- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Glaring Inconsistencies in TM7 Bust That Have Not Been Mentioned
Posted on 10/27/12 at 4:58 pm to StadiumDormRat'72
Posted on 10/27/12 at 4:58 pm to StadiumDormRat'72
Stadium Dorm Rat 72...After reading your post, I'm certain you don't understand certain legal issues. For one, the police do not need "probable cause" to knock on a door. Secondly, police depts. dispatch officers when citizens call 911. I could go on and on, but it would be pointless.
0
Posted on 10/27/12 at 5:03 pm to StadiumDormRat'72
quote:
StadiumDormRat'72
You have no idea of actual law enforcement, and a damn moron.
Posted on 10/27/12 at 5:14 pm to TheTruthPolice
...and to The Truth Police poster...your post is completely inaccurate, legally speaking. Please stick to football.
Posted on 10/27/12 at 5:18 pm to XxxSpooky1
Really dude, put down the High Times law guide and give back your membership to NORML.
Right now it's illegal to possess or use weed. Cops can knock on any door they want for any reason. You just don't have to answer.
Understanding probable cause will help you in your future as legal analyst. Knowing the cops can arrest or cite is their option and not yours will also help.
Sheez, don't want to get in trouble don't hang around thugs. It's a formula that works for most people who understand how life works.
Right now it's illegal to possess or use weed. Cops can knock on any door they want for any reason. You just don't have to answer.
Understanding probable cause will help you in your future as legal analyst. Knowing the cops can arrest or cite is their option and not yours will also help.
Sheez, don't want to get in trouble don't hang around thugs. It's a formula that works for most people who understand how life works.
Posted on 10/27/12 at 6:23 pm to RealityTiger
It's a conspiracy. The FBI, the mafia, WBRZ, ESPN, and Nick Saban are all in on it. They hate LSU and want to see us fail.
Posted on 10/27/12 at 6:50 pm to StadiumDormRat'72
I believe it was a set up. Jefferson was living in Canada and recently came into town and was staying at a hotel his father said. I believe Jefferson is innocent. The other three are guilty but TM7 should of told the cop no you can't come in without a search warrant. WBRZ was tiled off. If I was Jefferson I would SUE the Frick out of 5 O. Like I said earlier I can smell a rat a mile away
Posted on 10/27/12 at 6:52 pm to Slapouttiger
this whole shite is dumb 
Posted on 10/27/12 at 6:54 pm to justmebeno
When I was a child, I spent Saturday mornings at my grandfather's home watching Mid-South wrestling. Colonel Buck Robely would wheel the Junkyard Dog to the ring riding in a wheelbarrow to the tune of Bad Bad Leroy Brown, while the actual Bad Leroy Brown & Ernie 'Big Cat' Ladd would come to the ring with no music!
Something DOES NOT add up with that also.
Something DOES NOT add up with that also.
Posted on 10/27/12 at 7:05 pm to StadiumDormRat'72
quote:
Apologies to all who don't want to see a new TM7 thread, but I've read through all of them and find no mention of a few glaring inconsistencies that are bugging the hell out of me but haven't been pointed out or mentioned: There are twitter screenshots of people posting they heard Tyrann got arrested, the earliest at 2:51pm. The official police press release says that officers were DISPATCHED to a supposedly unknown random disturbance at an apartment gate at approximately 3:30pm. Now, somebody tell me how someone could hear TM7 was arrested 41 minutes BEFORE the cops were even enroute to the scene? I don't twit and know little about it, but the time stamp on cellphone communications is reliably accurate; I suppose this could be altered for a bogus screen capture somehow, but since no one was pointing out this discrepancy it seems unlikely. Simailarly, there are twitters that reference the arrest being reported on WBRZ as early as 3:44pm- you tell me how WBRZ KNEW Tyrann was being arrested at approximately the same time the officers were knocking on his door and supposedly not knowing who/what they would find inside? (Dispatched at 3:30, had to drive there, find and talk to the alleged maintenance worker who had argument with as-yet unidentified man at gate, go to apartment, knock, smell weed, search, etc.) Doesn't this time-line discrepancy seem to scream out that WBRZ was tipped off, and raise the possibility that the bust was planned and not stumbled into as the police claim? So if the police have to radically "adjust" their story to address these time-line discrepancies, how much doubt does that cast on the remainder of the story? According to police accounts, JJ was trying to get through the gate, the maintenance worker confronted him, argument/commotion ensued, then Tyrann came down AND LET HIM IN and they went into Tyrann's apartment. This account seems to beg two questions not being asked: 1st, if Tyrann has supposedly "cooled things out" by appearing and saying, "It's OK, he's a guest of mine", then what is the basis of a call to the cops - what is the