Lol Sheldon Richardson only one game suspension for carchasegate

tuckeverlasting said:

for you.

Click to expand...

And the cops.

Listen, I know many really dislike guns and any mention of weed. I even first initially thought the gun was a big deal, but quickly realized it wasn't. (The weed "smell" I couldn't care less about, even though I don't smoke.) It's like a bias I was taught and learned as a kid. Similar to being raised Catholic and thinking being gay was wrong. Both are things I've been gradually correcting.

Admittedly though, when watching Game of Thrones and they do those surprise gay love scenes, I still flinch. It's like, war, boobs, dragons... scene fade to back... surprise!... two dudes bonin' in bed. (Think they do it on purpose.) So still have some learning to do myself.

Just gotta realize our North East culture is very different regarding guns vs the rest of the country.

tuckeverlasting said:

please explain these " misleading accusations ". where do you think the smell of weed came from ?

Click to expand...

Cologne?


Seriously though, I don't care at all about weed. The car could smell like it from previous events. Other people in the car could have smoked. Just so long as the driver isn't under the influence, don't care.

Misleading is mentioning the gun and weed when they have no bearing on things. Did they mention whether or not people had cigarettes? That's just as meaningful as the gun or weed smell.

see...my problem is the 12 yr old.

as far as game of thrones..love battles, boobs and dragons. whats not to like ? never noticed how they would spring the gay scenes. not that there's anything wrong with that. and yeah, i'm catholic errr was catholic too.

back to sheldon richardson. he should, at the minimum, get six games with his history.

tuckeverlasting said:

see...my problem is the 12 yr old.

Click to expand...

Now that's a valid point. Unlike the gun or weed.

But the cops couldn't charge for endangerment, so that does say something.

I'm not 100% on the details, but I think this happened late on a major highway that was empty. Still definitely doesn't make it right though.

Compare going 140 in a Bently on a multilane empty highway to going 90 in a minivan on a congested I95 during rush hour (which I see almost daily). Which is riskier to the kid?

JetFan79 said:

Now that's a valid point. Unlike the gun or weed.

Click to expand...

sorry no !! the gun and weed are extremely alarming. he must be a nut job.

I swear goodell is doing this to troll Patriots fans.

It's probably his payback for the "Where is Roger?" chants at Gillette last season

JetFan79 said:

And the cops.

Listen, I know many really dislike guns and any mention of weed. I even first initially thought the gun was a big deal, but quickly realized it wasn't. (The weed "smell" I couldn't care less about, even though I don't smoke.) It's like a bias I was taught and learned as a kid. Similar to being raised Catholic and thinking being gay was wrong. Both are things I've been gradually correcting.

Admittedly though, when watching Game of Thrones and they do those surprise gay love scenes, I still flinch. It's like, war, boobs, dragons... scene fade to back... surprise!... two dudes bonin' in bed. (Think they do it on purpose.) So still have some learning to do myself.

Just gotta realize our North East culture is very different regarding guns vs the rest of the country.

Click to expand...

Yeah sounds like the weed smell is irrelevant if they didn't find any (who would drive that fast high anyways?) and the gun was legal. Certainly up for debate on having a loaded gun with a kid in the car but...not technically illegal. Not that the NFL needs a legit reason to lay down some of Roger's own Industrial Justice.

Froob said:

... (who would drive that fast high anyways?) ...

Click to expand...

Exactly. This would be more like it.

JetFan79 said:

But the cops couldn't charge for endangerment, so that does say something

Click to expand...

Unless you have proof that they couldn't, your post should say didn't. If they could, yet didn't, it certainly does say something.

Galeb said:

Unless you have proof that they couldn't, your post should say didn't. If they could, yet didn't, it certainly does say something.

Click to expand...

Well they didn't charge him with murder either and I don't have evidence against it. So we must ask ourselves, do we really know what happened that night?

Sheldon could be the next Hernandez.

JetFan79 said:

Well they didn't charge him with murder either and I don't have evidence against it. So we must ask ourselves, do we really know what happened that night?

Sheldon could be the next Hernandez.

Click to expand...

The difference being that when people are pulled over for going well over 100 mph in most states, prosecutors automatically charge them with reckless endangerment. Although I'm not familiar with the local laws in Missouri, the claim that they "couldn't" seems absurd. The fact that they didn't after he tried to evade them with a child in the car is nothing short of negligence.

Saying they didn't charge him with murder either clearly betrays your obvious bias.

Galeb said:

The difference being that when people are pulled over for going well over 100 mph in most states, the prosecutors are required to charge them with reckless endangerment. Although I'm not familiar with the local laws in Missouri, the claim that they "couldn't" seems absurd. The fact that they didn't after he tried to evade them with a child in the car is nothing short of negligence.

Saying they didn't charge him with murder either clearly betrays your obvious bias.

Click to expand...

Prosecutor explains why Sheldon Richardson wasn't charged for drugs, child endangerment

FLORHAM PARK, N.J. -- The prosecuting attorney from St. Charles County in Missouri, which is handling the Sheldon Richardson case, shed some additional light on the matter Friday morning in a phone conversation with ESPN.com.

