Gallntfox Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/10/31/belichick.son.ap/index.html?cnn=yes Belichick's son placed on probation Son of Super Bowl coach arrested for pot possession Posted: Tuesday October 31, 2006 7:53AM; Updated: Tuesday October 31, 2006 7:56AM WALTHAM, Mass. (AP) --The son of New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick was placed on probation Monday for six months after being arrested on one count of marijuana possession. The charge against Stephen Belichick, 19, will be dismissed after six months if he stays out of trouble, said Emily LaGrassa, spokeswoman for the Middlesex County District Attorney's office. Belichick had a "very, very small amount'' of marijuana and had no prior record, Weston police Sgt. Danny Maguire said. Belichick was arraigned in Waltham District Court where the case was continued without a finding, LaGrassa said. Belichick and Jonathan Pizarro, 18, were arrested Saturday night in a parking lot, Maguire said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPortJGibbs89 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Hell yea good work Stephen. Bill probably gets all highed up with his son and comes up with these incredible defensive schemes to just shut down peyton. I knew there was something to Bill's magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Would have been worse if he was wearing a Colts hat at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EersSkins05 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 If your dad dressed like this every time he was on national tv, you'd get high too: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coooleeey Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 hahaha, that's hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsOrlando Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 That might explain why his father dresses like he's homeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 That might explain why his father dresses like he's homeless. I don't understand that logic. Pretty funny story though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaRock Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 How much is a "very small amount"? If that's the case, why are they tacking on the "intent to distribute"? In turn, if he distributed the "very small amount", he'd have none left, thus dropping the possession charge. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachingWinsChampionships Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 The intent to distribute charge was against the other kid, not Belicheck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raub Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Who freakin cares? Seriously, why is this news? :bfd: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunClintonRun26 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I want to see someone like Sarge's response to something like this. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Now we see why the Patriots won't pay their players any real money... they have to support the drug habit of their Coach's son!!! I wonder how Billy Boy Belichick would do on the sidelines the weekend after his son was sentenced to death for drug posession; since that's what it's going to take to start winning the War on Drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 6 month probation for possession of marijuana, what a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 6 month probation for possession of marijuana, what a joke. Exactly. Maybe six months of total solitary confinement... no human conctact at all, but 6 months probation is WAY, WAY too little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 6 month probation for possession of marijuana, what a joke. Exactly. Maybe six months of total solitary confinement... no human conctact at all, but 6 months probation is WAY, WAY too little. For a little bit of weed? Give me a break. Why don't we illegalize caffeine and tobacco while were at it? Obviously the gov't is the best decider of what we are and aren't able to do to our bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 For a little bit of weed? Give me a break. Why don't we illegalize caffeine and tobacco while were at it? Obviously the gov't is the best decider of what we are and aren't able to do to our bodies. Yes, for a bit of weed. It's an illegal drug. It's the same thing as heroin, crack, or LSD in my mind. It's something I will never touch. It's something I turned a roommate in college in to the dorm staff for possessing, and it's something that I would not allow in my home under any circumstances. Even though I could get it legally prescribed for one of my medical conditions. I'd rather go blind, thank you very much. The only way we're going to win this war on drugs is to stop taking prisoners and start burying bodies. No, the government is not always the best determiner of what we should be allowed to do with out bodies. I could see legallizing marijuana so long as it's use was not allowed as a mitigating factor in any sort of legal action (I believe the same thing should be done with alcohol). By that I mean the defense... "But I was high/drunk when it happened." should be considered an admission of guilt, not a mitigating circumstance. Run a person over while drunk/high... First Degree Murder. You put the substance in your body, you're responsible for your actions as though you were as sober as the day you were born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 No, the government is not always the best determiner of what we should be allowed to do with out bodies. I could see legallizing marijuana so long as it's use was not allowed as a mitigating factor in any sort of legal action (I believe the same thing should be done with alcohol). By that I mean the defense... "But I was high/drunk when it happened." should be considered an admission of guilt, not a mitigating circumstance. Run a person over while