News: Joseph Randle ticketed for marijuana possession *Updated Post 101*

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That of course begs the question of who was claiming it was Randle's. I have a guess.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Turns out that she has requested but not been granted a restraining order. The DMN has an article at the link about here is the actual factual account:

Early Tuesday, Randle’s ex-girlfriend Dalia Jacobs called 911 to report a domestic violence disturbance at a hotel where Randle was staying. Jacobs, who said she has two children with Randle, told police he was “being out of control.”

The next day, Jacobs filed a petition for a protective order in the District Court of Sedgwick County. A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 19.

In the petition, Jacobs accused Randle of being abusive and also threatening to take her child away from her.

She said Randle became angry with her on Monday in front of their son, Daniel. Jacobs said her friend took Daniel out of the home and put him in the passenger seat of her car.

Jacobs alleged that Randle walked to his vehicle, retrieved a handgun and pointed the gun at Jacobs’ friend.

“He told me at this point that he was going to ‘blast the vehicle,’” Jacobs wrote in the filing.

She said Randle then smashed the car window with his fist, causing glass to shatter across the couple’s son and Jacobs’ friend.

“The defendant has a violent temper and gets angry quickly,” Jacobs wrote.

Espinoza, the Wichita police spokesman, said police did not find a weapon inside the hotel room, which was rented to Randle.

“It was reported to police that a weapon might have been at that location and left with another person that we have not been able to find,” he said.

While police didn’t find a gun, they did find “a small amount of green botanical substance” and initially charged him with unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

Now that the drug charge has been dropped, Espinoza said police are taking a step back to review witness statements and what officers observed when they were dispatched on Tuesday.

Doesn't exactly sound like the police are convinced either.

 

[JoeKing]

That interview also saw the police say:



http://crimeblog.***BANNED-URL***/2...-order-against-the-cowboys-running-back.html/

Procedural? Yeah but not how it is being suggested.

I see nothing that would suggest this case is being handled in anyway out of a procedural manner. The links provided don't support your point.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

My friend Joe Friday would like to address yo heathens who laff at marijuana.
Take the mike, Joe:

Don't minimize the assassin of yuth. Sure one moment it's just mary jo and you smoking under the bleachrs. I get a call at central processing about two kids just "having fun." For once, I let it go, having to pursue a band of killers in Central L.A.
Then mary jo one night, desperately knocking on your bedroom window (not for that) for some $5 bag of muggles. She needs it. She needs it bad.
You go along, hoping that maturity will kick in. Well, it doesn't.
Prettty soon you find yourself taking her to convenience stores to case them then rob them to help her with her "fix."
Then you gradudate to the hard stuff "a bong.' that is what they call it in the big house, a bong. Seems harmless. Soon, your home is filled with beatnicks having hallucinations and getting all drugged out and high. When the neighbors call and the police arrive the paddy wagons are filled with 16 years olds who got muggled out with the stuff.
Pretty soon it is marijuana needles sticking out of your arms. all high and groovey because, well, it's the "In stuff."
In stuff gets you one place. In to the joint. The prison not the the marijuana cigarette.
Do i need to get graphic. No, I don't. I think all you good citizens here know the "score," man. Don't do it.
Thanks, Joe.
No, thank you Gimmie, my junior police cadet. Good talking to you.

Ok, fellas, that is the lowdown from Joe Friday. Take his words to heart.

Dunn ta-da, dun ta-da-ta-da . . . .

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see nothing that would suggest this case is being handled in anyway out of a procedural manner. The links provided don't support your point.

The procedure it question is to drop charges that lack probable cause. I have no idea what procedure you are imagining. Do you think that they could not add charges before presenting the indictment in court?

 

[JoeKing]

The procedure it question is to drop charges that lack probable cause. I have no idea what procedure you are imagining. Do you think that they could not add charges before presenting the indictment in court?

There was some vagueness on behave of the police on who said what during questioning. So until the police sort that out, the investigators decided to alleviate any question of wrongful prosecution by procedurally dropping all charges. But they will sort this out and charges will be refiled. All charges will be presented to the judge at the same time. You can bet your buttocks that the possession charge will be included at that time. The police found the weed in his possession so there is little doubt about that one sticking.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There was some vagueness on behave of the police on who said what during questioning. So until the police sort that out, the investigators decided to alleviate any question of wrongful prosecution by procedurally dropping all charges. But they will sort this out and charges will be refiled. All charges will be presented to the judge at the same time. You can bet your buttocks that the possession charge will be included at that time. The police found the weed in his possession so there is little doubt about that one sticking.

Alright what do you want to bet that the pot charge doesn't come back on Randle?

