forums

Barry Jackson on OL/possible suspension

Advertisement
siulrc said:
he didn't have a permit at the time of the the arrest so I guess we shall see.. fyi: DONT TALK TO THE POLICE!. if Scaife would had just stuck to talk about the dark tint (reason for the stop) and exercise his right to no answer questions then there was no probable cause to search his car and admitting to the gun.
Click to expand...

They ALWAYS “smell weed” now.

This is the go to for any cop down to push through with an illegal search. There are many lawsuits challenging this law because it is being abused and judges are skeptical because it is used in so many searches where no weed is found. It’s obvious they are just circumventing our legal protections.

Unless something has changed recently, they still haven’t outlawed this shady conduct. The judges need to quit playing and put their foot down.
 
rsa coral gables said:
i read the prosecutor's memo and if you can read between the lines you know what happened.
Click to expand...
Reading between the lines is a choice. U are choosing to do that. Manny and the players have that ability to. They wouldn't want him back if the "reading between the lines" narrative was all that's needed to make a judgment call on this situation.
 
Advertisement
Please kick Herbert and Hillery off the team now. Utterly useless waste of roster space. These guys are redshirt juniors and don't do ****.
 
HarrietTubmanCane said:
U just posted that one can ever know everything in these situations but are yet again posting that Tae "certainly" acted improperly.
Click to expand...


No, he said that he certainly acted "improperly", not that he "certainly" acted improperly.

If you just think about it, the meaning is clear.
 
Advertisement
rsa coral gables said:
i read the prosecutor's memo and if you can read between the lines you know what happened.
Click to expand...


I am asking a question, because I do not know the answer. Some people have commented on how Dade does not make these documents public record on the website, though other counties do. You have seen the memo, does Dade have a prohibition on people sharing what could/should be a public document, or is the lack of availability on the website just something meant to limit the dissemination of such information, even though the public should theoretically have access?
 
Look how much Oluwaseun improved from year-to-year. Squats 685 lbs.

E2CX58LXoAMZNV4
 
HarrietTubmanCane said:
Reading between the lines is a choice. U are choosing to do that. Manny and the players have that ability to. They wouldn't want him back if the "reading between the lines" narrative was all that's needed to make a judgment call on this situation.
Click to expand...

it *is* a choice. you can choose to ignore what is written and what is loudly implied. in fact, what is implied is often more loudly communicated than what is actually written.

Manny wants to win, Manny wants to give the kid a second, or third or fourth chance (not sure which). Manny may feel that keeping the kid closer to the program is better for the kid than expelling him from hoard. Manny probably has more information than you and me and even the prosecutor. Having said al that, in reading the prosecutor's closing memo it is fairly clear to ME what happened, at least partially.
 
rok said:
Look how much Oluwaseun improved from year-to-year. Squats 685 lbs.

E2CX58LXoAMZNV4
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is I'd much rather have this kid as my backup tackle than my starting tackle, and that's no knock on him. I'm saying that because the alternative is him as my starter and Zalontae Hillery or some other complete turnstile as his backup. If you could guarantee me this kid and Williams would play every snap against Bama, I wouldn't love it because I think Zion is the best tackle on the team and we need him, but I wouldn't be hiding under my bed. If this kid or Williams hyperextends an elbow and I see my SIXTH preseason tackle jog onto the field against Alabama, I'm getting out of my seat and heading to the Chic-Fil-A in the stadium.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
I am asking a question, because I do not know the answer. Some people have commented on how Dade does not make these documents public record on the website, though other counties do. You have seen the memo, does Dade have a prohibition on people sharing what could/should be a public document, or is the lack of availability on the website just something meant to limit the dissemination of such information, even though the public should theoretically have access?
Click to expand...

closing memos can be obtained unless there is good reason to withhold its release. sometimes they are redacted. they are not online though, to my knowledge. they are not part of the criminal online docket. i hope i answered your question.
 
TruCane81 said:
They ALWAYS “smell weed” now.

This is the go to for any cop down to push through with an illegal search. There are many lawsuits challenging this law because it is being abused and judges are skeptical because it is used in so many searches where no weed is found. It’s obvious they are just circumventing our legal protections.

Unless something has changed recently, they still haven’t outlawed this shady conduct. The judges need to quit playing and put their foot down.
Click to expand...


And, in all fairness, it is possible to smell weed on the clothing/hair of a person who has recently smoked, even if that person currently has no weed on them.

But, YES, it is abused by cops who merely stand outside of the car, with no close proximity to the person, and SWEAR they can smell weed with no question at all. The cops act as if a mushroom cloud of smoke emerged from the car the moment the driver lowered the window, and that's just a load of crap (with some rare exceptions).

Early in my career, I was preparing an appellate brief (for the state) in a case where the person was appealing his DUI stop, which had happened in the Grove, near Bird and 27th. The (rookie) cop wrote up probable cause as "crossed the center line twice" and "sat at a green light for 5 minutes". In the original trial, when the cop was questioned on whether "crossing the center line twice" involved "over and back" (technically two crosses) or "over and back and then over and back again", THE COP WAS UNSURE. Then, when the cop was questioned on the obvious insanity of sitting behind a guy for FIVE minutes at a green light, the cop changed the story to "4 to 5 minutes".

Not only was the guy convicted at trial, but I also won the case (for the state) on appeal. But even I could see how ridiculous the cop's testimony was. There's not a light in Miami that stays green for 5 minutes, and there's not a cop in Miami that is patient enough to wait for someone for 5 minutes. Particularly at 1 am.
 
LuCane said:
You can't carry on your person until you have the physical permit. Even if it's been approved or is pending arrival to your address. And, there are rules about how to carry.

Don't the details of Scaife's case, but if, during the time of the traffic stop (or whatever), he had the firearm on his person without a permit, it's an issue. If he had it in his car in a "securely enclosed" location (think: anywhere that "clicks" or locks), then there shouldn't have been a problem. There are grey areas as to "how" to travel with a weapon when you don't have a CWP, but it's generally straightforward about what you can do with the CWP and the gun on your person.

*Mind you, I only got trained and started carrying last year during the pandemic (props to all here who suggested both firearms and training options - got the G19 and I'm all in on continuous tactical training), so I'm certain there are nuances I don't yet understand. I do carry almost 100% of the time now. If ever pulled over and asked for my driver's license by LEO, I am prepared to turn over my CWP simultaneously.
Click to expand...
You can’t concealed carry without permit. You can wear it on your hip like the wild wild west though.
 
Advertisement
rsa coral gables said:
closing memos can be obtained unless there is good reason to withhold its release. sometimes they are redacted. they are not online though, to my knowledge. they are not part of the criminal online docket. i hope i answered your question.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I was just wondering about whether the closing memo could be circulated. I did well in my Domestic Relations course, though I never handled any domestic cases. I'm just curious about the document and what it might discuss. It's a somewhat unique document, I'm not saying they don't exist for other types of cases, but it's not a very well-known type of thing. So many of the non-lawyers on the board think that everything is binary, everything is clear-cut, and so I was just curious as to whether (or how many) people might be perusing this document in the near future. And the propriety of doing so.
 
txcanes said:
Did you miss the part where no charges were pursued?
Click to expand...


Do you think it slipped past me?

Encyclopedias could be filled up with crimes in which "no charges were pursued".

I'd like for things to turn out well for our players, but I'm also not advocating that we turn our heads every time they do something wrong. There is a middle ground, the world is not "100% guilty" or "100% innocent".

We have plenty of lawyers on the board. No need for a non-lawyer to start opining on legal issues.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top