Mike Scott: CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES!!

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Ain't God . . . or money . . . good?

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2017/05/02/former-hawks-mike-scott-cleared-of-drug-charges-by-georgia-judge-return-to-nba-possible/

So he and his brother beat the charge, because his lawyer proved that the stop was unwarranted ( i.e. - racial profiling )?   Wow!!   No way would the average citizen using a public defender or a cheap lawyer, would beat this.  But when you have money, and you have the ability to pay people off, it's amazing what you can be cleared off.

At any rate, congrats Mike Molly.  You get a new lease on life.  And with all of the roster spots possibly open on the Hawks this summer, maybe a return to the ATL is in your future.

 

[HawkItus]

[capstone21]

I don't know what to think about this ... I definitely don't like the racial profiling which is horrible but I feel like he and his brother should not be getting off from this ... 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Police was like . . . 

 

Mike was like . . . "Hol up .. hol up .. hol up .. hol up .. hol up ............. here you go"

[TheNorthCydeRises]

3 minutes ago, capstone21 said:

I don't know what to think about this ... I definitely don't like the racial profiling which is horrible but I feel like he and his brother should not be getting off from this ... 

I'm sure they paid their fair share of money to the Banks Co, clerk a nice sum of money in court fees and fines.   They didn't get off "scot" free.  ( rimshot )

One of the dirty little secrets of law enforcement, especially when it comes to small rural counties like where Mike got stopped, is that they'll stop cars not necessarily due to drug trafficking, but due to the cash that people may carry on them.  They can seize the cash under ( civil forfeiture ) laws.  And police can and will abuse these laws.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?utm_term=.7ef7030ff03c

 

Here's what went on in Georgia

http://www.peachpundit.com/2015/06/10/georgias-new-civil-asset-forfeiture-law-does-not-go-far-enough/

 

[MaceCase]

15 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Ain't God . . . or money . . . good?

http://nba.nbcsports.com/2017/05/02/former-hawks-mike-scott-cleared-of-drug-charges-by-georgia-judge-return-to-nba-possible/

So he and his brother beat the charge, because his lawyer proved that the stop was unwarranted ( i.e. - racial profiling )?   Wow!!   No way would the average citizen using a public defender or a cheap lawyer, would beat this.  But when you have money, and you have the ability to pay people off, it's amazing what you can be cleared off.

At any rate, congrats Mike Molly.  You get a new lease on life.  And with all of the roster spots possibly open on the Hawks this summer, maybe a return to the ATL is in your future.

 

I don't know, I'd think even any first year law student would have gone straight for the "is any of this even admissible?" card seeing as that is the only play Scott had.  Once you remove "why'd you stop him in the first place?" even the confession that Scott made could be argued as given under duress.  Now yes, having money probably went a long way towards the time and effort spent gathering research to suggest a pattern of racial profiling by that department but give the average citizen a little more credit.

 

Ressler might need to consider a name change for the team, the Atlanta Jailbirds are 3-0 against the justice system.

[willthepureshooter]

1 hour ago, capstone21 said:

I don't know what to think about this ... I definitely don't like the racial profiling which is horrible but I feel like he and his brother should not be getting off from this ... 

Whaaaa? A little citizen justice, huh? Let's grab some pitch forks and force Mike Scott off the cliff. Lol! I hope you're just kidding, right?

[Guest]

Seems this is in order ...

Suck it all you batches that panicked over this.

[macdaddy]

47 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Seems this is in order ...

Suck it all you batches that panicked over this.

That's true.   there was a lot of folks who said he'd definitely get suspended for a whole season and probably was facing extended jail time.   There are a ton of lawyers for a reason.

[Alex]

Justice system is broken.  He broke the law and suffered in the grand scheme of things no consequences.  Charges were dismissed on the basis of racial profiling?  It seems the race card was also in Scott's deck along with the get out of jail free card.  

Whatever.  This isn't a political thread or anything like that so I will just leave it alone now.

 

basketball side of things is he still sucks.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Alex said:

Justice system is broken.  He broke the law and suffered in the grand scheme of things no consequences.  Charges were dismissed on the basis of racial profiling?  It seems the race card was also in Scott's deck along with the get out of jail free card.  

Whatever.  This isn't a political thread or anything like that so I will just leave it alone now.

 

basketball side of things is he still sucks.

Was the race card in the judge's deck?  'Cause he's the one who ruled the stop was unlawful.

Is it ok for the police officer to target people of a certain race 1,000 times just because he illegal searches turn up drugs at least once?  Would you be ok having to sit on the side of the road having your car searched for no other reason than happening to be a certain race?

I hear you when you say, "well, wait a minute, these guys did have an illegal substance?"  However, the way I look at it, this ruling is essentially benefiting the hundreds of innocent motorists that are being victimized by profiling.

IOW, your anger should be aimed at the people abusing their power as well as those who just got off ... Scott free.

