Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 22:35:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2010 0:07:48 GMT -5
Marty Graner was the one that told the cops. About the drugs in the house. Do you mean Marty Garner aka Cham Paine? That's what I was gonna ask. I'm sure that's who he means. Probably still mad about THAT pedigree. j/k |
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Dec 28, 2010 0:21:54 GMT -5
Of course he had it for himself. Could he share with friends? Sure. But you dont honestly believe that Jeff is hitting the streets pan handling drugs, do you? Do you think he is the guy that is in the TNA locker room with a suit case full of narcotics, open for business? Also, Jeff's "wife" Beth, posted on twitter a few minutes ago that The Fayettville Observer is nothing more than a dirt sheet. Perhaps, the story has become exaggerated or is built on poor sources. The media loves to leap to stories without checking facts.....IE Morgan Freeman is dead reported by CNN a few days ago.  if he gave it to his friends or took it on the road that is "trafficking." not saying he's a street corner drug pusher, but selling to a friend or having 20 pills in your car are both considered trafficking according to the law. Jeff wasn't smart about it, and now he's paying for it, bottom line. weather the pills were for him or not doesn't matter to the grand jury, he's just lucky his wife or gf whatever she is didn't get dragged into it as well. No one is arguing what the letter of the law is. So to you and everyone else who keeps responding with that, its not the point. The point that I am trying to make is lets use common sense and save everyone a big freaking headache. Jeff isnt going to plead guilty to drug trafficking when its clear that he isnt doing so. As far as his intentions.....I have no idea. Give it to friends, all for himself, or a science fair experiment.....I dont know. Hell, we probably wont even know the truth. The only person who does is Jeff himself. Do you mean Marty Garner aka Cham Paine? That's what I was gonna ask. I'm sure that's who he means. Probably still mad about THAT pedigree. j/k It seemed really random that someone would say that, so now I am curious why he is saying it. But tend to not believe it, considering he doesnt even know the dude's name.  |
|
STJ
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 16, 2009 0:14:50 GMT -5
Posts: 368
|
Post by STJ on Dec 28, 2010 0:35:24 GMT -5
Yes First name Cham Last name Pian Marty Graner was the one that told the cops. About the drugs in the house. Do you mean Marty Garner aka Cham Paine? |
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Dec 28, 2010 0:58:22 GMT -5
Yes First name Cham Last name Pian Do you mean Marty Garner aka Cham Paine? And you know this how? |
|
|
|
Post by Joey Cush on Dec 28, 2010 1:37:39 GMT -5
I find it hard to believe Marty would be the guy who said something.
|
|
|
|
Post by bountyhunterblood5 on Dec 28, 2010 16:40:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cjskittles4 on Dec 28, 2010 16:41:46 GMT -5
They should just throw his ass in jail and stop holding off the inevitable...
|
|
BasedGod
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 26, 2005 7:24:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,600
|
Post by BasedGod on Dec 28, 2010 16:42:50 GMT -5
What all did he have on him? Blow and what else? Even though it was a huge amount, i dont see the traffic charge sticking unless he had a crap ton of baggies and other poop on him. Its not like the man had a scale and had all his coke weighed in seperate bags.
|
|
|
|
Post by theryanegan on Dec 28, 2010 17:15:31 GMT -5
They charged him with trafficking, not because he was going to, or did, sell them, or give them to anyone. He was charged with trafficking because of the sheer amount that he had.
