PDA

View Full Version : Drug dealer names Buckhalter as his client


Texecutioner
03-18-2009, 12:59 PM
A Delaware County prosecutor this morning named former Eagles running back Correll Buckhalter among the reported clients of an alleged drug dealer during opening arguments of a trial.

Deputy District Attorney Katayoun M. Copeland, addressing the jury, said that Styles N. Beckles, 36, of Clifton Heights, had told police that he sold drugs to pro athletes, including Buckhalter and Keita Crespina, a former Temple University football player.

No charges have been filed against Buckhalter or Crespina.

Buckhalter, 30, spent eight years with the Eagles before the Denver Broncos signed him to a four-year deal this month.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/20090318_Alleged_drug_dealer_names_ex-Eagle_Buckhalter_as_client__prosecutor_says.html

El Tejano
03-18-2009, 01:16 PM
Wow, Texans did good by not signing him.

bah007
03-18-2009, 01:57 PM
Wow, Texans did good by not signing him.

Just because he said it doesn't mean it's true. Let's let it play out.

But I was against bringing in Buckhalter anyway because of his injury history.

El Tejano
03-18-2009, 02:06 PM
just because he said it doesn't mean it's true. Let's let it play out.

But i was against bringing in buckhalter anyway because of his injury history.

ok.

Polo
03-18-2009, 02:21 PM
I bet it's true.

I don't think it makes the news if the police don't have some kind of evidence leading them to believe it has some substance.

bah007
03-18-2009, 02:24 PM
I bet it's true.

I don't think it makes the news if the police don't have some kind of evidence leading them to believe it has some substance.

The Clemens situation made the news even though there was no evidence that he took steroids. There still isn't.

The drug dealer is backed into a corner. He is going to point fingers. We'll just have to wait it out and see if he is telling the truth.

Polo
03-18-2009, 02:27 PM
The Clemens situation made the news even though there was no evidence that he took steroids. There still isn't.

The drug dealer is backed into a corner. He is going to point fingers. We'll just have to wait it out and see if he is telling the truth.

There was evidence. A credible eye witness account. Plus he supposedly had syringes with Clemens blood and other kinds of incriminating evidence.

But on top of that, how random would it be for him to call out Buckhalter's name. If you're an interrogating officer and someone gave you the name of someone who is somewhat famous or well known wouldn't you want some good proof before you let that info leak? Giving up your clients isn't as valuable as giving up your connect anyways. If you're gonna point fingers you're gonna point them at folks over you.

bah007
03-18-2009, 02:35 PM
I guess I'm just reluctant to believe a drug dealer with something to gain. There is no telling how he knows Buckhalter or why he would choose to throw his name out there if he is lying.

But the guy is backed into a corner and I'm sure he has a deal in place to reduce the charges against him if he gives anybody up.

If he doesn't have anybody to give up what's he gonna do? Tell them that?

I'm not saying that he is lying. Personally, I'm just gonna wait and see what happens before I pass judgement on Buckhalter.

Polo
03-18-2009, 02:43 PM
I hear ya...

jgl35
03-18-2009, 04:02 PM
It's a pot dealer. A big so what, in my opinion. Buck was pulled over his rookie year with two other Eagle rookies on South Street. The police found a joint in the car. Having a joint on South Street in Philly is like having a big mac in mickey d's. No other problems since. So Buck might smoke pot. So what.

bah007
03-18-2009, 04:05 PM
It's a pot dealer. A big so what, in my opinion. Buck was pulled over his rookie year with two other Eagle rookies on South Street. The police found a joint in the car. Having a joint on South Street in Philly is like having a big mac in mickey d's. No other problems since. So Buck might smoke pot. So what.

The so what is it's against the law.

No matter what your or my opinion is about the law, it still stands. Pot is illegal.

If Average Joe would get busted for pot then Buckhalter should too.

Texan_Bill
03-18-2009, 04:10 PM
If the judge and jury are Eagles fans, Buckhalter is screwed.

Polo
03-18-2009, 04:13 PM
The so what is it's against the law.

No matter what your or my opinion is about the law, it still stands. Pot is illegal.

If Average Joe would get busted for pot then Buckhalter should too.

That, and we don't know how much weed we're talking about here...

To me it sounds like Buckhalter was buying more than what would be considered recreational...

