Boykin Arrested!

[chris98251]

Never heard of the Bestie Boys

 

[seahawkfreak]

Your Mama Don't Dance" is a hit 1972 song by the rock duo Loggins and Messina. Released on their self-titled album Loggins and Messina, it reached #4 on the Billboard pop chart and #19 on the Billboard Easy Listening Chart as a singl…


Oh and Kenny Loggins was raised in Everett Washington not far from a place we lived on Lowell Rd.
Drops Mic

"Outta the car longhair!" Does not make "Your Mama Don't Dance" song for Kenny or Poison.

 

[chris98251]

Your Mama Don't Dance" is a hit 1972 song by the rock duo Loggins and Messina. Released on their self-titled album Loggins and Messina, it reached #4 on the Billboard pop chart and #19 on the Billboard Easy Listening Chart as a singl…


Oh and Kenny Loggins was raised in Everett Washington not far from a place we lived on Lowell Rd.
Drops Mic

"Outta the car longhair!" Does not make "Your Mama Don't Dance" song for Kenny or Poison.

Not sure what your arguing here, quoted and dated as lyrics is the discussion, unless your talking 60's and 70's closed minded people perception of people that didn't sport a Military Haircut, then it would be Redneck.

Other wise if not your point is somewhere in left field.

 

[seahawkfreak]

Out of the car long hair!


Beastie Boys reference

Beastie boys?

Lol :{)

Come on man, give credit where it's due.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Mama_Don't_Dance

I did! You didn't scroll down far enough

Oops. Sorry PMedic. Damn kids

Oops. Sorry PMedic. Damn kids

So K.
You were close, just off by a couple years.

What in hell are you two talking about? The quote is from a Beastie Boys song, not Kenny friggin Loggins.

High Plains Drifter

Beastie Boys

The cop knocked on my window and said "Boy, where's the fire?"
You got a mailbox on your bumper and a bald front tire"
"Outta the car longhair!" Your goose is cooked
Read me my rights, fingerprinted and booked

Ok.

Whatever you say.

Remember however, some of us are old enough to know better.

Cheers Bro.
:{)

Hmm ok, you are old. That is not an argument. Already recanted what I previously said by the way.

 

[seahawkfreak]

Your Mama Don't Dance" is a hit 1972 song by the rock duo Loggins and Messina. Released on their self-titled album Loggins and Messina, it reached #4 on the Billboard pop chart and #19 on the Billboard Easy Listening Chart as a singl…


Oh and Kenny Loggins was raised in Everett Washington not far from a place we lived on Lowell Rd.
Drops Mic

"Outta the car longhair!" Does not make "Your Mama Don't Dance" song for Kenny or Poison.

Not sure what your arguing here, quoted and dated as lyrics is the discussion, unless your talking 60's and 70's closed minded people perception of people that didn't sport a Military Haircut, then it would be Redneck.

Other wise if not your point is somewhere in left field.

It was one line in a relatively unknown Beastie Boys song. The line was seriously irrelevant to the Beastie Boys song or the popular Kenny Loggins or Poison song. All I'm saying. If those 4 words are not uttered your momma still doesn't dance.

 

[King Dog]

Never heard of the Bestie Boys

Now it's all starting to make sense 8)

 

[Seafan]

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.

You can't get arrested for arguing with police. You are the only one saying that. You really should get to know the law better.

Perhaps not legally. But you can get killed by police for a lot less especially in the south and especially when you look like Boykin.

 

[peppersjap]

He wasn't driving so there's no way he can be charged with DUI. There's also no way he can be held responsible for any of the people that were injured or any damaged caused.

That leaves the weed as the only issue and as has already been said, if it wasn't on his person, they are some how going to have to prove it was his. That's probably going to be hard to do especially if it wasn't his car and he keeps his mouth shut.

Yes, this certainly sounds bad, but based on the little information we have from that article, IMO it seems quite possible that he comes out of this Scott free. At least as far as the legal issues are concerned.

Regardless of the outcome, I hope this serves as a wake up call to Boykin. Is a night out drinking and smoking weed worth risking your career? I hope not, but that's up to him.

So he skates on a technicality??? Cut his ass and move on. He is not a budding star and if he was willing to thrown away the opportunity for something so stupid he doesn't care! Some get it and some don't! Wilson is a short QB who plays big, Boykin is a small QB who plays very small. I could not ever imagine winning a game with him if Wilson went down but I am on the no Kaep wagon!

 

[UK_Seahawk]

He wasn't driving so there's no way he can be charged with DUI. There's also no way he can be held responsible for any of the people that were injured or any damaged caused.

That leaves the weed as the only issue and as has already been said, if it wasn't on his person, they are some how going to have to prove it was his. That's probably going to be hard to do especially if it wasn't his car and he keeps his mouth shut.

Yes, this certainly sounds bad, but based on the little information we have from that article, IMO it seems quite possible that he comes out of this Scott free. At least as far as the legal issues are concerned.

Regardless of the outcome, I hope this serves as a wake up call to Boykin. Is a night out drinking and smoking weed worth risking your career? I hope not, but that's up to him.

So he skates on a technicality??? Cut his ass and move on. He is not a budding star and if he was willing to thrown away the opportunity for something so stupid he doesn't care! Some get it and some don't! Wilson is a short QB who plays big, Boykin is a small QB who plays very small. I could not ever imagine winning a game with him if Wilson went down but I am on the no Kaep wagon!

Skates on a technicality? How can not doing something be classed as a technicality?

Someone could say that you finger your neighbours dog and I'm sure you'd be miffed if you were accused of "skating on a technicality" if you had not actually fingered your neighbours dog.

 

[RiverDog]

This depends on circumstances.

I mentioned up thread, in Texas, if nobody claims the weed, or "fesses up", everybody in the vehicle can be charged and many times they are.
This is a law that probably varies from state to state and I have no idea how it usually plays out but it's a fact in Texas.

If the weed was his, he probably should pay one of the other occupants to "claim it".


Reality is, it just needs to play out. We all know how this crap works.
Folks with Bank don't suffer as much as those without.

Side note:
Not that it matters here but it's a curious thing, in Texas it's illegal to resist arrest, even an unlawful arrest.
You have to submit, then argue in court after the fact.
This is one of the things that's used against people. They get the extra charge and it's a chip in the DAs pile.

I don't doubt that's the law in Texas, but it doesn't make sense. If no one steps forward to claim it, then IMO it should be the responsibility of the registered owner and/or operator. In WA, they make the registered owner or operator responsible for all the passengers wearing their seatbelts, unclaimed open containers, etc, so one would think that he/she would be responsible for any unclaimed drugs, stolen property, etc, and not the other passengers.

I wonder if anyone has ever been taken to court or if they simply charge everyone in order to pressure someone to come forward.

 

[hawknation2017]

This depends on circumstances.

I mentioned up thread, in Texas, if nobody claims the weed, or "fesses up", everybody in the vehicle can be charged and many times they are.
This is a law that probably varies from state to state and I have no idea how it usually plays out but it's a fact in Texas.

If the weed was his, he probably should pay one of the other occupants to "claim it".


Reality is, it just needs to play out. We all know how this crap works.
Folks with Bank don't suffer as much as those without.

Side note:
Not that it matters here but it's a curious thing, in Texas it's illegal to resist arrest, even an unlawful arrest.
You have to submit, then argue in court after the fact.
This is one of the things that's used against people. They get the extra charge and it's a chip in the DAs pile.

I don't doubt that's the law in Texas, but it doesn't make sense. If no one steps forward to claim it, then IMO it should be the responsibility of the registered owner and/or operator. In WA, they make the registered owner or operator responsible for all the passengers wearing their seatbelts, unclaimed open containers, etc, so one would think that he/she would be responsible for any unclaimed drugs, stolen property, etc, and not the other passengers.

I wonder if anyone has ever been taken to court or if they simply charge everyone in order to pressure someone to come forward.

It's not the law. Even Texas requires the mes rea elements of "knowledge and intent." Since the marijuana was not on his person, the state would have to prove constructive possession.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... HS.481.htm

No one in the U.S. is ipso facto guilty of possession solely because they were found in a vehicle with a controlled substance. Such a struct liability criminal law would violate due process.

The most obvious way to establish a reasonable doubt here would be to argue that he didn't have knowledge that there were drugs in the bag because someone else put them there without his knowledge. Did the bag belong to him or her? Who put the clothes in the bag? What was the chain of custody?

After Boykin left the scene, there may have been time for the woman to hide the drugs in the bag, i.e. he did not have control of the bag at the time it was searched by the police.

Furtive conduct is one way to demonstrate knowledge. Yes, he left the scene. But a guilty person with knowledge that there is a controlled substance in his bag would be likely to take the bag with them and hide it after the accident. That didn't happen here. And he willingly returned to the scene after police had arrived.

 

[Seymour]

Perhaps not legally. But you can get killed by police for a lot less especially in the south and especially when you look like Boykin.

You can also get killed by coconuts falling on your head, but what does that have to do with anything?

Best save that for the "I hate police" or I hate palm trees" forums IMO.

 

[chris98251]

Since we have no news concerning this right now and it is now going into speculative arguments it is locked, feel free to start a new thread when there is pertinent information.