If anything, he SHOULD plead guilty to the trafficking charge, because you cannot dispute the amount that they found. You can't say "Well, they said they found (X) amount, but it's false! It's not true!". They have photos for evidence that show how much you were busted with.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Dec 28, 2010 18:33:52 GMT -5
They charged him with trafficking, not because he was going to, or did, sell them, or give them to anyone. He was charged with trafficking because of the sheer amount that he had. If anything, he SHOULD plead guilty to the trafficking charge, because you cannot dispute the amount that they found. You can't say "Well, they said they found (X) amount, but it's false! It's not true!". They have photos for evidence that show how much you were busted with. This is  ing tiresome to read. WE GET IT!!!! The law says this the law says that. ING COMMON SENSE PLEASE! Everytime someone mentions the trafficking charge being bogus, someone else feels the need to add this wonderful ing insight that the amount is why. WE GET IT!!! You're SO SMART! We all ing know why the charge is there and we all ing know its ing BOGUS! Damn. I just had an internet meltdown.  |
|
|
|
Post by theryanegan on Dec 28, 2010 18:43:31 GMT -5
They charged him with trafficking, not because he was going to, or did, sell them, or give them to anyone. He was charged with trafficking because of the sheer amount that he had. If anything, he SHOULD plead guilty to the trafficking charge, because you cannot dispute the amount that they found. You can't say "Well, they said they found (X) amount, but it's false! It's not true!". They have photos for evidence that show how much you were busted with. This is ing tiresome to read. WE GET IT!!!! The law says this the law says that. ING COMMON SENSE PLEASE! Everytime someone mentions the trafficking charge being bogus, someone else feels the need to add this wonderful ing insight that the amount is why. WE GET IT!!! You're SO SMART! We all ing know why the charge is there and we all ing know its ing BOGUS! Damn. I just had an internet meltdown. Using common sense, I still do not understand how any of the charges are "bogus". Looking at this through common sense, the guy had a sh*t load of drugs. And, he had enough to be charged with trafficking. So, he was charged with trafficking. What part of that is bogus? If I got busted with 262 Vicodin pills, 180 Somas, and 555 milliliters of anabolic steroids, I would expect to be charged with trafficking. Even if you sit there and say "Yes, all these drugs are for me. I have no plans to distribute them to anyone.", it doesn't matter. Do you know how many drug dealers would walk free because they would be able to claim that the drugs were all theirs, and be able to cop to a lesser charge? Plain and simple, common sense: Absolutely ZERO of the charges levied against him are "bogus". |
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Dec 28, 2010 19:49:16 GMT -5
This is ing tiresome to read. WE GET IT!!!! The law says this the law says that. ING COMMON SENSE PLEASE! Everytime someone mentions the trafficking charge being bogus, someone else feels the need to add this wonderful ing insight that the amount is why. WE GET IT!!! You're SO SMART! We all ing know why the charge is there and we all ing know its ing BOGUS! Damn. I just had an internet meltdown. Using common sense, I still do not understand how any of the charges are "bogus". Looking at this through common sense, the guy had a sh*t load of drugs. And, he had enough to be charged with trafficking. So, he was charged with trafficking. What part of that is bogus? If I got busted with 262 Vicodin pills, 180 Somas, and 555 milliliters of anabolic steroids, I would expect to be charged with trafficking. Even if you sit there and say "Yes, all these drugs are for me. I have no plans to distribute them to anyone.", it doesn't matter. Do you know how many drug dealers would walk free because they would be able to claim that the drugs were all theirs, and be able to cop to a lesser charge? Plain and simple, common sense: Absolutely ZERO of the charges levied against him are "bogus". Its ing bogus b/c he is ing Jeff Hardy! You think Jeff Hardy peddles drugs? Its no different than former President Clinton getting busted with those amounts. Of course he isnt peddling drugs. Common sense says he isnt selling drugs. So in turn, the charge is bogus. It might be the law. It might be enforcing it. There is might be a reason for the law being the law. But it still doesnt make it right. And it still doesnt take into account common sense. Plain and simple: You dont ing get it. You have ZERO common sense. Your examples prove that. |
|
|
|
Post by theryanegan on Dec 28, 2010 19:57:38 GMT -5
Using common sense, I still do not understand how any of the charges are "bogus". Looking at this through common sense, the guy had a sh*t load of drugs. And, he had enough to be charged with trafficking. So, he was charged with trafficking. What part of that is bogus? If I got busted with 262 Vicodin pills, 180 Somas, and 555 milliliters of anabolic steroids, I would expect to be charged with trafficking. Even if you sit there and say "Yes, all these drugs are for me. I have no plans to distribute them to anyone.", it doesn't matter. Do you know how many drug dealers would walk free because they would be able to claim that the drugs were all theirs, and be able to cop to a lesser charge? Plain and simple, common sense: Absolutely ZERO of the charges levied against him are "bogus". Its ing bogus b/c he is ing Jeff Hardy! You think Jeff Hardy peddles drugs? Its no different than former President Clinton getting busted with those amounts. Of course he isnt peddling drugs. Common sense says he isnt selling drugs. So in turn, the charge is bogus. It might be the law. It might be enforcing it. There is might be a reason for the law being the law. But it still doesnt make it right. And it still doesnt take into account common sense. Plain and simple: You dont ing get it. You have ZERO common sense. Your examples prove that. Are you seriously going to sit there, and say that law enforcement officials should be allowed to use their judgment based on whether the person is a celebrity or not? And yes, if President Clinton was busted with that many drugs, I would fully support the fact that he would be charged with drug trafficking charges...because it is the law. There is no room for "Oh, well, he's a celebrity. We shouldn't charge him with drug trafficking because he's famous." Plus, how do they know that Hardy isn't selling drugs on the side? You want to call my examples into question, yet you sit there and say that the police should use their judgment on who gets charged with what? Wow...just...wow. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 28, 2010 20:11:11 GMT -5
I don't care if my next door neighbor has that amount, if they can't prove that she actually intended to sell, they shouldn't charge her with trafficking.
