once a Cowboy, always a Cowboy

[pedro]

What I heard.

He patted his friend down as he came into his house for Thanksgiving dinner (as WMRocks said). He didn't want a confrontation in his house so he took his buddy out to his car to discuss the issue. He put the pipe in his car at that time because he didn't want it in the house with his kids there, and didn't want to throw it in the trash because people (neighbors, strangers) have gone through his trash before. He went back inside and they ate dinner. He layed on the couch and fell asleep after dinner. The guests left. He went to bed. They got up the next morning and he and his wife went furniture shopping. They were pulled over for speeding and he had an outstanding warrant. The police officer told him he had to book him for the outstanding warrant and that he could pay the fines and leave. He consented to the officer searching the car (dumb) and forgot the pipe was still in his car. The officer told him it wasn't a big deal, just a possession charge and that he could pay that fine along with the warrant fine and be released. Another one of his friends paid his way out and he was released.

That makes it sound to me like it was a pot pipe and not a crack pipe. Crack Cocaine is a felony IIRC and you wouldn't just get fined for having a pipe, you'd get arrested. Pot OTOH.......

[WMR]

Dude, you're in Law School - you think him not committing to a drug test on National TV "means he's still using drugs"

Come on, use those skills they are teaching you in class. There are many reasons why you don't commit to such a thing on a national radio show. Privacy issues, employment issues, etc. Never commit to anything until you HAVE to.

If he was a private citizen, Puffy, I'd say no way should he take a drug test.

As a public figure, however, he needs to, IMO, prove that he isn't using crack if he wants to keep his job as a public broadcaster. Pedro's retelling of Irvin's story makes Irvin's story more plausible, but he shouldn't be allowed to continue working on ESPN if this "story" is the only explanation/proof of innocence that he is required to give.

As a public figure, he should be held to a higher standard than what is dictated by black letter law.

[Blimpie]

That makes it sound to me like it was a pot pipe and not a crack pipe. Crack Cocaine is a felony IIRC and you wouldn't just get fined for having a pipe, you'd get arrested. Pot OTOH.......

I thought the same thing because the KY statutes read:

crack pipe = mandatory felony charge
pot pipe = UK Basketball player has been in your car

Just kidding WilyMo...

[pedro]

I thought the same thing because the KY statutes read:

crack pipe = mandatory felony charge
pot pipe = UK Basketball player has been in your car

Just kidding WilyMo...

[WMR]

HAHAHAHAHAHA; oh blimpie you are bad.

[Blimpie]

If he was a private citizen, Puffy, I'd say no way should he take a drug test.

As a public figure, however, he needs to, IMO, prove that he isn't using crack if he wants to keep his job as a public broadcaster. Pedro's retelling of Irvin's story makes Irvin's story more plausible, but he shouldn't be allowed to continue working on ESPN if this "story" is the only explanation/proof of innocence that he is required to give.

As a public figure, he should be held to a higher standard than what is dictated by black letter law.

Not to mention the fact that Michael has already lost one network analyst job (FOX SPORTS NET) due to his drug charges. ESPN was his "last chance in broadcasting" IIRC

[Red Leader]

I like Blimpie's story the best so far....

[MWM]

Come on, if this was a friend of yours would you turn him in? Cause if you answer yes then I'd lose a lot of respect for you.

Well, I watched his interview with Stewart Scott and he said he'd be willing to do ANYTHING he's asked to clear his name. Legally, he shouldn't turn anyone in unless he's forced to. And he shouldn't submit to a drug test unless he has to either. But that's all legally. If I were in his situation, I'd be more worried about the legal implications over anything else. But if he wants to clear his name, he's going to have to provide evidence to the public that his story is credible. Personally, if his story is true, then he should say to hell with clearing my name and what the public thinks. I'd be worried about staying out of jail first and protecting a friend second.

I just think this stops becoming about friendship if it means Irvin's going to jail. Would you go to jail rather than turn in a friend? I'm not suggesting it WILL come to that, but speaking hypothetically, I know what I'd do if it did come to that. And what if this costs Irvin his livelihood? Is it worth protecting a friend if it costs you your ability to earn a living? I don't think there's one right answer here. It's a complicated issue, but I also don't think it's as simple as "that's not what friends do." If the friend's actions might land me in jail unless I tell the truth, I'd think long and hard about just how important that friendship is and if a real friend would bring a crack pipe to my home where my family resides and risk getting me in legal trouble, especially considering my history.

Now if he pees in a cup and it comes out clean, then the story is over. But if he doesn't, he needs to consider himself along with his friend.

[Blimpie]

I like Blimpie's story the best so far....

Tell Chip that I have mad skills in the radio interview transcribing field and I'm gunning for his gig with the Hot Stove League...

