Boykin Arrested!

[penihawk]

I would take Gabbert over Kraperdick. They need to put a vet backup on the roster regardless of what happens to the clueless Boykin imo.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Does not matter if Pot is legal in Washington. A condition of employment( a high paying job in the NFL) is that you do not participate in pot. Does not matter if you like it or not. I have a good paying job in Washington State and I have to give hair samples for drug testing. If they find pot in my system, I lose my job. Boykin is an idiot for putting his career in trouble because he is not smart enough to stay away from pot

My WA employer has a similar condition attached to my employment. Additionally, it's still against federal law to smoke it in this state, although the feds have opted not to prosecute citizens in WA. That's one of the reasons why I voted against the pot law in WA, because it would confuse a whole lot of people.

I wouldn't write off Boykin just yet. IMO the Hawks will wait and let the court system do their jobs first, but it would only make sense for us to start the search for a backup. Personally, I don't want anything to do with that jackwagon Krapperdick and if he had his choice, he probably wouldn't want to come here anyway as he won't get a chance to compete for a starting job, although he may not be in a position to pick and choose as teams haven't been anxious to bring him in due to his baggage.

There's a lot of veteran QB's out there with starting experience looking for jobs. Not too many with SB experience, but I doubt that Kaep's one trip to the SB will be a deal maker for him:

Jay Cutler, Ryan Fitzpatrick, RG3, Chase Daniel, Case Keenum, Shawn Hill, Matt McGloin, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder.

Those 3 would be intriguing. Matt McGloin....wasn't that one of the dwarves????

 

[Sports Hernia]

I know the NFL has its rules about pot, but let's not loose sight of the fact that in the state of Washington, pot is perfectly legal to posses and use recreationally. I'm not totally clear on his probation terms and if legal possession or even use of pot would be grounds for a violation.

Each person in the car can have up to one ounce in their possession. I'm not gonna stick my head in the sand and pretend a pretty significant number of players aren't using the herb in the offseason on a recreational basis.

I truly don't see anything wrong with it so long as its used in moderation, same held true for drinking. I am not up to speed on the NFL stand or reach on this matter. I'm sure there is some new precedence to consider given it occurred in a state where it's possession and use is legal.

I'm sure once training camp starts the players are subject to all kinds of restrictions on what they can and can't have show in their systems, and pot being one of them.

If in fact Boyce was even in possession of any of the pot, or under the influence, it still shouldn't be grounds for killing his NFL career I wouldn't think.

He is a super talented QB with tremendous potential should Russell ever not be able to take the field for some reason, Boykin could and has shown that he is capable. I say everyone should chill out a little bit and let things surface and provide a little more clarity, before we race to throw him under bus.

Boykin's keeping his position on the team wouldn't stop Seattle from signing Kaepernick, if they wanted him, and if he was willing to take a backseat position on another team. Especially not on the Seahawks, where Russell would need to be nearly dead before he would let anyone else take his place on the field. I don't think playing backup appeals to Kaepernick right now, Icould be wrong.

Weed is legal here in Washington, this incident happened in Texas, weed isn't legal there.

 

[HawkGA]

I've only seen snippets of info but I won't let that stop me from weighing in . . . . in the little I know, I have a hard time seeing a problem here. He wasn't driving the car. He "might" have been drunk so he was arrested? Is that seriously what all of this is based on? There was a joint somewhere in the car? This sounds to me like more of a case of over aggressive policing (not over aggressive use of force, just an over aggressive "hey, I can throw you in jail so I will".). Jail should be for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at.

Nobody seems to be bringing up the fact that 8 people were injured. That is a huge deal! It doesn't matter if he was driving or not, he participated in that decision. He was a part of it, and he could've made a smarter choice. 7 of those 8 people were hospitalized. To me that's the biggest part of it all. He played an active role in the outcome. He is an undrafted player, with minimal NFL experience and can be easily replaced and likely will be not just because of his role, but that he has had 2 arrests in 3 years. I remember when a star player named Aldon Smith was having a few issues with the law and hit a tree. People made a big deal. Well this is a bigger one, 7 people went to the hospital. Seattle should just cut bait and move on. All they are losing is an undrafted, backup, who clearly has judgement issues. Even if you can get past the fact that 8 people were injured, he still had possession of marijuana in a state that it is illegal to possess it. He still violated his probation no matter what in that sense. He played a role in a DUI. He played a role that led to be someone's son, daughters, husband, and wives ending up in the hospital that night.

I would think not being the driver would be a big deal. But maybe I'm crazy.

If you are not on probation

Legally I think it is still a very important distinction. What if he was simply walking down the street and the buddies he had been out with had done the same thing but he was still in the area? Being in the vicinity of a crime just because you are on probation shouldn't be a violation of said probation.

Now, how the team wants to treat the matter, totally different story.