complaint? "Umm, I'm a maintenance worker and the tenant in Apt.2116 has a guest that was really rude to me." ? Once it was confirmed that a tenant has acknowledged the man in question is his guest, then unless this guy has a restraining order from harrassing some ex-wife tenant neighbor, or has been banned from the premises, drawn a weapon, or some similar extenuating circumstances, shouldn't that have been the end of that discussion? Once the police officers verified that the man in question was vouched for and admitted as a guest by a tenant, why were they even dispatched, and what probable cause did they have to even knock on the door? The 2nd question it begs is - why wouldn't Tyrann buzz him in in the 1st place? It seems like, according to the story, JJ couldn't get in/ was NOT let in, was causing a scene, and Tyrann had to come down to quiet the disturbance (yes, this is conjecture based on sketchy details.). When did the other two guests arrive, before or after JJ? Seems like they were already there- security cams? These dudes have cellphones, it's JJ's roommate, they are ignoring his calls, his "buzz" to get let in, JJ is getting pissed- there's some delightfully juicy backstabbing, petty beef BS issues in there somewhere that we don't know about that are no doubt intriguing- that is, if the story about a gate incident is accurate in the first place. Anyone got any ideas or guesses? And please spare me the "He is a dope fiend that needed his fix" crap- no, it was something else. OK, so the officers claimed "a strong odor of marijuana" and Tyrann consented to a search. Most of us know that "there was a strong odor of marijuana and the suspect consented to a search of his vehicle" really means that they put the dude in handcuffs and shut him up in the backseat of the cruiser so they don't have to listen to him hollering about probable cause and search warrants and "I know my rights" while they ransack his vehicle; that's pretty much a given. But here's something that's telling in it's absence of being mentioned: the police press release lists finding weed, the dreaded GRINDER (gasp!), and the digital scales...so what were they smoking? No bong mentioned, no pipes, no half-burnt blunt, no roaches, no rolling papers or other drug paraphanalia mentioned or itemized. You bust into an alleged cloud of smoke and catch people in the act, then where is the mechanism of ingestion? And what is this fascination with a grinder? Do people think it's some magical manufacturing device, like it's a meth lab or such? Jesus, it's like "He was a dangerous felon and not just a recreational tequila drinker- he had shot glasses, limes and salt, which makes him a tequila kingpin." Why were TM and JJ handcuffed and booked into Parish Prison on a simple possesion charge when the SOP is simply to issue a misdemeanor summons? I think the argument could be made that the motivation smacks of maximizing the entertainment/ news value while simultaneously relishing the shame and humiliation. So can anybody think of a reason why someone would want, or stand to profit or gain from, Tyrann being busted for weed? You know it was just a few days ago that the majority of the people on this site were outraged by the SI article and calling for slander lawsuits; these same supposedly "shady" (pun intended) reporters were allegedly offering considerable wads of cash to anybody "dishing the dirt". While at first glance on the surface this arrest seems to be what some would call "routine good police work", should it be discovered through investigating some of these incongruities that there's more to the story than what first meets the eye, then maybe in the interest of fairness we could temporarily pull TM7 out from under the bus and dust him off while we sort out all of what ACTUALLY happened. What if it should turn out that he wasn't just a victim of his own dumb-assedness, but was targeted/set up? Does that change anyone's opinion of how he should be treated, or his future chances to play again, somewhere?
Posted on 10/27/12 at 7:44 pm to TigerGA
quote:
and to The Truth Police poster...your post is completely inaccurate, legally speaking. Please stick to football.
What are you talking about? The law is the law... I have been 5 out 5 in getting motions to suppress evidence for my clients since Arizona Vs Gant in three different parishes. Yes of course a parish judge could always choose not to follow that law, but it will always get overturned on an appeal. Our constitution gives us certain rights as American's, and I am glad the Supreme Court finally followed it in 2009.
This post was edited on 10/27/12 at 7:45 pm
Posted on 10/27/12 at 8:11 pm to TheTruthPolice
You have no understanding of the Gant decision. You can't be an attorney (at least I hope not). Regardless of your Gant knowledge, Gant would have no bearing on the circumstances in the TM7/Jordan case. Gant dealt with the police searching a vehicle following the arrest of the occupant for driving while license suspended. Again, stick with what you know.
