Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

    After ignoring the last couple of self gratifying illogical ramblings...

    Wouldn't the likely reason for the possession charge not being filed, also lead to the other charges not being filed? A current prescription is a valid defense to DUI...

    IC 9-30-5-1
    Class C misdemeanor; defense
    Sec. 1. (a) A person who operates a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least eight-hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol but less than fifteen-hundredths (0.15) gram of alcohol per:
    (1) one hundred (100) milliliters of the person's blood; or
    (2) two hundred ten (210) liters of the person's breath;
    commits a Class C misdemeanor.
    (b) A person who operates a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least fifteen-hundredths (0.15) gram of alcohol per:
    (1) one hundred (100) milliliters of the person's blood; or
    (2) two hundred ten (210) liters of the person's breath;
    commits a Class A misdemeanor.
    (c) A person who operates a vehicle with a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II of IC 35-48-2 or its metabolite in the person's body commits a Class C misdemeanor.
    (d) It is a defense to subsection (c) that the accused person consumed the controlled substance under a valid prescription or order of a practitioner (as defined in IC 35-48-1) who acted in the course of the practitioner's professional practice.
    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

    Comment


    • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

      Originally posted by Natston View Post
      After ignoring the last couple of self gratifying illogical ramblings...

      Wouldn't the likely reason for the possession charge not being filed, also lead to the other charges not being filed? A current prescription is a valid defense to DUI...

      IC 9-30-5-1
      Class C misdemeanor; defense
      Sec. 1. (a) A person who operates a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least eight-hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol but less than fifteen-hundredths (0.15) gram of alcohol per:
      (1) one hundred (100) milliliters of the person's blood; or
      (2) two hundred ten (210) liters of the person's breath;
      commits a Class C misdemeanor.
      (b) A person who operates a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least fifteen-hundredths (0.15) gram of alcohol per:
      (1) one hundred (100) milliliters of the person's blood; or
      (2) two hundred ten (210) liters of the person's breath;
      commits a Class A misdemeanor.
      (c) A person who operates a vehicle with a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II of IC 35-48-2 or its metabolite in the person's body commits a Class C misdemeanor.
      (d) It is a defense to subsection (c) that the accused person consumed the controlled substance under a valid prescription or order of a practitioner (as defined in IC 35-48-1) who acted in the course of the practitioner's professional practice.
      See my post above....
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        See my post above....
        I did, but I was trying to seperate it from a conspiracy angle...
        Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
        I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

        Comment


        • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

          Originally posted by Natston View Post
          After ignoring the last couple of self gratifying illogical ramblings...

          Wouldn't the likely reason for the possession charge not being filed, also lead to the other charges not being filed? A current prescription is a valid defense to DUI...

          IC 9-30-5-1
          Class C misdemeanor; defense
          Sec. 1. (a) A person who operates a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least eight-hundredths (0.08) gram of alcohol but less than fifteen-hundredths (0.15) gram of alcohol per:
          (1) one hundred (100) milliliters of the person's blood; or
          (2) two hundred ten (210) liters of the person's breath;
          commits a Class C misdemeanor.
          (b) A person who operates a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least fifteen-hundredths (0.15) gram of alcohol per:
          (1) one hundred (100) milliliters of the person's blood; or
          (2) two hundred ten (210) liters of the person's breath;
          commits a Class A misdemeanor.
          (c) A person who operates a vehicle with a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II of IC 35-48-2 or its metabolite in the person's body commits a Class C misdemeanor.
          (d) It is a defense to subsection (c) that the accused person consumed the controlled substance under a valid prescription or order of a practitioner (as defined in IC 35-48-1) who acted in the course of the practitioner's professional practice.

          Yes because the rich and/or famous never get away with anything from a legal standpoint.... it just isn't possible that the Hamilton County prosecutor could be bought off. I mean really do you think if it were any of us it would be a misdemeanor?

          Serious question here.

          I'm also sure there are other prosecutors in the Indy area who are probably not thrilled by this because this can be used as an example by defense attorneys of how something that was a felony was dropped down to a misdemeanor here because he happens to own an NFL team.

          Comment


          • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

            You obviously don't have much experience with the legal system. This sort of thing happens all the time. I see it quite a bit from my viewpoint in the process of DUID cases.

            Comment


            • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

              Regardless of the DUI part he was also carrying 29K in cash and had a bunch of drugs on him that also raises red flags to me at least.

              Then there's that dead woman in the house he bought for her.

              If his name was Jim Schmo instead of Jim Irsay yes I think this would've been handled differently. A black kid from Pike would be under the jail right now and not perceived as someone who needs help but a hardened criminal.

              Comment


              • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                Carrying cash is legal. Carrying prescription drugs when you have a prescription for them is legal. Buying a house for someone is legal. Like what has been said before, there could be a bigger story but you are also jumping to conclusions and you're lumping in things that wouldn't be mentioned in legal process. The only way a black kid from Pike or Heisenberg would be in jail is because they likely couldn't post bail.

                As much as it appears to be a pass for Irsay, the prosecutor could be going hard for DUI convicton. There is so much we don't know or will never know.
                Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                Comment


                • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                  Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                  Regardless of the DUI part he was also carrying 29K in cash and had a bunch of drugs on him that also raises red flags to me at least.

                  Then there's that dead woman in the house he bought for her.

                  If his name was Jim Schmo instead of Jim Irsay yes I think this would've been handled differently. A black kid from Pike would be under the jail right now and not perceived as someone who needs help but a hardened criminal.
                  You see red flags. I see dead ends. A billionaire with 29K in cash on him isn't illegal and might not even be that unusual. To think that it's about a drug deal would be some hard dots to connect because why would he need 29K for prescription drugs? Even if he's buying them black market and can't go Dr shopping surely there'd be no reason to buy 29K worth. I haven't seen any evidence that he's dealing so it's a mighty big leap to think that he was in the midst of a drug deal.

                  Dead woman in the house he bought for her really would take a lot more than that to connect him to a crime. I admit the legal system might not want to look too hard for that connection but on its face there's really nothing there that would warrant the deep digging it would take to make a connection in the first place. No law against someone dying in their own home even if someone else did pay for it.

                  A valid, legal prescription is coded into Indiana law as a defense for an OWI. So, since the illegal drug angle was dropped and yet the OWI continues (and I thought we knew no alcohol was involved so then the OWI has to be the drugs) then either the prosecutor is going hard after that OWI regardless (even after tossing out the part of the case that would've given him his leverage) or else it's just like the scenario I described a couple of posts back.

                  I suspect a deal was already 'informally' worked out where the drug charges were dropped and Irsay takes the OWI charge and moves on. Or else he handed Irsay's attorney a charge that is more easy to defend, even setting up a plea bargain situation that will not exactly be something the league would be as interested in (giving Irsay a good argument why the NFL doesn't need to punish him or punish him 'severely'....)
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                    Irsay prosecutor's silence opens door to criticism

                    Hamilton County Prosecutor D. Lee Buckingham II has no legal obligation to explain why he didn't pursue preliminary drug charges against Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay following a March 16 arrest.

                    But the prosecutor's silence, coupled with the timing of that charging decision last week, did little to instill public confidence that Irsay — despite his position and wealth — was treated like anyone else.

                    Irsay was charged Friday with operating a vehicle while intoxicated and operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in the body. Prosecutors allege he had oxycodone, hydrocodone or both in his system when a Carmel police officer pulled him over for driving erratically at 11:40 p.m. March 16.

                    The prosecutor, however, did not pursue four preliminary charges of possession of a controlled substance that were recommended by police at the time of Irsay's arrest. Those felony charges — far more serious than the misdemeanor OWI counts — related to Schedule IV prescription drugs police found in a briefcase and two laundry bags in Irsay's vehicle. Those types of drugs include Xanax, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan and Ambien.



                    A news release issued at 4:25 p.m. Friday by the prosecutor said the office wouldn't comment on the case until it's resolved. That silence in such a high-profile case, according to legal and ethics experts, has unsurprisingly raised public questions:

                    • Why did it take more than two months to charge Irsay?

                    • What happened to the drug charges? Did Irsay have prescriptions for the drugs?

                    • Did the prosecutor hold off charging Irsay until after the team owner helped the city make a bid last week to host the 2018 Super Bowl?

                    • And why were charges filed in the minutes just before the courts closed for the long Memorial Day/Indianapolis 500 weekend?

                    "Any time you see a filing by a public company — or, in this case, a prosecutor's office — late in the day ahead of a holiday, it immediately raises suspicion that they want less attention rather than more," said Richard Mahony of Mahony Partners, a risk communications firm in Connecticut.

                    Mahony said effortsto slip controversial news past a preoccupied public often don'twork because "people see through that." But, he added, "it's been part of the PR playbook for years."

                    In an e-mail Tuesday, the Hamilton County prosecutor's office said it did not have an official response to a number of questions submitted by The Indianapolis Star. "That being said," spokesman Andre Miksha said, "we hope process will speak for itself and that we might be more at liberty to respond to your questions and concerns after the charges have been resolved in the courtroom."

                    Irsay's attorneys, in a statement Friday, thanked the prosecutor's office "for devoting the necessary care and attention to determine the facts in this matter did not warrant the filing of felony charges relative to Mr. Irsay's prescription medications."


                    Prosecutors do not have to follow the preliminary charges used in an arrest and sometimes file different charges after reviewing police reports and evidence.

                    Buckingham's predecessor, former Hamilton County Prosecutor Sonia Leerkamp, said "the public is naturally curious and suspicious that favoritism might be shown" to someone with a high profile and the financial wherewithal of Irsay.

                    Still, Leerkamp does not believe Irsay was treated differently than anyone else would have been under the same circumstances. She added prosecutors must operate under strict ethical rules, which prohibit releasing information that could prejudice a case before it goes to trial.

                    "I am familiar with the individuals in the position of making those judgments and determinations," Leerkamp said, "and, based upon my knowledge of those individuals and their character, I would never suspect any of them of showing favorable treatment based on (a suspect's) position on the community."

                    Comments on The Star's Facebook page were far less generous:

                    • "Is anyone really shocked."

                    • "Money, power, prestige & friends in high places all factor in. Always has, always will. To think otherwise is naive."

                    • "Once again we see justice is based on income and not the law."

                    • Wonder how that would have turned out if he were me. I would get felony charges and prison."

                    • "$$$$$$$$ = corruption."

                    Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert and professor at New York University School of Law, said prosecutors generally do not explain why they do not do something. But, he noted, there are some times when a prosecutor, as a public official, "has an interest in giving some explanation that will negate some inferences of favorable treatment."

                    "Fairly or unfairly," Gillers said, "the public may draw unkind inferences" without an explanation.

                    "Absolutely, it hurts the public perception of the criminal justice system," he continued. "The public perception is already doubtful. People who populate jails and prisons tend to be poor and minorities, yet the wealthy and connected seem to get off easy. A prosecutor should consider if a statement can be made to mitigate that perception and, as a public official, a prosecutor should give serious consideration to making it."

                    Geoffrey Hazard, co-author of "The Law and Ethics of Lawyering" and an emeritus law professor at the University of California, said there is no ethical requirement for the prosecutor to explain the charges.

                    "It's an exercise in professional judgment," Hazard said. "I think it's legitimate for the media to say to the prosecutor, 'Could you give an explanation? If you exercised professional judgment, there must have been thought. What was the thought?'"

                    Charles Geyh, a professor at the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University, said that while he didn't see an ethical mandate, "as a practical matter, this is someone who runs for office, and the electorate might think differently about explaining himself."

                    "That's not ethics. That's straight-up politics."

                    Legal ethics expert William Hodes, an emeritus professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, said people other than the prosecutor might be worthy of scrutiny in the case.

