|
|
#31
11-03-2007, 12:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Andy Reid Suspension Speculation Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why are cocaine sentences MUCH shorter than crack sentences? [/ QUOTE ] Because people who can buy cocaine can afford good lawyers. People pinched on crack get the public defenders, or the kind of lawyers that post on this site. [/ QUOTE ] I think amphetamines have a pretty harsh sentence as well. I cannot remember if it was as harsh as crack, but I know the sentences were much worse than for cocaine (and amphetamines are something one can legally get). craig 
|
|
#33
11-03-2007, 12:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Andy Reid Suspension Speculation Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why are cocaine sentences MUCH shorter than crack sentences? [/ QUOTE ] Because people who can buy cocaine can afford good lawyers. People pinched on crack get the public defenders, or the kind of lawyers that post on this site. [/ QUOTE ] I was under the impression that the actual sentencing guidelines were different for the two drugs though, not just the post facto sentences.
|
|
#35
11-03-2007, 12:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Andy Reid Suspension Speculation Thread
[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression that the actual sentencing guidelines were different for the two drugs though, not just the post facto sentences. [/ QUOTE ] I just googled it and it appears that new sentencing guidelines went into effect yesterday. npr [ QUOTE ] The new U.S. Sentencing Commission guidelines that went into effect Thursday cut the sentence range for first-time offenders possessing 5 grams or more of crack cocaine to 51 to 63 months. The old range was 63 to 78 months. The new range for first-time offenders possessing at least 50 grams is 97 to 121 months in prison, down from 121 to 151 months. [/ QUOTE ] That is still an insane amount of time! craig
|
|
#36
11-03-2007, 12:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Andy Reid Suspension Speculation Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Why are cocaine sentences MUCH shorter than crack sentences? [/ QUOTE ] Because people who can buy cocaine can afford good lawyers. People pinched on crack get the public defenders, or the kind of lawyers that post on this site. [/ QUOTE ] I was under the impression that the actual sentencing guidelines were different for the two drugs though, not just the post facto sentences. [/ QUOTE ] this is 100% correct
|
|
#37
11-03-2007, 12:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Andy Reid Suspension Speculation Thread
there is a huge difference between actively funding criminal activity and having criminal activity occur on your property without your consent
lol @ ESPN interviews w/ players who say "I BE SUSPENDED NO DOUBT!" what a joke Edit: Vick pled guilty to a felony. Nobody has even suggested that Reid has committed a crime.
|
|
#38
11-03-2007, 12:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Andy Reid Suspension Speculation Thread
[ QUOTE ]
Andy Reid has two (adult) sons who are drug-addicted wastes of all the opportunities their dad's career afforded them. While Andy Reid may be guilty of being a bad parent, that's not a crime, and certainly not one punishable by any NFL regulations. Anybody saying otherwise isn't thinking. [/ QUOTE ] If Andy's sons are adults and still living at his house, presumably rent free, then he was definitely enabling their behavior. Him doing so has definitely brought the league a lot of bad press this week. Have you read the NFL code of conduct policy? You sound pretty sure about what is and what is not punishable under the NFL regulations. One thing to think about is that coaches are not working under the CBA, so they may have more legal room to challenge an excessive suspension or fine in court than a player would.
|
|
#40
11-03-2007, 01:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Andy Reid Suspension Speculation Thread
[ QUOTE ]
Vick pled guilty to a felony. Nobody has even suggested that Reid has committed a crime. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, lemme break this entire situation down. The OP is referring to Goodall's position on Vick PRIOR to his involvement becoming known and him pleading guilty, when it was only alleged that he owned the property, and it was being explained that he had no involvement with the criminal activity. It was Goodall's position at the time that despite that claim, since Mike owned the property, he was responsible. Anything that happened after that is results-oriented thinking, and irrelevant to Goodall's position at the given time. Let's go over it again: Situation A: 1. Vick owns property where criminal activity occured. 2. Vick's position was he was unaware of it, and had no involvement. 3. Goodall's position was that even so, if he owned the property, he was responsible. Situation B: 1. Reid owns property where criminal activity occured. 2. Reid's position is he was unaware of it, and had no involvement. 3. Goodall's position is ???? Obviously, some will argue that Goodall is being inconsistent unless he takes a similar position. Others will point to facts that came out afterward, ie. Vick's conviction, and justify Goodall's position based on the ultimate results. Some will say it is a different standard for coaches and players.....some will say it is because one is black and one is white....and some will say it is because one situation involved the brutality of indefensible dogfighting, while the other involves a sympathetic situation of a troubled kid. But, one position you might not see many people take is this, which I think is correct, at least in my opinion: In both situations, Goodall is wrong to assert it is the person's responsiblity because they owned the property. In Vick's case, he never had to retract that position, because the case played out in such a way as it was irrelevant. In short, Goodall made a bad decision, and he never had to address it because Vick ended up being ultimately involved and guilty in the case, so Goodall's previous bad position was moot. In Reid's case, Goodall can do the right thing and stay the hell out of it, because it doesn't involve any conduct violation on Reid's part, and just because he owns the property doesn't make him responsible for another adult's actions. You can call it Goodall being inconsistent and argue double standards....but two wrongs don't make a right, and Goodall punishing Reid just to appear consistent for the people who are crying foul, in that he may have wrongfully punished Vick had he not ultimately been involved, just isn't the right move. Again: 1. Goodall made a bad decision in Vick's case, at the time he made it. 2. Because Vick was actually guilty, the bad decision never became an issue. 3. Goodall should not make the same bad decision in Reid's case, just to satisfy people who are crying that it would be inconsistent. Hope that helps. Have a nice day. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