 

[JoeKing]

Alright what do you want to bet that the pot charge doesn't come back on Randle?

I don't drink, don't smoke, don't do any drugs... why would you think I gamble? We'll just have to wait and see. I don't think it will be a long wait.

 

[Vanilla2]

I don't drink, don't smoke, don't do any drugs... why would you think I gamble? We'll just have to wait and see. I don't think it will be a long wait.

No wonder your so uptight.

 

[JoeKing]

No wonder your so uptight.

Uptight, really? So it's better to break the law and be okay with it? After all it's just a little weed, right?

 

[DallasEast]

My friend Joe Friday would like to address yo heathens who laff at marijuana.
Take the mike, Joe:

Don't minimize the assassin of yuth. Sure one moment it's just mary jo and you smoking under the bleachrs. I get a call at central processing about two kids just "having fun." For once, I let it go, having to pursue a band of killers in Central L.A.
Then mary jo one night, desperately knocking on your bedroom window (not for that) for some $5 bag of muggles. She needs it. She needs it bad.
You go along, hoping that maturity will kick in. Well, it doesn't.
Prettty soon you find yourself taking her to convenience stores to case them then rob them to help her with her "fix."
Then you gradudate to the hard stuff "a bong.' that is what they call it in the big house, a bong. Seems harmless. Soon, your home is filled with beatnicks having hallucinations and getting all drugged out and high. When the neighbors call and the police arrive the paddy wagons are filled with 16 years olds who got muggled out with the stuff.
Pretty soon it is marijuana needles sticking out of your arms. all high and groovey because, well, it's the "In stuff."
In stuff gets you one place. In to the joint. The prison not the the marijuana cigarette.
Do i need to get graphic. No, I don't. I think all you good citizens here know the "score," man. Don't do it.
Thanks, Joe.
No, thank you Gimmie, my junior police cadet. Good talking to you.

Ok, fellas, that is the lowdown from Joe Friday. Take his words to heart.

Dunn ta-da, dun ta-da-ta-da . . . .

Mary Jo smoking mary jane. lmao.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

Uptight, really? So it's better to break the law and be okay with it? After all it's just a little weed, right?

to some folks weed is good for them. the rastas and indians have been using it for spiritual reasons for a very very long time. you have a bias built against weed (probably programed by western christianity and the whole reefer madness propaganda bs) which is okay but just realize your view on weed is subjective and not objective. and yes the idea that weed is a spiritual is a subjective statement too. personal belief systems are good but aren't always objective. its when we confuse objectivism with subjectivisim is where we get into philosophical trouble.

yes its illegal here in Texas (thats objective). but those reasons that it is illegal are subjective. its like making caffeine ilegal.

if randle broke laws he broke laws. its his suppose domestic abuse and child endangerment and not paying child support and being an idiot thats the bigger issue here. not weed. you're not messed up because you do weed you're already messed up to begin with.

 

[JoeKing]

to some folks weed is good for them. the rastas and indians have been using it for spiritual reasons for a very very long time. you have a bias built against weed (probably programed by western christianity and the whole reefer madness propaganda bs) which is okay but just realize your view on weed is subjective and not objective. and yes the idea that weed is a spiritual is a subjective statement too. personal belief systems are good but aren't always objective. its when we confuse objectivism with subjectivisim is where we get into philosophical trouble.

yes its illegal here in Texas (thats objective). but those reasons that it is illegal are subjective. its like making caffeine ilegal.

if randle broke laws he broke laws. its his suppose domestic abuse and child endangerment and not paying child support and being an idiot thats the bigger issue here. not weed. you're not messed up because you do weed you're already messed up to begin with.

We are talking about a specific event in a specific place where specific people broke specific laws. Your jibber jabber about what some folks think or believe or philosophy is inconsequential. If the law was broken then the lawbreakers need to pay the prescribed penalty for that crime.

It's black and white imho, but "some folks" seem to think it's okay to skirt a few laws because they don't agree with them.

 

[xwalker]

Alright what do you want to bet that the pot charge doesn't come back on Randle?

We are talking about a specific event in a specific place where specific people broke specific laws. Your jibber jabber about what some folks think or believe or philosophy is inconsequential. If the law was broken then the lawbreakers need to pay the prescribed penalty for that crime.

It's black and white imho, but "some folks" seem to think it's okay to skirt a few laws because they don't agree with them.

The "pot" charges were dropped. I'm not sure why mrtxstar is continuing to go on about that part of this ordeal.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/kansas...45119--nfl.html;_ylt=AwrBEiRhutZUKnQAo27QtDMD

 

[justbob]

Thread (since no one can stay on it has outlived its usefulness. Thread closed