                    "What if the police on the scene were out of line and charging everything because it's fun to catch Jimmy Irsay?" Hodes said.


                    Colts owner Jim Irsay leaves the Hamilton County Jail. Robert Scheer/The Star

                    Lt. Joe Bickel, Carmel Police Department spokesman, said officials would have no comment on the Irsay case or charges.

                    The two misdemeanor charges Irsay is facing each carry a maximum penalty of 60 days in jail and a $500 fine. Legal experts, however, say most first-time offenders such as Irsay are not likely to be sent to jail on such charges.

                    Irsay's initial hearing on the charges is scheduled for 1:15 p.m. June 19 in Hamilton Superior Court 4.
                    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/c...icism/9644451/

                    Comment


                    • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                      Did Irsay do something to you personally?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                        I think he's a complete tool but that has very little to do with thinking he got off relatively easy here.

                        Anyone with $$$ gets off rather easily in Carmel anyways.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                          http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11...ended-one-year

                          Jim Irsay's license suspended 1 year

                          NOBLESVILLE, Ind. -- A court has suspended Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay's driver's license for one year following his arrest for driving while intoxicated.

                          The Indianapolis Star reports that recently released documents in Hamilton County confirm the license suspension effective starting May 27. Police and prosecutors have declined to discuss the case.

                          Irsay refused a blood test after his March 16 arrest in Carmel, a suburb of Indianapolis. Indiana law requires a one-year license suspension for refusing such a test. Police later obtained a warrant ordering Irsay to submit to a blood draw.

                          Irsay faces a June 19 initial hearing on two misdemeanor counts of impaired driving. A probable cause affidavit said Irsay was driving under the influence of powerful painkillers.

                          A message seeking comment was left with a spokeswoman for Irsay.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                            Like I suspected a punishment that doesn't really mean a whole lot but I rather they just ban him from Twitter

                            http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ion-for-irsay/

                            Report: League insiders expect 6-8 game suspension for Irsay

                            NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has not yet handed down discipline to Colts owner Jim Irsay, who was arrested and currently faces charges of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. But there’s an expectation around the league that when Goodell does act, he’ll suspend Irsay for about half a season.

                            That’s the word from Adam Schefter of ESPN, who reported that people around the league believe Goodell will give Irsay a suspension of six to eight games and a fine of about $1 million.

                            We still don’t know what a suspension of an owner would constitute. Would Irsay just be prevented from attending games? Would he be banned from the team facility throughout the suspension? If he’s suspended during a meeting of NFL owners, would the Colts lose their vote? Would the Colts lose their share of the league’s TV revenues from those six to eight weeks, just as players who are suspended lose their salaries for those weeks? Losing half a season’s worth of revenue would be a whole lot more than a $1 million fine. A $1 million fine is a rounding error to a billionaire like Irsay.

                            Whatever Goodell decides, it’s sure to be hotly debated around the NFL. And if Goodell doesn’t come down hard on Irsay, he’s sure to face harsh criticism from the players who say he seems a lot more eager to punish players than owners.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                              Like I suspected a punishment that doesn't really mean a whole lot but I rather they just ban him from Twitter
                              Are you kidding me? I'd consider that a fairly draconian punishment. We could argue the 6-8 games could mean little to a lot, but then a 1 million dollar fine on top of that?

                              That is NOT getting off easy... A million dollars is a million dollars.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                Are you kidding me? I'd consider that a fairly draconian punishment. We could argue the 6-8 games could mean little to a lot, but then a 1 million dollar fine on top of that?

                                That is NOT getting off easy... A million dollars is a million dollars.


                                To a billionaire? No then again he was too cheap to get a driver which could've prevented all of this to begin with.

                                But really the fine I agree with but the 6-8 game suspension is what I was referring to here its a joke when it comes to an owner I mean what exactly are you suspending him from?

                                Does it mean he doesn't get a share of the profits during those games? Or he can't show up to games? If its the former then yes that's more than I expected which wasn't much.

                                With Goodell being an empty suit and all

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X