This will answer some of the questions that emerged late Thursday, when news of the July 14 arrest first broke.

Even though police sought a felony charge for child endangerment, the prosecutor's office -- after a two-week investigation -- decided not to charge Richardson because "we didn't think there was enough evidence to support that beyond a reasonable doubt," prosecuting attorney Tim Lohmar said.

"You might think, 'He was driving 143 mph with a child in the back seat; isn't that enough?'" Lohmar said. "There has to be some sort of intent on the part of the actor, causing immediate danger to the child. We looked at it closely, but we felt there wasn't enough."

Officials didn't reveal the identity of the child, but it's believed it may have been a relative of Richardson. In such cases, authorities sometimes find it difficult to prosecute because there can be a lack of cooperation from the child's family.

Lohmar said there were no drug-related charges because police found no marijuana in the car.

"We're pretty darn sure we know what was going on there," he said. "It reeked of marijuana ... but without the [marijuana] itself, you don't have enough evidence to support drug charges."

There was "nothing illegal whatsoever" in regard to the handgun, according to Lohmar. Guns are legal in Missouri, and Richardson possessed it in the proper manner, he said.

A few other details: Richardson's car was towed and he was transported to the police station, where he was arrested, booked and released, all within an hour.

JetFan79 said:

Prosecutor explains why Sheldon Richardson wasn't charged for drugs, child endangerment

FLORHAM PARK, N.J. -- The prosecuting attorney from St. Charles County in Missouri, which is handling the Sheldon Richardson case, shed some additional light on the matter Friday morning in a phone conversation with ESPN.com.

This will answer some of the questions that emerged late Thursday, when news of the July 14 arrest first broke.

Even though police sought a felony charge for child endangerment, the prosecutor's office -- after a two-week investigation -- decided not to charge Richardson because "we didn't think there was enough evidence to support that beyond a reasonable doubt," prosecuting attorney Tim Lohmar said.

"You might think, 'He was driving 143 mph with a child in the back seat; isn't that enough?'" Lohmar said. "There has to be some sort of intent on the part of the actor, causing immediate danger to the child. We looked at it closely, but we felt there wasn't enough."

Officials didn't reveal the identity of the child, but it's believed it may have been a relative of Richardson. In such cases, authorities sometimes find it difficult to prosecute because there can be a lack of cooperation from the child's family.

Lohmar said there were no drug-related charges because police found no marijuana in the car.

"We're pretty darn sure we know what was going on there," he said. "It reeked of marijuana ... but without the [marijuana] itself, you don't have enough evidence to support drug charges."

There was "nothing illegal whatsoever" in regard to the handgun, according to Lohmar. Guns are legal in Missouri, and Richardson possessed it in the proper manner, he said.

A few other details: Richardson's car was towed and he was transported to the police station, where he was arrested, booked and released, all within an hour.

Click to expand...

Child endangerment =/= reckless endangerment. The whole thing smells. The fact that they didn't charge him with RECKLESS endangerment is almost as shady as the fact that they didn't give him a THC breathalyzer.



In case you run out.

Galeb said:

Child endangerment =/= reckless endangerment. The whole thing smells. The fact that they didn't charge him with RECKLESS endangerment is almost as shady as the fact that they didn't give him a THC breathalyzer.

Click to expand...

Those things really exist?

JetFan79 said:

Those things really exist?

Click to expand...

Yep.

Galeb said:

Yep.

Click to expand...

Pot Breathalyzer May Be Coming Soon to Police Near You

According to this article (Dec 2015) it's still being developed and may soon reach police.

I'll be glad when it does though. It's the only thing I have against weed. No reliable way to test if someone is currently under the influence.

JetFan79 said:

Pot Breathalyzer May Be Coming Soon to Police Near You

According to this article (Dec 2015) it's still being developed and may soon reach police.

I'll be glad when it does though. It's the only thing I have against weed. No reliable way to test if someone is currently under the influence.

Click to expand...

Hope they get that going soon, I've heard they did studies and determined it wasn't really noticeably whether somebody was high or not driving. But, it's a big plus legally for them to have that.

I'm sure the appeal will work out well for him. I would expect Richardson to ask forgiveness for getting caught and Pash will recommend that Goodwill reduce it to $5 fine because the suspension would be harmful to the jets.

KontradictioN said:

I can see one game for him. The speed and marijuana were a non-issue because the tires were properly inflated and, therefore, made the car safe. You guys need to get your heads out of your asses. Not everyone is after the Pats in some sort of grand scheme to screw them over.

Click to expand...

He gets the official Jets discount

JetFan79 said:

Pot Breathalyzer May Be Coming Soon to Police Near You

According to this article (Dec 2015) it's still being developed and may soon reach police.

I'll be glad when it does though. It's the only thing I have against weed. No reliable way to test if someone is currently under the influence.

Click to expand...

I usually just look to see if they are wearing Jets paraphernalia.