Posted on 10/27/12 at 8:18 pm to TigerGA
Hey genius I was referring to something the OP said in his post about probable cause in car searches. Where did I say Arizona Vs Gant had to do with TM7 and JJ? All I said on that is that TM7 would have to sign a consent to search form for the cop to do a warrant-less search of his residence. Are you really disagreeing with that?
Posted on 10/27/12 at 8:24 pm to StadiumDormRat'72
Holy shite, I literally LOL'd when I scrolled down to the bottom of the OPs 1st post.
Posted on 10/27/12 at 8:46 pm to StormTiger
quote:
All I said on that is that TM7 would have to sign a consent to search form for the cop to do a warrant-less search of his residence. Are you really disagreeing with that?
Why does it matter? Probable cause existed for a warranted search due to the odor. Inevitable discovery rules would favor the police in a suppression hearing. You see, there are others here who understand the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and how it applies as far the rules of evidence are applied.
If you are a lawyer, it's not criminal law where you spend your time.
This post was edited on 10/27/12 at 8:48 pm
Posted on 10/27/12 at 9:16 pm to OneFifty
When lawyers fight nobody wins 
Posted on 10/27/12 at 9:34 pm to textigah
quote:[quote]
Why does it matter? Probable cause existed for a warranted search due to the odor. Inevitable discovery rules would favor the police in a suppression hearing. You see, there are others here who understand the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and how it applies as far the rules of evidence are applied. If you are a lawyer, it's not criminal law where you spend your time
Sorry but the plain view circumstance does not apply to smell. Any decent lawyer will beat that. Yes I beat similar cases in three of the worst parishes/counties in this country as far as conviction rates. If I can suppress evidence and apply the exclusionary rule in parishes such as St Slammany, Terrebonne, and Tangipahoa then it would be work anywhere. You can cry about your rule of evidence all you want, but I have judges tell narcotic detectives on the stand things they didn't like to much. For instance Judge Ellender in Terrebonne parish told a narcotic detective after he testified on the accuracy of his drug dog.. "A dog hitting on a vehicle does not give you the probable cause to search a vehicle. It however just gives you probable cause to call me and get a search warrant. If you would have a called me I would have given a search warrant that very instance, but since you want to play cowboy cop I have no choice but to follow the law and suppress the evidence found in the car. I had competent lawyers come to me the next day when the DA null processed all charges asking me about how did I pull this off. It's mind boggling and sad at the same time that they asked me this!
Posted on 10/27/12 at 9:58 pm to StadiumDormRat'72
He made his decision along with the NFL reject JJ.
Live with it.
Smoking dope is more important to him than LSU.
Thanks for the memories and geaux the frick away, TM7. You fricked it up. Get the hell out of the news, stop soiling LSU, and get on with your life.
Live with it.
Smoking dope is more important to him than LSU.
Thanks for the memories and geaux the frick away, TM7. You fricked it up. Get the hell out of the news, stop soiling LSU, and get on with your life.
Posted on 10/27/12 at 10:04 pm to TheTruthPolice
I'll end this by telling you something you should know - consent has nothing to do with whether someone with standing signed anything. As you should know, a verbal consent is just as valid as a written consent. There is no way you could be an attorney...if you are, I've lost all faith in the LA bar exam. Lastly, the U.S. Supreme Court does not not require the police to get a search warrant for vehicles if Probable cause exists, due to the inherent mobility of vehicles. Carrol v. US, decided in 1925. Geaux Tigers.
Posted on 10/27/12 at 10:59 pm to TigerGA
quote:
consent has nothing to do with whether someone with standing signed anything
O Rly? Maybe in your fantasy world but not where I practice.
quote:
There is no way you could be an attorney...if you are, I've lost all faith in the LA bar exam
Why because I fight tooth and nail and have a way better chance of getting my clients acquitted then your average status quo lawyer?
quote:
Lastly, the U.S. Supreme Court does not not require the police to get a search warrant for vehicles if Probable cause exists, due to the inherent mobility of vehicles. Carrol v. US, decided in 1925
Oh ok... even on wikipedia it says on your 1925 case..... "Due to a 2009 decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Gant, there may be new restrictions on warrant less searches of automobiles under certain limited circumstances. That ruling requires either that the vehicle's owner has a reasonable chance of moving the vehicle before police can get a warrant"
Come on you obviously have an agenda if you are living 90 years in the past.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News