dweebe Posted October 31, 2005 Report Share Posted October 31, 2005 From msnbc.com:Fan pleads innocent after field invasion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted October 31, 2005 Report Share Posted October 31, 2005 Innocent? Does the idiot not realize he did it in front of dozens of cameras, is on video, and in front of a crowd of thousands? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted October 31, 2005 Report Share Posted October 31, 2005 He's looking for a pleas bargain I presume Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShulaSteakhouse Posted November 1, 2005 Report Share Posted November 1, 2005 He's looking for a plea bargain I presumeYep, must have a real lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted November 1, 2005 Report Share Posted November 1, 2005 Of course it wasn't him. It was that plastic faced Burger King dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott91575 Posted November 1, 2005 Report Share Posted November 1, 2005 I mentioned this in the other thread. He is probably not saying he didn't do it, but that he was not guilty of the charges against him. I believe it public intoxication, tresspassing, and resisting arrest. He could say he was not intoxicated, that what he did was not tresspassing, and he did not resist arrest (it was a security guard, not a police officer). Not saying he won't be found guilty in the end, but his plea of not guilty does not mean he is saying "that was not me." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShulaSteakhouse Posted November 1, 2005 Report Share Posted November 1, 2005 I mentioned this in the other thread. He is probably not saying he didn't do it, but that he was not guilty of the charges against him. I believe it public intoxication, tresspassing, and resisting arrest. He could say he was not intoxicated, that what he did was not tresspassing, and he did not resist arrest (it was a security guard, not a police officer). Not saying he won't be found guilty in the end, but his plea of not guilty does not mean he is saying "that was not me."Resisting arrest came when he gave the tubby a weak stiff arm and three of them crashed into each other when the Kamikazee tubalard security guy from the right completely misses the drunken fool. Security personnel or not, that action probably constitutes resisting arrest.Running onto the field is trespassing.And public intoxication was evident by his filmed behavior if combined with obvious drinking.And it can all be backed up in hi-definition network broadcast replays.Surely a judge would not let him off on technicalities if they want to continue their careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Gall Posted November 1, 2005 Report Share Posted November 1, 2005 Well it seemed that he was released on his own recognizance after the hearing so obviously he is not viewed as a flight risk. Wouldn't it have been something if he dressed up like the Burger King Dude and did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShulaSteakhouse Posted November 1, 2005 Report Share Posted November 1, 2005 I can't believe this drunk actually has a fiancee. It's amazing what some women are willing to marry.Apparently her and his family are incredibly embarrassed and ashamed. He also has a slightly separated shoulder from that hit and some other injury that he had to go to the hospital for after getting out of jail (some back injury). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted November 1, 2005 Report Share Posted November 1, 2005 I can't believe this drunk actually has a fiancee. It's amazing what some women are willing to marry.What's so hard to believe? We already know the guy has a gigantic set of balls! He's probably got the rest of the tackle to go with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefrazz Posted November 1, 2005 Report Share Posted November 1, 2005 Judge: Next charge is getting owned by a security guard..how do you plea?Defendent: Of all the charges sir, that is the ONE that I am guilty of. The hit was SO good that I fear that if I counter sue, he may come after me again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott91575 Posted November 1, 2005 Report Share Posted November 1, 2005 I mentioned this in the other thread. He is probably not saying he didn't do it, but that he was not guilty of the charges against him. I believe it public intoxication, tresspassing, and resisting arrest. He could say he was not intoxicated, that what he did was not tresspassing, and he did not resist arrest (it was a security guard, not a police officer). Not saying he won't be found guilty in the end, but his plea of not guilty does not mean he is saying "that was not me."Resisting arrest came when he gave the tubby a weak stiff arm and three of them crashed into each other when the Kamikazee tubalard security guy from the right completely misses the drunken fool. Security personnel or not, that action probably constitutes resisting arrest.Running onto the field is trespassing.And public intoxication was evident by his filmed behavior if combined with obvious drinking.And it can all be backed up in hi-definition network broadcast replays.Surely a judge would not let him off on technicalities if they want to continue their careers.I wish the law was that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.