|
|
|
|
Post by theryanegan on Dec 28, 2010 20:14:04 GMT -5
I don't care if my next door neighbor has that amount, if they can't prove that she actually intended to sell, they shouldn't charge her with trafficking. Yes, but what about the other side? How can she prove that she DIDN'T have inttent, cause, or reason to sell it? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 28, 2010 20:16:19 GMT -5
I don't care if my next door neighbor has that amount, if they can't prove that she actually intended to sell, they shouldn't charge her with trafficking. Yes, but what about the other side? How can she prove that she DIDN'T have inttent, cause, or reason to sell it? She doesn't have to prove anything. They are the ones charging her with the crime, they have to prove that she was going to sell. |
|
|
|
Post by theryanegan on Dec 28, 2010 20:20:38 GMT -5
Yes, but what about the other side? How can she prove that she DIDN'T have inttent, cause, or reason to sell it? She doesn't have to prove anything. They are the ones charging her with the crime, they have to prove that she was going to sell. OK. Fair enough. Let's look at it this way. Jeff Hardy has a well-documented history as a drug user. He gets busted, and has a truckload of drugs. I would say that his past history gives them more than enough proof to think that he may possibly be selling drugs. Plus, why didn't Hardy fight the charges when he was initially booked? When he was taken into custody, or at least in his first court appearance, he was asked "Do you understand the charges against you?". If he really thought it was bogus, or it was trumped up, wouldn't that have been the time to say something? If he has been able to get so many of the charges dropped, why not that one? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 28, 2010 20:24:37 GMT -5
They just ask you for guilty or not guilty, they don't ask if you want to argue the charges. That is for trial.
I don't care if Jeff Hardy has done drugs every day for the last 15 years, he hasn't been known to share his drugs, so why would he start now?
|
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Dec 28, 2010 20:24:38 GMT -5
Its ing bogus b/c he is ing Jeff Hardy! You think Jeff Hardy peddles drugs? Its no different than former President Clinton getting busted with those amounts. Of course he isnt peddling drugs. Common sense says he isnt selling drugs. So in turn, the charge is bogus. It might be the law. It might be enforcing it. There is might be a reason for the law being the law. But it still doesnt make it right. And it still doesnt take into account common sense. Plain and simple: You dont ing get it. You have ZERO common sense. Your examples prove that. Are you seriously going to sit there, and say that law enforcement officials should be allowed to use their judgment based on whether the person is a celebrity or not? And yes, if President Clinton was busted with that many drugs, I would fully support the fact that he would be charged with drug trafficking charges...because it is the law. There is no room for "Oh, well, he's a celebrity. We shouldn't charge him with drug trafficking because he's famous." Plus, how do they know that Hardy isn't selling drugs on the side? You want to call my examples into question, yet you sit there and say that the police should use their judgment on who gets charged with what? Wow...just...wow. No I am gonna sit here and say law enforcement should use their judgment based on the facts. Jeff Hardy being a celeb or Bill Clinton being a former President and the current positions they are in add up to not drug trafficking. You fully support the law? In PA, you cant have more than 16 women living in the same house. Otherwise you are charged with running a brothel. So should the guy who's wife, 8 daughters, mother, mother in law, and his wife's 6 sisters be arrested for running a brothel? In PA, any motorist driving along a country road at night must stop every mile and send up a rocket signal, wait 10 minutes for the road to be cleared of livestock, and continue. Should be he arrested for reckless driving? In PA, you are not allowed to sing in a bathtub. Should I be arrested for violation of noise ordinances? Common ing sense. Not just police, but everyone should use common sense. |
|
BasedGod
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 26, 2005 7:24:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,600
|
Post by BasedGod on Dec 28, 2010 20:48:10 GMT -5
I just dont see how someone can get charged for something when there is clearly no proof of him DEALING drugs. They're basing it all on the amount he had. Charge him for having the drugs but that should be it. Put it this way, I dont think any dealer would bring their whole ing stash with them just to do business. |
|
