Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Drug dealer names Buckhalter as his client

Texecutioner

Texecutioner

Hall of Fame
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...le_Buckhalter_as_client__prosecutor_says.html
 
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.
 
Polo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bah007 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
jgl35 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bah007 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
jgl35 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Polo said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
ObsiWan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Didn't he already sign with Denver?
 
bah007 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
ATX said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ATX said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bah007 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, although I'm a strong proponent of legalization.
 
Texecutioner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
Polo said:
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.
Click to expand...

True. I wouldnt pull T.O's name out of thin air, let alone Buck's.
 
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.
 
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.
 
ObsiWan said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top