 

[RiverDog]

I would take Gabbert over Kraperdick. They need to put a vet backup on the roster regardless of what happens to the clueless Boykin imo.

I'd take Gabbert over Kaep, too. And if part of the criteria is finding a backup with a skill set similar to RW, then we should take a look at RG3.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with his politics, Kaepernick would be a distraction even if he stood and saluted during the anthem.

 

[Seymour]

Legally I think it is still a very important distinction. What if he was simply walking down the street and the buddies he had been out with had done the same thing but he was still in the area? Being in the vicinity of a crime just because you are on probation shouldn't be a violation of said probation.

Now, how the team wants to treat the matter, totally different story.

The public intoxication is not just because he was drunk and in the wrong place. It is because he was arguing and not cooperating with the police. This is his own fault! Funny, that same combative behavior toward police got him probation to begin with. This is not a "wow that poor guy" situation. This is a "what a dumb ass loser situation" IMO.

 

[West TX Hawk]

Legally I think it is still a very important distinction. What if he was simply walking down the street and the buddies he had been out with had done the same thing but he was still in the area? Being in the vicinity of a crime just because you are on probation shouldn't be a violation of said probation.

Now, how the team wants to treat the matter, totally different story.

The public intoxication is not just because he was drunk and in the wrong place. It is because he was arguing and not cooperating with the police. This is his own fault! Funny, that same combative behavior toward police got him probation to begin with. This is not a "wow that poor guy" situation. This is a "what a dumb ass loser situation" IMO.

Exactly!

 

[HawkGA]

Legally I think it is still a very important distinction. What if he was simply walking down the street and the buddies he had been out with had done the same thing but he was still in the area? Being in the vicinity of a crime just because you are on probation shouldn't be a violation of said probation.

Now, how the team wants to treat the matter, totally different story.

The public intoxication is not just because he was drunk and in the wrong place. It is because he was arguing and not cooperating with the police. This is his own fault! Funny, that same combative behavior toward police got him probation to begin with. This is not a "wow that poor guy" situation. This is a "what a dumb ass loser situation" IMO.

Arguing with police should not be something you can get arrested for. Hello police state.

 

[Seymour]

Legally I think it is still a very important distinction. What if he was simply walking down the street and the buddies he had been out with had done the same thing but he was still in the area? Being in the vicinity of a crime just because you are on probation shouldn't be a violation of said probation.

Now, how the team wants to treat the matter, totally different story.

The public intoxication is not just because he was drunk and in the wrong place. It is because he was arguing and not cooperating with the police. This is his own fault! Funny, that same combative behavior toward police got him probation to begin with. This is not a "wow that poor guy" situation. This is a "what a dumb ass loser situation" IMO.

Arguing with police should not be something you can get arrested for. Hello police state.

He wasn't.
Arguing with police while being drunk and possession of weed is though. This is a law to keep drunk idiots from being a nuisance, like hindering an investigation. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[penihawk]

He probably falls into the category of "instant asshole just add alcohol". Isn't it everybody's ambition to throw away employment that could net you millions of dollars over a 8-10 yr span so you can get drunk & smoke weed with idiots that end up on an episode of "cops"? Sad!

 

[HawkGA]

Legally I think it is still a very important distinction. What if he was simply walking down the street and the buddies he had been out with had done the same thing but he was still in the area? Being in the vicinity of a crime just because you are on probation shouldn't be a violation of said probation.

Now, how the team wants to treat the matter, totally different story.

The public intoxication is not just because he was drunk and in the wrong place. It is because he was arguing and not cooperating with the police. This is his own fault! Funny, that same combative behavior toward police got him probation to begin with. This is not a "wow that poor guy" situation. This is a "what a dumb ass loser situation" IMO.

Arguing with police should not be something you can get arrested for. Hello police state.

He wasn't.
Arguing with police while being drunk and possession of weed is though. This is a law to keep drunk idiots from being a nuisance, like hindering an investigation. Stupid is as stupid does.

Was he in possession of it or was it just in the car (the car he wasn't driving)? Honest question . . . I've spent more time posting about it than I have reading about it.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't stupid. But this notion that you can't argue with a police officer or you go to jail? That's messed up. Last I checked, cops are people just like everybody else. Some are cool, some are asshats. As I said in my original post, jail should be for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at.

 

[penihawk]

I don't disagree with you when it comes to cops. However, it comes down to judgement and behavior to avoid situations like this. I'm thinking his track record shows he is lacking in that dept. I've never been arrested and it really wasn't that hard.

 

[Seymour]

Was he in possession of it or was it just in the car (the car he wasn't driving)? Honest question . . . I've spent more time posting about it than I have reading about it.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't stupid. But this notion that you can't argue with a police officer or you go to jail? That's messed up. Last I checked, cops are people just like everybody else. Some are cool, some are asshats. As I said in my original post, jail should be for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at.

