Vikings Message Board.Com

DanAS wrote:
Perhaps they are concerned about people who are understandably despondent because of their arrests taking drugs and operating motor vehicles while under the influence. Anyway, these are the rules to which he agreed.

Understandable but like others mentioned it seems totally irrelevant in a child neglect chase. My problem with the government thinking they’re monitoring “drugs” with drug tests is naive. Drug test IMO should be named a marijuana test because almost any other drug flushes out of a human system within 24 hours so I don't understand the meaning of a drug PEE test if it only finds one type.

Mothman wrote:If Peterson did smoke weed before the test and failed it, it's another example of poor judgment on his part. However, I'm interested in seeing if he actually failed the test and if he actually gets arrested. There's no confirmation of a failed test so is there any real evidence that he used weed and violated the terms of his bond or not? Was he being sarcastic or making a joke with the tester?

This might be just what it appears to be or it might be grandstanding by the prosecution:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 812165.php
If they had a failed drug test, why wouldn't that be the basis for the filing? Instead, it seems they're trying to have Peterson arrested on the basis of the comment, which implies that they don't have any actual evidence of a violation.

Jim, it doesn't matter. Apply another hypothetical crime and person to this.

If the authorities find a dead body that's been stabbed 47 times, and somebody confesses to the crime, that person is arrested. Evidence may later prove the person didn't do it, but that doesn't stop the person from being arrested.

Peterson admitted to smoking weed, which is a crime in that it violates the terms of his bail. He may not be convicted of anything regarding the weed, but he admitted to violating the terms. He's going to be arrested.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Jim, it doesn't matter. Apply another hypothetical crime and person to this.

If the authorities find a dead body that's been stabbed 47 times, and somebody confesses to the crime, that person is arrested. Evidence may later prove the person didn't do it, but that doesn't stop the person from being arrested.

Peterson admitted to smoking weed, which is a crime in that it violates the terms of his bail. He may not be convicted of anything regarding the weed, but he admitted to violating the terms. He's going to be arrested.

The quote says alleged so I am assuming there is no physical prove so Peterson can just say he didn't say that to the person clamming he did which makes it his word vs. theirs and will result in nothing.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:If they had a failed drug test, why wouldn't that be the basis for the filing? Instead, it seems they're trying to have Peterson arrested on the basis of the comment, which implies that they don't have any actual evidence of a violation.

Jim, it doesn't matter. Apply another hypothetical crime and person to this.

If the authorities find a dead body that's been stabbed 47 times, and somebody confesses to the crime, that person is arrested. Evidence may later prove the person didn't do it, but that doesn't stop the person from being arrested.

Peterson admitted to smoking weed, which is a crime in that it violates the terms of his bail. He may not be convicted of anything regarding the weed, but he admitted to violating the terms. He's going to be arrested.[/quote]

I understand your point and yes, he'll be arrested if the warrant is issued. I've read in a couple places that it was issued but I can't tell if that's true or if it's just sloppy reporting because I've also read that the DA's motion to revoke Peterson's bond can't be heard until it's decided whether the assigned judge will be recused.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-0 ... ssion.html

Peterson used the slang term for marijuana in a conversation with a court employee administering his drug test, Montgomery County District Attorney Brett Ligon said in today’s request for a judge to set aside the player’s $15,000 bond and issue an arrest warrant.

“The state argues that the defendant has smoked marijuana while on bond for the current offense,” Ligon said in the filing. He asked for a “capias” arrest warrant, which is typically used to guarantee a defendant’s appearance in court.

Rusty Hardin, Peterson’s lawyer, said in an e-mailed statement that prosecutors’ request to revoke the bond can’t be decided until after a separate government request for a different judge is resolved.

Whether he's arrested or not wasn't really my primary point anyway. To me, what's for more important is whether there was an actual admission of anything and if there's any proof of said admission or of marijuana use that would justify revoking his bond. The reports I've read on this so far all say something along the lines of "Ligon alleged that Peterson acknowledged the drug use", that Peterson "allegedly told an employee of the urinalysis testing company that he had "smoked a little weed."

What I get from the repeated use of the word alleged in all these reports is that, at this point, there's no proof. Obviously, since the DA filed the motion, he must feel he has something but whether it's anything of substance, or legal significance (ie: enough to convince a judge to revoke bond) remains to be seen.

In listening to the radio this morning and reading comments here and elsewhere, it seems a lot of people are eagerly rushing to judgment. I'm just saying we should wait for the facts.

I still say it doesn't matter. It's akin to refusing a breathalyzer. You refuse, and you're assumed to have a blood alcohol content above the legal limit. According to what I read, Peterson was going to be tested, and that's when he admitted to smoking the reefer.

If his bond isn't revoked, then he's either a very lucky man or his judge is a fan.

And I don't see it as rushing to judgment. He admitted violating the terms of his bond. I personally don't know if that makes him guilty of a crime, but it certainly makes him guilty of stupidity.

Edit: I see that he actually did give the urine sample, which makes admitting to smoking the weed even dumber.

The key here will be the drug test, but there's a good chance that if he isn't a heavy user, and really did just smoke a little weed, and assuming it was an isolated incident, that he'll pass. His body type is conducive to a quick turnaround in terms of beating drug tests.

