Vikings Message Board.Com

Demi wrote: And they took an option QB/HB/WR/ATH/Thing.

And?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

frosted21 wrote: And?

I think what he's saying is that McKinnon was taken as a projected complimentary piece to Peterson as opposed to a flat out replacement for him.

Wow.

You get arrested. You're released on bail. Conditions of your bail include not smoking dope. So ... you smoke dope?

Enjoy jail, moron.

Holy crap, udder madness and jumping jesus on a pogo stick.

sad

Just legalize drugs already.

Orion wrote:Just legalize drugs already.

Even if they did (nothing is preventing Peterson from saying he did this in Colorado - so it's not that it's illegal per se) if it's a condition of his bail not to use it (alcohol is legal, but it can be prohibited for terms of bail) he's still violated his bail. So the 'legalization' really isn't the central issue here.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:Wow.

You get arrested. You're released on bail. Conditions of your bail include not smoking dope. So ... you smoke dope?

Enjoy jail, moron.

I think the operative word at work here is: "dope." 'Nuff said.

I really wanted to hope that Peterson was a guy who 'incorrectly' administered what he thought was proper discipline and went too far with it. What's going to be his excuse for this? It's not like you can 'accidentally use' marijuana.

Nobody will even remember this portion of the story in 3 months.

I don’t understand your country’s legal system at all. It says innocent till proven guilty however he has restrictions/rules he has to follow even before he has a court date?

allday1991 wrote:I don’t understand your country’s legal system at all. It says innocent till proven guilty however he has restrictions/rules he has to follow even before he has a court date?

Well ... you're innocent until proven guilty but if they walk in on you over a dead body covered in blood holding a knife you're probably spending your pretrial time in a jail cell. lol

That said, I don't quite understand the 'no drugs' restriction either. Seems like that should be more like a personal rule so you don't do anything stupid.

allday1991 wrote:I don’t understand your country’s legal system at all. It says innocent till proven guilty however he has restrictions/rules he has to follow even before he has a court date?

I would guess that your country and any other has similar restrictions. They aren't just going to let an alleged murderer wandering free until the trial. The drugs one seems pretty random though. I could understand if it was for a dui or something like that.

It's worth noting that he probably isn't actually going to be thrown in jail. They will likely just raise his bail or something. It would be pretty ridiculous to jail someone for months for admitting to smoking weed when it has nothing to do with the reason he's being tried in the first place. Then again, he is a celebrity, so standard procedure kind of gets thrown out the window.

allday1991 wrote:I don’t understand your country’s legal system at all. It says innocent till proven guilty however he has restrictions/rules he has to follow even before he has a court date?

The issue here is neither whether drugs should be legal nor is it whether we have an "innocent until proven guilty" standard in a court of law.

The idea that Peterson was obliged to refrain from smoking dope stems from the fact that we provide some folks who have been charged with crimes with alternatives to remaining in jail during the period when they are awaiting trial. These individuals reach an understanding with the judicial system that they won't commit certain acts if they are granted the privilege of leaving the jail. Allegedly, Peterson violated that understanding.

To me, you can summarize this story and all the other recent Peterson stories in one sentence, Adrian Peterson seems to have a near-infinite sense of personal entitlement.

How some folks can't view him as incredibly off-putting is beyond me.

maembe wrote: I would guess that your country and any other has similar restrictions. They aren't just going to let an alleged murderer wandering free until the trial. The drugs one seems pretty random though. I could understand if it was for a dui or something like that.

Perhaps they are concerned about people who are understandably despondent because of their arrests taking drugs and operating motor vehicles while under the influence. Anyway, these are the rules to which he agreed.

If Peterson did smoke weed before the test and failed it, it's another example of poor judgment on his part. However, I'm interested in seeing if he actually failed the test and if he actually gets arrested. There's no confirmation of a failed test so is there any real evidence that he used weed and violated the terms of his bond or not? Was he being sarcastic or making a joke with the tester?

This might be just what it appears to be or it might be grandstanding by the prosecution:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 812165.php

In a court filing Thursday, District Attorney Brett Ligon alleged that Peterson acknowledged the drug use to an official while submitting to a urinalysis on Wednesday, the same day he made a first court appearance on a charge of reckless or negligent injury to a child.

It's unclear if the 29-year-old Peterson failed the test, but refraining from drug use is a typical bail condition.

"In light of this statement, and the fact that it was made during the urinalysis testing process, and the term 'weed' is a common slang term for marijuana, the State urges the defendant has smoked marijuana while on bond for the current offense," the document reads.

If they had a failed drug test, why wouldn't that be the basis for the filing? Instead, it seems they're trying to have Peterson arrested on the basis of the comment, which implies that they don't have any actual evidence of a violation.