Chris Mortensen: Pacman May have Violated Probation..

[Pick6TerenceNewman]

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Pacman Jones may have violated his probation by being involved in an "alcohol-related incident."

Jones received three years of probation when he pleaded no contest to a felony in February and police reports suggest that he may have been drinking when he was involved in a scuffle with a bodyguard last week. Commissioner Roger Goodell hinted earlier this week that Jones may face another suspension.
Source: ESPN.com

 

[stealth]

I hate to say it, but he should be released, the more I think about it the more stupid I feel for thinking he had changed at all.

Later pacman, and I hope the door hits you.

 

[Cochese]

What a dumbazz. I dont even care any more. He gets suspended, maybe we get a decent punt return at some point in the future.

 

[miamicowboy21]

We needed to get jenkins and scandrick ready anyway. Pacman was a luxury and we covered our bases in the draft.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

The timing is awful. How can so many things go wrong at once?

 

[dougonthebench]

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Pacman Jones may have violated his probation by being involved in an "alcohol-related incident."

Jones received three years of probation when he pleaded no contest to a felony in February and police reports suggest that he may have been drinking when he was involved in a scuffle with a bodyguard last week. Commissioner Roger Goodell hinted earlier this week that Jones may face another suspension.
Source: ESPN.com

you cant violate probation for " may have been" drinking.Its like telling a cop you were driving a 100 mph.If the cop doesnt have proof,he cant give you a ticket.there's no proof Pacman was drinking.only a "may have been".

 

[Coakleys Dad]

hmm, what a suprise. Hes really changed his ways.....

 

[Pick6TerenceNewman]

The timing is awful. How can so many things go wrong at once?

Some guys just never change. Deion Sanders has to spend more time with Jones.

 

[Coakleys Dad]

you cant violate probation for " may have been" drinking.Its like telling a cop you were driving a 100 mph.If the cop doesnt have proof,he cant give you a ticket.there's no proof Pacman was drinking.only a "may have been".

so youre defending this piece of trash?

 

[links18]

you cant violate probation for " may have been" drinking.Its like telling a cop you were driving a 100 mph.If the cop doesnt have proof,he cant give you a ticket.there's no proof Pacman was drinking.only a "may have been".

There has to be proof to hold in a court of law that you violated your probation, but Goodell can do what he wants....

 

[Pick6TerenceNewman]

you cant violate probation for " may have been" drinking.Its like telling a cop you were driving a 100 mph.If the cop doesnt have proof,he cant give you a ticket.there's no proof Pacman was drinking.only a "may have been".

Not for Adam Jones!

 

[Ren]

so youre defending this piece of trash?

think it's more about not judging someone over something you know nothing about, good luck proving he was drinking regardless of your personal opinion of him

 

[stealth]

you cant violate probation for " may have been" drinking.Its like telling a cop you were driving a 100 mph.If the cop doesnt have proof,he cant give you a ticket.there's no proof Pacman was drinking.only a "may have been".

probation revocation is solely up to the probation officer, You can get violated for may have beens and coulda woulda shouldas. You are a prisoner basically and you have to live by their rules.

He can get violated and then fight it in court and get back on probation potentially, however, if he gets violated he gets violated, there is no middle ground.

 

[dougonthebench]

so youre defending this piece of trash?

I never said I was defending him,did you understand what I wrote?Its already assumed he's screwed up,there's no proof he fought the security guy.No one SAW it!only reported as "heard" it.the light switch mirror,may have been broken before he entered the restroom.If there's no concrete proof he did anything wrong,you cant suspend him for those actions.

But I do agree,he shouldnt have been there in the first place,and we wouldnt be having this conversation.

 

[dougonthebench]

There has to be proof to hold in a court of law that you violated your probation, but Goodell can do what he wants....

very true,......if he hadnt gone out,we wouldnt be talking about this.

 

[links18]

probation revocation is solely up to the probation officer, You can get violated for may have beens and coulda woulda shouldas. You are a prisoner basically and you have to live by their rules.

He can get violated and then fight it in court and get back on probation potentially, however, if he gets violated he gets violated, there is no middle ground.

Yes, but the probation officer has to satisfy the judge that you actually did violate probation and you have the right to rebut the PO's case. Not so with Goodell, he can do whatever he wants and PAC has few due process rights to fight a suspension handed down by the Commish......

 

[AbeBeta]

my take is a 1 game suspension - but there is not really enough here to make for a longer suspension or us cutting him.

 

[stealth]

Yes, but the probation officer has to satisfy the judge that you actually did violate probation and you have the right to rebut the PO's case. Not so with Goodell, he can do whatever he wants and PAC has few due process rights to fight a suspension handed down by the Commish......

My point is up until the point the judge sees him, he has violated his probation. A guilty plee forfeits the right of being not guilty till proven innocent. He is guilty till proven innocent, assuming he gets violated.

That's enough to get him booted in my opinion.

 

[links18]

My point is up until the point the judge sees him, he has violated his probation. A guilty plee forfeits the right of being not guilty till proven innocent. He is guilty till proven innocent, assuming he gets violated.

That's enough to get him booted in my opinion.

Yes, but what I am saying is he has some due process rights as far as the legal system goes, but virtually none with Goodell.

 

[sonnyboy]

Yes, but what I am saying is he has some due process rights as far as the legal system goes, but virtually none with Goodell.

Maybe, but he has some.

What ticks me off about this whole thing is the media coverage. Goodell said himself in a radio interview last week that "I'm unhappy I have to answer questions about this".

Assuming he does get a game or two, you have to wonder had he been signed by any other team under less of a microscope, if this incident would have resulted in a suspension.

The quote from Goddell itself left a bad taste in my mouth. Its as if he was empowering the media. Ya you guys go ahead and keep reporting on this each day. Dig and Dig and Dig. Find more and more info and when you can't just make **** up. In addition to that be sure to ask me about it at every single friggen opportunity.

Go ahead and piss me off enough and I'll be sure to take it out on Pacman.

Now I'm not saying Pac did nothing or that he doesn't deserve a suspension. I don't have enough info to make that determination. What I am saying is that the media coverage will have an impact in the final decision.