[Puffy]

If he was a private citizen, Puffy, I'd say no way should he take a drug test.

As a public figure, however, he needs to, IMO, prove that he isn't using crack if he wants to keep his job as a public broadcaster. Pedro's retelling of Irvin's story makes Irvin's story more plausible, but he shouldn't be allowed to continue working on ESPN if this "story" is the only explanation/proof of innocence that he is required to give.

As a public figure, he should be held to a higher standard than what is dictated by black letter law.

And I'm not disagreeing with you - if you look at the last page I stated that he is going to need to take a drug test.

But I was more commenting on how you stated that the fact that he didn't immediately consent meant, in your mind, that he was still using. I don't think thats the conclusion you should draw and being in law school I was saying that shouldn't be the conclusion you draw.

I don't practice criminal law, and really don't know much about it (cept for what I took in school and studying for the bar) but I do know that you never commit to something until you have to.

What if the friend comes forward tomorrow - the media will still be on Irvin to take the test cause he said he would, and bang, now he's stuck. The police could drop the charges and bang, he's still commited to taking the test.

Forget whether or not he is using, there are still privacy issues here and employment issues, and he shouldn't commit to these type things if he doesn't have to.

Oh, and I wasn't putting you down for thinking the way you were, its just that you, being where you are, need to step back and not take sides sometimes, cause law school is about seeing various sides to all problems and waiting for all the facts before making a stand.

[WMR]

I thought the same thing because the KY statutes read:

crack pipe = mandatory felony charge
pot pipe = UK Basketball player has been in your car

Just kidding WilyMo...

I'll never forget that one story when Jules Camara (6' 11) tried to climb from the frontseat to the backseat while in the process of being pulled over to avoid a DUI.

If only the Cops Show had been filming that one.

[marcshoe]

AP says marijuana pipe, btw.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...v=ap&type=lgns

[MWM]

Marijuana pipe changes things. Who cares about a little pot. Not me! Make it legal already.

[Puffy]

Well, I watched his interview with Stewart Scott and he said he'd be willing to do ANYTHING he's asked to clear his name. Legally, he shouldn't turn anyone in unless he's forced to. And he shouldn't submit to a drug test unless he has to either. But that's all legally. If I were in his situation, I'd be more worried about the legal implications over anything else. But if he wants to clear his name, he's going to have to provide evidence to the public that his story is credible. Personally, if his story is true, then he should say to hell with clearing my name and what the public thinks. I'd be worried about staying out of jail first and protecting a friend second.

I just think this stops becoming about friendship if it means Irvin's going to jail. Would you go to jail rather than turn in a friend? I'm not suggesting it WILL come to that, but speaking hypothetically, I know what I'd do if it did come to that. And what if this costs Irvin his livelihood? Is it worth protecting a friend if it costs you your ability to earn a living? I don't think there's one right answer here. It's a complicated issue, but I also don't think it's as simple as "that's not what friends do." If the friend's actions might land me in jail unless I tell the truth, I'd think long and hard about just how important that friendship is and if a real friend would bring a crack pipe to my home where my family resides and risk getting me in legal trouble, especially considering my history.

Now if he pees in a cup and it comes out clean, then the story is over. But if he doesn't, he needs to consider himself along with his friend.

Fair enough - but that is a little different than your first post which stated the only way you'll believe him is if he gives the name of his friend.

I am still of the opinion that he is going to need a drug test to prove his story. And yes, if it came down to jail or turning over a friend, well there is no easy, or correct, answer there. But thats a long way away.

[WMR]

And I'm not disagreeing with you - if you look at the last page I stated that he is going to need to take a drug test.

But I was more commenting on how you stated that the fact that he didn't immediately consent meant, in your mind, that he was still using. I don't think thats the conclusion you should draw and being in law school I was saying that shouldn't be the conclusion you draw.

I don't practice criminal law, and really don't know much about it (cept for what I took in school and studying for the bar) but I do know that you never commit to something until you have to.

What if the friend comes forward tomorrow - the media will still be on Irvin to take the test cause he said he would, and bang, now he's stuck. The police could drop the charges and bang, he's still commited to taking the test.

Forget whether or not he is using, there are still privacy issues here and employment issues, and he shouldn't commit to these type things if he doesn't have to.

Oh, and I wasn't putting you down for thinking the way you were, its just that you, being where you are, need to step back and not take sides sometimes, cause law school is about seeing various sides to all problems and waiting for all the facts before making a stand.

Hey, thanks a lot for that advice.

I guess like a few other people have said, we hear this same refrain over and over, and I definitely probably jumped the gun a little bit.

(maybe also b/c, as you so aptly described it, law school is so much about refusing to take a side, it's a little fun to get on here and play the merciless prosecutor sometimes)