At the end of the day, I don't know if an admission of smoking pot to a state employee (or was it a contractor? I thought I read that) is enough evidence to rescind his bail. That might be considered getting by on a technicality. Unless of course the state employee/contractor is lying and he never said it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

J. Kapp 11 wrote:I still say it doesn't matter. It's akin to refusing a breathalyzer. You refuse, and you're assumed to have a blood alcohol content above the legal limit. According to what I read, Peterson was going to be tested, and that's when he admitted to smoking the reefer.

If his bond isn't revoked, then he's either a very lucky man or his judge is a fan.

And I don't see it as rushing to judgment. He admitted violating the terms of his bond. I personally don't know if that makes him guilty of a crime, but it certainly makes him guilty of stupidity.

Edit: I see that he actually did give the urine sample, which makes admitting to smoking the weed even dumber.

"allegedly told an employee of the urinalysis testing company that he had "smoked a little weed."

I don't think that's a solid enough statement, and doesn't sound like he has admitted to making that statement himself. 2. He might be dumb but you should ask yourself how dumb a person would have to be to admit to it, ill give him the benefit of the doubt until more surfaces.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:I still say it doesn't matter. It's akin to refusing a breathalyzer. You refuse, and you're assumed to have a blood alcohol content above the legal limit. According to what I read, Peterson was going to be tested, and that's when he admitted to smoking the reefer.

He allegedly admitted to it. Was there an admission or not? Did he make a wisecrack? What happened? A motion is not proof.

And I don't see it as rushing to judgment. He admitted violating the terms of his bond. I personally don't know if that makes him guilty of a crime, but it certainly makes him guilty of stupidity.

Edit: I see that he actually did give the urine sample, which makes admitting to smoking the weed even dumber.

... yes, IF he did it and IF he admitted to it. I confess, I won't be surprised if he's "guilty of stupidity" here but I would like some facts before drawing that conclusion.

What actually happened and what will test results reveal? Did he admit that he's smoked a little weed since being released on bail or just that he's smoked a little weed? Was he making a joke in response to a question, sarcastically saying he had smoked a little weed? Is he just so foolish that he violated the terms of his bond and then confessed to it while submitting to a test?

We don't have clear answers or any proof about this yet so yes, there has been a rush to judgment.

The test hasn't come back yet but I'm just assuming this happened until something else comes out. Seems like if it's bad news, it's Vikings news. If it comes back to be untrue then we can have one less thing to have to listen to about Peterson's misconduct.

I was going to say 'which is good' ... but I'm convinced he won't be back with the team again so it doesn't matter much if he did or didn't do it, I suppose. Him having done it would probably just seal his fate with the team rather than it being a high chance of him not being back with the team.

http://www.people.com/article/adrian-pe ... tion-trial

In an email, Phil Grant, the first assistant district attorney for Montgomery County, said no action on the motion will be taken until the resolution of a separate motion seeking the recusal of state district judge Kelly Case, who is presiding over Peterson's case.

If he's going to be arrested again, it sounds like it won't happen until this whole recusal situation gets resolved.

For those interested, here's a link to the actual text of the motion the DA filed (it's brief):

http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2014/1009/PetersonFiling_r.pdf

Cliff wrote:Him having done it would probably just seal his fate with the team rather than it being a high chance of him not being back with the team.

I'm still not so sure. How many chances did Jerome Simpson get from the team? Until this year, Peterson really didn't have any suspension-warranted issues (even the odd bar-related incident that I think was eventually dismissed). Granted, Simpson wasn't accused of something this serious, of course, but he seemed to have quite a bit of leeway and you'd think Peterson would have even more given his impact on the team. I don't think the weed charge is going to make or break his future with the team.

I had to laugh at this:

@TomPowersPP · 9h 9 hours ago
The way this is going today we discover that Adrian Peterson hunts endangered pandas and washes his Escalade with the Shroud of Turin.

If the report of the test does show positive, it takes a special kind of stupid to do that.

Reminds me of an interviewee who failed a pre-employment drug screen. When asked why he wasted everyone's time when he knew he couldn't pass, he said 'well, I thought I could when I scheduled the interview, but I got so nervous before the interview that I smoked a joint before I came in'. Really?

The only crime here is stupidity….if that's even a crime.

I can't swallow comparing a murder scenario to a parole violation of smoking an herb. I understand the intent to create an analogy and that there is an issue here for Peterson in the realm of entitlement. I'm fine with him being punished if he is actually found guilty of violating his parole….due to that whole mess of celebrity entitlement and whatnot. It's the ongoing problem of that entitlement that makes so many of the 'laws' in this country completely stupid….and more about control that any true spirit of protecting anyone.

When the idiots making the laws are peeing in a cup on a regular basis then I'll actually consider that the partaking of one of God's green creations might be a crime. HA! Holy smokes…literally.

Sorry for the rant…I know we've done this one many times.


If the drug test comes back negative then Peterson can deny making the comment…if he is smart, which I'm really doubting at this point. The cat needs a life coach ASAP.

I agree with John, or it may have been Dan, above. I'm thouroughly disgusted with the whole spectrum of peeps who feel so entitled that rules don't apply to them. That goes for the bums on the rails all the way up to the bums making the laws.

I need coffee

Mothman wrote:I had to laugh at this:

Lol!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk