re: No charges for Cam and Hootie

quote:

---

more like chortled, really

---

I can picture this and snorting being your two main expressions of excitement

quote:

---

Rabern57

---

You seem a bit upset.

Proof Alabama has more pull in the state of Louisiana than LSU does.

Sorry folks, but we own that state.

quote:

---

I don't think I have ever seen a reason for dropping charges that stupid. 

---

Those Louisiana DAs, man. They have no shame when it comes to Bama football.

BRB y'all. Gotta go cut the thermostat off. I ain't trying to catch a charge...

Yeah...the DA got paid (he has a history of it by the way). I moved from Monroe to Alabama a few years ago.

As an LSU fan though, I'm not mad. It's not my problem. Bama having Cam or not isn't going to affect the outcome of any games. Saban is too good a coach to not shore up his gaps.

We either beat them, or we don't. Sick of petty excuses. If we melt like last year, hang on for the ride. It'll make last year look like Les had it easy. It's playoffs or bust this season.

Saban threatened to release the Colonel's secret fried chicken recipe unless he stopped prosecution.

i predict a heavy wave of bad publicity.

It will be wildly entertaining.

quote:

---

Rabern57

---

You seem to be much more invested in Bama football than I am.

So angry.

quote:

---

First, unless he said it was his you have problems over which one "owned" it. Second, you might not be able to prove that either one even knew it was there. Third, not knowing an item is stolen is a defense to possession of stolen property.

---

You don't have to be the "owner" to be a possessor, but otherwise, everything you said is correct. And I think there is reason to believe that proving knowledge of the gun's stolen status would have been problematic. It is in every case.

quote:

---

Logically, if Hootie didn't know there were drugs, and they were Robinson's, Hooitie is off the hook.

---

Yes, but that only begs the question about the sufficiency of the evidence. If Hootie tested positive for marijuana -- hell, if he just displayed evidence of being under the influence, such as having red eyes, delayed speach -- there is clearly enough probable cause to charge under a "constructive possession" theory, which only requires knowledge of the item's presence and the ability to maintain dominion and control over it.

Possession is also not exclusive, meaning everyone that smoked in the car would be on the line.

I haven't seen the arrest report, though.

I did just read the D.A. said "even if I could get DNA showing that he had touched it at some point in time, that does not mean that he obtained it," which shows he is, at the very least, a legal retard since DNA evidence would be f'n good evidence of "possession," i.e., a basis to charge under the statute just as much as "receiving" is.