Texecutioner
03-18-2009, 04:21 PM
It's a pot dealer. A big so what, in my opinion. Buck was pulled over his rookie year with two other Eagle rookies on South Street. The police found a joint in the car. Having a joint on South Street in Philly is like having a big mac in mickey d's. No other problems since. So Buck might smoke pot. So what.

Agreed. This is about as pathetic as it gets. I don't know what is worse the dealer for being a ratty little snitch because he is to much of a coward to take on the punishment for the risk of dealing that he chose to take or the pitiful excuse of law enforcement that chose to go out and publicize this as if it means anything and to harm Buckhalter's public reputation.

Oooohh Buckhalter bought some pot to smoke. What a horrible human being he is. :sarcasm:

ObsiWan
03-18-2009, 05:46 PM
That, and we don't know how much weed we're talking about here...

To me it sounds like Buckhalter was buying more than what would be considered recreational...

and you drew that conclusion frommmmm....??
The article said the DEALER had lots of vials and a significant quantity of weed at his apt.

Surely you don't think that the two athletes that were named were this guy's only customers?

I will bet you this: Buckhalter will reeeeally find it tough to land a job with this hanging over his head.

bah007
03-18-2009, 05:48 PM
and you drew that conclusion frommmmm....??
The article said the DEALER had lots of vials and a significant quantity of weed at his apt.

Surely you don't think that the two athletes that were named were this guy's only customers?

I will bet you this: Buckhalter will reeeeally find it tough to land a job with this hanging over his head.

Didn't he already sign with Denver?

Texecutioner
03-18-2009, 05:49 PM
Didn't he already sign with Denver?

Yep.

ATX
03-18-2009, 05:50 PM
The so what is it's against the law.

No matter what your or my opinion is about the law, it still stands. Pot is illegal.

If Average Joe would get busted for pot then Buckhalter should too.

The problem is lack of evidence. One guy saying he sold you weed shouldn't be enough to put someone in jail if we're going by the law. Just like a picture of someone with their face up to a bong shouldn't be enough to charge someone. If they want to go by the law, how about finding some pot on the guy.

ObsiWan
03-18-2009, 05:52 PM
Didn't he already sign with Denver?

Thanks. Hadn't heard that.
I stand corrected.

lol
...as if Denver needs more drama

ATX
03-18-2009, 05:52 PM
I will bet you this: Buckhalter will reeeeally find it tough to land a job with this hanging over his head.

Even if he had not signed with the Broncos, I doubt a statement from a drug dealer would scare away anybody. Now if he had tested positive or had been arrested, perhaps.

Second Honeymoon
03-18-2009, 05:56 PM
Legalize It

ATX
03-18-2009, 05:58 PM
Legalize It

Agreed

Texecutioner
03-18-2009, 06:02 PM
The problem is lack of evidence. One guy saying he sold you weed shouldn't be enough to put someone in jail if we're going by the law. Just like a picture of someone with their face up to a bong shouldn't be enough to charge someone. If they want to go by the law, how about finding some pot on the guy.

As far as I know you can't arrest anyone off of some random accusation that you allegedly bought something. Even if he had it on tape or something I would think that wouldn't be enough to make a conviction, but I'm not totally sure. I've always thought that you've got to have some sort of possession to provide as evidence myself.

If I'm wrong then the laws in this country really are a bunch of BS when it comes to this kind of stuff. Jesus christ would they just make this stuff illegal already so we wouldn't have to waist so much time and money just because a few people want to smoke some pot.

bah007
03-18-2009, 06:03 PM
The problem is lack of evidence. One guy saying he sold you weed shouldn't be enough to put someone in jail if we're going by the law. Just like a picture of someone with their face up to a bong shouldn't be enough to charge someone. If they want to go by the law, how about finding some pot on the guy.

I'm not saying prosecute him without evidence.

I'm saying that it's still against the law so he should be treated the same way Average Joe would be in the same situation.

ATX
03-18-2009, 06:05 PM
I'm not saying prosecute him without evidence.

I'm saying that it's still against the law so he should be treated the same way Average Joe would be in the same situation.

I agree, although I'm a strong proponent of legalization.

Texecutioner
03-18-2009, 06:06 PM
I agree, although I'm a strong proponent of legalization.

Could they just do it already?

ATX
03-18-2009, 06:07 PM
As far as I know you can't arrest anyone off of some random accusation that you allegedly bought something. Even if he had it on tape or something I would think that wouldn't be enough to make a conviction, but I'm not totally sure. I've always thought that you've got to have some sort of possession to provide as evidence myself.