I quoted the news report above. 6.9 grams of weed found in bag on back seat with clothes in it. Obviously they had enough reason or evidence that bag belonged to him.

 

[HawkGA]

Was he in possession of it or was it just in the car (the car he wasn't driving)? Honest question . . . I've spent more time posting about it than I have reading about it.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't stupid. But this notion that you can't argue with a police officer or you go to jail? That's messed up. Last I checked, cops are people just like everybody else. Some are cool, some are asshats. As I said in my original post, jail should be for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at.

I quoted the news report above. 6.9 grams of weed found in bag on back seat with clothes in it. Obviously they had enough reason or evidence that bag belonged to him.

I think "obviously" is a bit of a stretch when police can arrest you for simply arguing with them.

 

[Jville]

I've spent more time posting about it than I have reading about it.

The above quote sums up the causation of it's authors continuing confusion.

 

[HawkGA]

I don't disagree with you when it comes to cops. However, it comes down to judgement and behavior to avoid situations like this. I'm thinking his track record shows he is lacking in that dept. I've never been arrested and it really wasn't that hard.

This is very true. I've *managed* to avoid ever getting arrested myself (this despite my wife once mouthing off to a cop who had pulled me over that the poe dunk town he patrolled didn't cell reception! . . . actually, come to think of it she's smarted off to cops when they've pulled me over at least twice.). My wife (from Texas, by the way) also has some crazy stories about things the cops in her town would do. It's not good. Like really not good.

The kind of not good that makes it really scary to think we cops can arrest people just because they are mad at them.

 

[Seymour]

Was he in possession of it or was it just in the car (the car he wasn't driving)? Honest question . . . I've spent more time posting about it than I have reading about it.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't stupid. But this notion that you can't argue with a police officer or you go to jail? That's messed up. Last I checked, cops are people just like everybody else. Some are cool, some are asshats. As I said in my original post, jail should be for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at.

I quoted the news report above. 6.9 grams of weed found in bag on back seat with clothes in it. Obviously they had enough reason or evidence that bag belonged to him.

I think "obviously" is a bit of a stretch when police can arrest you for simply arguing with them.

No need to continue this. You keep dropping the stated other reasons they arrested him so I'm done here.

 

[c_hawkbob]

Was he in possession of it or was it just in the car (the car he wasn't driving)? Honest question . . . I've spent more time posting about it than I have reading about it.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't stupid. But this notion that you can't argue with a police officer or you go to jail? That's messed up. Last I checked, cops are people just like everybody else. Some are cool, some are asshats. As I said in my original post, jail should be for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at.

I quoted the news report above. 6.9 grams of weed found in bag on back seat with clothes in it. Obviously they had enough reason or evidence that bag belonged to him.

I think "obviously" is a bit of a stretch when police can arrest you for simply arguing with them.

That depends; there are different levels of "arguing with" a cop and relevant circumstances surrounding the "argument" must be taken into account.

For instance:

"No officer I'm certain I wasn't going 12 over because I always set my cruise control at 4 over. Are you certain you radar gun was on my vehicle"

Is a whole lot different than:

"Get your filthy hands off me you bloody pig!" (it's a hypothetical, not quoting Boykin) while the officer is investigating an injury involved accident in which you were involved.

Boykin is lucky the officer didn't feel that the "argument" rose to the level of resisting arrest.

Besides, as I opined earlier; the public intox charge is just an add on, it's not what he was being arrested for specifically.

 

[HawkGA]

Was he in possession of it or was it just in the car (the car he wasn't driving)? Honest question . . . I've spent more time posting about it than I have reading about it.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't stupid. But this notion that you can't argue with a police officer or you go to jail? That's messed up. Last I checked, cops are people just like everybody else. Some are cool, some are asshats. As I said in my original post, jail should be for people we are afraid of, not people we are mad at.

I quoted the news report above. 6.9 grams of weed found in bag on back seat with clothes in it. Obviously they had enough reason or evidence that bag belonged to him.

I think "obviously" is a bit of a stretch when police can arrest you for simply arguing with them.

No need to continue this. You keep dropping the stated other reasons they arrested him so I'm done here.

It is probably true that at best we are headed to PWR territory.

I will just end with a football related thought . . . whoever replaces Boykin is going to cost more from a salary cap perspective and that sucks.

 

[HawkGA]

Is a whole lot different than:

"Get your filthy hands off me you bloody pig!" (it's a hypothetical, not quoting Boykin) while the officer is investigating an injury involved accident in which you were involved.

Nobody should get arrested for saying that. People are quick to throw out the freedom of speech thing and often in the wrong setting. But when dealing with government or government agents is EXACTLY the point of the first amendment. If a poor little cop gets his feelings hurt because somebody calls him a name and feels like he should arrest that person . . . well, that cop has no business being a cop.

And with that I shall depart lest I venture more into PWR territory.