking alcohol and gets additional charges which he is convicted on. Long behold he had nothing to do with the assault charge which lead to the restrictions which lead to his now criminal record. Flawed IMO.

I am reminded of a quote that I always liked:

The United States has the worst legal system in the world...except for all the rest of them.

For example if I wanted to press assault charges on someone all I would have to do is tell my friend (so and so) beat me up take him to the station and use him as a verbal witness. The guy 'we' made the story up about gets called into jail on a warrant; he leaves jail with a bunch of restrictions and a court date. He gets caught smoking weed or drinking alcohol and gets additional charges which he is convicted on. Long behold he had nothing to do with the assault charge which lead to the restrictions which lead to his now criminal record. Flawed IMO.

Or he has an alibi. No bruises on his hands or anywhere else. And witnesses/evidence to show he wasn't anywhere near you at the time of the crime. And you end up getting charged with filing a false report....

He was arrested for a crime, posted bail, they gave him a form stating what he was not able to do while he was waiting for his trial (including not using drugs that were not legal in the state of texas). He signed it. And then used an illegal substance. And is apparently going to test positive for it.

But your non-existent situation is perfectly reasonable situation that happens all the time, damn the justice system!

More likely you have someone who gets charged, pays a lawyer, pays his bail, and despite doing something that's clearly and obviously wrong/illegal, gets off with a slap on the wrist...

Who gives a #### if AP smokes weed? Its the other stuff that I'm concerned about.

IMHO I don't care that AP smoked weed.


I care that he signed a document stating he wouldn't, then went and did so.


Throw the bum out.

IrishViking wrote:IMHO I don't care that AP smoked weed.

I care that he signed a document stating he wouldn't, then went and did so.

Do you care that there's absolutely no proof of that yet?

Mothman wrote: Do you care that there's absolutely no proof of that yet?

When do the results of the test come back?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

PurpleMustReign wrote: When do the results of the test come back?

I don't know.

The latest I've read on the whole case/mess is that a hearing on the prosecution's motion that the assigned Judge (Kelly case) be recused from the case is scheduled for tomorrow. My understanding is that the motion District Attorney Brett Ligon filed last week to have Peterson re-arrested on the basis of his alleged comment about smoking weed can't be ruled on until this matter with the Judge gets resolved.

Mothman wrote: Do you care that there's absolutely no proof of that yet?

No, there is no 'hard' proof, but if AP didn't admit to it, then why haven't we seen a statement from AP denying it?