drunk/high... First Degree Murder. You put the substance in your body, you're responsible for your actions as though you were as sober as the day you were born. You will get no arguement from me on the above matter. BTW, in your opinion, what's the value of the war on drugs? Since drug use is a constant throughout history, can we ever even come close to winning and is putting bodies in the ground necessary? I mean, honestly, which is worse? Why do make innane, unenforcable laws like this and just waste billions? Seems to me conservatives should be all for legalizing it and taxing the hell out of as opposed to throwing billions down the drain for no results. Kind of contrary to the whole small gov't idea to start legilsating what people can and can't do to their bodies in their own homes, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 This should be about the same as if he had a flask of Vodka on him. No im not some pot head and I dont and have never smoked anything in my life, however I dont see what the big deal is if someone wants to smoke marijuana as opposed to getting drunk...not to say I dont see what the big deal of a federal offense is, I dont know why it has to be one in the first place. They have similar effects and similar addictivness. I just dont get why its such a tough issue. If they want to crack down on a drug it should be ecstacy, methamphedamines, heroin, cocaine, opium, lsd, and other drugs that are extremely damaging and addictive. I dont know why they dont use regulating marijuana as a means to make money to fund the war on the real bad drugs instead of wasting U.S. tax dollars on a war thats pretty damn near impossible to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raub Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 The only way we're going to win this war on drugs is to stop taking prisoners and start burying bodies. You are seriously deluding yourself if you think we'll ever "win the war on drugs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 You will get no arguement from me on the above matter. BTW, in your opinion, what's the value of the war on drugs? Since drug use is a constant throughout history, can we ever even come close to winning and is putting bodies in the ground necessary? I mean, honestly, which is worse? Why do make innane, unenforcable laws like this and just waste billions? Seems to me conservatives should be all for legalizing it and taxing the hell out of as opposed to throwing billions down the drain for no results. Kind of contrary to the whole small gov't idea to start legilsating what people can and can't do to their bodies in their own homes, don't you think? The War on Drugs has a moderate to high value in my view because it's a morals/values issue on at least some scale. Drug use has an impact on society. Just like alcohol abuse does. It costs us in many ways as a society... in medical costs, in lost work production, in added stress and strained family relationships, etc.... Therefore we as a society have to determine a way to deal with these issues. We can ignore the issues, we can create an environment of morals/values where these things are not accepted, or we can legislate the use of these products and penalize those who misuse them. Option 1 doesn't really make ANY sense to me. Option 2 is something that our society has decided is not appropriate. That leaves Option 3. Unforunately drug offenses have not been given a lot of weight in the legal system. Therefore they are not often heavily punished, like firearms-related crimes. That gives the people involved in the drug trade the idea that we are really going back to Option 1. Until we truly start to arrest, prosecute, convict, and punish drug users, dealers, and their support staffs, nothing is going to change. As for the "legallize and tax" option.... that doesn't reduce the negative societal impact of the drug use. It brings it out of the back alleys, but it doesn't do anything to help the mother whose child gets run over by some guy whose driving down the road high as a kite. It essentially turns it into an extension of the alcohol issues we have in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 The fact that marijuana is illegal is a complete joke. Alcohol is 100 times more addictive and 100 times more destructive to someone's life. Just another example of our hypocritical government and hypocritical society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 The fact that marijuana is illegal is a complete joke. Alcohol is 100 times more addictive and 100 times more destructive to someone's life. Just another example of our hypocritical government and hypocritical society. You're right nelms. I propose a Constitutional Amendment banning alcohol in ALL forms from the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 This is news? :laugh: Reminds me of last year when I went to espn.com and one of the headlines was, "Lebron James' mother is arrested for DUI." :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 You're right nelms. I propose a Constitutional Amendment banning alcohol in ALL forms from the United States. Why? Why should alcohol, weed, cocaine, heroin, speed, etc. be illegal? Why should the government legislate what is good or bad for your body, as long as you are legally an adult? Should the government put a limit on how many Big Macs you can eat every day? A limit on how much fat is in your diet? How much salt is in your diet? Those things, over time, can be just as damaging to your health as alcohol and other drugs. I never understood the mentality of government legislating morality. If I want to smoke a joint in the privacy of my own home, without harming anyone, why is that the business of government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 You're right nelms. I propose a Constitutional Amendment banning alcohol in ALL forms from the United States. And here I thought you were a history buff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.