[Gray Mule]

The other side of the coin:

If he had been white, the court would not have any race card to play

and his odds off being found guilty, due to his confession, would

have increased.

Not saying he would have been found guilty, just that the odds would

have gone up.

[hawkman]

12 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Was the race card in the judge's deck?  'Cause he's the one who ruled the stop was unlawful.

Is it ok for the police officer to target people of a certain race 1,000 times just because he illegal searches turn up drugs at least once?  Would you be ok having to sit on the side of the road having your car searched for no other reason than happening to be a certain race?

I hear you when you say, "well, wait a minute, these guys did have an illegal substance?"  However, the way I look at it, this ruling is essentially benefiting the hundreds of innocent motorists that are being victimized by profiling.

IOW, your anger should be aimed at the people abusing their power as well as those who just got off ... Scott free.

A quick heads up: even when you do know your rights and  refuse the search, the K-9 they bring in WILL scratch your car up and WILL indicate that there are drugs in your car so they can 'legally' search you. Your post hit close to home.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Gray Mule said:

The other side of the coin:

If he had been white, the court would not have any race card to play

and his odds off being found guilty, due to his confession, would

have increased.

Not saying he would have been found guilty, just that the odds would

have gone up.

That's an interesting take and I can't say you're wrong.  However, do any policemen target white drivers specifically?

Only time I've seen/heard of that is when cops stop white drivers in supposed drug neighborhoods.

All in all, I think you're highlighted a potential slight that doesn't really happen.  The 'wrong' to me is not in that they got stopped.  It's in the fact that they were targeted.

[AHF]

50 minutes ago, kg01 said:

That's an interesting take and I can't say you're wrong.  However, do any policemen target white drivers specifically?

Only time I've seen/heard of that is when cops stop white drivers in supposed drug neighborhoods.

All in all, I think you're highlighted a potential slight that doesn't really happen.  The 'wrong' to me is not in that they got stopped.  It's in the fact that they were targeted.

A white person would have the race card if the police were racially targeting whites.  It is just very unlikely in the real world.  The law is neutral.  The real world, too often, is not.

[Alex]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

Was the race card in the judge's deck?  'Cause he's the one who ruled the stop was unlawful.

Is it ok for the police officer to target people of a certain race 1,000 times just because he illegal searches turn up drugs at least once?  Would you be ok having to sit on the side of the road having your car searched for no other reason than happening to be a certain race?

I hear you when you say, "well, wait a minute, these guys did have an illegal substance?"  However, the way I look at it, this ruling is essentially benefiting the hundreds of innocent motorists that are being victimized by profiling.

IOW, your anger should be aimed at the people abusing their power as well as those who just got off ... Scott free.

A judge ruled it was a racially profiled stop on the grounds that the two occupants were black?  I am assuming the deputies who eventually got the Scott brothers to pull over were white since racism only goes one direction.   They were asked to pull over initially because of following too closely to other drivers. Bogus or not...nobody can say.  Either way once they evaded and refused to pull over that's essentially an admission of guilt of some sort.  Clearly you have something to hide.  To say they were stopped solely because they were black seems inaccurate at best to me.  The actual reason they were finally stopped was because of the failure/evasion of the police.  

[Alex]

26 minutes ago, AHF said:

A white person would have the race card if the police were racially targeting whites.  It is just very unlikely in the real world.  The law is neutral.  The real world, too often, is not.

Except racism isn't a two way street.  

[Watchman]

It's a simple case of the Golden Rule.  Dem what's got the gold, makes da rules.

[MaceCase]

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

A judge ruled it was a racially profiled stop on the grounds that the two occupants were black?  I am assuming the deputies who eventually got the Scott brothers to pull over were white since racism only goes one direction.   They were asked to pull over initially because of following too closely to other drivers. Bogus or not...nobody can say.  Either way once they evaded and refused to pull over that's essentially an admission of guilt of some sort.  Clearly you have something to hide.  To say they were stopped solely because they were black seems inaccurate at best to me.  The actual reason they were finally stopped was because of the failure/evasion of the police.  

Actually, the judge can and did say it was bogus.  Why have people yet to learn that simply because a police officer says "this is what happened" does not mean that's what actually happened.  They have to detail a reasonable account exactly how that happened and if it doesn't hold up to snuff it becomes a matter of "did you simply say that happened to cover your ass?".  "Following too closely" would be suspicious of a DUI yet I have yet to read anything about a sobriety test being administered, that the police hit a bingo of drugs, guns or even a dead body would not follow from the logic that they somehow suspected this from the get therefore....inadmissible.

 

[Thomas]

10 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

Following too closely" would be suspicious of a DUI yet I have yet to read anything about a sobriety test being administered

Got to admit, thats very concerning, as if it was considered a done deal. Wasn't there so only some loose speculation from me, but still.