If I'm wrong then the laws in this country really are a bunch of BS when it comes to this kind of stuff. Jesus christ would they just make this stuff illegal already so we wouldn't have to waist so much time and money just because a few people want to smoke some pot.

Yes, complete BS. The Prosecutor wherever Phelps had his picture taken tried to go after Phelps, didn't succeed, but several people were arrested after that. All over a freaking picture.

ATX
03-18-2009, 06:08 PM
Could they just do it already?

I'd like to think it was that easy and in reality it is easy, but I believe several industries are working against legalization.

Texecutioner
03-18-2009, 06:11 PM
Yes, complete BS. The Prosecutor wherever Phelps had his picture taken tried to go after Phelps, didn't succeed, but several people were arrested after that. All over a freaking picture.

One of the saddest things I've ever seen in sports history. Tearing a good kid down all because he was toking a little and was never even caught either. Just a stupid picture.

Texecutioner
03-18-2009, 06:18 PM
I'd like to think it was that easy and in reality it is easy, but I believe several industries are working against legalization.

Yeah, it is the pharmaceudical industry that is shoveling out the cash to the politicians to vote against the medical research of it and all of the other political hurdles that the politicians can propose.

It's really annoying as well, when you consider how much money and time our country continues to waste because of it and how people until this day get chastised because they want to have a smoke.

jgl35
03-18-2009, 07:28 PM
Per the tv news tonight, Buck was seen talking with the pot dealer by an undercover Pa. state police officer. Nothing about buying drugs, talking to the guy. The dealer is suppose to have ties to major drug dealers. That's why the police were watching him. Upon being locked up, the police wanted names of customers. He gave them Buck as a once a week customer. Also names of several players on the arena football team in Philly.

So as it stands, Buck was seen talking to a drug dealer by the police. Was not seen buying drugs. The dealer gives up a name ,Buck's, as a customer. No evidence of anything that Buck did that is against the law.

BigBull17
03-19-2009, 02:25 AM
There was evidence. A credible eye witness account. Plus he supposedly had syringes with Clemens blood and other kinds of incriminating evidence.

But on top of that, how random would it be for him to call out Buckhalter's name. If you're an interrogating officer and someone gave you the name of someone who is somewhat famous or well known wouldn't you want some good proof before you let that info leak? Giving up your clients isn't as valuable as giving up your connect anyways. If you're gonna point fingers you're gonna point them at folks over you.

True. I wouldnt pull T.O's name out of thin air, let alone Buck's.

TimeKiller
03-19-2009, 09:03 AM
He's done exactly nothing. I accuse you all of smoking pot. So there, now we're all in the same boat. No evidence, no problems.

bah007
03-19-2009, 11:56 AM
He's done exactly nothing. I accuse you all of smoking pot. So there, now we're all in the same boat. No evidence, no problems.

That doesn't count. Your not a dealer...

BigBull17
03-19-2009, 11:56 PM
He's done exactly nothing. I accuse you all of smoking pot. So there, now we're all in the same boat. No evidence, no problems.

I get what your saying, but how random is the name he pulled out? How many people know he plays NFL football?

TimeKiller
03-20-2009, 08:36 AM
That doesn't count. Your not a dealer...
:hmmm: I'm not on trial, that's for sure.

Polo
03-20-2009, 09:49 AM
The officers would have to be terribly stupid to let info leak about anyone--whther they're famous or not--without some kind of evidence.

It just doesn't work like that.

Even if all they have is the drug dealers account, he must have told them something convincing.

Polo
03-20-2009, 09:53 AM
and you drew that conclusion frommmmm....??
The article said the DEALER had lots of vials and a significant quantity of weed at his apt.

Surely you don't think that the two athletes that were named were this guy's only customers?

Because officers aren't going to be tracking down guys buying halves and ounces...

Officers are going to get the guys purchasing large quantities.

Why would a guy earning a rich man's wage be buying it in small quantities anyways? Even if he intented to use it for recreational use, why wouldn't he buy it in bulk since a) he had the money to, and b) so he wouldn't have to make multiple deals?

jgl35
03-21-2009, 05:43 PM
The dealer, under oath from the stand, stated in his trial Friday that he never sold Buck any drugs. This is from tv news Friday night.